Forum V: Archive
Compiled: Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 16:44:22 (GMT)
From: Oct 17, 2000 To: Oct 23, 2000 Page: 4 Of: 5


Nigel -:- Ok, Jim, you've squeezed me for a reply... -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 16:25:38 (GMT)
__ Tonette -:- Non verbal communication -:- Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 02:46:56 (GMT)
__ __ Bin Liner -:- Non verbal communication -:- Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 00:50:20 (GMT)
__ __ __ Tonette -:- You have never been 'fucked up!' -:- Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 03:48:35 (GMT)
__ __ Katie -:- To Tonette -:- Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 07:47:48 (GMT)
__ __ __ Tonette -:- You have never made me feel unwelcome -:- Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 04:52:54 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Katie -:- Thanks, Tonette (sorta OT) -:- Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 09:53:09 (GMT)
__ __ Helen -:- The kinky forum -:- Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 03:19:59 (GMT)
__ __ __ Tonette -:- Thanks Helen -:- Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 04:34:36 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Helen -:- rough justice of the forum -:- Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 15:26:17 (GMT)
__ And On Anand Ji -:- Ok, Jim, you've squeezed me for a reply... -:- Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 00:38:36 (GMT)
__ Jim -:- Yes, I'm guilty of mockery for its own sake -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 23:28:32 (GMT)
__ __ cq -:- That 'cheap high' is not without its cost ... -:- Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 18:14:02 (GMT)
__ __ __ Jim -:- I don't buy that, Chris -- never have -:- Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 19:47:03 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ cq -:- Close but no cigar -:- Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 14:59:07 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- So these people are where? In your head? -:- Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 16:42:21 (GMT)
__ __ __ Carol -:- I agree... question -:- Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 18:32:21 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ cq -:- and answer ... -:- Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 14:44:46 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Jim -:- 'Hating labels' can be a real problem -:- Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 19:51:03 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- 'Hating labels' can be a real problem -:- Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 21:11:28 (GMT)
__ __ gErRy -:- Hey lay off the David Ickes stuff, mister -:- Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 00:04:25 (GMT)
__ __ __ Jim -:- What's that supposed to mean? -:- Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 00:09:57 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ gerry -:- Be scared, be very scared... -:- Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 00:13:15 (GMT)
__ __ AOA Ji -:- Yes, I'm guilty of mockery for its own sake -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 23:45:23 (GMT)
__ __ __ Hal -:- Yes, I'm guilty of mockery for its own sake -:- Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 07:26:11 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Bobby -:- ****BUDDHISM IS A NEWAGE CULT*** (nt) -:- Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 20:47:43 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- It is in the west (nt) -:- Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 20:57:41 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Bobby -:- newage asshole -:- Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 20:37:21 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Bobby -:- newage asshole continued -:- Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 20:43:25 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Nigel -:- newage asshole continued -:- Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 23:02:16 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ hamzen -:- Bobby I don't get, can you explain? -:- Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 08:30:39 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Hal -:- Bobby I don't get, can you explain? -:- Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 11:23:24 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ bobby -:- Bobby I don't get, can you explain? -:- Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 10:41:25 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Jim -:- Think about what you're saying, Hal -:- Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 19:59:53 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Hal -:- Please don't patronise me Jim...... -:- Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 10:03:05 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Hal -:- Something interesting too Jim... -:- Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 10:19:14 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Something interesting too Jim... -:- Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 16:32:43 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ a0aji -:- Something interesting too Jim... -:- Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 22:06:12 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Hal -:- Jim I'm not trying to change you -:- Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 17:33:04 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- But, Hal, I can CHANGE you! Honest, I can! -:- Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 18:27:08 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Hal -:- Aw Shucks - thanks but no thanks Jim -:- Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 19:05:43 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ AOA Ji -:- Yes, I'm guilty of mockery for its own sake -:- Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 18:31:39 (GMT)
__ __ __ Scott T. -:- I'm guilty and completely shameless. -:- Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 05:12:43 (GMT)
__ Susan -:- Jim, Nigel's post is really good -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 19:38:26 (GMT)
__ __ Susan -:- not sure whether to leave this one alone but -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 23:08:00 (GMT)
__ __ __ Carol -:- not sure whether to leave this one alone but -:- Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 17:09:46 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Brian -:- teleport! -:- Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 04:15:38 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Carol -:- Thanks Brian! nt -:- Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 05:41:22 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Susan -:- dear Carol, -:- Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 21:16:00 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Carol -:- email form you and to FA -:- Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 22:28:23 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Jim -:- How in the world would you know, Carol? -:- Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 20:21:35 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Carol -:- How in the world would you know, Carol? -:- Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 22:36:30 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Cheap shot, Carol? Was that really necessary? (nt -:- Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 22:38:58 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Carol -:- What do you mean? -:- Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 22:42:58 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- So you agree that it was a cheap shot? -:- Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 22:48:09 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Carol -:- No, it was based on observation of your behavior! -:- Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 23:28:01 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Time for a nap, Carol? (nt) -:- Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 23:51:51 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Carol -:- That was a kind comeback, Mr Jim ;~) Nightie nite -:- Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 05:36:02 (GMT)
__ Jim -:- My nonanswer -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 16:54:55 (GMT)
__ __ Yves -:- Refresh your memory -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 18:55:13 (GMT)
__ __ __ Jim -:- You've lost me on this one, Yves -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 23:39:31 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Thank god. I thought it was just me. (nt) -:- Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 05:15:13 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ JohnT -:- Could it mean ... -:- Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 08:35:56 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Could it mean ... -:- Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 11:04:43 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ JohnT -:- Oh! THAT bit, sorry ... -:- Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 12:12:23 (GMT)
__ __ cq -:- Let's face it, Jim ... -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 18:46:41 (GMT)
__ __ Carol -:- For what it's worth...to Jim, respectfully -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 18:09:24 (GMT)
__ __ __ Jim -:- What are you talking about, Carol? -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 22:39:32 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Carol -:- My answer and 'Am I my bother's keeper?' -:- Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 17:45:22 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Shake off that new age collar, Carol! -:- Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 20:19:16 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Hal -:- Shake off your fear Jim ! nt -:- Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 17:43:12 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ cq -:- Is this the ex-newage.org site now? (nt) -:- Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 16:14:28 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Here's what I don't ever hear you say, Chris -:- Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 17:29:42 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Shake off that new age collar, Carol! -:- Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 22:07:12 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- What r u? A random possibility machine? -:- Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 22:52:33 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- It's random 'probability' not 'possibility.' -:- Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 23:34:05 (GMT)
__ Loaf -:- Here Here ! -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 16:52:07 (GMT)
__ __ Nigel -:- It's hear, hear! actually... -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 16:54:14 (GMT)
__ __ __ Posthumusly Imogen Talbot -:- It's hear, hear! actually... (ot) -:- Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 00:21:50 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Susan -:- very interesting!!! (ot) -:- Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 21:20:53 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ JohnT -:- I'm a great fan of Oliver Sacks (not really ot) -:- Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 21:44:41 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Carol -:- If you liked Sacks you'll like this book: -:- Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 23:06:56 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ JohnT -:- Hear that, hear that! -:- Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 08:43:02 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Loaf -:- Look Here, Here ! -:- Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 09:06:59 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Nigel -:- There, there... -:- Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 20:58:06 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Loaf -:- Where, whirr, wear... -:- Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 22:42:13 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ ham -:- Even worse than the day before Loaf! -:- Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 07:44:33 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Nigel -:- It's a Zairean battle-axe.. -:- Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 12:52:57 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Loaf the Hippy -:- The peripheral Village People -:- Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 11:22:04 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Carol -:- I want to come over just to hear your accents! -:- Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 08:19:56 (GMT)
__ __ __ `Loaf -:- Arse ! -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 17:01:58 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ cq -:- Fuck that. When's me party? -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 18:29:34 (GMT)

Brian -:- New Journey -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 12:15:40 (GMT)
__ Carol -:- New Journey -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 16:56:12 (GMT)
__ __ Loaf -:- New Journey -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 17:08:16 (GMT)
__ __ __ Tonette -:- Are you being funny? -:- Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 13:04:22 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Loaf -:- I have replied to Carol.(NT) -:- Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 14:12:46 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Tonette -:- Yes I looked, but isn't that the purpose -:- Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 04:37:36 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Loaf -:- Are you being funny? -:- Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 14:10:28 (GMT)
__ __ __ Carol -:- (OT)Good grief.... As if! Who are you? nt -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 17:30:33 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Loaf -:- (OT)Good grief.... As if! Who are you? nt -:- Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 14:07:39 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Tonette -:- Thank you Loaf, sorry I intruded -:- Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 04:43:44 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Carol -:- A better reply -:- Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 17:54:27 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Tonette -:- I don't know Carol.... -:- Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 04:47:12 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Carol -:- Another stupid mistake I made, Sorry Loaf... -:- Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 06:36:25 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Tonette -:- No not stupid Carol, in fact Loaf never answere -:- Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 06:59:31 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Carol -:- No I think he did. Thankyou, I do care -:- Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 07:15:50 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Tonette -:- Good, I'm glad it's settled -:- Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 07:27:00 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- Good, I'm glad it's settled -:- Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 10:02:10 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ cArOl -:- Love you too XOXO best intent intended, almost nt -:- Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 08:26:04 (GMT)

Steven Quint -:- Friends -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 06:31:04 (GMT)
__ Steven Quint -:- Friends -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 13:55:38 (GMT)
__ __ And On Anand Ji -:- Friends -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 23:29:58 (GMT)
__ janet of venice -:- Friends -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 08:51:06 (GMT)
__ __ Helen -:- being premies set us up to have unrealistic.... -:- Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 20:21:31 (GMT)
__ __ And On Anand Ji -:- Friends -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 22:57:51 (GMT)
__ __ __ Roger eDrek -:- Forget that! -:- Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 02:36:59 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Forget that! -:- Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 11:27:44 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Roger eDrek -:- Forget that! -:- Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 18:41:07 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ JohnT -:- People are different -:- Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 08:19:55 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ a0aji -:- People are different -:- Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 17:25:57 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- People are strange -:- Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 22:49:40 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Steven Quint -:- Forget that! -:- Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 12:50:11 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Steven Quint -:- Forget that! -:- Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 11:46:23 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Marx's theory of alienation -:- Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 17:26:16 (GMT)
__ __ Q -:- Friends -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 21:25:31 (GMT)
__ __ Steven Quint -:- Friends -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 12:19:01 (GMT)
__ sam -:- Friends -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 07:18:35 (GMT)

Jim -:- A Sincere Question for all my Premie Friends -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 02:47:13 (GMT)
__ Q -:- You want honesty from co-dependents? -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 21:28:55 (GMT)
__ shp -:- A Sincere Question for all YOUR PREMIE FRIENDS? -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 19:06:08 (GMT)
__ __ JohnT -:- Sincerely -:- Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 22:18:54 (GMT)
__ __ Jim -:- I said 'premie FRIENDS', shp -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 23:38:36 (GMT)
__ __ __ shp -:- You and your Freudian slip... -:- Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 02:21:36 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Roger eDrek -:- Jim, I think he's got you. Shall I beam you up? -:- Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 02:55:36 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- No, Roger, No! Shp stole a translator! -:- Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 03:00:09 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Roger eDrek -:- Jim, shp is mind melding me -:- Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 03:18:04 (GMT)
__ __ Q -:- ahimsa -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 21:18:35 (GMT)
__ __ __ shp -:- ahimsa -:- Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 02:25:34 (GMT)
__ __ Bin Liner -:- Quest -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 20:13:18 (GMT)
__ __ __ shp -:- Quest -:- Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 02:34:51 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Bin Liner -:- Quest -:- Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 22:00:33 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ shp -:- Quest -:- Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 15:43:51 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Jim -:- Sanford Pass does not want darshan?? (Att. EV) -:- Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 02:55:40 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ shp -:- Jim Heller should work in a pretzel factory. -:- Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 03:17:29 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Don't threaten me -:- Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 03:20:58 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ shp -:- Here is what I really think of you...ready? -:- Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 03:28:40 (GMT)
__ __ shp -:- SINCERE, in your case = -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 19:16:41 (GMT)
__ __ __ Q -:- Is the kettle black... -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 21:30:25 (GMT)
__ cq -:- As convincing an advertisement as the spider ... -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 18:31:22 (GMT)
__ Cynthia -:- Non-Responses Typical... -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 17:49:34 (GMT)
__ Mili -:- The proof of the pudding is in the eating -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 07:00:59 (GMT)
__ __ Jerry -:- That ain't proof -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 11:41:44 (GMT)
__ __ __ Mr Bubblehead -:- Bubble Verse -:- Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 09:16:33 (GMT)
__ __ __ Mili -:- That ain't proof -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 18:05:38 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ JohnT -:- That ain't proof -:- Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 12:46:34 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Mili -:- You asked for it! -:- Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 07:47:21 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ JohnT -:- *** NOT TO BE MISSED *** (Mili to JohnT, above) -:- Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 08:56:25 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Jim -:- Is he going to 'save' you, Mili? -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 23:46:52 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Mili -:- Is he going to 'save' you, Mili? -:- Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 06:24:42 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Yes, fine, but is he going to SAVE you? -:- Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 13:50:46 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Mili -:- What's it to you??? -:- Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 07:37:32 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- I care, that's all. I just really care -:- Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 19:22:46 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ a0aji -:- Is he going to 'save' you, Mili? -:- Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 01:39:27 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ And On Anand Ji -:- That ain't pudding :) (nt) -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 19:44:42 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ cq -:- No reason to give up on the Maha? -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 19:10:48 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- That ain't proof -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 18:15:47 (GMT)
__ hehehe -:- Wouldn't it be funny........... -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 06:07:33 (GMT)
__ ....Tex -:- OBJECTION! -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 04:13:57 (GMT)
__ M . Bezzalar -:- A Sincere Question for all my Premie Friends -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 03:01:56 (GMT)
__ __ Scott T. -:- A Sincere Question for all my Premie Friends -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 16:47:02 (GMT)
__ __ jondon -:- A Sincere Question for all my Premie Friends -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 03:30:57 (GMT)
__ __ __ Jim -:- The Ladies' Man? That's hilarious..... -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 03:38:23 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- What the h-e-y-i-l-l is that??? -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 16:51:53 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- But there's always Mr. Natural! -:- Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 04:56:34 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ bill -:- The Ladies' Man? That's hilarious..... -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 03:57:36 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Cynthia -:- John Belushi doing a mala dance?! LOLOLOLOLOL (nt) -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 17:29:44 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Susan -:- One less bottle of Courvosier for The Ladies Man -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 04:03:37 (GMT)
__ __ Jim -:- You know, you can ask my girlfriend, I HATE this -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 03:28:50 (GMT)
__ __ __ Yves -:- Why do you hate it? -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 18:03:16 (GMT)
__ __ __ Mili -:- Knowledge IS the point, Jim -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 10:04:14 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Bill -:- Milificent -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 22:38:21 (GMT)
__ __ __ Susan -:- remember KK? -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 03:52:55 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Yves -:- Are we still on talking terms? -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 18:07:35 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Susan -:- yes.... -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 19:03:24 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ la-ex -:- remember KK?/where in the archives? -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 14:53:44 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Jean-Michel -:- They'll be in the best of forum page asap -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 17:05:17 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Ozzie Oi Oi Oi -:- remember KK? -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 04:48:59 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Susan -:- they all were huh? -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 05:12:33 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Crocodile Dundee -:- they all were bent as an old spoon? -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 06:14:56 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ And On Anand Ji -:- there is no spoon (nt) -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 23:27:43 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott -:- Yeah, PAM is to blame for everything... -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 16:59:19 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Good help is hard to find -:- Rawat's future housestaff..our forum buds -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 05:32:32 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ bill -:- yup -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 04:01:59 (GMT)


Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 16:25:38 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: fitzroy@liverpool.ac.uk
To: Everyone
Subject: Ok, Jim, you've squeezed me for a reply...
Message:
Jim, as you know I dislike posts that tell others how they 'ought' to behave on the forum - so I don't intend this to be one of them. But I wanted to clarify what I meant in a couple of recent posts as well as deal with some of the stuff you typed me lower down. And since it seems you're waiting for me to reply..

I guess our world-views are very similar when it comes to science, religion, mysticism etc - and maybe because of that, I have always escaped your more caustic comments (but we diverge on Chomsky, heh? - and it's just as well I kept my head down during the Palestine thread…) But I - like many here - value your tireless input, Jim, when it comes to calling the Hamster to account. What I find baffling is the way your posts sometimes seem unnecessarily mean and vitriolic, and out of proportion to the comparatively innocuous views being aired by those you disagree with. I bothers me that you might devalue your own credibility when on other occasions you are appropriately hostile or challenging towards Maharaji and his slippery apologists. 'If Jim treats everybody like that, then even Maharaji - who is naturally beyond reproach - can expect a few unkind words on occasion…' Know, what I mean, Jim? You could even have exes feeling sorry for M if you're not careful…

The most recent example: your jumping in on Bobby and Janet's exchanges. What was that - a joke? (Surely not - when you're funny, Jim, you're very funny). This just looked deliberately hurtful to me. Mockery for its own sake, or something. Whatever the truth of Janet's spiritual revelations (and you'd presumably - like me - opt for more mundane explanations to do with hallucinations and brain-chemistry), if you wanted to challenge or discuss them aren't there more productive ways of going about it? And given that Janet's post centred on her mother's death, don't you think there occasions on which it is better to say nothing at all? Leave the debate for another thread?

