Forum V: Archive
Compiled: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 14:38:15 (GMT)
From: Oct 21, 2000 To: Oct 29, 2000 Page: 4 Of: 5


Yo! Pick-up the phone. -:- Joan Apter II -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 13:55:29 (GMT)
__ Jim -:- My two cents -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 23:56:39 (GMT)
__ __ Yves -:- Your two pennies were inserted into my piggy bank -:- Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 14:43:23 (GMT)
__ __ __ Susan -:- I think he is participating despite you -:- Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 15:01:36 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Yves -:- I missed that one -:- Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 15:47:30 (GMT)
__ __ __ gerry -:- No wonder I like this guy... -:- Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 14:55:20 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Yves -:- I am touched by your declaration -:- Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 15:28:42 (GMT)
__ __ Katie -:- One clarification, Jim -:- Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 13:05:39 (GMT)
__ __ Susan -:- well said Jim (nt) -:- Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 03:38:35 (GMT)
__ __ __ Jim -:- Not 'REALLY well said, Jim'? (nt) -:- Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 03:41:46 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Susan -:- really really well said Jim! (nt) -:- Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 03:49:03 (GMT)
__ __ a0aji -:- My two cents -:- Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 00:50:27 (GMT)
__ __ __ jim -:- http://www.elanvital.org/faq_opposing_views.htm -:- Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 00:55:46 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ a0aji -:- http://www.elanvital.org/faq_opposing_views.htm -:- Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 01:32:14 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ janet -:- EV-truth among the lies--unintentionally!! -:- Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 09:27:47 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Susan -:- translation -:- Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 15:23:51 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ G -:- recruiting -:- Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 01:59:39 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ a0aji -:- Japter Two -:- Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 02:12:55 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Sorry, Joan, that's just not true -:- Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 03:23:09 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Nigel -:- Very good post, Jim... -:- Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 15:39:47 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Clarification -- (so goes from excellent to great) -:- Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 03:51:37 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Susan -:- great work Jim -:- Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 03:46:32 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- What's wrong with a simple 'excellent! (nt)' ? (nt -:- Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 03:48:40 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ a0aji -:- Excellent post, Jim (nt) -:- Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 03:42:42 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Aw shucks, it was nothing .... (nt) -:- Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 03:46:19 (GMT)
__ Katie -:- Yves, I think this is spamming or harassment -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 23:06:54 (GMT)
__ __ DeProGram Anand Ji -:- Yves, I think this is spamming or harassment -:- Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 10:08:58 (GMT)
__ __ gerry -:- I think you're nuts -:- Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 00:06:06 (GMT)
__ __ __ Yves -:- Katie's lucky. All I got was Obnoxious and weirdo -:- Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 17:15:37 (GMT)
__ __ __ Katie -:- great post title as usual, Ger - sheesh! -:- Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 03:44:03 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Jim -:- Will you two PLEASE stop fighting??! (nt) -:- Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 04:06:07 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- Watch it, Jim - you're next! (nt) -:- Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 12:47:39 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Katie -:- And, Gerry -:- Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 03:50:32 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- And, Gerry, again... -:- Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 12:50:00 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- actually Katie -:- Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 14:19:30 (GMT)
__ Joe -:- That wasn't Joan's song it's Elton John's (nt) -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 19:09:32 (GMT)
__ __ carol -:- Knew that, but the context was lover/premie nt -:- Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 06:20:21 (GMT)
__ __ a0aji -:- Jesus I was wondering when someone wld credit EJ -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 23:31:49 (GMT)
__ __ __ Joe -:- Thanks, I remember it from the EJ album... -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 23:45:05 (GMT)
__ Sir Dave -:- If I was Joan Apter (and FA please read) -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 19:03:34 (GMT)
__ __ Yves -:- Hey Omer Simpson are you totally out of touch? -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 21:00:34 (GMT)
__ __ Yves -:- How do you mean? -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 20:38:36 (GMT)
__ __ __ Sir Dave -:- How do you mean? -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 22:27:36 (GMT)
__ __ janet -:- thats not a threat--just a 'heads-up' favor! -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 19:29:27 (GMT)
__ __ __ Sir Dave -:- Not just that one post -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 19:55:43 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Yves -:- Thanks for the compliment -:- Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 13:31:42 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Cynthia -:- I agree 100% Sir Dave... -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 23:49:20 (GMT)
__ __ gerry -:- I must have a blind spot -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 19:15:34 (GMT)
__ __ __ Sir Dave -:- Mine eyes have seen -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 19:23:45 (GMT)
__ Yves -:- Stay tuned -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 14:22:55 (GMT)
__ __ Joe -:- Why? -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 19:42:32 (GMT)
__ __ __ a0aji -:- Why? -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 23:37:38 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Joe -:- Be careful what you ask for... -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 23:41:33 (GMT)
__ __ __ Rick -:- Why? -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 23:09:44 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Cynthia -:- ....Not with a BANG but a whimper.....