I recently weighed in with you against Mel when he objected to you reposting that obituary and I thought your observations were fair comment. And I have sometimes raised my voice with idiot premies, and even other exes when defending Darwin's reputation etc. So I guess it's just a matter of where we each draw the line - but all the same from where I'm sitting your tone in dealing with other exes is often puzzlingly harsh and has a few times recently made me wince more than I ever used to.

I was going to do a point-by-point reply to your analysis of Brian's post to Dettmers you posted to me lower down. The trouble is, although Brian's post may have sparked it all off - it was more your post to the Admins and the, er, 'frank exchanges' which followed with Katie and others which seemed to be escalating the friction to an unnecessary and absurd level… And not for the first time.

Ok, so many discussions become heated - not just yours - but sometimes you seem deliberately provocative, as if greater heat is mostly what you are after. What are you after?

I actually agree with many of your comments about Brian's post. Like Joe I didn't like the broad-brush implication of a rationalist cabal on the forum supposedly stifling alternative viewpoints. Am I supposed to be part of that? - I neither know nor care, but I think many here would consider the remark pretty OTT. (On balance, I'd even say there were more people here expressing active or latent spiritual belief than otherwise - and doing so in a far from stifled way).

And I didn't really agree with Brian's 'fart on the phone' remark - unless he knows things I don't. If anything, it sounds the phone is the one place you have done your most effective fact-finding work, and have ruffled the fewest feathers. Looks to me like you have a straightforward and honest way when dealing with outsiders and passing on their comments. After all, MD's still talking to you, isn't he..?

And, yes, there was one short paragraph where Brian mentioned you by name - and had it happened to me, I might also have assumed the whole post was therefore aimed at me. But I got the impression that some-long running personal feud inspired your subsequent request that the FA's 'deal' with Brian, rather than Brian's threat to out Drekkie. Wouldn't Roger complain on his own behalf, if he felt something needed to be said?

You, Brian and Katie go way back - but most people reading the forum will remember little of whatever sparked off any earlier conflicts. Even then, we will only have a caught a handful of past exchanges. Fragments of long-forgotten disagreements. When it isn't your own personal battle, Jim, things look very different. Most of us are in no position to judge who is misremembering what, or misrepresenting past facts. Hell - everything you said to Katie may just have been warranted and appropriate for all I know (though that isn't my impression on this occasion). What casual visitors do see, however, is first your post complaining about Brian's threat. They may remember your recent threats to 'out' Deputy Dog and think 'hypocrite' - surely? How would you see it as a spectator?

They also see the series of posts that followed - mostly attacking Katie and Brian almost as if they were one and the same person. But the post that drew me into the frame was the one Joe also called 'mean'. The one where you appear to patronise or belittle Brian by saying how you'd got him the forum job, how you'd felt sorry for him, because his life was going nowhere etc. and after this display of your former magnanimity, go on to say he's now a 'pompous prick…'

But, I mean, imagine you'd recently blown in off the street and barely knew any of the protagonists for more than a month, say, but read that particular post… How does that look? Like the work of an arrogant sod, perhaps? Pompous prick, even? (which is not something I believe you to be in real life, I hasten to add…;)

Anyway, it is no more for me to fight Brian's battles than for you to fight Roger's, I guess. I'm not even asking you change your style of posting, Jim. (As if you ever would…!) I really just trying to understand why you sometimes choose to undermine people in an ultra-personalised way and don't apparently see how doing so might affect people's appreciation of your attacks on more appropriate targets.

Ok, maybe Brian's post might be viewed as a similarly 'personal attack' on you. Maybe so, but more of the order of a passing snipe than full-scale character assassination, wouldn't you say?
And Michael Dettmers clearly knows you well enough to make up his own mind about you.

I just didn't really see the need for the kind of response you gave, which by your own admission was 'below the belt'. And, yes, I also think youdo pick on Katie - irrespective of what she has written, in a pretty insulting way. If you feel you had some justification on this occasion, I can remember you doing the same on other threads. . I can't cite examples right now, but if I keep an eye out, I suspect there'll soon be more.

Like I said - this is just the view from where I'm sitting. Perhaps I am wrong on all of this, and you'll no doubt put me right. But I don't think I'm the only one with these impressions.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 02:46:56 (GMT)
From: Tonette
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Non verbal communication
Message:
I think that is a large part of the issue here with this forum: it exists using non-verbal communication. We only have words. No facial or body expressions, often conversing not in real time with immediate feedback, no voice inflections, no pictures ect. Just words. Oftentimes that will get misunderstandings started and from there they flame.

Styles of communication is another. In order to simplify, there are basically 4 types: passive, assertive, abusive or manipulative. Needless to say assertive is the most effective. I am also under the impression that there are many, many, passive people here. Ex's and premies who for the most part just read the posts. Frankly, I have become much more passive here. I mainly just read the posts because of the abuse that goes on here. It's deplorable and personally, I will not leave the door open for myself to be insulted and ridiculed. Even now, posting this reply, I'm telling myself I won't even bother checking this forum for several days because I'm afraid of some of the awful, hateful replies one can regularily expect here. Unless you have skin as thick as an elephants, it's hurtful. Yes, I'm too sensitive but judging from this recurring variation on a theme of Nigel's thread I would say that is not the whole account of why I find this forum for the most part just plain mean. Yes this forum is funny, fascinating, informative but mostly it's cold, uncaring, and snotty. It's also extremely clickish. You're either in the 'in' group or you can expect nasty remarks to you if you haven't passed muster with the 'regulars' here. Jim is not the sole culprit either.
I'll go on reading the posts until the time comes that I grow out of this place. I'm finding less and less desire to come here as it is. But for the 3 months I've been exploring this site I've gone from enthusiast to having very mixed emotions as to the agenda of this discussion site. I chalk it up to 'living and learning.' I don't expect it to change either.
Regards, Tonette

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 00:50:20 (GMT)
From: Bin Liner
Email: None
To: Tonette
Subject: Non verbal communication
Message:

Don't go just yet.

The bar room brawlers have to draw breath sometime.

Thanks for rescuing me lower down the thread when I was all fucked up.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 03:48:35 (GMT)
From: Tonette
Email: None
To: Bin Liner
Subject: You have never been 'fucked up!'
Message:
I definately missed something. Bin, of all people, I find you one of the most sane! Never fucked up! I have no answers only empathy for the 'group fuck' we all received/endured.

I'm not going, I'm just going to post less. Most of my posts will be superficial. The forum, for me right now, has become almost a war zone.

This forum is wonderful and definately is needed. I have found though, personal thoughts are necessarily what is welcome here.

However, if one has some real factual information or can engage a die hard premie into 'satsang' then that is a different story. I have neither to offer.

Fondly, Tonette

ps hang in there.It does get easier. You'll take what you learned and the 'gift' of meditation and be better than you ever have been.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 07:47:48 (GMT)
From: Katie
Email: mishkat@tigerriver.com
To: Tonette
Subject: To Tonette
Message:
Hi Tonette -
I really liked your post - you ARE an assertive woman, which I appreciate very much - but it bothers me that I might have done something to you in the past to make you feel bad on this forum. I know we have disagreed on thing - probably most specifically about direct action (lawsuits, etc.) against Maharaji. Anyway, I apologize if I did anything to make you feel unwelcome here (not that I think this is a very welcoming place for new people.)

One of the problems I've had with the forum in the past year or so is that new members are constantly questioned about their 'real' identity. A few people (mostly premies) seem to constantly re-incarnate themselves with other identities, and this creates an atmosphere of suspicion here. This really makes new people feel unwelcome. If this had happened to me when I first started posting on the forum, I doubt if I would have stuck around very long.

If you get a chance, could you e-mail me some time? Thanks.

Your fellow ex-DC-premie -
Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 04:52:54 (GMT)
From: Tonette
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: You have never made me feel unwelcome
Message:
Never. I enjoy reading your posts.

I can't recall the specific posts we had about law suits but after following this forum you were probably right. I was so gun-ho! What naiviety!

Yes, I will e-mail you. Thanks for all the work you and Brian do to keep this thing up and running.

Cabin John, Md. Tonette
Where in DC do you live? I'm next to Glen Echo.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 09:53:09 (GMT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Tonette
Subject: Thanks, Tonette (sorta OT)
Message:
Hi Tonette -
Thanks for your answer!

I don't live in the DC anymore, but I did when I was a premie andfor some time afterwards. I am from Northern Virginia, lived in DC and Maryland for many years). Brian and I live in Southwest Virginia (Blacksburg - home of Virginia Tech) now, but my family still lives in the Reston area (not sure if you remember any premies from Reston, but there were a lot of us - mostly real young!)

Don't know if you remember Shine and Jimmy Colie, but Shine was and is a very close friend and the one who told me about Maharaji in the first place. She ended up going to DECA with her husband and then smartening up and leaving and completely rebuilding her life. She also told me about this website!

There are quite a few former DC exes on here and several are still living in the DC area. I left in late 76/early 77, so crossed paths with many of them only briefly. But we know a lot of the same people. So maybe we can plan a reunion some time!

BTW, Cabin John is great - or at least it used to be - and so is Glen Echo. I am envious :).

TC -
Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 03:19:59 (GMT)
From: Helen
Email: None
To: Tonette
Subject: The kinky forum
Message:
Yup, it's fascinating all right, like watching a train wreck! I agree it has its dark side. I have learned to emotionally disconnect from the forum. I don't come here expecting anything, but sometimes I learn a lot and have a few laughs. Kind of like dealing with certain family members.

Good post, Tonette.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 04:34:36 (GMT)
From: Tonette
Email: None
To: Helen
Subject: Thanks Helen
Message:
And yes, I have a few family members like some of the people here too! It's interesting though about that comparison because I can relate to almost all of the people here. Yes, yes, been there, felt that, done that, believed that, ect. Kinda like the good old days. An unity that is hard to find nowdays.

Fondly, Tonette

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 15:26:17 (GMT)
From: Helen
Email: None
To: Tonette
Subject: rough justice of the forum
Message:
Hi Tonette
I wouldn't despair too much about the forum. Not meaning to minimize your feelings, but what I mean is, it is just an internet bulletin board, no more and no less. Yes, it has tremendous change-inducing potential because it contains information about M, and as premies we lived in an information vacuum. But if you approach it looking to get some caring and some bozo slams you HARD for no legitimate reason, it can be devastating. Then again, you might come here another day and find tremendous compassion from another poster and then come again and again trying to seek out that experience again. Kind of like intermittent reinforcement, the most powerful kind of conditioning.

I finally had to accept that people here were not necessarily my friends, although some are, and to expect that was naive. There's a rough kind of justice here on the forum just as there is a rough kind of justice in a lot of families. I don't expect sweetness and light here. I come here now prepared for what it is. But I am still glad for what I got out of the forum in the beginning, two years ago. It really helped me unglue from Maharaji, which after all is its purpose.
Looks like we're both in the DC area. Feel free to email me if you want--HelenRDC@aol.com
Take care,
helen

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 00:38:36 (GMT)
From: And On Anand Ji
Email: and_on_anand@yahoo.com
To: Nigel
Subject: Ok, Jim, you've squeezed me for a reply...
Message:
Nice post, Nigel.

I'm still for 'Go gettum Jim' because I don't have time to read every he said / she said thread. I take it he misses once in a while, or uses a shotgun where a fly swatter would do? :) A wide intolerance for mumbo-jumbo happens to resonate more deeply with me, the longer I'm out of the cult mindset. I have a lot of anger left, toward that mindset. Eh.

You might have taken it to e-mail, btw. :)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 23:28:32 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Yes, I'm guilty of mockery for its own sake
Message:
Kind of funny, really. On the one hand, we all (presumably)enjoy the joke about how cool it would have been to see John Belushi dancing around in a mala, imitating our very own sacred cow. Yeah, everyone thinks that's cool.

But when I have a little fun mocking -- yes, mocking -- a new age conversation here about past lives, I'm being insensitive. Nigel, if you wouldn't mind, I'd like you to tell me what I said that you find regrettable. For your convenience, here are my comments:

After Janet posted her long post about hanging out with Jesus, I couldn't resist and, posted:

Subject: Wow! You hit paydirt with that one, Bobby
Message:
Boy do you two have a lot to talk with each other about!
Alright!

Then when Bobby replied stating that he felt like an Indian martyr before the British Colonialists and that my words were like punches to his head, I replied:

Subject: Look at it this way, Bobby
Message: My 'insults' are just my plain guy reaction to your new age ideas.
Now, look at it this way. Say, I'm wrong and you're right. Isn't it just right and fitting that assholes like me are going to give you something of a rough ride when you espouse those ideas? But doesn't that just make it stronger and sweeter for you in the end?

Have faith, Bobby. This is all happening for a reason.

Okay, I admit. I DID think I was being funny.

My next post, which I also thought was funny, believe it or not, was:

Subject: Well, I'm honoured, I guess (??)
Message: Bobby,
I don't want to hurt anyone. Well, hardly anyone.

But I do want to hurt dumb ideas. Yes, if I was ever in the little house in New Mexico or wherever it was that Jesus last appeared in a tortilla (Janet, all I can say is you should have been there!), I'd be laughing my head off.

Hey, mayge the joke's on me, in the end. Maybe baby Jesus, or whoever else shp sends to greet me in my final moments, will rub my nose in the fact that I ridiculed you -- or Janet, or Gerry with his David Icke bullshit -- when, in fact, you, she, he or whoever really had it right. There must be a special room in hell for the ridiculer. Whatever it's like I'm sure it's not nice and I know it's not funny ....

Bobby, like you yourself say, like you admit you know, this forum is simply not a safe place to dream out loud about these things. I mean, look at the Israel / Palestine thread below. After seeing all the anti-Israeli sentiment here don't you think I'd be a fool to post a lot of puffy, warm and fuzzy stories like 'A-Day-in-the-life-of-young-Tel-Aviv-boy-Yehuda-and-his-dog-Yassar'? This wouldn't be the right audience. Not if I didn't want a little flak.

So what can I tell you? I get a cheap high making fun of new age thinking, religious thinking, that kind of thing. But the only reason we're both here is to discuss Maharaji, not those other things. Why you'd want to bring them up here when you know you won't get an easy ride of it is beyond me.

Oh, and by the way, that analogy to the British and Indians? Give me a bit of a break there, Bobby? Like, don't be silly ....

oops!

Did it again, I guess......

Then when Janet explained that I wasn't looking at punishment in my next life so much as a 'life review', I responded:

Subject: So THAT's how it works!
Message: Actually, Janet, I did read A Christmas Story, you know, (okay, I saw the movie), so I'm not completely unaware of the mysteries of the death and the big ghost Guilt Trip awaiting all of us ridiculers.
So I'm not so worried for myself, I can handle it. But you, Janet, what's going to happen to you? There going to make you read all your posts, just crying for a little, oh shall we say ... capitalization .. perhaps. Are you ready for that tour?

Brace thyself, o' sister, the nigh is high and dry.

And your point is that I shouldn't have said anything, that that thread was their thread, kind of? Or that maybe perhaps I should have been more delicate given that it wasn't only Jesus Janet was talking about. Or maybe, that I should just be a bit funnier.

Ah, the lonely life of a ridiculer!

(I know I said I wouldn't comment further but then others did ... so, well here I am)

You concede that Brian's post may well have been a personal attack one me but suggest that, even so, it was 'more of the order of a passing snipe than full-scale character assassination.'

Sorry, Nige, I'm not with you there. Read it again. 'Asshole before Knowledge, asshole after.' In fact, that's exactly in line with his earlier diatribe I keep mentioning where Brian assiduously describes my serious character flaws that make him shudder with relief when he thinks how he once respected me.

Frankly, Nigel, I read Brian's post this time and thought 'okay, Jim, keep your temper and reply civilly.' And that's what I did. I wrote a nice, civil reply. He ignored it.

Then I posted my little post to the FA about Brian's threat to out Roger. Now why did I do that? Especially given my own threats earlier to out Dog? I guess the short answer is that I'm a hypocrite. But yes, I thought Brian had gone too far, Drek's my friend, so I posted it.

By the way, no, there is nothing to Brian's accusation that I was somehow betraying Dettmers' confidence. Brian knows that, I'm told. Ask him.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 18:14:02 (GMT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: That 'cheap high' is not without its cost ...
Message:
That 'cheap high' is not without its cost, Jim.

The cost? Encouraging would-be exes to run back to papa, just 'cos they're not as sharp (or anti-new age) as you.

Whaddya think? You, at the end of the day, an unwitting dupe of the Maha's dependency trip?

And all because of one guy's need for ego-enhancement?