(nt) -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 23:54:51 (GMT)
__ __ Scott T. -:- Stay tuned -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 17:31:05 (GMT)
__ __ __ a0aji -:- Stay tuned -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 23:17:14 (GMT)
__ __ AJW -:- Lighten up a bit Yves. -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 14:50:40 (GMT)
__ __ __ Carol -:- I agree.She was being sincere. Love to know ... -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 17:39:25 (GMT)
__ __ Susan -:- you are doing it again -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 14:33:45 (GMT)
__ __ __ Yves -:- Yep. That's the kind of guy I am. -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 18:14:17 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ janet -:- coerced confession is inadmissable -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 19:46:16 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Yves -:- This was posted below -:- Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 16:46:47 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Yves' away -:- Hold it right there. -:- Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 16:33:51 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Sir Dave -:- But I could be worse -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 19:19:56 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Yves -:- Please blur my partner's face -:- Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 16:39:54 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ janet -:- we lost our focus right here!! backbiting!! -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 19:53:56 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Hal -:- Crawl back into your hole Yves nt -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 18:17:37 (GMT)
__ __ __ Carol -:- Yes. And acronym PAM: means person around M? nt -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 17:41:12 (GMT)
__ __ __ gerry -:- quit naggin' the guy -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 14:50:37 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ carol -:- anyone can b responsible for moral content dufus -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 17:43:25 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Carol -:- Sorry to call you dufus, Gerry.Feeling catty pssss -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 17:54:13 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- That's OK, Carol, I've been called worse -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 18:02:16 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Carol -:- Cool, Gerry Are you coming this way again? -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 18:46:58 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Susan -:- I have a right to say what I think -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 15:02:02 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Yves -:- No you don't -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 20:12:48 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Susan -:- we both do ( have the right ) -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 21:13:42 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Yves -:- Praise the board -:- Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 14:57:30 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Susan -:- Gerry, you are very insulting and I am sick of it -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 15:04:44 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- I am equally sick of your tsk tsk tsking -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 15:17:06 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Carol -:- tsk tsk tsk tsk etc. Your interpretation! nt -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 17:46:16 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Nigel -:- I think there's a difference, Gerry -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 17:34:43 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- I think there's a difference, Gerry -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 18:02:36 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Hal -:- I think there's a difference, Gerry -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 18:23:46 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Hal -:- If I judge honchos for perpetrating -:- Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 07:15:13 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- Well you liked the Castaneda quote by Eric also -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 18:35:04 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Nigel -:- I think there's a difference, Gerry -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 18:22:43 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- Yo pick up the phone -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 18:33:40 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Carol -:- If so, nag on, Nigel! nt -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 17:47:36 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- He has a right to express his opinion, as much as -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 15:03:56 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Hal -:- He has a right to express his opinion, as much as -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 18:28:22 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- He has a right to express his opinion, as much as -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 17:33:15 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Nigel -:- Synchronicity, heh?! (nt) -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 17:36:34 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Synchronicity, heh?! (nt) -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 17:57:30 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Nigel -:- Perhaps it wasn't clear what I meant... -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 18:10:41 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Perhaps it wasn't clear what I meant... -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 19:29:53 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Nigel -:- Perhaps it wasn't clear what I meant... -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 19:46:35 (GMT)