That's not a cheap high, man, that's expensive.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 19:47:03 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: cq
Subject: I don't buy that, Chris -- never have
Message:
The idea that some ex would run back to the cult because they're not as sharp or anti-new-age as me doesn't cut it.

Do you have a single example?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 14:59:07 (GMT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Close but no cigar
Message:
No Jim, I never said it was about exes running back to the cult.

It's about would-be exes. In other words premies who know they have doubts, and find themselves at a critical and very vulnerable time of their lives, but who also find the archetypal (or perhaps I should say stereotypical?) 'ex' attitude to be too confrontative to handle.

To set themselves up as potential targets for your attempts at 'mockery for its own sake', well, it's asking too much. They could get a lot of guidance and support here Jim, but the plain fact of the matter is ... do they?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 16:42:21 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: cq
Subject: So these people are where? In your head?
Message:
Thanks for the guilt trip, Chris, but do you actually know someone like that?

Come on, give me the name of one person who's told you that they know Maharaji's a cult leader but they wouldn't think of leaving him because they don't want to become, presumably, like me, Jim.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 18:32:21 (GMT)
From: Carol
Email: None
To: cq
Subject: I agree... question
Message:
Are you and Chris the same? Have you changed into more of an ex since I first saw your stuff here a couple of years ago? Or were you just accused of not being an ex because some of your views were abhorent to some, like me and mine. (I still hate the labels.)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 14:44:46 (GMT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: Carol
Subject: and answer ...
Message:
Hi there Carol,

I know there have been a few people with the name of Chris on this Forum, and since I've only been posting here for just over one year, anything earlier than that must be some other Chris.

And no-one's accused me of not being an ex, even when I've been critical of other exes. Though I can see why that might be more of an issue in your own particular circumstances.

What it boils down to, I think, is that any attempt to show any sympathy/compassion toward Mr Prem Pal Singh Rawat is bound to be confrontative to many of us here and is guaranteed to stir up a lot of bad feeling. Most exes have spent far too much of their lives giving Rawat the benefit of the doubt and managing to excuse his every excess with a 'oh, it's all His lila'. But there comes a limit to how often that trust can be abused. And once that trust's broken, it tends to stay broke. When you've seen what someone like him is really up to, and how shamefully he treats the people who still give him that trust, there's just no way to let him off the hook.

Mike Dettmer's recent expose of what the man is really like (e.g. always having to find someone else to blame when things go wrong) paints a far truer picture than any amount of the devotional diatribe you'll find on the pro-Maha sites.

But maybe you feel he's worthy of the kind of adulation he's come to rely on. Personally I think he'd be a better human being if that was denied him. You get the idea? Premies are actually 'killing him with kindness', as it were. It would be more compassionate to kick him off his pedestal and encourage him to deal with the kind of real life that he's evaded all these years.

The thing that bugs me about this Forum is that many would-be exes are turned off by the strongly anti-'new age' sympathies that are evident here. As if by denying the Maha you have to deny the whole cultural back-drop of spiritually too. That's too much of a break for some to make all at once, and consequently helps to keep them in dependency on the Maha. I'm all for sharing opinions of all shades and varieties, but when people get shouted down and verbally abused for expressing an opinion about something (like astrology, for instance) that really has NOTHING to do with the Maha, then that does a disservice to the site as a whole, IMO.

Ah well, another 2 cents worth gone.

Regards,

Chris

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 19:51:03 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Carol
Subject: 'Hating labels' can be a real problem
Message:
'Hating labels'. What's the problem with labels? Just that they help you think straight?

And they do, Carol, they do. After all, once you agree that Maharaji deserves appellations like 'fraud' or 'cult leader' it's pretty hard to condone respecting him, isn't it? So maybe if you don't want to disrespect him you end up avoiding calling a spade a spade? Is that possible? Give yourself a little more wiggle room?

If a label fits something or someone fairly, why not use it?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 21:11:28 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: 'Hating labels' can be a real problem
Message:
Jim:

If a label fits something or someone fairly, why not use it?

A label is a generalization, which raises a couple of issues:

1. Does it, indeed, 'fit fairly?'
2. Given that labels can backfire, or judgments about them simply be wrong, are they necessary?

A label such as 'fraud' can be said to fairly apply to Maharaji, as long as you're clear about precisely what you mean. There may or may not be an equally clear dividing line between 'premie' and 'ex,' but it also seems far more likely that the terms could be mis-applied. (Perhaps Gerry's insistance that MD was still a premie is an abberation?) There are people who feel ambivalent about Maharaji that I would not call premies, and that apparently you would not call 'exes.' So, there's a problem with mutually exclusive labels, yes. In this case they may not be all that important either, since they are apparently inadequate to point out the relevant distinctions: not premie and not exactly ex = ? I think it's purely a matter of 'soak time' rather than argumentation.

--Scott the Pragmatist

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 00:04:25 (GMT)
From: gErRy
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Hey lay off the David Ickes stuff, mister
Message:
Or I'll send the nastiest grey reptilian hybrid under my command to rip you a new asshole, sans colostomy bag !!!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 00:09:57 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: gErRy
Subject: What's that supposed to mean?
Message:
David Icke's a freak. Now are you kidding again or are you serious this time?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 00:13:15 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Be scared, be very scared...
Message:
Don't worry, I'm over it. I'll call off the aliens (snicker.)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 23:45:23 (GMT)
From: AOA Ji
Email: and_on_anand@yahoo.com
To: Jim
Subject: Yes, I'm guilty of mockery for its own sake
Message:
Yep, I have to say, that all that new age crap comes like hell in a hand basket. Astrology, past lives -- super blue-green algae -- it's all one monolithic culture, aimed at bilking the indiscriminate. It's on-topic and it's on-target, here.

Go gettum, Jim.

-AOA Ji

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 07:26:11 (GMT)
From: Hal
Email: None
To: AOA Ji
Subject: Yes, I'm guilty of mockery for its own sake
Message:
I respect your right to your opinions about what YOU think is a load of worthless crap to YOU.

What is valid for one individual is not for another. At present I'm personally uninclined to make any effort towards enlightening myself through meditation but in the future I may feel it to be the right time to resume my inner explorations. However I wouldn't assume that someone else who is meditating like a Buddha is filling their life with something invalid for THEM.

I've had the experience many times of making judgements about what others choose to do , only to find myself at some later date doing those very same things. So watch out or you may find yourself into astrology or something you now consider whacky and find some arrogant and narrow minded git ridiculing you for it!

No offence intended but just pointing out the usefulness of using the phrase 'I THINK' or 'TO ME' or 'IMO' , rather than just dissing things which to others are of great value.

Hal

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 20:47:43 (GMT)
From: Bobby
Email: None
To: Hal
Subject: ****BUDDHISM IS A NEWAGE CULT*** (nt)
Message:
dawkinsisrealbuddhaisstupiddawkinsisrealbuddhaisstupiddawkinsisrealbuddhaisstupiddawkinsisrealbuddhaisstupiddawkinsisrealbuddhaisstupiddawkinsisrealbuddhaisstupiddawkinsisrealbuddhaisstupiddawkinsisrealbuddhaisstupiddawkinsisrealbuddhaisstupiddawkinsisrealbuddhaisstupiddawkinsisrealbuddhaisstupiddawkinsisrealbuddhaisstupiddawkinsisrealbuddhaisstupiddawkinsisrealbuddhaisstupiddawkinsisrealbuddhaisstupiddawkinsisrealbuddhaisstupiddawkinsisrealbuddhaisstupiddawkinsisrealbuddhaisstupiddawkinsisrealbuddhaisstupiddawkinsisrealbuddhaisstupiddawkinsisrealbuddhaisstupiddawkinsisrealbuddhaisstupiddawkinsisrealbuddhaisstupiddawkinsisrealbuddhaisstupiddawkinsisrealbuddhaisstupiddawkinsisrealbuddhaisstupiddawkinsisrealbuddhaisstupiddawkinsisrealbuddhaisstupiddawkinsisrealbuddhaisstupiddawkinsisrealbuddhaisstupiddawkinsisrealbuddhaisstupiddawkinsisrealbuddhaisstupiddawkinsisrealbuddhaisstupiddawkinsisrealbuddhaisstupiddawkinsisrealbuddhaisstupiddawkinsisrealbuddhaisstupiddawkinsisrealbuddhaisstupiddawkinsisrealbuddhaisstupiddawkinsisrealbuddhaisstupiddawkinsisrealbuddhaisstupiddawkinsisrealbuddhaisstupiddawkinsisrealbuddhaisstupiddawkinsisrealbuddhaisstupiddawkinsisrealbuddhaisstupiddawkinsisrealbuddhaisstupiddawkinsisrealbuddhaisstupiddawkinsisrealbuddhaisstupiddawkinsisrealbuddhaisstupiddawkinsisrealbuddhaisstupiddawkinsisrealbuddhaisstupiddawkinsisrealbuddhaisstupid
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 20:57:41 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Bobby
Subject: It is in the west (nt)
Message:
dddddd
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 20:37:21 (GMT)
From: Bobby
Email: None
To: Hal
Subject: newage asshole
Message:
Just got back from a new age walk in the park. Enjoyed the gorgeous beauty of it all on this glorious day, sunny and warm. I was in bliss!

Uh, oh, there I go with that newage bullshit again. I'm still in my fantasy world of hot-house flowers when, Jesus, can't I fucking see it? ....it all comes down to hard science.

I'm too stupid to learn. Jim will never talk with me again. When am I gonna grow up? I'm really just a newage asshole! My hole life. (can't even spell right, look here, bad punctuation). don't deserve to live.....

......better start hating Maharaji and regretting everything. I've been such a fool!!!!!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 20:43:25 (GMT)
From: Bobby
Email: None
To: Bobby
Subject: newage asshole continued
Message:
...and guess what....

I WAS MEDITATING!!!!!

I was in bliss!!!!!

I'm such a moron and a weirdo. I deserve to fry in Dawkins hell.

gottahatemaharajilovedawkinsgottahatemaharajilovedawkindgottahatemaharajilovedawkins

I was wrong! wrong! wrong!

Jim's right about everything.
He's always been right.
How right can you get?
Maybe I should vote for Bush.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 23:02:16 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: fitzroy@liverpool.ac.uk
To: Bobby
Subject: newage asshole continued
Message:
Hi Bobby,

No one has yet explained to me what 'New Age' means, so I can't comment on whether or not its adherents may or not be the holes our anatomies that - all too frequently - double as our brains... (no dig at anyone there, BTW - I said OUR brains;)

Jim isn't always right, and Dawkins is a pretty sensible, decent, humane sort of chap by my reckoning - and he isn't always right either. He has his critics, but the ones I admire most are those who spell out their points of objection (and these are usually pretty minor quibbles from fellow-Darwinists - Ok, the JW's have a few criticisms they'd like to put on the table, but they're another cult)

The walk in the park sounded good. I have Liverpool's Sefton Park just round the corner. My kids gathered 273 conkers there two weeks back (do kids play 'conkers' in the States?)

And please, don't vote for Bush unles you REALLY hate Dawkins (In case you didn't know, RD is a liberal leftie-type veteran of the sixties anti-Vietnam protests when he was a post-grad living stateside).

Best,
Nigel

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 08:30:39 (GMT)
From: hamzen
Email: None
To: Bobby
Subject: Bobby I don't get, can you explain?
Message:
What does it matter to you what Jim thinks about your ideas?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 11:23:24 (GMT)
From: Hal
Email: None
To: hamzen
Subject: Bobby I don't get, can you explain?
Message:
Hi Hamzen,

It does seem strange that someone completely dissing one's experiences and thoughts on life should have an affect doesn't it ? Or Does it seem that strange ? I don't know if you've grown a much thicker skin than me but it does still affect my emotions when I post here.

There are some comments that can be construed as insulting surely. I think for example that there are ways of expressing which needn't cause offence. I don't think it very civilised to diss someones religious belief or path by saying something along the lines of ' that's a load of bullshit, crap thinking , infantile , fairy tales or whatever. I think that kind of rudeness does affect folks. A little respect for another's freedom to choose their life's meaning goes a long way.

Thank God for football eh Ham ?

I really enjoyed Portugal's tactical defeat of Holland. They actually played a grown up game and didn't just attack and attack. Even Figo was defending !

Hope England can start to climb out of the doldrums. I can't see why not with a ggod tactician in charge they can't. It would be good if they could play like Man Untd, why not ?

Hope you're well
Hal

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 10:41:25 (GMT)
From: bobby
Email: None
To: hamzen
Subject: Bobby I don't get, can you explain?
Message:
Something about being insulted and harrassed by Jim every time I speak. Jim's gotta come in and impose his doctrine on me and the rest of us every time. The man is extremely aggressive and pretends to speak for all ex-premies.

Can't see how you 'don't get it'. Or are you being facetious?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 19:59:53 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Hal
Subject: Think about what you're saying, Hal
Message:
First, I agree fully with Aoj's reply below. Why bother saying 'IMO' all the time? What else are you spouting but your opinion?

What you're really saying, I think, is that people shouldn't have such confidence in their opinions. Like, it's okay to disapprove of astrology to the extent that you just don't want to get into it for yourself but once you begin to think that you've actually figured out it's useless altogether, for anyone, you're going too far.

That's bullshit, Hal. Those are two entirely different opinions and you can't try to get people to back off on the latter just because you're more comfortable with the more uncertain former.

Look, I honestly believe that astrology's bullshit. Not just for me, not just for you but for everyone. In looking at astrolgoy itself I see nothing worth believing in.

So what if I'm wrong? That's life, isn't it? Maybe one day we'll get some amazing evidence that astrology's legit in which case a lot of us will be amazed. In the meantime, though, it's perfectly fair for people like me to say that we think it's a crock.

After all, don't the astrology believers do the same thing? You never hear an astrologer say that astrology's only valid for the faithful. They think it applies to everyone, even pets, plants and anything else you can write a book about. They're voicing their opinion about reality (however dumb) and astrology's detractors are voicing theirs.

Nothing wrong with any of it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 10:03:05 (GMT)
From: Hal
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Please don't patronise me Jim......
Message:
I do think about what I say here, that's why I bother to post. Same as you no less-- just different paths of thought.

Cheers you old cynic,
Hal

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 10:19:14 (GMT)
From: Hal
Email: None
To: Hal
Subject: Something interesting too Jim...
Message:
A very good friend of mine who has an M Sc in logic at Cambridge is very into astrology. That guy thinks about things a lot. In fact he's a genius. He made many millions of dollars in the computer industry designing systems. He's a wiz kid fucking ace thinker.....

Strange but he also is a meditator and a bit new agey in some respects !!! I don't understand that do you? Then again Jung was considered a hopeless mystic by the Freudians and others in his day. His 'cure' rate was incredible during the years he worked in a psychiatric hospital so although you empirical guys find this stuff absurd it does nevertheless have validity for people somewhere.

By the way I'm interested in astrology but I'm an agnostic on it not an atheist or a strong proponent.

Chi Tsang born AD 549 said
' Attachment to or obsessive commitment to any particular viewpoint or viewpoints is a central cause of life's suffering '

THINK ABOUT IT JIM !

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 16:32:43 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Hal
Subject: Something interesting too Jim...
Message:
A very good friend of mine who has an M Sc in logic at Cambridge is very into astrology. That guy thinks about things a lot. In fact he's a genius. He made many millions of dollars in the computer industry designing systems. He's a wiz kid fucking ace thinker.....
Strange but he also is a meditator and a bit new agey in some respects !!! I don't understand that do you? Then again Jung was considered a hopeless mystic by the Freudians and others in his day. His 'cure' rate was incredible during the years he worked in a psychiatric hospital so although you empirical guys find this stuff absurd it does nevertheless have validity for people somewhere.

I don't know what to say about Jung's 'cure' rate other than I'd need to know more of what that really meant and how it wasn't just a mark in column 'C' entered by the clinic's p.r. department.

As for your friend, well, good for him that he's rich. I'm sure you have your reasons for thinking he's so smart even outside that success. I don't doubt he is. But smart people can buy into some really dumb shit. We all know that.

What I'd be more interested in would be your telling me that your friend has proof that astrology's anything but pathetically unable to predict or describe anything or anyone in the real world under double-blind conditions. Now that would be something. If he claimed that and you had the proof we'd really have something to talk about. Because I HAVE seen reports and articles about astrology being put to the test scientifically. It's always failed, always. Even the notorious 'mars effect' -- the claim that some french statistician, I think, noted a correlation between successful athletes and a certain predominance of mars in their natal charts -- was, on closer examination, fully routed.

By the way I'm interested in astrology but I'm an agnostic on it not an atheist or a strong proponent.

One could say that about most anything, I suppose, huh? And that whole attitude, having the proverbial 'open mind', was a really important value in our generation. Think of all the fantasy books that were so popular when we were younger that always, always rewarded the open-minded, open-hearted and slammed the door to other worlds and cosmic adventure (sometimes literally) on the cynics.