Steven Quint -:- Bye -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 00:59:31 (GMT)
__ Q -:- Don't bother... -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 23:14:43 (GMT)
__ __ Selene -:- for once we agree on something -:- Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 17:35:06 (GMT)
__ cq -:- Why bother? Therapeutic is ex-premie.org's middle -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 19:25:53 (GMT)
__ __ Scott T. -:- Who's on first? -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 21:11:22 (GMT)
__ __ __ cq -:- Yeah, like Groucho Marx never said ... -:- Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 17:41:23 (GMT)
__ Sir Dave -:- Let it be bye for now -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 02:22:07 (GMT)
__ __ Katie -:- Let it be bye for now -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 03:18:51 (GMT)
__ Selene -:- Bye -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 01:34:18 (GMT)
__ Scott T. -:- Bye -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 01:15:31 (GMT)
__ Jim -:- Bye -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 01:11:21 (GMT)
__ __ Cynthia -:- Bye -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 17:06:38 (GMT)

DJURO -:- How are you? -:- Sun, Oct 22, 2000 at 21:29:13 (GMT)
__ a0aji -:- How are you? -:- Sun, Oct 22, 2000 at 22:05:49 (GMT)
__ __ DJURO -:- How are you? -:- Sun, Oct 22, 2000 at 22:17:08 (GMT)
__ __ __ Nigel -:- HERE'S how it all got started... -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 13:19:40 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ a0aji -:- HERE'S how it all got started... -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 13:42:28 (GMT)
__ __ __ Eric -:- Exhausted -:- Sun, Oct 22, 2000 at 23:25:33 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Jim -:- Avoiding the obvious MUST be tiring -:- Sun, Oct 22, 2000 at 23:29:24 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Eric -:- Hot on my tail -:- Sun, Oct 22, 2000 at 23:42:52 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Cynthia -:- zen thread above (nt):::)))) -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 00:53:24 (GMT)

cq -:- Is this a guilt trip? Or just plain ignorance? -:- Sun, Oct 22, 2000 at 17:19:44 (GMT)
__ Jim -:- Who's ignorance? -:- Sun, Oct 22, 2000 at 20:05:27 (GMT)
__ __ cq -:- 'trying to make you feel ...' WHAT is THAT??? -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 20:09:03 (GMT)
__ __ __ Jim -:- ring on your imaginary friends, Chris -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 20:28:01 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ cq -:- I've got it. You're a lawyer... everybody twist -:- Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 18:18:30 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ cq -:- Make you feel guilty, Jim? But why? -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 20:37:27 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ a0aji -:- Will you bicker someplace else, please, gentlemen? -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 23:08:51 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ cq -:- Prescribing content? Like you? -:- Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 17:35:03 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ a0aji -:- Prescribing content? Like you? -:- Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 18:47:42 (GMT)
__ Nigel -:- I actually disagree, Chris -:- Sun, Oct 22, 2000 at 18:22:05 (GMT)
__ __ cq -:- Taboo??? We're talking about air-time here, Nige -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 18:42:09 (GMT)
__ __ __ Jim -:- OK, Chris, you've expressed yourself -- done? -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 19:57:22 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ cq -:- OK, Jim, you've expressed yourself -- done? (nt) -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 20:10:49 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- If anyone's an idiot here, Chris ......... -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 20:16:13 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ cq -:- Ignored your reply? RELOAD, buddy, (nt) -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 20:19:09 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ cq -:- OK your 20 minutes is up. Gotta sign off now(nt) -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 20:33:59 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ cq -:- Make that 15 minutes (nt) -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 20:35:15 (GMT)
__ __ __ Nigel -:- Taboo??? We're talking about air-time here, Nige -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 19:09:55 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ cq -:- Hmmmmm ... getting to know you ... getting to -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 19:31:43 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ cq -:- ... it's all in the inference -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 19:37:55 (GMT)
__ __ Scott T. -:- Tone and Content -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 01:08:48 (GMT)
__ __ __ a0aji -:- Tone and Content -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 06:14:44 (GMT)
__ __ Nigel -:- For example... -:- Sun, Oct 22, 2000 at 19:03:15 (GMT)
__ __ __ Selene -:- good example -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 02:14:05 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ gerry -:- LOL The line of the day... -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 02:21:26 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Selene -:- it's real life experience -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 02:25:12 (GMT)
__ gerry -:- I partially agree, Chris -:- Sun, Oct 22, 2000 at 17:37:34 (GMT)
__ __ cq -:- Drawing the line? depends on mutual consent ... -:- Sun, Oct 22, 2000 at 17:56:59 (GMT)
__ __ __ gerry -:- Drawing the line? depends on mutual consent ... -:- Sun, Oct 22, 2000 at 18:05:14 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Bin Liner -:- Drawing the line? depends on mutual consent ... -:- Sun, Oct 22, 2000 at 21:01:23 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- My problem with the catholic church... -:- Sun, Oct 22, 2000 at 21:05:23 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ HAA -:- Hahahahahahahahhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaa......!!! -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 19:43:46 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Selene -:- agreed -:- Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 03:13:38 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Eric -:- Respect -:- Sun, Oct 22, 2000 at 19:50:25 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ cq -:- Respect??? 'when all existence is seen as' WHAT??? -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 20:16:48 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Carol -:- We are, after all, only ex-changing opinions -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 18:26:02 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Respect -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 01:31:56 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Why? -:- Sun, Oct 22, 2000 at 20:10:57 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Eric -:- Why? -:- Sun, Oct 22, 2000 at 20:40:31 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Why? -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 01:50:16 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Nigel -:- Great line Scott: 'To understand..' -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 13:06:38 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Bin Liner -:- Why Not. -:- Sun, Oct 22, 2000 at 22:52:19 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- Reasons people leave the cult -:- Sun, Oct 22, 2000 at 21:02:57 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Carol -:- Resonsibility again -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 19:08:18 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- My you can help me here, Carol -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 19:27:54 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Carol -:- My you can help me here, Carol -:- Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 05:54:30 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- You butchered it all up -:- Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 15:07:26 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ carol -:- Reasonability, respond-ability -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 19:18:28 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- WWhat in the world... -:- Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 19:34:05 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Why? -:- Sun, Oct 22, 2000 at 20:59:24 (GMT)


Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 13:55:29 (GMT)
From: Yo! Pick-up the phone.
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Joan Apter II
Message:
Latest message to Joan:

Please read what's being discussed about you in Ex-Premies.org forum and in the archives - inactive index - last friday. This will avoid my sending you a copy everytime it is updated.

Just this once, here are the latest posts:

good idea. the letter you composed to hersounds a bit vague, and ill- thought- out. i suggest we all write letters of similar nature to joan, in the most professional, sincere style we can muster. Jim is especially good--if he can keep his schoolyard digressions to profanity when aroused, out of it-. one letter from one voice won't do it. remember michael dettmer's journey with us, and his evolution upon reflection, over time.
i think I, myself, would focus on wanting to know what she herself witnessed, and how she really felt when it happened. i think our strong point in approaching any once-upon-a-time premie, is to help them get in touch with what their real inner reactions were, to what they lived thru, and were subjected to, and that, contrasted with what they told themsleves, or what they tried to be, outwardly.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Her song, and satsang that followed, at my first program (Portland Oregon June 29, 1972) pulled me in:
The words I have to say,
May well be simple, but they're true
Until you give your love,
There's nothing more that we can do.

Love is the opening door.
Love is what we came here for.
No One can offer you more.
Do you know what I mean?
Have your eyes really seen?

They say it's very hard
To leave behind the life we knew
But there's no other way,
And now it's really up to you...

Chorus
Does some one know that she is not still loving M? She was a model Gopi.
---------------------------------------------------------

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 23:56:39 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Yo! Pick-up the phone.
Subject: My two cents
Message:
Yves,

This part here:

She also was a major close devotee and may, this is a question, have been an accomplice with criminals, rapists, pedophiles and a criminal organization.

is bullshit. Give me a break, will you? 'Criminal Organization'? What we had was no more nor less than a fuzzy, wuzzy new-age, hindu personality cult. Yes, some of the principles did some bad things but that wasn't what this thing was all about, rape, criminality or pedophilia. Those were weird, abherrant acts that a few overly-trusted, scoundrel 'holy men' in our make-believe world got away with. What matters most about that is that 1) Maharaji knew but didn't do anything or, if he did it wasn't enough; and 2) their depravity puts the lie to their esteemed 'holiness' and, thus indirectly, to Maharaji's ability to judge people, let alone his supposedly all-knowing and all-powerful nature.

You said a while ago that you just like to stir shit up, even if it's not true, necessarily. You want to ruffle feathers and that's not necessary a delicate or precise procedure.

I think that's a really bad way to proceed. No matter what anyone says about the forum or individual posters, we do have our credibility to consider. Trying to depict the cult as a criminal organization or a hotbed of sexual predators is inaccurate and makes us all look foolish. Read Monkey on a Stick, the expose about the Hare Krishnas. Read the part about the Krishna school and kindergarten where not one, but dozens of children, if not more, were systematically abused over months, sometimes years. Now THERE is an example of institutionalized sexual abuse. Our cult had nothing of the sort. Most importantly, there is nothing about Jagdeo, Travinand, Tejeshwarand or any other mahatma that leads to Joan's door. It's unseemly and irresponsible to even insinuate otherwise.

On the other hand, I disagree with Katie that you should simply leave Joan alone if you don't want to. I DO think that she does have something to answer for. I think that, to the extent that we played this game, we're all accountable to each other to help sort it out and to stop the guru from carrying on as best we can. Joan WAS indeed one big, happy cheerleader for the guru. Like with Dettmers, many of us may have wanted to walk in her shoes but, fact is, they were HER shoes and she got to play the big Joan Apter role.