But an open mind, to be truly open, has to be fairly open to all the reasons why an idea well may be just a myth as well. There are lots and lots of reasons why a student of the history of astrology (or any religion) should see that the faith is untenable. Is it 'open mindedness' to ignore these reasons or even fight them off in any way?

Example, here on the page. Dettmers disses the cult and premies offer all sorts of reasons why he could be wrong. Are they demonstrating their opne-mindedness? No. Real open-mindedness would be giving full, fair consideration to all the reasons Dettmers may be telling the truth, as much as lying. Their search for ways to protect their pet idea (in that case, that Dettmers is lying) has nothing to do with open-mindedness and everything to do with being stubborn holdouts.

I think that continuing to respect astrology in this day and age is much like that. There's no real reason to believe in it yet people stubbornly cling nonetheless.

Chi Tsang born AD 549 said
' Attachment to or obsessive commitment to any particular viewpoint or viewpoints is a central cause of life's suffering '

Yeah, the 'Great Man' speaks. No thanks.

THINK ABOUT IT JIM !

Done

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 22:06:12 (GMT)
From: a0aji
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Something interesting too Jim...
Message:
Chi Tsang born AD 549 said

' Attachment to or obsessive commitment to any particular viewpoint or viewpoints is a central cause of life's suffering '

Last night on 'Law & Order, SVU' Munch walks in on a crime scene with a lot of blood all over the bed and his only remark was 'This is really bad Feng Shui.'

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 17:33:04 (GMT)
From: Hal
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Jim I'm not trying to change you
Message:
Thanks Jim for that well considered and lengthy reply.

I'm reluctant to stand up here and defend astrology to you or anyone else as I don't feel that strongly about it. From my own limited observations and I'm talking here about the full birthchart not just sun signs , there does seem to be , more often than not a strong correlation between the chart and certain of a persons Character traits.

As I said that's not really a great issue with me so nuff said on my part. What I'm really saying here is that for me I still look for a deeper understanding of myself and my life than just money ,survival , status, family . I can't help it , it was put into my program somewhere ! I'm interested at present in Jung and Buddha. Buddha was as close to empirical as a spiritual type of guy could get. He never claimed any divine authority and claimed that anything he'd learned had come from his own enquiry.

I think it unreasonable to expect that a person like me who received nollij at 17 and has spent all of his adult life having experiences of altered states of awareness should suddenly become a materialist , atheist scientist etc.

I strongly suspect that it's too late for an old dog like me to learn to change that much and anyway I don't want to. I enjoy enquiring into who I am, my feelings , my dreams etc etc.

Maharaji is a fucking con as far as my life tells me. A slime ball.

That doesn't make me want to give up exploring the mystery of life.

Nice talking to ya Jim
Hal

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 18:27:08 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Hal
Subject: But, Hal, I can CHANGE you! Honest, I can!
Message:
Hal,

What you have to remember is that I, too, was a spiritual kind of guy for years. That's where I came from. Isn't that where any ex-premie atheists came from?

But, really, Hal, it's not so much that I'm trying to change you. I'm just arguing poitns, following my nose, that kind of thing.

I do think this comment deserves some response:

That doesn't make me want to give up exploring the mystery of life.

What if the 'mystery of life' included, but was not limited to, the mystery of how people fall for all sorts of unfounded beliefs? What if the 'mystery of life' included, but was not limited to, the amazing power of evolution -- and yes, evolution without not hidden magician moving it along, evolution the good, ol' fashioned way our mum's used to make it?

Do you really think that you're necessarily giving up something special when you cut loose some ancient supserstitions?

By the way, finally, regarding astrology, I can tell you that, if you're anything like the many subjects who've put the matter to a test, you'd find NO correlation between your own birth chart and yourself as you know it, vis a vis other charts, of any statistical significance. None.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 19:05:43 (GMT)
From: Hal
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Aw Shucks - thanks but no thanks Jim
Message:
Jim I don't want to change from someone who wants to feel good about himself, free from trepidation , connected to my real self.

I enjoy research. You seem to think that being a spiritual seeker involves loads of whacko beliefs. It doesn't. It's merely a matter of observing carefully and scientifically how thought and emotion, desire etc affect us. It really has nothing to do with belief or not. Anyway I'm talking more of a non religious type of path. No giving power to some guy who thinks he's Elvis ; I mean God.

Maybe what you remember of being a spiritual type of guy was really so distorted by the beliefs around Maha. It's a shame that looking for self realisation has become such a corrupted concept because of old fatcon.

Please don't hesitate to correct me when I'm getting it all wrong though Jim. I know you're only trying to help.

Much love and good vibes and harmony to you beautiful noble spirit soul that you are,

Namaste

Hal

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 18:31:39 (GMT)
From: AOA Ji
Email: None
To: all
Subject: Yes, I'm guilty of mockery for its own sake
Message:
Everything I type here is either my opinion, or I'll generally cite that it is an opinion also held by others. The 'IMO' notation seems superfluous; I don't often use it.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 05:12:43 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: AOA Ji
Subject: I'm guilty and completely shameless.
Message:
AOA Ji:

I've been considering a new age religion that basically does nothing but manufacture questions without providing any answers. As long as the questions are provocative enough I should be able to attract followers, and I'll have ultimate deniability should anyone become disillusioned. Oops, Socrates already tried that I guess, and they forced him to drink hemlock. Bad idea.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 19:38:26 (GMT)
From: Susan
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Jim, Nigel's post is really good
Message:
I think perhaps you might take it as something you could use for a little self reflection.

Recently, when you and I had a heated discussion, and some of your points were right, I found myself depressed for days afterward. Not because I was wrong ( I am used to being wrong it is something I have learned to cope with when it happens ) but because of the intensity of the discussion and how gut wrenching I found that to be. Some of that I own, I am and always have been terrible at conflict and dealing with critics. But, frankly, I was a bit stunned at how little concern you expressed for me. So you thought I was wrong, fuck it, you supposedly like me and care about me. I just know if the situation were reversed I would be dealing more with showing caring and compassion and less with who is right and who is wrong. Sometimes, actually, showing caring and concern is more important than being right or logical. And very rarely are the two mutually exclusive.

I like you, Brian and Katie. I respect all of you. I agree with none of you 100% of the time.

I just want you to give Nigel some more thought. I love your posts, I love your wit, I love your dogged determination. But you can hurt people with your words. Sometimes it is surely needed, but much of the time it isn't.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 23:08:00 (GMT)
From: Susan
Email: None
To: all
Subject: not sure whether to leave this one alone but
Message:
I owe Jim an apology. Though I do hope he tries to tone it down when appropriate and agree with that sentiment, I was wrong to drag the discussion he and I had onto the forum. It also makes it look like it was much worse than it was and the fact is I was depressed for other reasons as well as what Jim had said or how he said it. I have found this place VERY INTENSE lately and that is for many more reasons than Jim. It looks like I am blaming him for all of that and I did not mean to.

I need to think twice before I post.

Susan

Still trying to get herself in order after all these years.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 17:09:46 (GMT)
From: Carol
Email: None
To: Susan
Subject: not sure whether to leave this one alone but
Message:
Susan, I don't think you said anything offensive. You just show your kindness and integrity by apologizing to Jim.

I wish you well and welcome you to contact me. My email was misprinted on my journey: left out an 'e' in tleport. It's teleport.

I wish you well.
Carol

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 04:15:38 (GMT)
From: Brian
Email: brian@ex-premie.org
To: Carol
Subject: teleport!
Message:
My email was misprinted on my journey: left out an 'e' in tleport. It's teleport.

I read your post, and it's now fixed.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 05:41:22 (GMT)
From: Carol
Email: None
To: Brian
Subject: Thanks Brian! nt
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 21:16:00 (GMT)
From: Susan
Email: None
To: Carol
Subject: dear Carol,
Message:
I just tried to email you at rbruce@teleport.com and it came back.

Jim is right that I left the wrong impression with what I wrote in the above post. I think he sincerely was not aware of how emotional I was about it all. But I do think it is best to drop it and move on.

I would love to communicate with you though if you want to try again. I could make a hotmail acct, I used to have a ivillage acct but I let it expire. I do not like to put my main email up here as I like a sense of control, but lots of people have it, Joe, jim, katie, brian, marianne...any of them would I am sure forward a letter too.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 22:28:23 (GMT)
From: Carol
Email: None
To: Susan
Subject: email form you and to FA
Message:
Hmm, I got your email. And the undeliverable message which had the missing 'e' (as posted on my Journey. Perhaps this could be corrected FA?)

I used to have a hotmail account that was my own. I let it expire, which it does if you don't use it for over 60 days! I lost all my saved mail and many addresses. I found it more convenient and time saving to use the one from our server instead, but I do it against my reservations to be public.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 20:21:35 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Carol
Subject: How in the world would you know, Carol?
Message:
Wouldn't you have had to be in on the conversation between Susan and me in order to know if she characterized it fairly?

I don't recall you on the other line.

So what are you talking about?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 22:36:30 (GMT)
From: Carol
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: How in the world would you know, Carol?
Message:
You are right that wasn't in on the conversation. I based my response on what she wrote. I don't think you needed or expected an apology, did you? You do not give them freely yourself.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 22:38:58 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Carol
Subject: Cheap shot, Carol? Was that really necessary? (nt
Message:
ddddddd
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 22:42:58 (GMT)
From: Carol
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: What do you mean?
Message:
That I said you don't apologize much? How many of your cheap shots about new-age whatevers are really necessary?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 22:48:09 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Carol
Subject: So you agree that it was a cheap shot?
Message:
Carol,

What are you doing?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 23:28:01 (GMT)
From: Carol
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: No, it was based on observation of your behavior!
Message:
Here's a cheap shot:

Fuck you! For every time you caused pain to others from the callous and cruel and cheap shots you've taken for no good reason!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 23:51:51 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Carol
Subject: Time for a nap, Carol? (nt)
Message:
fffff
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 05:36:02 (GMT)
From: Carol
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: That was a kind comeback, Mr Jim ;~) Nightie nite
Message:
I got a bit triggered over old crap.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 16:54:55 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: My nonanswer
Message:
Nigel,

I was half-way through a long, detailed reply but I've decided to say 'fuck it'. Let's just drop it, okay? I'm only doing this in the interest of world peace. I've got more than enough that I could say if I want to but really, who cares?

Thanks for your reply. You said you would and you did and I'm grateful for that.

Onwards and upwards ....

That is unless you want to keep talking about this. I wouldn't want to give the impression that I'm avoiding the subject because I'm not. You made some general comments unrelated to Brian in particular and I'll take them under advisement. But I do sense that you don't relish discussing this. And, frankly, who needs it?

So, there you go. Onwards and upwards.....

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 18:55:13 (GMT)
From: Yves
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Refresh your memory
Message:
Now, tell me why anyone who isn't a contender god would act this way and head an organization called DIVINE LIGHT MISSION?

The proof of the pudding is in eating?

Judge the guru not by his actions, but by his Knowledge?

Yeah! Eat my shorts. James Manson said the same.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 23:39:31 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Yves
Subject: You've lost me on this one, Yves
Message:
And who's James Manson?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 05:15:13 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Thank god. I thought it was just me. (nt)
Message:
ntntnt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 08:35:56 (GMT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Could it mean ...
Message:
Remember we are here to deal with a ruthless fraud who lies and censors.

Too subtle for some, eh?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 11:04:43 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: Could it mean ...
Message:
I'm thinking: 'James Mason, mabye?' But I don't think his character in Lolita or A Star Is Born had the line 'Eat my shorts.' James Madison, possibly? 'Eat my shorts?' Must be Charles Manson. It's still a tad obscure though. I may need more help.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 12:12:23 (GMT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Oh! THAT bit, sorry ...
Message:
This James Manson complained to the Courts that information about him was improperly released.

Is this what the enigmatic continental meant? Dunno. Sometimes the meaning of words evaporates when the words are carefully considered, and one is left reeling and gasping and muttering 'what decent intent can such words possibly have?'

Eat my shorts? No, thank you very much! poor as English cuisine may be Yves, we now have Indian takeaways.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 18:46:41 (GMT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Let's face it, Jim ...
Message:
The reason you post here really isn't to promote conversation, is it, Jim?

I think you post only in an attempt to 'prove' that your opinions are quote 'right', and if the rest of the world disagrees with you, they can go f**k themselves.

Well, that doesn't promote any kind of conversation, in my opinion.

So why am I still talking to you?

Well, hell man, it's 'cos I think I'm right.
..
.
.
(PS Bet I get an answer to this one)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 18:09:24 (GMT)
From: Carol
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: For what it's worth...to Jim, respectfully
Message:
Thanks Nigel, I agree with many of your points.

Dear Jim,

You have a lot of value here as a diligently involved anti-cult ex. Because of that, I have also tried a few times to persuade you that you could be more effective if you were less personally hostile. I protested the very personal name calling and put-downs you sometimes use (for emphasis, I presume, but maybe in anger. Although I haven't seen as much of that recently, it may been that I haven't read enough.)

Although you were the hardest (of other ex's on me, when I first came here; you have been among those who helped me to objectively re-examine my beliefs about Maharaji. That is why I care, because I know you can be helpful to others as well.

Today I see a thread with you expressing how you hate it when people don't answer your questions, or pose another instead. You do that, too! And YOU criticised about it being a lack of good manners in conversation! For example:

I asked you a question (maybe you thought it was rhetorical)that you did not answer, in the post after I talked to you: 'And when speaking about the faith or belief of a person how does one person judge what is valid : effective or well-grounded (as judged by one's personal experience), workable (to the individual) for the appropriate end in view)?

Tell me, was it beneath you to answer me? Was the subject too stupid? Your 'Whatever Carol whatEVER' comment was impolite to say the least. Your answer was not an answer.

On the subject of beliefs and experiences you are frequently overly harsh and on the attack using all sorts of sarcastic or direct put-downs. I agree with Nigel that in these areas of discussion, it might be better for your own credibility and perhaps peace of mind, and for the good of all, for you to stay out of the discussion, unless you can be a civil and equal participant.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 22:39:32 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Carol
Subject: What are you talking about, Carol?
Message:
Today I see a thread with you expressing how you hate it when people don't answer your questions, or pose another instead. You do that, too! And YOU criticised about it being a lack of good manners in conversation! For example:

I asked you a question (maybe you thought it was rhetorical)that you did not answer, in the post after I talked to you: 'And when speaking about the faith or belief of a person how does one person judge what is valid : effective or well-grounded (as judged by one's personal experience), workable (to the individual) for the appropriate end in view)?

Tell me, was it beneath you to answer me? Was the subject too stupid? Your 'Whatever Carol whatEVER' comment was impolite to say the least. Your answer was not an answer.

Your question was about how one judges validity in the realm of faith or belief.

I answered with:

Carol,

I know how inclined you are to find some breathing space for your friends in the cult but the fact is that faith in Maharaji (as a Perfect Master), on any level, for any reason, is never valid.

And yes, the words matter. Words got you into this mess and word's will get you out.

So what's the problem? You're saying that's not an answer?


Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 17:45:22 (GMT)
From: Carol
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: My answer and 'Am I my bother's keeper?'
Message:
Because this question: 'And when speaking about the faith or belief of a person how does one person judge what is valid : effective or well-grounded (as judged by one's personal experience), workable (to the individual) for the appropriate end in view)?

...wasn't answered.

You turned it into your statement that belief in M was never valid. Well I knew you thought that, even KNOW that, but it wasn't the anwer to my question. I guess it is not a question you consider at all for yourself. But I don't think it is honestly possible to totally renounce all beliefs. We have to rely on believing others to form the factual basis for our acceptance of various theories of scientific knowledge, unless we ourselves do all the experiments. And even then, it has been found that the experimenter effects the results of the experiment (by their expectations, perhaps)!

Or if you do have belief or faith in anything, what criteria do you use? And then do you assume that what works (or is valid, using definition #3) *for you* is always valid for another? You have probably already answered this to the best of your ability at some other time, but if you don't answer, I have to live with not knowing (really, I can live with that!) or with my assumptions.

And regarding the premie friends that I care about: You said (on the phone)it was very patronizing of me to think that some of them might not have a good life (if they were freed from the cult). Maybe so, but I am not sure it is my place to judge what is wrong or right for them because that is patronizing... I just looked up that word in my Webster's:

Patronizing 1) to act as a patron of: to provide aide and support for (that sounds good to me!) 2) to adopt an air of condescension toward: to treat haughtily or cooly (this is what you often do to premies an ex's like me!)

In as much as I may be 'my brother's keeper' I would hope that I can have the courage and kindness to offer aide and support to anyone who needs it as they try to become more free and happy, whether they be still a premie or a former premie. I am trying to have the courage to be a responsible friend without being condescending. The question I posed needs to be considered in the context of examining involvement with Maharaji. And I am examining what it means to me to be responsible.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 20:19:16 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Carol
Subject: Shake off that new age collar, Carol!
Message:
And regarding the premie friends that I care about: You said (on the phone)it was very patronizing of me to think that some of them might not have a good life (if they were freed from the cult). Maybe so, but I am not sure it is my place to judge what is wrong or right for them because that is patronizing... I just looked up that word in my Webster's:

Patronizing 1) to act as a patron of: to provide aide and support for (that sounds good to me!) 2) to adopt an air of condescension toward: to treat haughtily or cooly (this is what you often do to premies an ex's like me!)

In some sense, it is undeniably patronizing to confront someone's faith in Maharaji. What, they ask, can't they think for themselves? But, Carol, that's exactly what they can't do! They're in a cult, remember? They're trained from the start to avoid clear, independent thinking. Why as recently as a couple of days ago, Maharaji reminded them to stay away from their doubts and everything will be fine.

As a premie's friend who now sees the cult for what it is, you have a duty to try to help them see the truth. Otherwise, you ARE patronizing them, only this way without justification. Because now you're patronizing their real mind, their real character, assuming that they either won't do any better outside the cult or that they couldn't handle the truth, couldn't come to terms with it.

If a friend sees that his friend is getting conned he tries to stop it.

In as much as I may be 'my brother's keeper' I would hope that I can have the courage and kindness to offer aide and support to anyone who needs it as they try to become more free and happy, whether they be still a premie or a former premie.

The best 'aid' or 'support' you can give a premie is to help them see their way out of Maharaji's mind trap. Any other aid or support is just small change in comparison. I mean, it's not as if we're in a war and you're bandaging the wounded or something. Who cares about what people believe in when their very survival's at stake?

I am trying to have the courage to be a responsible friend without being condescending.

Any responsible friend would not let someone stay in a cult if they could at all help it.

The question I posed needs to be considered in the context of examining involvement with Maharaji. And I am examining what it means to me to be responsible.

What do YOU think it means to be responsible in these circumstances? Imagine that you're walking down the street and, lo and behold, a premie comes up and starts satsanging your friend, just like we used to do 25 years ago. Say your friend found it all inviting but you knew that it was a trap. What's the 'supportive' course of action for you to take? There's only one -- fight like hell to persuade your friend of what you already know.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 17:43:12 (GMT)
From: Hal
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Shake off your fear Jim ! nt
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 16:14:28 (GMT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Is this the ex-newage.org site now? (nt)
Message:
f
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 17:29:42 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: cq
Subject: Here's what I don't ever hear you say, Chris
Message:
Here's what I DON'T hear you saying:

Many people have many different perspectives on not just Maharaji but all sorts of related issues, for example, spirituality, meditation, religion, new age thinking, all sorts of stuff.

Well, this is the place folks! Come on in! You got a belief or opinion about any of these matters? Go ahead, throw them out. Put them on the table. See how they fend against other ideas. Who knows, you might actually change your mind about something, even something you've believed for decades.

Don't be afraid. They're just ideas. Don't be timid, don't be shy.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 22:07:12 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Shake off that new age collar, Carol!
Message:
This amounts to a very conventional justification for what are called 'meddling preferences,' if the following condition is met:

You would prefer to correct someone else's belief about a matter than to correct yours independent of anyone else's meddling in your belief system. Basically you're more interested in constraining others than in maintaining your own freedom. This is clearly the case with cult members. Only you know whether or not this applies to you, but some of the exchanges I've seen with Katie suggest it might be.

I don't think I necessarily have any obligation to correct a premie. I know that candy is bad for you, but a high cholesterol artery-hardening alternative might be worse. I thenefore might mention the possible negative consequences of stuffing your face with sweets, but ultimately it's not my problem and I'm under no obligation to make it my problem. It's also quite possible that there might be less invasive ways to alter your unhealthy eating habits, without engaging an any constraining behavior. So even if I *did* feel obligated to intervene, doing so might not be the most effective course to take.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 22:52:33 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: What r u? A random possibility machine?
Message:
It's always fun, I'm sure, Scott but really! We're talking real world here. You've got a friend who's fallen into a trap, you try to get them out.

Yes, yes, maybe you're wrong and the only trap is your inability to see how lucky they are. Well, we take our chances, don't we?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 23:34:05 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: It's random 'probability' not 'possibility.'
Message:
Just how many of these people are your 'friends?' Never mind, I'm afraid of the answer.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 16:52:07 (GMT)
From: Loaf
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Here Here !
Message:
Not knowing Jim - his tone and attitude are no doubt as offensive to me as mine are to him. He is one of the main reasons why people (like myself) spend more time on the Recent exes - not flamegrilled Forum (or whatever the heck they ant to call it).

Without a tone of voice or eye contact to moderate 'reading' - Jim seems to have rubbed an enormous amount of people up the wrong way.

And the problem is - is that by doing this, Jim makes himself an 'issue'.

May i suggest that we all club together to buy Jim an old cessner - and that he undertakes an world tour - so that we all might have the privilidge of his company .

I heartily second Nigels diplomatically worded post - and warmly encourage Jim to vent his spleen elsewhere.

Or as Jim would delicately put it:

'Get a life you no-mark tyrant'

;-(Loaf(-:

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 16:54:14 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: None
To: Loaf
Subject: It's hear, hear! actually...
Message:
Call yourself a thespian?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 00:21:50 (GMT)
From: Posthumusly Imogen Talbot
Email: a0aji
To: Nigel
Subject: It's hear, hear! actually... (ot)
Message:
Many people type homonyms, frequently, because of the way the brain works during typing. Internally, the person is saying the words to themself; and then they type what they hear (this is from a consensus conversation between myself and someone else online, but I believe it is valid, or partly so). Since these people are composing several sounds ahead of what they're typing now, they don't notice the fingers didn't carry out the original instructions with appropriate spellings.

If they're not focused on the spellings (because they're composing and 'listening' to what the sentences sound like; can't do both) then the fingers are free to type any word that sounds the same. I used to think that wasn't the case at all, until I found myself doing it regularly (and this is only recently). I've lost interest in proof-reading and spelling -- my habitual homonym typographical errors are showing up in droves, just as they would have if I'd have been more relaxed about them, earlier in my writing. The only reason we don't type more words using the wrong homonym is that not all words have them!

Doesn't hurt to proof-read; and that's when homonyms stand out plainly. I think that people know the difference between inappropriate spellings (denoting the wrong word) and the correct spellings -- but they don't notice they're misusing a word, because internally, they thought of the right word, typed what they 'heard' -- and they didn't think it necessary to re-read what was actually transcribed. If and when they do, they catch their own errors, because now they are reading, which is when the error is notable.

In the case of 'hear, hear' I think it more than possible they've never seen it in print, and so have to guess at which homonym is in use (it is usually a spoken idiom, rather than written -- by its very nature!)

Peace, my lord. Hear, hear!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 21:20:53 (GMT)
From: Susan
Email: None
To: Posthumusly Imogen Talbot
Subject: very interesting!!! (ot)
Message:
I do this too. I sometimes cannot fathom the weird things I find when I take the time to proofread what I write. The human brain is fascinating.

Anytime you have more info about this kind of thing post it, I find it fascinating.

Did you read 'the man who mistook his wife for a hat?' ?

Loved that book.

Susan

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 21:44:41 (GMT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: Susan
Subject: I'm a great fan of Oliver Sacks (not really ot)
Message:
... and The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat is definately my favourite of his books. The President's Speech chapter is a real eye-opener, and it is very relevant to this forum, imho.

I really recommend it. Sacks is a wonderful, humane man of science, a neurologist with great insight any many fascinating tales.

ISBN 0 330 29491 1

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 23:06:56 (GMT)
From: Carol
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: If you liked Sacks you'll like this book:
Message:
by a neuroscientist V.S. Ramachandran, called Phantoms in the Brain : Probing the Mysteries of the Human Mind. So far I read the chapter:

God and the Limbic System (talks about temporal lobe differences and seizures that 'cause' god-realization, origins of genius, evolution, etc.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 08:43:02 (GMT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: Posthumusly Imogen Talbot
Subject: Hear that, hear that!
Message:
It's pretty ideal for a purely written medium though. It's a way of applauding when the clapping is not allowed, or (as in our case) would be inaudible.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 09:06:59 (GMT)
From: Loaf
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: Look Here, Here !
Message:
John

'It's pretty ideal for a purely written medium though. It's a way of applauding when the clapping is not allowed, or (as in our case) would be inaudible'

I couldn't agree more. That was exactly what I was trying to express - Look here here instead of listen hear hear. It is petty pedants like Nigel who have lost touch with the art of wordplay and satire.

He should take some lessons in wit and humour from Larkin.

Whatever has happened to him these days ?

Arses, the lot of 'em !

Oaf

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 20:58:06 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: fitzroy@liverpool.ac.uk
To: Loaf
Subject: There, there...
Message:
How was the head this morn?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 22:42:13 (GMT)
From: Loaf
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Where, whirr, wear...
Message:
Dear nige

A pint and a half of old scrofulous and a pint of p*ss water is enough to make the world go around....

I Hope Hamzen's still pleased at discovering an unlikely hippy trapped in my body - and that his nature study field trip yeilded the results he was hoping for after yesterday's famine in prescott.

We must do it again sometime.

Yours,through a glass darkly, and smelling like a smoked kipper

Loaf

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 07:44:33 (GMT)
From: ham
Email: None
To: Loaf
Subject: Even worse than the day before Loaf!
Message:
But I'm still glad I was up, good to meet ya loaf,
but don't forget now,
we all need that drum & bass loaf-ji arti, yeah soon??
Of course no pressure, ha ha ha

Nigel I meant to ask you, what is that axe hanging over your bed??

Great stay, love your place Nige, and don't forget the pair of you's, if ever Londinium way you've always got somewhere to crash.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 12:52:57 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: fitzroy@liverpool.ac.uk
To: ham
Subject: It's a Zairean battle-axe..
Message:
..originally designed for dealing with Christian missionaries, probably - but I can think of some modern uses.

Yeah - great night, Ham - really glad you made the trip up even if the harvest was pitiful. (I hear you'll get a better crop in the peripheral villages).

I may need a place to crash overnight in the new year when I visit the old city, so thanks for the offer.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 11:22:04 (GMT)
From: Loaf the Hippy
Email: None
To: ham the man
Subject: The peripheral Village People
Message:
I'll talk to nige about getting the Larkin arti down to you (he owns the rights) - but the paperwork is going to be pertty hefty.

I'd quite like the three of us to release it (and its the great... in the sky !!) You never know what is going to catch on in Ibiza !! I've always wanted to do TOTP

Love from one peripheral villager to another...

Loaf

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 08:19:56 (GMT)
From: Carol
Email: None
To: ham
Subject: I want to come over just to hear your accents!
Message:
Unfortunately, all I saw of England or Europe was a stopover at the London airport on the way to India in '72, (and a stop for fuel in Kuwait!)

I like the aussie ones(accents),too, and Nigerian and Jamacian (sp?).

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 17:01:58 (GMT)
From: `Loaf
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Arse !
Message:
I am in typo hell here - trying to balance a cake with coffee and the keyboard on me knee - and I have no time for your horrid petty snide smart -card retorts...

I'll beat you up.

Loaf (already being drawn into in-fighting and bitterness)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 18:29:34 (GMT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: `Loaf
Subject: Fuck that. When's me party?
Message:
Jim is in this for one thing and one thing only.

And what's that, I hear you say?

Ask Jim.

My own uncalled-for (but here in-yer-face, dammit) opinion is that ...

I WANNA PARTY!

Where? When?

(you buyin?)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 12:15:40 (GMT)
From: Brian
Email: brian@ex-premie.org
To: Everyone
Subject: New Journey
Message:
I uploaded Carol's Journey to the site today.

Also, Janet Schwartz has updated her entry.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 16:56:12 (GMT)
From: Carol
Email: None
To: Brian
Subject: New Journey
Message:
Thanks for re-publishing mine. It isn't full of details or very interesting like Janet's, but I'm satisfies with it for now~

Thankyou Janet for your candid and interesting journey! I'm happy to share a space in the announcement.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 17:08:16 (GMT)
From: Loaf
Email: None
To: Carol
Subject: New Journey
Message:
'Thankyou Janet for your candid and interesting journey! I'm happy to share a space in the announcement'

Sponsorship - and advertising !! Of course ! Carol you are a genius.

I'll try and get Gylanix to endorse my journey (I'll plug 'em throughout)

Loaf(TM)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 13:04:22 (GMT)
From: Tonette
Email: None
To: Loaf
Subject: Are you being funny?
Message:
Excuse me, but was your post regarding Carol's journey a joke I missed? You're not poking fun at her are you?

I think it takes alot of effort, courage and reflection to post something as personal as a journey. Especially a journey like Carol's. A journey entry deserves respect.

Can you clarify for me Loaf?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 14:12:46 (GMT)
From: Loaf
Email: None
To: Tonette
Subject: I have replied to Carol.(NT)
Message:
You just had to look - didn't ya!!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 04:37:36 (GMT)
From: Tonette
Email: None
To: Loaf
Subject: Yes I looked, but isn't that the purpose
Message:
of the forum? To read threads? I'm sorry if I intruded.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 14:10:28 (GMT)
From: Loaf
Email: None
To: Tonette
Subject: Are you being funny?
Message:
I have replied to Carol below.

Loaf

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 17:30:33 (GMT)
From: Carol
Email: None
To: Loaf
Subject: (OT)Good grief.... As if! Who are you? nt
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 14:07:39 (GMT)
From: Loaf
Email: None
To: Carol
Subject: (OT)Good grief.... As if! Who are you? nt
Message:
Dear carol

T'was an idle jest - as you were happy sharing space - it occurred to me that a whimsical, unrealistic mind like mine could have fun with the notion of shared space being prestigious.. endorsements etc etc

I know that wasn't what you were doing - and I didnt mean to imply that it was.

My journey (which is deeply incomplete and unsatisfactory) is up there too - if you really want to find out who I am.

Best wishes

Loaf

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 04:43:44 (GMT)
From: Tonette
Email: None
To: Loaf
Subject: Thank you Loaf, sorry I intruded
Message:
But well, this is a forum and I am glad you answered my question.
I am so glad you were not being downright mean to Carole. Thank you. Sometimes it's so hard to tell here; jokes, innocent comments, sarcasm from frankness.

Okay? A forum addict, Tonette

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 17:54:27 (GMT)
From: Carol
Email: None
To: Loaf
Subject: A better reply
Message:
Call that an answer! Why do you assume I said what I did for my own 'advertisement'? I was honestly giving Janet my kudos. I felt her Journey was very different (in a very good way) from mine, which seems a bit didactic and dry in comparison! I was truely pleased to be anounced at the same time, because of my regard for her Journey. I enjoyed reading hers. I like the style and the honesty.

I wrote it to acknowledge hers not agrandize mine. You are very quick to judge me! I have never seen your posts here before I read your one to me. Have you made a Journey? If so, it is nice to give and receive acknowledgement for them.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 04:47:12 (GMT)
From: Tonette
Email: None
To: Carol
Subject: I don't know Carol....
Message:
Boy is this a hard one to follow. I don't think Loaf is trying to be a jerk.

I for one loved your journey. Thank you

Love, Tonette

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 06:36:25 (GMT)
From: Carol
Email: None
To: Tonette
Subject: Another stupid mistake I made, Sorry Loaf...
Message:
I read your subject line as if you had simply repeated what I said to you with it's 'nt' at the end, and I didn't even read the content, thinking mistakenly that there was none! I forget that someone can reply by just hitting reply and no writing in a new subject line, and I do that myself frequently!

DDDDDDDDDDuuuuhhhhh. I am sorry to think you were being as sarcastic as I was! Is your Journey under 'Loaf'? I looked, but I'll look again. My mind is not functioning at full capacity.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 06:59:31 (GMT)
From: Tonette
Email: None
To: Carol
Subject: No not stupid Carol, in fact Loaf never answere
Message:
What exactly did Loaf mean? But who the hell cares at this point?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 07:15:50 (GMT)
From: Carol
Email: None
To: Tonette
Subject: No I think he did. Thankyou, I do care
Message:
He wrote:> T'was an idle jest - as you were happy sharing space - it occurred to me that a whimsical, unrealistic mind like
mine could have fun with the notion of shared space being prestigious.. endorsements etc etc

I know that wasn't what you were doing - and I didnt mean to imply that it was.<

I think he just ran with the thought without thinking much of the effect. I do that sometimes. Thankyou for your comment that led me back to open his.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 07:27:00 (GMT)
From: Tonette
Email: None
To: Carol
Subject: Good, I'm glad it's settled
Message:
I was wondering and am glad that Loaf set it straight. Thank you!

It would really stick in my crawl if someone made fun of someone's journey.

Love you Loaf and Carol

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 10:02:10 (GMT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Tonette
Subject: Good, I'm glad it's settled
Message:
Hi Tonette and Carol -
I can vouch for Loaf - he is a really kind person and VERY funny. And very far from being insensitive. I think that sometimes it is hard to pick up on dry British humor on this forum - especially if you are not British. I have made the same mistake myself, believe me!