So is it immoral to bug her to get off her high horse and deal with her past -- our past -- honestly? No, I don't think so. When I talked with her, Joan was still very pro-Maharaji. Well, I think she has an obligation to get on the record and honestly opine about such things as the EV FAQ ('He never said he was God'). Joan spent far too much time telling us all otherwise to be able to justify telling me that she has nothing to regret simplicitur, that we should just get on with our lives, avoid victim consciousness, etc. No, that's not right. She owes more.

But, really, Yves, what can you do but prod her conscience a bit? Anything more than that is counterproductive in terms of appearances and may even approach illegality at some point.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 14:43:23 (GMT)
From: Yves
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Your two pennies were inserted into my piggy bank
Message:
You must know by now I don't completely agree with your point of view, but I assume you know better. Take it as a compliment. It may be the best one you'll get outta me. A few points while I have your attention.

You can appreciate there are school of thoughts here. Your arguments represent what I'd call the 'Civil' school. It could be argued this is very nice but useless unless you expect to run for office. The other one, I do argue stirred results (MD participation to forum) which achieves more than years of reporting premies silly devotional vegetables-like poems. Altough I wouldn't want my mother to fully understand how obnoxious I may become when let loose (two 'O's), I take some pride in having something to do with it. I thought having other PAM take a clear position in this may be interesting. I know the process isn't very popular around here but the result seem to suit most everyone.

As for the idea of 'result', I'd like to share ideas. What do most of us agree the goal of this forum is. I don't get much of a kick out of making fun of premies poems and arguing amongst ourselves Rawat is an abuser who must be stopped. My idea is speech is the most powerful tool to take this empire down and I intend to take it down brick by brick until nothing is left, until Rawat-in-his-boat reminds us of Hubbard-in-his-boat. I agree I sometimes use abusive language when I figure politeness won't achieve the goal. Shaking the tree and having some so-called 'neutral' individual take a clear and definite stand is something you and I seem to disagree upon. Another one of my favorite activities is to say and post nasty stuff about Fatrat knowing this shakes mental dispositions of the no-class worm. Anything goes from educated rumors he outdrinks Boris Eltsin to rock-solid testimonies he is a lousy-fuck who got a tall blond initiator trainee laugh all the way home.

Another thing. We agree EV hasn't yet been legally declared a criminal organization. I argue some of the activities the organization is responsible for may not stand in court as perfectly legal let alone moral and ethical. Based on that, I admit I streched it a little hopīng to catch attention and stir reaction. I'll do my best to behave and become as dull and predictable as the upcoming canadian election. Slap my knuckles anytime it becomes interesting.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 15:01:36 (GMT)
From: Susan
Email: None
To: Yves
Subject: I think he is participating despite you
Message:
The other one, I do argue stirred results (MD participation to forum) which achieves more than years of reporting premies silly devotional vegetables-like poems

I knew, as soon as you started posting the threats to Michael, if he ever DID start posting you were going to pat yourself on the back and say see it worked.

I find it distasteful for us to fall all over ourselves taking credit for Michael posting. Michael deserves the credit. He is the one putting his name out there and taking the risks. However, the slam at Jim really is infuriating to me Yves because I can assure you no one had more to do with Michael posting than Jim other than Michael himself. Well, ultimately Rawat himself has an awful lot to do with it. Jim asked hard questions but he used fair tactics. There really is a difference. The reason I was most upset by your posts is I thought Michael would likely never post again because of them. I do not think you were in any way instrumental in getting him to post.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 15:47:30 (GMT)
From: Yves
Email: None
To: Susan
Subject: I missed that one
Message:
I don't like pretentious individuals and certainly wouldn't like anyone to catch me being so. Thanks for your call to humility. I didn't want to take credit though but illustrate how action could be more efficient than the Inner game of tennis. I still think 'asking' is more powerfull than 'hoping' JA would take a stand either way. As far as asking, there are ways of asking and I think a wishy way of asking is less powerful than a 'take-it-or-leave-it' way. Being a delicate and sensitive individual who don't want to stir antagonism against myself, I won't insist and do my best to try to leave the issue to the group. Wish me luck.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 14:55:20 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Yves
Subject: No wonder I like this guy...
Message:

I FEEL THE SAME FUCKING WAY !!!