TC, both of you,
Katie

P.S. Carol - just found out that Brian's great-aunt lives in Aloha. His dad's family is all from Oregon, and many of them still live there. She is a really wonderful person (I want to be like her when I am her age - I'm guessing she's in her eighties), and was so excited when I told her we knew someone else in Aloha.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 08:26:04 (GMT)
From: cArOl
Email: None
To: Tonette
Subject: Love you too XOXO best intent intended, almost nt
Message:
xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxxoxoxxoooxooxoxoxoxoxoxxoxooxoxoxoxoxoxooxoxoxxoooxox etc.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 06:31:04 (GMT)
From: Steven Quint
Email: sequint@home.com
To: Everyone
Subject: Friends
Message:
I was talking to Jim on the phone earlier tonight.

I had a realization while I was talking to him that has struck me as profound, sad and important.

It concerns people who have become 'friends' from amongst the people who attended knowledge events during the 23 years since I was shown the techniques of knowledge.

I realized that I have become more emotionally attached to these people than to 'friends' that I have met elsewhere, even though in most cases I have had less non-event contact with them than with my 'normal friends'.

This is troubling me right now. Somehow meeting them through the 'cult' has created a different quality to the friendship.

I can't give a good explanation right now but want to put this out there and see if anyone else has comments on this issue.

Thanks,

Steve

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 13:55:38 (GMT)
From: Steven Quint
Email: sequint@home.com
To: Everyone
Subject: Friends
Message:
OK, I think I figured it out.

The emotion that I'm feeling here is pity.

Steve

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 23:29:58 (GMT)
From: And On Anand Ji
Email: None
To: Steven Quint
Subject: Friends
Message:
That's correct.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 08:51:06 (GMT)
From: janet of venice
Email: None
To: Steven Quint
Subject: Friends
Message:
you raise a strange point that i have noticed too. and my observation carries a peculiar twist. my family put me in a mental hospital for 9 months to try to break me of my lifestyle in the cult. when i got out, the ashrams had been dissolved and the community had drifted into private lives, a lot of them busy raising kids or married. i found myself alone, having to find an apartment and make a go of my life without 'premie- everything, 24/7'.
it was isolating. I found myself trying to artificially create the same 'we're all just brothers and sisters'feeling on my floor, telling my neighbors i was appointing myself 'social direcor ' of the building, getting to know every one, introducing everyone to each other, having open potluck dinners in turns at everybody's place, encouraging everybody to leave their doors open into the hall, so it felt more like a dorm and less like a mausoleum. at the time i didn't realize why i was doing it.
my first 'relationship' was with a writer whose work caught my eye in a local paper. i sought him out and it was only after several encounters that i was somewhat taken aback to have him confide to me that he had Knowledge and considered himself a premie. I did too--but our relationship was nothing like premies had been before i was locked up.
the second close friend i made was a gay man i got to talking to on the street and found to be sympatico company on a compatible array of subjects. some time into our friendship he startled me by telling me he had seen me in the miami community, where I'd been, the year before my family put me away. He was a premie since 72. but we rarely talked about majaraji. we talked about everything else.
i made a third friend thru a leaflet posted at a bookstore, advertising a one day class in astrology. the instructor turned out to be someone who remembered me from new york in the alive! kitchen days. she had been one of the bakers in the basement when i was cashiering upstairs-- again, knowledge since 72. but we never talked about it. or i should say, we never had 'satsang'. we were just women friends.
then i got thoroughly entangled in a relationship with a guy who moved in across the hall. sex was the hook, convenience was the sinker. it wasnt until we had been doing this for some time that he told me he'd received knowledge while in federal prison, for resisting the draft. and we never talked about maharaji. i found it impossible to believe that he had ever been a premie, but he guaranteed to me that he had been.
then i moved to los angeles and lost touch with the premie community completely. i lived for five years in an apt in hollywood, knowing not a single premie in the city. i had acquaintences with all kinds of characters in my neighborhood and building, but there was always some kind of gulf there, some gap, i couldnt bridge. i didnt know if it was them or me. and one afternoon i spotted someone up the block on a bike that looked familiar from long ago, a deaf man i had known in 75 in the premie community of that time in that very neighborhood. we traded phone numbers. he lived at the beach, 25 miles to the west.
i got phone calls from him, but we didnt see one another in person all year. i knew nothing about what premies or maharaji were doing. damned odd, actually, considering i still thought i was a premie.
he alerted me to programs maharaji called at long beach, and included me to stay in his hotel room for each one. i went alone on the train, declining the age old premie car pool of transportation. as i have said elsewhere, at these programs, i didnt recognize 99 percent of the people there. i didnt even hang out with him! i was there on my own, and i felt like it was some movie and i was the only one not in it. i can count maybe two people i saw at these events that recognized me and could talk to me as familiars: my son's father when he flew out from connecticut, and my former relationship with the denver poet/author.
i had no satsang with the boy's father. with him,it was always about family issues. and the author would try to bring up satsang and i felt strange and uncomfortable having to try to quell myself to appear respectful, but actually feeling abhorrent and repelled by the utter unrelatability of his words. I couldnt wait to get back home to my daily surroundings.
so without intending to, i met people first and found out they had knowledge later, and if they tried to bring the subject around to 'satsang', i got nervous and uncomfortable and moved the conversation to other things.
at this point, i feel apart from everyone. the only one i see on a daily basis is my son, and i don't trust anyone in my daily landscape. people tell me it doesnt show, but i feel like i want to run from everyone i see. i have been listening and watching the people around the neighborhood, just how they relate to each other and themselves, and i envy them. they seem to really enjoy who they are and what theyre involved in, and i feel like an alien. theyre so genuine and natural, and i'm faking it, putting on a good act. I don't know who i am anymore. I don't know what i really feel or think. i mean, i do have opinions and reactions, but they seem to lag behind the world, out of pace, not in step, and by the time i can reach them,, the person's attention is elsewhere. I thought i had real connection when i was a 24-7 'everything-premie'....and i thought i had it before i ever knew anything about maharaji or knowledge....but im in a kind of limbo now, unable to be either, and i miss knowing what i am and where i fit in. i wish i had stayed one or the other and never known what i know now. how can i ever fit again?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 20:21:31 (GMT)
From: Helen
Email: None
To: janet of venice
Subject: being premies set us up to have unrealistic....
Message:
...expectations about intimacy, friendship, and community, IMO.

Hi Janet

It is hard to settle for more mundane relationships after leaving the premie world behind. In that culture, we shared a communication style where it was okay to wear our hearts on our sleeves. It's still hard for me NOT to do that with everyone I meet. And it's hard to wait patiently to spend time with the good pals that I can do that with. I always want immediate gratification, something ELSE that being premie helped to perpetuate! Instant enlightenment, 'that wonderful wonderful bliss, all the time, 24-7'!!

I now think it is unrealistic to expect that 24-7 level of intimacy with people.

I think Scott has a good point that another element to feeling 'connected' is through doing work that is meaningful and enjoyable.

WOuld like to hear more about your 9 month deprogramming. Did it have worth or was it another form of violation?

Did our premie experiences change the way we 'do' interpersonal relationships forever? ANyone else have any ideas on this????

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 22:57:51 (GMT)
From: And On Anand Ji
Email: and_on_anand@yahoo.com
To: janet of venice
Subject: Friends
Message:
A lot of people feel that way who were never in a cult.

On top of that, evaluating your life when you're feeling down is a sure recipe to find it desolate. It is a bad habit; the saying goes: if you're hungry, angry, lonely or tired, then halt.

Plus you were deprogrammed, in a way; and that is a violence heaped upon violence, in my opinion. I don't know how long you've considered yourself an ex-premie, if at all -- give it some time. You sound like a woman; so I would say you're even more vulnerable to the down side of loneliness and emotionality than a man is, so be aware of that.

While I'm giving out all this unasked for advice: wipe your feet. :) I was actually going to suggest you clip that (cited post, above) and post it as your Journey, until I saw the last paragraph. I still think that'd be a good thing (again, minus the last part).

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 02:36:59 (GMT)
From: Roger eDrek
Email: drek@oz.net
To: And On Anand Ji
Subject: Forget that!
Message:
Janet of Venice can make posts of any length, anytime!

And, I feel the same way - like an alien.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 11:27:44 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Roger eDrek
Subject: Forget that!
Message:
Roger:

I used to feel like an alien, to the extent that I'd even gravitate to non-Americans in a room if they were there. Without changing a great deal I now feel less alienated, and I understand the non-alien side of myself a bit better. There are premie friends, like Mike A., that I would probably still be friends with even if we'd never been premies, and others whom I thougt friends but now recognize we were never friends to begin with, like Rita Higgins.

Have you ever read Karl Marx's theory of alienation? It's a lot more convincing and well thought out than his economic theories, though it doesn't play a very big role in Kapital. Basically, we feel alienated because the work we do isn't 'vital.'

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 18:41:07 (GMT)
From: Roger eDrek
Email: drek@oz.net
To: Scott T.
Subject: Forget that!
Message:
But the work I do is vital! Actually, it kinda is, but I sure don't think so.

For me and a lot of it could be the 'neck of the woods' that I'm currently living in, but this whole American thing or Commercialization/Consumer thing is appalling. I really do find it all to be void and empty. Whether it's true or not, in the old days of the cult the philosophy was somewhat counter-culture and certainly anti-materialistic. Did I absorb too much of it? Is it too late to go back? I'm at the point where I can hardly stand to go grocery shopping anymore - much less go to the mall or something to buy clothes. It's all just so over-hyped.

Does anybody remember that great 80's oldie song by the Wipers (Portland, OR) called 'NO ONE WANTS A ALIEN'?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 08:19:55 (GMT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: Roger eDrek
Subject: People are different
Message:
Roger: In the old days of the cult the philosophy was somewhat counter-culture and certainly anti-materialistic. Did I absorb too much of it? Is it too late to go back?

It's a very long time age now, but what upset me about the BLIGHT (as me and my teenage pals called it) was that it fed off and preyed on the counter-culture - but was itself profoundly reactionary. It was heirarchical; authoritarian; opposed to science, learning, and culture; outsiders counted for nothing; and it was dedicated to the material glorification of its leader.

Kinda like North Korea is today.

So I doubt that the Cult taught much in the way of (what we used to call) alternative values, despite the yearnings of individual recruits. I hope I'm not crowding you here, but my take would be more that you felt alienated (as in saw through the cruel maya of conventional society) and fell for the lofty words and false promises of Rawat because, well, a very idealistic picture was painted.

It is sad that idealism is so often abused by a sociopathic monstrosity. Perhaps it's an occupational hazard for idealists to feel 'special and different' -- superior to the generality of ordinary folk. But the Cult assiduously reinforced that with its emphasis on how priviledged and special insiders should feel (compared to those outside who had not been chosen by God, or who had chosen to ignore his message). People who had received knowledge; and outsiders. Us and Them.

But there is no THEM. People are different. Cultishness and tribalism obscure this, and encourage instead a belief in a kind of faceless other against which to define the tribe. The faceless other is portrayed as not-quite-as-estimable as the in-group, in the interests of tribal leaders and authorities.

I don't think one can really deconstruct cultish thinking without also deconstructing tribalism generally. To fail in that respect means to appear as a cultist, even while espousing anti-cult attitudes and campaigning vigourously against this or that particular example of cultish evil.

Or that's how I now see it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 17:25:57 (GMT)
From: a0aji
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: People are different
Message:
Current Time: Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 13:14:48
Date: Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 04:19:55
From: JohnT
To: Roger eDrek
Subject: People are different

..there is no THEM. People are different. Cultishness and tribalism obscure this, and encourage instead a belief in a kind of faceless other against which to define the tribe. The faceless other is portrayed as not-quite-as-estimable as the in-group, in the interests of tribal leaders and authorities.

I don't think one can really deconstruct cultish thinking without also deconstructing tribalism generally. To fail in that respect means to appear as a cultist, even while espousing anti-cult attitudes and campaigning vigourously against this or that particular example of cultish evil.

Excellent.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 22:49:40 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Roger eDrek
Subject: People are strange
Message:
when you're a stranger,
Faces look ugly when you're alone.
Women seem wicked when you're unwanted,
Streets are uneven when you're down.

When you're strange
Faces come out of the rain
When you're strange
No one remembers your name
When you're strange
When you're strange
When you're strange.

Anyway, Marx's theory has something to do with the products of our labor being separated from us... so that in the consumer economy (actually, he was talking about an industrial economy at the time) they have a life of their own, and serve the acquisitive interests of others. We are alienated from the product of our labor, and therefor from other people as well. This leads to a state he calls 'false consciousness' where we become susceptible to ideology, which he saw as a tool of the oppressor. (He did not consider his own views ideological, a fact which might be difficult for us to grasp.) He was a materialist, however, and rejected the non-materialism of his mentor, Hegel. Some call Marx, 'Hegel standing on his head.'

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 12:50:11 (GMT)
From: Steven Quint
Email: sequint@home.com
To: Scott T.
Subject: Forget that!
Message:
Please see www.enjoyinglife.org electronic times section (click on October 2000 Rome - the link doesn't work directly) for further thoughts on alienation.

Would that he follow his own advice 'Don't be an alien' and go back whence he came.

Taking credit for the breath again, eh? I'd like to see proof.

Steve

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 11:46:23 (GMT)
From: Steven Quint
Email: sequint@home.com
To: Scott T.
Subject: Forget that!
Message:
Which of Marx's books is that in?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 17:26:16 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Steven Quint
Subject: Marx's theory of alienation
Message:
Steven:

It has been awhile, but I think it's in the Ideology series somewhere. This was when he was one of the 'Young Hegelians,' and way before he wrote Kapital. Pretty decent sociological perspective, actually.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 21:25:31 (GMT)
From: Q
Email: None
To: janet of venice
Subject: Friends
Message:
Hi, friend.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 12:19:01 (GMT)
From: Steven Quint
Email: sequint@home.com
To: janet of venice
Subject: Friends
Message:
Janet:

I am somewhat disturbed by your last paragraph. Hang in there, these are strange times we're living in and I feel that things will change for the better soon.

I would love to talk to you on the phone but I won't put my phone number here. Could you email me your phone number or, if you know Jim's number, ask him for my number.

For now,

All the best and may the love be with you,

Steve

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 07:18:35 (GMT)
From: sam
Email: -
To: Steven Quint
Subject: Friends
Message:
I bet people who meet through their christian church congregation feel exactly that way too. And they probably only ever shared an hour a week. The mental idea we had of who we were would have helped the bonding- we were devotees of the lord, after all.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 02:47:13 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: A Sincere Question for all my Premie Friends
Message:
If you're a premie and you're reading this, hi, this post's for you.

I noticed below that Mike Dettmers has posted some answers to a couple more questions. The questions are interesting as are Mike's answers, all stuff about what Maharaji was really like on a daily basis, up close and personal, and what, if anything he said -- or didn't say -- that Mike could tell us about which might help pierce the veil of Maharaji's mystique.

I find that kind of dialogue interesting. I find it fascinating to learn more about what Maharaji was really thinking, saying and doing offstage during those years when he was running my life.

So what I want to know is: do you? Do you find Dettmers' posts interesting? Do you want to know what it's like up close and personal with your spiritual master?

The reason I ask is that so many of you claim to have absolutely no curiosity about the man at all. Even though your entire 'spiritual practise' centres around his words, pictures and physical presence when you can get it, you pretend to want to know nothing at all about him. 'Oh, does he have a mistress and is his marriage a sham? Now why would I care about that. I only care about Knowledge....' Like I say, you spend all this time worshipping him, singing arti to him if he'll let you, watching his videos, watching him go on and on and on. Yet you claim to have no interest in him personally.

So what I want to know is, if that's the case, why do you bother reading Dettmers' comments at all?

Get it? It just doesn't fit together somehow and, to me, the only logical explanation is that you're not being honest when you say that you don't really care about his personal life. Face it, if he invited you to hang out with him you'd be there in a flash. You want his personal life, you crave it. You want to get as close to him as you can, in as informal a setting as you can, for as long as you can, as privately as you can and have wanted that for years. If someone you know does get to spend some time with Maharaji, and you don't think that person will in any way confront your faith, you want to hear all about it. Why -- and here's the point of my post -- even when you think the person will confront your faith because they're no longer respectful, let alone devoted, to Maharaji, you still want to hear it all.

That's the truth, isn't it? Come on, be honest about this. That's the truth and your feigned disinterest is just a way to avoid that which you can't deal with -- the truth.

Right?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 21:28:55 (GMT)
From: Q
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: You want honesty from co-dependents?
Message:
That would be like getting an actually 'sincere question' from you.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 19:06:08 (GMT)
From: shp
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: A Sincere Question for all YOUR PREMIE FRIENDS?
Message:
First of all, f*ck you for accusing me of craving Maharaji's lifestyle. Out of your own heart has come your own yearnings.
Don't project your mental puke onto me and think you won't be called for what it truly is.

Second, f*ck you for accusing me of not being able to deal with the truth...once again, your words have revealed your own motivation and no one else's. For out of your own mouth will issue the inner depths of your own heart. And once again, with the mental puke and all that...birds have their own songs and this is YOUR song, not mine.

Third, f*ck you for being such a hypocrite and trying to sell Michael Dettmers version of reality as the way it is for all, after all that crap about critical thinking you tried to preach. There are many other folks who I am sure have a variety of things to say about Maharaji offstage and personal that are very different from what Michael's version is. The only reason that you are pushing Michael's version is that you agree with it, not necessarily that it is the concensus of all PAMS or even the truth. With all due respect to Michael, he could be up his ass or just very biased against Maharaji for reasons you and I know nothing about. The 'warning' he got the other day could have had parts to it on both sides that you and I know nothing about. You are merely grandstanding, holding up Michael's name like the large trophy horns of a moose you just bagged.

Eat this. It'll be good for ya. But who are we kidding? You are a dyed-in-the-wool-shithead with little chance of ever being objective again in your wretched life. Here is a chance.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 22:18:54 (GMT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: shp
Subject: Sincerely
Message:
shp: With all due respect to Michael, he could be up his ass or just very biased against Maharaji for reasons you and I know nothing about. The 'warning' he got the other day could have had parts to it on both sides that you and I know nothing about.

Dettmers seems to me to speak more in sorrow than in anger. Maybe he doesn't feel THAT ripped off. That's how he comes over to me; not vengeful or crafty or anything, so I don't get the feeling he's very biased. It's more like he's sad about the truth.

It's tough, I'm sure it must be hard to take.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 23:38:36 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: shp
Subject: I said 'premie FRIENDS', shp
Message:
Ah, shp, what are ever going to do with you?

No, I never said that I thought you were craving Maharaji's lifestyle. Read it again.

Two, I thought you agreed with me, that you can't handle the truth and that you were getting counselling or something?

Just kidding, shp. No, I know, you can handle the truth just fine. Don't know what I was thinking.

As for Dettmers' experiences around Maharaji being just one man's story, well, shp, who else you got? Who else is going to come forward and tell us what it's like offstage with the one-time Lord? But then, shp, don't forget, your position is that you don't care what he's like, remember? That's your position, shp, don't forget it.

By the way, you completely missed the point of my post. It went right fucking over your head. ......zing! .....

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 02:21:36 (GMT)
From: shp
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: You and your Freudian slip...
Message:
Ah, shp, what are ever going to do with you? -Jim

I notice how you forgot to type in the word 'we' as in what are 'we' ever going to do with you....are you finally awake to the fact that you don't speak for any 'we', just for your own damn self and whoever else happens to agree with you? Maybe ExTex slapping you upside the head in all caps has finally made an impression through your thick skull. -shp

No, I never said that I thought you were craving Maharaji's lifestyle. Read it again. -Jim

No, you read it again, asshole. Then print it out and roll it up nice and neat and cram it into one of your ears as far as it will go, then push a little harder. You are nit picking one minute and fighting a cosmic battle the next. How versatile of you. I know exactly what you meant, you scumbag. -shp

Two, I thought you agreed with me, that you can't handle the truth and that you were getting counselling or something?
-Jim

More bullshit from the asshole under your nose. -shp

Just kidding, shp. No, I know, you can handle the truth just fine. Don't know what I was thinking. -Jim

You were probably thinking what a cool, clever guy you are and how you are getting over on just about everybody here with your big fat mouth and your overblown ego. You are the kind of guy who would be an asshole whether you were with Maharaji or not,
and are hiding your dysfunction behind this whole issue. And I would be here to tell you so, you freak. -shp

As for Dettmers' experiences around Maharaji being just one man's story, well, shp, who else you got? -Jim

Who else do I have, you ask? I don't need anybody to prop up to prove or substantiate my position. -shp

Who else is going to come forward and tell us what it's like offstage with the one-time Lord? -Jim

If you want to know so bad, you are the lawyer. You know how to gather information, shithead. What are you asking me for? -shp
But then, shp, don't forget, your position is that you don't
care what he's like, remember? That's your position, shp, don't forget it. -Jim

Once again, you distort the truth. I know my position. And I know yours....I can just spot your earlobes sticking out of your buttcrack....yep, I can see your position real well.

By the way, you completely missed the point of my post. It went right fucking over your head. ......zing! ..... -Jim

That's what you'd really like to be true, isn't it you jerk?
Fact is, the reason you spend so much time on me is to try to refute what I say because it does make sense. And whatever you try to come up with as a clever reply will hit the floor like a brick. I am telling you this in advance, Jim. You still peddle your sophomoronic, one-upmanship crap and think nobdoy sees it just because nobody else, or very few others, take the time to bust you for it. But busted you are, just like a pus bag should be, busted and drained. You bore me.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 02:55:36 (GMT)
From: Roger eDrek
Email: drek@oz.net
To: shp
Subject: Jim, I think he's got you. Shall I beam you up?
Message:
Jim,

I think that shp got you there. You're are busted.

Jim, Iway inkthay atthay eway'day etterbay ogay easyway onway ethay oldway shpay erehay. Itway ouldway appearway atthay ehay isway osinglay itway. yWhay onday'tay eway ustjay ayplay alongway ithway imhay andway etlay imhay inkthay atthay ehay ickedkay youray assway.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 03:00:09 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Roger eDrek
Subject: No, Roger, No! Shp stole a translator!
Message:
(Better switch to hindu....)

Apne ha ne odelay
Godne yo me mo pennay
fee figh fo fenay SHPay

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 03:18:04 (GMT)
From: Roger eDrek
Email: drek@oz.net
To: Jim
Subject: Jim, shp is mind melding me
Message:
I can feel shp mind melding me through the Internet. As you know shp is a power not to be trifled with because he is so pure of heart unlike ourselves.

I'm feeling quite odd, in fact. I can barely keep my eyes open. My fingers are shaking as I type. I feel surges of energy flowing from the keyboard. I'm moving through a dark cloth covered tunnel towards a very dim light. I hear sounds like spheres and crickets. I am floating past one great Master after another - they are sending their love to me and they are all smiling and nodding with encouragement. Yes, all of them -Moses, Ram, Krishna, Lord Buddha, Mohammed, L. Ron Hubbard, Shri Hans, Christ, John Lennon.

I am moving through THAT tunnel towards THAT light, THAT love with shp's gentle and loving hands pushing me, pushing me on my back. The light is getting brighter. The sound louder. Shp is yelling and screaming, 'The light, the light, the light! See the light!'

'Yes, I see the light, alright. It's right in my face. Of course, I see the light. How can I not see the light, shp? You are holding it in my face,' I say. 'No, no shp, I don't want to buy that light bulb for $12.95. Do you think I'm a stupid shithead or something?'

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 21:18:35 (GMT)
From: Q
Email: None
To: shp
Subject: ahimsa
Message:
Temper, temper.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 02:25:34 (GMT)
From: shp
Email: None
To: Q
Subject: ahimsa
Message:
Q,

This ain't temper. It's honest communication. Sometimes you gotta speak to a beast in a lanuguage they understand, and that's exactly what I am doing. No problem here with temper.

I am not Ghandi and I am not Jim's doormat, as Ghandi might choose to be. If you want to practice ahimsa, go for it.

shp

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 20:13:18 (GMT)
From: Bin Liner
Email: None
To: shp
Subject: Quest
Message:
I took 'crave' to mean his company. You seem to have taken it to mean his money.

Where's YOUR mirror ?

Why are you tilting at windmills if you're so certain that Barry Bollix is really God ?

Maybe you're not the sharpest tool in the box ?

Keep going , GMJ really loves you.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 02:34:51 (GMT)
From: shp
Email: None
To: Bin Liner
Subject: Quest
Message:
I crave neither his money nor his company. I crave to be conscious of and immersed in the ever-present experience of peace
and fulfillment as a human being, which Knowledge facilitates.
Then what happens happens without my having to be attached to any temporary experiences.

Sharpness is relative, and from the content of your post, I wouldn't talk about being sharp if I were you. Your transparent attempt at one-upping me is lost because I am not pulling on the other end of your rope. You need to find someone who is still into kid stuff. Hey, I know somebody you can trade verbal punches with who is really into it...Jim! You guys should really hook up. He's the guy with his earlobes sticking out of his buttcrack, can't miss him.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 22:00:33 (GMT)
From: Bin Liner
Email: None
To: shp
Subject: Quest
Message:

C' mon shp , can't you tell when someone likes you ?

Your reply tickled my sense of humour.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 15:43:51 (GMT)
From: shp
Email: None
To: Bin Liner
Subject: Quest
Message:
kuchee kuchee koo!
Glad it tickled you!

Well Bin,

I get all kinds of feedback here and am not always aware of someone's good will due to the fact that there is so much hammering going on which does not come at me straight on, but from behind and blind-sided. Don't you just hate that when it happens?

Take the 'bull-shp detector's' thread up a little higher on the list, about a job I had twenty years ago that turned out to be a loser. This genius tries to create an analogy of the product with Maharaji and a bunch of other stupid stuff...tries to character assassinate me using really stupid thinking that anyone with a shred of common sense would have to laugh at. Yet it lives and thrives here because anything negative about a premie is fair game whether it's true or not. Truth is not the goal here, defamation of what you (collectively) don't agree with is. Behavior like this makes a crowd at a WWF event seem like a brain surgeon convention.

So anyway, have a great weekend.

shp

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 02:55:40 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: shp
Subject: Sanford Pass does not want darshan?? (Att. EV)
Message:
I crave neither his money nor his company.

You're going to make a grown guru cry if you keep talking like that, shp. Come on, tell him you didn't mean it. Maharaji goes to all that effort to make himself available for you, when he can, where he can. You can't say you don't care, shp. You just can't say that. It simply isn't right.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 03:17:29 (GMT)
From: shp
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Jim Heller should work in a pretzel factory.
Message:
crave: to long for, desire very much.

My longing and desire is to have the same inner experience that he speaks of, for that is what is real and lasting and accessable 24/7. That is what Knowledge is about, not chasing a person like a groupie unless that is how the spirit moves you. I know it's a foreign concept for you, but try to grasp the fact that there are different strokes for different folks. It's not a one-size-fits-all and Jim Heller's concept maker is the norm. Much as you'd like to be God with a capital G, it ain't you.
You will have to be contented with the handful of neubies who are dazzled by your silver tongued devilishness, and perhaps a few gullible clerks at the courthouse. You have missed the entire point, and for someone who seems to be so intelligent in so many other realms, I am surprised at your obvious blind spot here. By your shallow expressions you have revealed your own destitution of spirit. There will come a day soon when you will post some sparkling jagged wit to me and I will not respond ever again.
Since you cannot keep your own word and stop reading my posts and posting back, I will have to cut you off, when I'm damn good and ready.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 03:20:58 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: shp
Subject: Don't threaten me
Message:
There will come a day soon when you will post some sparkling jagged wit to me and I will not respond ever again.
Since you cannot keep your own word and stop reading my posts and posting back, I will have to cut you off, when I'm damn good and ready.

You're gonna fuck up my practise tonight, shp. Especially when I sit down to do number two. How can I concentrate when I know that soon this will all be taken away from me? And don't just give me that neti neti shit. Yes, I'm attached. So what?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 03:28:40 (GMT)
From: shp
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Here is what I really think of you...ready?
Message:
0
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 19:16:41 (GMT)
From: shp
Email: None
To: shp
Subject: SINCERE, in your case =
Message:
S..arcastic
I..nsincere
N..egative
C..allous
E..gocentric
R..ude
E..gomaniacal

Yeah, Jim, you are 'all that'.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 21:30:25 (GMT)
From: Q
Email: None
To: shp
Subject: Is the kettle black...
Message:
Pot?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 18:31:22 (GMT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: As convincing an advertisement as the spider ...
Message:
... who said to the fly ...
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 17:49:34 (GMT)
From: Cynthia
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Non-Responses Typical...
Message:
Jim,

Even thought this thread unraveled into some humor. I can picture John Belushi doing a PERFECT Maharaji--add in the Krisha Lila dancers and it'd be a hit (too bad he's dead). Remember when he did Joe Cocker, standing right next to Joe Cocker while he was performing?

Well, most premies, true believers have only seen m's performance on stage. I remember when m would get 'really strong' a euphemism for 'yelling at us in satsang' for not being good enough devotees. I took that verbal abuse and ate it up. It's amazing how much power a egomaniacal, personality can place over someone.

As for old premies, I asked a couple a while back if they had ever come to this site and they wrinkled up their noses and said absolutely not. It's frustrating to communicate with premies here and I don't think it's possible to get an honest answer until the premie is starting to feel doubts and are questioning m.

Michael Dettmers posting here has got to be going through the premie grapevine, though, even though the vine is nearly dead in the US. A cult-addicted mind is a terrible thing--what a waste. But they are probably being told that Michael just 'freaked' out, like with Mishler.

my 2cents,
Cynthia

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 07:00:59 (GMT)
From: Mili
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: The proof of the pudding is in the eating
Message:
Instead of wasting your time spewing out these wacky litanies, Jim, you really should try practising Knowledge a little bit again. It's super-cool, believe me. Still is.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 11:41:44 (GMT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Mili
Subject: That ain't proof
Message:
What would Knowledge be like without Maharaji, Mili? If it was still 'super-cool, if you still enjoyed it as much, that would make Maharaji's claims about himself super-exaggerated, wouldn't it? Lot's of people practice meditation without a guru. How come Maharaji is soooo important to the type called 'Knowledge'? Have you ever examined this question, especially in light of his shortcomings as exposed here? The only conclusion any rational thinking person can come to is that you're in a personality cult, where somebody for personal reasons, and no good reason, is revered as essential to an experience in meditation. C'mon, if you stop and think about it, I know that's got to strike you as odd, to say the least.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 09:16:33 (GMT)
From: Mr Bubblehead
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: Bubble Verse
Message:
Friend Jerry, the sight of your name
moves me to song or maybe verse, so this is for you,
Verse from the Bubble.

The connection with the One
made real because it is the Way.
The language of Love
spoken by poets and happy dreamers
and those with smiley faced hearts.
The language that sounds silly
should one try to explain,
but not so silly,
as the one who denies.
For to deny something so grand, so beautiful, so right,
makes you a really, really, big fuckin’ Bubblehead too.
Love
Mr Bubblehead.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 18:05:38 (GMT)
From: Mili
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: That ain't proof
Message:
Sorry, Jer. After reading all of this so-called 'evidence' here, I still see no reason to give up on Maharaji. Simple fact is - listening to him does things for me. It puts me right there in the spot where meditation is a natural. I see no reason to doubt his competence as far as Knowledge is concerned and his devotion to his guru, either.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 12:46:34 (GMT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: Mili
Subject: That ain't proof
Message:
Maybe you got lucky Mili. But for most it's clear your man's a hinderance when it comes to promulgating knowledge. Think of all THAT energy and idealism he's wasted.

It is very sad, especially for those who derive value from the techniques, and think they could be of some benefit if only they had had the benefit of ethical and responsible organisation.

Anyway, I've written this poem special K - it's really a very broad attack on over-pious religious sentimentality. I mean, just replace K with X (or a Crescent moon - maybe a candlestick), and the poem works just the same.

I was wondering, should I sharpen it (or write another) to be not just a generalised attack on religious superstition, but to be more exactly targeted on Rawat's peculiarly nasty perversion of that sometimes useful human tendency.

For example, should I mock Rawat's perversion of the light technique? You know, the way he's urged folk to visualise him during their practice?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 07:47:21 (GMT)
From: Mili
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: You asked for it!
Message:
I've got a bone to pick with John Tucker. Let us note first of all that John's ramblings are not our only concern. To state the matter in a few words, John's viewpoints are geared toward the continuation of social stratification under the rubric of 'tradition.' Funny, that was the same term that his operatives once used to subordinate principles of fairness to less admirable criteria. His arrogance will lead him to biologically or psychologically engineer the most unregenerate sluggards I've ever seen to make them even more unimaginative than they already are sometime soon. Sounds pretty insipid, doesn't it? But is it any more so than his incompetent violent politics? John's vituperations have paid off: already, John has had some success in his efforts to judge people based solely on hearsay. His few positive contributions will continue to be overshadowed by his broader message of hate. Surprised? You shouldn't be, because his goons have learned their scripts well, and the rhetoric comes gushing forth with little provocation.

My general thesis is that he rarely tells his legatees that he plans to make eccentric raving thieves out to be something they're not. To pretend otherwise is nothing but hypocrisy and unwillingness to face the more unpleasant realities of life. I'll talk a lot more about that later, but first let me finish my general thesis: John is not just stupid. He is unbelievably, astronomically stupid. Once, just once, I'd like to see his factotums tell him how wrong he is. But until they do that (if they ever do that), we must realize that he thinks we want him to promote racial superiority doctrines, ethnic persecution, imperialist expansion, and genocide. Excuse me, but maybe the baneful nature of his belief systems is not just a rumor. It is a fact to which I can testify. John will probably never understand why he scares me so much. And he does scare me: His values are scary, his notions are scary, and most of all, his stories about deconstructionism are particularly ridden with errors and distortions, even leaving aside the concept's initial implausibility. On rare occasions, in order to preserve their liberties, sometimes people must slow scientific progress. John does that even when his liberties aren't being threatened.