If I may be allowed a metaphor here (or an anology or whatever the hell,)

I'd rather throw molotov cocktails than sit at the negotiating table anyday !!!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 15:28:42 (GMT)
From: Yves
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: I am touched by your declaration
Message:
And I hope FA understood you menat Molotov Cocktail as a drink or as a metaphor.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 13:05:39 (GMT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: One clarification, Jim
Message:
I DIDN'T suggest to Yves that he 'just leave Joan alone'. I said that if he was sending her unwanted e-mails or making repeated phone calls, he could get in trouble for spamming or harassing her. (And if he is presenting himself as a representative of ex-premie.org in ANY way - well, you can probably guess how I feel about THAT.)

I would suggest, though, that if Joan is writing stuff for the EV site, and allowing it to be displayed along with their FAQ, then she probably has no interest in answering questions from ex-premies.

Incidentally, I read 'Monkey on a Stick' too, and you are right about the comparison between the Krishna cult and DLM/EV. That book is scary.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 03:38:35 (GMT)
From: Susan
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: well said Jim (nt)
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 03:41:46 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Susan
Subject: Not 'REALLY well said, Jim'? (nt)
Message:
gggggg
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 03:49:03 (GMT)
From: Susan
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: really really well said Jim! (nt)
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 00:50:27 (GMT)
From: a0aji
Email: and_on_anand@yahoo.com
To: Jim
Subject: My two cents
Message:
Jim what is the exact URL for this EV 'FAQ' please? tia
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 00:55:46 (GMT)
From: jim
Email: None
To: a0aji
Subject: http://www.elanvital.org/faq_opposing_views.htm
Message:
(nt)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 01:32:14 (GMT)
From: a0aji
Email: None
To: jim
Subject: http://www.elanvital.org/faq_opposing_views.htm
Message:
Jim wrote:

http://www.elanvital.org/faq_opposing_views.htm

Thanks Jim!

I had no idea EV had a web site. I take it they haven't been on the web all that long. I wonder if their presence online was in any way forced by ours. Seems like a dumb move for them.

Iirc, And It Is Divine was published under a new name: Elan Vital (the impulse of life). This was when DLM was still known as DLM.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 09:27:47 (GMT)
From: janet
Email: None
To: a0aji
Subject: EV-truth among the lies--unintentionally!!
Message:
did anyone read this and catch the unconscious slip-up that destroys their whole careful attempt to separate MJ from his real situation??

let me quote it. you find the glaring fuckup:“He does not own the private plane which he usually pilots himself to the many remote destinations to which he travels worldwide. This is leased from a private company and Maharaji does not charge a fee for piloting the plane.”ok. now with underscoring:
He does not own the private plane which he usually pilots himself to the many remote destinations to which he travels worldwide. This is leased from a private company and Maharaji does not charge a fee for piloting the plane..did you catch it?who does not own it?who does not charge for it?what?!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 15:23:51 (GMT)
From: Susan
Email: None
To: janet
Subject: translation
Message:
He isn't charging them for his piloting skills. Usually you pay a pilot. Rawat, in his endless mercy and generosity, flies himself gratis on these jets and is so generous as to not ask for compensation for the horrible toil of piloting the jet.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 01:59:39 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: a0aji
Subject: recruiting
Message:
On that page, Elan Vital claims 'Elan Vital does not actively engage in the recruiting of members', yet they still have meetings where 'propagation' is the main topic.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 02:12:55 (GMT)
From: a0aji
Email: None
To: ne1
Subject: Japter Two
Message:
http://www.elanvital.org/perspectives_other.htm#Joan_Apter

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it would seem that Joan Apter has lent her words to the current Elan Vital effort.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 03:23:09 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: a0aji
Subject: Sorry, Joan, that's just not true
Message:
When I talk about Maharaji and the gift of Knowledge that he gave me, I always use the analogy of my treasured pearl necklace, each pearl being a person who has brought huge value to my life. These are the teachers, mentors and inspirations who have helped me identify important areas of my life that were still unexplored. When I meet these people, something clicks. Maharaji is a rare Tahitian pearl on that necklace of great gifts in my life.

Fuck you, Ms. Apter. So Maharaji's just another pearl around your throat, right next to your grade four teacher and your aunt Geraldine? Maybe it's time someone sent you some fo your old satsang. And to think I, along with so many other gullible cult wonks, thought you had some integrity to go along with your snippy 'spirit'.

Here's how you put it in Who is Guru Maharaj Ji?:

This is a testimony. But really, without exaggerating, it is a scripture, for I have been graced and the Living Lord has found me, and so my experiences with Guru Maharaj Ji are the eternal experiences written by every soul in the past and will be written by every soul in the future who meets the embodimetn of truth, pure consciousness, and bliss, receives his Knowledge, and lives under his universal shelter.

I met Maharaji at the end of 1969. I was a hippie wanderer, traveling overland to India. I had a keen awareness of 'something missing', but would not have been able to tell you what was missing. I was not searching for a spiritual master or a technique of meditation. It was not until I met Maharaji and heard him speak that I began to feel pieces of the puzzle fall into place. It all started when I heard him address his huge audience as 'dear seekers of truth.'

What a fucking liar! Joan's 'story' in WIGM? doesn't read like this at all. She was a fast, burning-out hippie traveller who had torqued her 'spiritual seeking' up to an obnoxious level of self-inflicted angst:

I had been walking from ashram to ashram, weeping quite a lot, reading scriptures and mourning.

You know, the typical sixties Indian vacation. Sorry I was a bit young. It really sounds like a lot of fun, doesn't it?

Anyway, Apter met some 'young sadhu'. He saw her incence, candles, flowe and Bible and then he saw her 'collapse and cry for a long time' about her deep longing for truth, blah, blah, blah. So the guy takes out a picture of a 'very young boy and said, 'Joan, if you want practical knowledge of God, you'd better go to Dehra Dun.''

This 'shocked [Joan] awake' as just the week before she'd met two English people in a restaurant in Afghanistan (you know the place), who'd also told her about a 12 year-old boy who'd revealed the Name of God and divine light to them. Yep, you guess it -- Dehra Dun!

Then, eight months later, she met a SWAMI this time. And, you know, he was 'full of joy.' And, yes, that's right:

One day he told me that I would not find what I wanted living in a cave, that I should go to Dehra Dun. I asked why. He just said that I should go there.

I pause to wonder, does this guy get on your necklace too, Joan? How about the other one?

It gets better. Joan goes back to ehr cave, falls very ill, unable to move even. Finally the villagers put her on a bus to ...no, NOT Dehra Dun, Delhi. Wait.

After three days in the hospital, Joan turns down an invitation to go back to Afghanistan (what a surprise!):

It was then I computed everything and decided to head for Dehra Dun. There was something.

But first she stops back in to the Almora district, the Holy India tourist zone, the 'India we always read about and imagine, the wise old men, the constant chillum smoking around the sacred fire' ..... blah, blah, blah. She meets up with the first sadhu again. She learns that he is, in fact, a mahatma of Guru Maharaj Ji:

an apostle who has been given the command to impart this Knowledge of light and Name to sincere aspirants who request it. Guru Maharaj Ji has over 2,000 mahatmas all over the world who are showing by his Grace the Light of God to millions of people.

Mahatma Ji wrote her a letter of introduction to the Hamster which, she claims, she:

only recently found out from the Holy Mother read 'This girl will die without Knowledge'

and put her on a bus, yes, to Dehra Dun.

She gets to his house, overwhelmed by the splendour and 'huddled on the front lawn, fearing. The Hamster drives up, gets out of the car, everyone falls to the ground prostrating. She's freaked out, they give her some tea. She's feeling 'totally insecure.'

Finally, Guru Maharaj Ji came out to see me. 'He asked, 'What do you want?' I wept for twenty minutes, and he very gently said, OK, OK, you can go to your room upstairs, you can go upstairs now.'

For the next month Maharaji 'gave [her] so much love' and:

His divine brother, /shri Bal Bhagwan Ji, who is the incarnation of divine intelligence, and much more, [possible pearl material, perhaps?] spoke to me every evening on the sacred science of the soul. He answered every question on my mind, and my heart began to open up. Hoyl Mother and the divine brothers of Guru Maharaj Ji gave me so much love that I knew only one thing, that I had found my destination, and that I wanted only to be withthem forever.

Guru Maharaj Ji is pure and perfect. We can experience this purity and this perfection only from the divine manifestation of the soul, the Perfect Master. When I understood that Knowledge was the way that I could be constantly connected to him, internally and externally, I begged for Knowledge. And he gave me that entracne into the kingdom of heaven.

Maharaji spoke to the importance of having a practical connection to a part of myself that is connected to…… whatever I call that life-force that is keeping me alive. His message shocked me because it was so different. This was not an intellectual pursuit. This was not a lifestyle. This was not an external practice, like rosaries or mantras. This was an offer to learn the 'how to' of practicing an inner focus on a daily basis.