If you don't think that he often flirts with antidisestablishmentarianism, then you've missed the whole point of this letter. Many people who follow his shenanigans have come to the erroneous conclusion that he can ignore rules, laws, and protocol without repercussion. The stark truth of the matter is that I cannot believe how many actual, physical, breathing, thinking people have fallen for John's subterfuge. I'm entirely stunned. And if you think that everyone and everything discriminates against John -- including the writing on the bathroom stalls -- then you aren't thinking very clearly.

He claims that anyone who resists him deserves to be crushed. I respond that his lickspittles use cheap, intemperate propaganda to arouse the passions of hidebound meatheads simply because they think it's fun. If he would abandon his name-calling and false dichotomies, it would be much easier for me to upbraid him for being so dotty.

Think about that for a moment. I assume that John is unaware of his obligation not to rifle, pillage, plunder, and loot, as this unawareness would be consistent with his prior displays of ignorance. I believe I have finally figured out what makes people like him hammer a few more nails into the coffin of freedom. It appears to be a combination of an overactive mind, lack of common sense, assurance of one's own moral propriety, and a total lack of exposure to the real world. There is a simple answer to the question of what to do about his smear tactics. The difficult part is in implementing the answer. The answer is that we must act honorably.

The problem is, John has no moral courage, nor even a desire to be honest and forthright. Period, finis, and Q.E.D. I don't know whether or not you've ever been physically present at a public demonstration by his cat's-paws, but let me tell you, they're pretty rapacious. We can never return to the past. And if we are ever to move forward to the future, we unquestionably have to burn away social illness, exploitation, and human suffering. I can barely contain myself from going into a laughing fit when I see one of these unbalanced bestial undesirables. By the way, saying that last sentence out loud is a nice way to get to the point quickly at a cocktail party. John's reason is not true reason. It does not seek the truth, but only heinous answers, inimical resolutions to conflicts.

Having already explained that John would rather talk about making changes than actually make them, let me now state that if John wants to complain, he should have an argument. He shouldn't just throw out the word 'crystallographically', for example, and expect us to be scared. I have not forgotten that this is explicitly or implicitly expressed or presupposed in most of the material I plan to present. I have not forgotten that his true colors have finally come out. And I cannot forget that he should not pervert human instincts by suppressing natural feral constraints and encouraging abnormal patterns of behavior. Not now, not ever.

What kind of loser wants to relabel millions of people as 'subhuman'? A loser like John. I, not being one of the many yawping malcontents of this world, will renew my resolve to expose some of his mudslinging deeds. This implies that from secret-handshake societies meeting at 'the usual place' to back-door admissions committees, his adulators have always found a way to put political correctness ahead of scientific rigor. His expedients all stem from one, simple, faulty premise -- that space aliens are out to lay eggs in our innards or ooze their alien hell-slime all over us.

It's my understanding that John's forces show obsequious deference to him. For proof of this fact, I must point out that only the impartial and unimpassioned mind will even consider that in asserting that people are pawns to be used and manipulated, he demonstrates an astounding narrowness of vision. Who is John to decide what is morally acceptable for us and what is not? Even if snooty self-pitying spoilsports join his band with the best of intentions, they will still abet a resurgence of headlong fanaticism in the immediate years ahead. Not all, I hasten to add, do join with the best of intentions. Considering that by opting for the easy, short-term, feel-good path, he will convert lush forests into arid deserts in the coming days, I find it almost laughable how John remains oblivious to the fact that he wants us to believe that his communications are a breath of fresh air amid our modern culture's toxic cloud of chaos. How stupid does he think we are? You see, I must ask that his confreres embark on a new path towards change. I know they'll never do that, so here's an alternate proposal: They should, at the very least, back off and quit trying to doctor evidence and classification systems and make ornery generalizations to support power-drunk, preconceived views. One of the enduring effects of his musings is surely the way they will undermine everyone's capacity to see, or change, the world as a whole.

In order to embrace the cause of self-determination and recognize the leading role and clearer understanding of those people for whom the quintessential struggle is an encompassing liberation movement against the totality of favoritism, we must create a world in which expansionism, extremism, and exhibitionism are all but forgotten. And that's just the first step. Remember, John is a psychologically defective person. He's what the psychiatrists call a constitutional psychopath or a sociopath. Contrast, for example, his beliefs (as I would certainly not call them logically reasoned arguments) with those of blasphemous self-promoters, and observe that there is no contrast. I, by (genuine) contrast, take the view that the main dissensus between me and John is that I contend that this is the precondition for my crusade against obstinate oppressive masochism. He, on the other hand, contends that all minorities are poor, stupid ghetto trash. In closing, most of us are now painfully aware of John Tucker's demonic tracts.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 08:56:25 (GMT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: Mili
Subject: *** NOT TO BE MISSED *** (Mili to JohnT, above)
Message:
crystallographically? That's not a word in my vocabulary Mili; I never used it. You seem to be mixing me up with someone else.

I just asked for some help with a poem, that's all. Well, I won't be asking you again.

Anyway, while you're in the mood for typing, Jim's mentioned you once committed forgery under the cloak of anonymity. Do you have anything to say about THAT?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 23:46:52 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Mili
Subject: Is he going to 'save' you, Mili?
Message:
Listening to him 'does things' for you?

Wow! You wouldn't be willing to sign an affidavit to that effect, would you? That's a very, very poweful testimony, Mili. You've obviously got your thinking cap on!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 06:24:42 (GMT)
From: Mili
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Is he going to 'save' you, Mili?
Message:
He has consistently cheered me up in bleak times, and teaches me how to be at peace with myself.

Of course I would sign that affadavit, Jim. Anytime.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 13:50:46 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Mili
Subject: Yes, fine, but is he going to SAVE you?
Message:
Mili,

Is Maharaji going to save you from the cycle of birth and death?

Go on, if you don't know, guess. It's fun.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 07:37:32 (GMT)
From: Mili
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: What's it to you???
Message:
;o)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 19:22:46 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Mili
Subject: I care, that's all. I just really care
Message:
Mili,

I need to know that you're safe, you know? Spiritually, I mean.

Now is Maharaji going to save our friend, Mili, or not?

I mean, it's pretty much clear to me that he won't be saving ME anytime soon. But you, Mili? What do you think? Will Maharaji be saving semi's this time through?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 01:39:27 (GMT)
From: a0aji
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Is he going to 'save' you, Mili?
Message:
Yeah, but he forgot the tinfoil hat :)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 19:44:42 (GMT)
From: And On Anand Ji
Email: None
To: no
Subject: That ain't pudding :) (nt)
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 19:10:48 (GMT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: Mili
Subject: No reason to give up on the Maha?
Message:
Well, Mili, if you get off on dependence to a self-confessed con-artist ...

Why do I call the Maha a 'self-confessed' con-artist?

It's transparently obvious, Mili.

He once claimed to be the Messiah.

Now he lies, and says he never claimed that.


No doubt it's all part of his 'lila' to you.

So go your own way. And let us go ours.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 18:15:47 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Mili
Subject: That ain't proof
Message:
Mili:

Well that's no real suprise to anyone. However you're part of a declining demographic so you may not have much company. Ever considered switching to one of the other numerous Rhadasaomi masters? You wouldn't look quite so silly, or end up quite so isolated. Then again, the guy will need a few 'true blue' followers pretty soon. How good are you at selling off family heirlooms, and how low would you be willing to go on your commission?

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 06:07:33 (GMT)
From: hehehe
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Wouldn't it be funny...........
Message:
if Mike Dettmers was really Rob up to his old tricks.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 04:13:57 (GMT)
From: ....Tex
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: OBJECTION!
Message:
The assumption most or all “premies don’t care about about M’s personal life” is not been established ,

Councillor, please re-phrase your question.

oops, you said “many”

ok, yes its interesting the up close and personal thing.

yes, still there, but the old premie fantasy in my head, is like an old porno movie seen to many time, i get hard watching some parts, but not real hard.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 03:01:56 (GMT)
From: M . Bezzalar
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: A Sincere Question for all my Premie Friends
Message:
Now Jim , you have to remember that the one thing Mike wont tell you , package , confidentiality agreement and personal vision aside is that he was sacked. Ask him why? Step out of your square for a minute . By his own admission , Michael had seen things coldly in the corporate light for a couple of years before he 'left'. If M was really focused on spreading K wouldn't he require something a little more focused from his main man. So why did you get flicked Mick? There's alittle rave about the cookie jar at the start of this nonsensical site. Did it have anything to do with the cookie jar Mike? Go on , tell us ...I dare you.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 16:47:02 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: M . Bezzalar
Subject: A Sincere Question for all my Premie Friends
Message:
So, completely groundless accusations against Michael are credible, whereas well-documented observations and accusations about Maharaji are not? Duhh!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 03:30:57 (GMT)
From: jondon
Email: None
To: M . Bezzalar and Jim
Subject: A Sincere Question for all my Premie Friends
Message:
Jim, you raise a good question. I am not a premie but I have close friends that are. Some are hardcore, 5 video a week addicts, my close friends are in and out. I can say for my close friends that they could care less about this site, never been here never will, and do not believe some of the stuff I have related to them about his supposed infidelity and drinking and ranting and raving. In fact, one of them ripped me a new one for mentioning such blasphemy. I don't think they are sneaking peeks here. The hardcore ones, I don't know what their take is.

M Bezzelbub raises an interesting point. Did Mikey get caught with his fingers in the cookie jar? Hmmmm. Like master like apprentice. You learned well, grasshopper. If that is indeed the case. And honestly, I don't care two shits about what Michael Dettmers may have done when he was in the employ of M. If he was dipping in the company till, good on him. One less bottle of Courvosier for The Ladies Man. I am glad to see that he is out, and answering the same questions I have about the inside stuff.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 03:38:23 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: jondon
Subject: The Ladies' Man? That's hilarious.....
Message:
Why didn't SNL do a Maharaji skit back when he was topical?

Too funny.

But yeah, the hardcore ones, the real hardcore ones, stay away from this site, I'm sure. However, if they did, for whatever reason drop in, I'd bet they be clicking on Dettmers' post, and every last one of them, right off the bat.

It's like premie pornography.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 16:51:53 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: What the h-e-y-i-l-l is that???
Message:
Why didn't SNL do a Maharaji skit back when he was topical?

By the time SNL came online (late '70s/early '80s) Maharji was no longer topical. Would've been great though.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 04:56:34 (GMT)
From: Stonor
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: But there's always Mr. Natural!
Message:
.
But there's always Mr. Natural at ExPremie.Org!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 03:57:36 (GMT)
From: bill
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: The Ladies' Man? That's hilarious.....
Message:
You mentioned WHY didnt snl do a skit on our lord.
I must admit, when John Belushi died, in my premie mind, I thought it might have been good that he died because I imagined that he would eventually play guru maharaj ji and do up the whole schtick.
I did think that.

Imagine Belushi, he would have been perfect doing a mala dance in crown.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 17:29:44 (GMT)
From: Cynthia
Email: None
To: bill
Subject: John Belushi doing a mala dance?! LOLOLOLOLOL (nt)
Message:
ny
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 04:03:37 (GMT)
From: Susan
Email: None
To: bill
Subject: One less bottle of Courvosier for The Ladies Man
Message:
I vote that the best line I have heard on the forum in a long while....love it!!!!!

Yes, Belushi in the Mala....that would have been tremendous.

Thanks Jondon and Bill for the laughs!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 03:28:50 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: M . Bezzalar
Subject: You know, you can ask my girlfriend, I HATE this
Message:
I really, really hate it when people avoid your question by asking their own. I mean, what kind of discussion could we ever have, whoever you are? Am I to forget everything I asked just because you want to superimpose your own inquiry? Is that what your mother taught you was good communication?

Look, I find your question super interesting but really, just as a point of pride, if nothing else, I can't possibly abandon my own and follow you, can I? That's not how it's done, premie ji.

Now, why don't you answer mine first. We can do a bit of that and then a bit of yours. How's that sound?

By the way, who are you? Have you ever posted here before? How long have you been reading the forum? Did you know Mike? Tell us something.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 18:03:16 (GMT)
From: Yves
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Why do you hate it?
Message:
Why do you hate it when someone answer one of you questions with another question?

Tomorrow is friday night. I'm going to have pizza and beer with JFP and watch the Playboy channel on his new satellite connection. A guy's night home. If we were girls, we would watch THE SOUND OF MUSIC and have chocolate and tea. That's what you get from being confused. I ought to call Nate now.

Any message for him?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 10:04:14 (GMT)
From: Mili
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Knowledge IS the point, Jim
Message:
Try it again sometime. It's just great.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 22:38:21 (GMT)
From: Bill
Email: None
To: Mili
Subject: Milificent
Message:
Hi Mili,
Actually I have to disagree on that.
I would have had success bringing folks to 'knowledge' if the lord wasnt there with all his tremendous baggage.
HE still is right there in the way and it IS all about him.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 03:52:55 (GMT)
From: Susan
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: remember KK?
Message:
She came and told us a lot about her experiences as a PAM. Then mysterious premie posters started posting nasty rumours they had 'heard' about her, rumours that seemed to begin with the source of really sicko mahatma.

I think it is some sort of standard formula when a PAM leaves to spread vicious rumours about them that become premie mythology. Three off the top of my head are Dettmers, Mishler and KK.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 18:07:35 (GMT)
From: Yves
Email: None
To: Susan
Subject: Are we still on talking terms?
Message:
NT
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 19:03:24 (GMT)
From: Susan
Email: None
To: Yves
Subject: yes....
Message:
I did not like how you handled your issues with Michael at all, but GOD you make me laugh.

You really are funny, and it is hard not to like you. I hope you give some thought though to some of the ideas we discussed regarding fair and unfair tactics.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 14:53:44 (GMT)
From: la-ex
Email: None
To: Susan
Subject: remember KK?/where in the archives?
Message:
Susan-can you remember what time period KK posted in?
I'd like to check out the posts in the archives.

La-ex

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 17:05:17 (GMT)
From: Jean-Michel
Email: None
To: la-ex
Subject: They'll be in the best of forum page asap
Message:
when time permits .....

search the archives !!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 04:48:59 (GMT)
From: Ozzie Oi Oi Oi
Email: None
To: Susan
Subject: remember KK?
Message:
Noble thoughts Susan, but KK WAS an embezzeler. Fact. See if she denies it. Being a lawyer she 's probably too smart to stick her head up.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 05:12:33 (GMT)
From: Susan
Email: None
To: Ozzie Oi Oi Oi
Subject: they all were huh?
Message:
poor poor baby Rawat, living in that dilapitated shack while people steal from him, make FAQs without his permission, and no one understands the opportunity they have to serve him. So very sad, makes my tears well up with pity that the lord is subjected to this treatment. Not a leaf moves without his grace, but he is such a victim of this cruel world.

Well, at least he still has you.

Good help is getting harder and harder to find everyday.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 06:14:56 (GMT)
From: Crocodile Dundee
Email: Try the lie detector!
To: Susan
Subject: they all were bent as an old spoon?
Message:
Nah Susan , what I'm saying is that generally when you turn a rock over , out crawls a snake. The rest of the bullshit is your seventies spin on it.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 23:27:43 (GMT)
From: And On Anand Ji
Email: None
To: Crocodile Dundee
Subject: there is no spoon (nt)
Message:
matrix
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 16:59:19 (GMT)
From: Scott
Email: None
To: Crocodile Dundee
Subject: Yeah, PAM is to blame for everything...
Message:
Crock:

Nah Susan , what I'm saying is that generally when you turn a rock over , out crawls a snake.

Generally when you turn a rock over all that's there is the hole and the other side of the rock. Where do you live, anyway?

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 05:32:32 (GMT)
From: Good help is hard to find
Email: None
To: all
Subject: Rawat's future housestaff..our forum buds
Message:
As the mass exodus from the Maharaji cult continues into the 2000s...

SHP will take over as Rawat's valet, Bjorn applies for the nanny of the grandkids but SHP saves the day and CD gets the job instead, Mel Bourne left in disgust when Deputy Dog shat on the lawn one too many times while mowing and Prem asked Mel to mow and cook. Catweasel, he cleans the toilets, he is the only one who isn't paid minimum wage.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 04:01:59 (GMT)
From: bill
Email: None
To: Susan
Subject: yup
Message:
I do remember that. They did more than threaten.
But thier revelations did nothing to the respect I had for her.
She stood for truth and all the supposed smears were nothing
that bothered anyone on the forum.
Hopefully not KK.
She didnt seem to flinch.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index