The other thing that fit me perfectly about Maharaji's message was that he was not just offering a 'how to' and then leaving me on my own. I definitely needed support to be able to shift from a purely external focus to a more balanced menu, which included internal nourishment. Maharaji helped me see things differently, and opened up new possibilities in my life. I loved spending time with him, my heart bursting with the joy of what I was discovering!

I wouldn't call myself a disciplined person. I am an emotional person; more comfortable following my heart than making an action plan to make my dreams come true. This is another reason a competent teacher is such a treasure in my life. He reminds me where the rubber meets the road. If I really want a life where I feel a connection to something that I can always count on, then it is up to me to organize my life accordingly.

I call the time I practice Knowledge my 'quiet time.' It's the necessary break-time in my life that is increasingly filled with places to go, people to see, and things to do. I feel sincerely fortunate that Maharaji has offered me a method to find that quiet place, one that works for me.

I wouldn't say it's easy to practice Knowledge. It's daunting to be aware of the motor mouth of the mind. But it is simple. Even I can do it. The rewards? Maybe just that little inch of separation between my worries and me, which makes a huge difference in my life!

I'm sorry, this offends me. This woman has lost her moral compass just when she could use it to help herself and a whole lot of other people out of the forest. If only she'd tell the truth to herself and others she'd SEE the truth. Instead, it's all a pack of lies. AS IF she wasn't 'searching for a spiritual master or technique of mediation.' AS IF 'it all started when she heard him address an audience...' The fact is, Joan was strung so high on bullshit hippie expectations, she was signed, sealed and delivered -- quite literally -- before she ever heard the Hamster open his mouth.

Small details? Not to me. Not when you consider how important she was as a role model, a mentor, why, a pearl, you know?
Okay, maybe it's wrong to harangue her. Sure, that's uncivil. But don't tell me that she isn't immoral cause she is.

Necklace of pearls, my ass!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 15:39:47 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: fitzroy@liverpool.ac.uk
To: Jim
Subject: Very good post, Jim...
Message:
No make that very, very good. Might have been 'great', but there's that typo where you wrote 'Hoyl Mother'. Kinda took the shine off it somehow...;)

(Makes me imagine an Irish premie going 'Hoyl Mataji, full of Groyce!)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 03:51:37 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Clarification -- (so goes from excellent to great)
Message:
Sorry the post was a bit confusing. The bold text is from her entry in Who is Guru Maharaj Ji?. The italicized is from her entry on EV's site.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 03:46:32 (GMT)
From: Susan
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: great work Jim
Message:
Great analysis and I think very fair criticism.

I find this sort of revisionism very revolting as I think most ex's do.

That looks like it took some work to write up thanks for doing it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 03:48:40 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Susan
Subject: What's wrong with a simple 'excellent! (nt)' ? (nt
Message:
ffffffff
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 03:42:42 (GMT)
From: a0aji
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Excellent post, Jim (nt)
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 03:46:19 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: a0aji
Subject: Aw shucks, it was nothing .... (nt)
Message:
dddddd
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 23:06:54 (GMT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Yo! Pick-up the phone.
Subject: Yves, I think this is spamming or harassment
Message:
Hi Yves -
It's not completely clear from your post, but I gather that you are sending Joan Apter e-mails like this? If you keep sending her repeated, un-requested e-mails, this is spamming - and she can probably get you kicked off your ISP, for good reason. Depending on what you have said in these e-mails, you might have even crossed the line into harassment or internet stalking, which is a serious offense.

If I was getting repeated e-mails like this (but from a pro-M standpoint) from a male premie, I would be angry and apprehensive, and I would try and take whatever action I could to protect myself against the person. I'd probably get just as angry if it was a woman sending them, but it wouldn't be as scary (maybe this is unwarranted, but I'm just telling you how I feel.)

Anyway, I hope you won't keep e-mailing her - if that is what you are doing.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 10:08:58 (GMT)
From: DeProGram Anand Ji
Email: not given
To: everyone
Subject: Yves, I think this is spamming or harassment
Message:
It is harassment if she specifically asks you not to e-mail her anymore.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 00:06:06 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: I think you're nuts
Message:
Latest message to Joan:
Please read what's being discussed about you in Ex-Premies.org forum and in the archives - inactive index - last friday. This will avoid my sending you a copy everytime it is updated.

Just this once, here are the latest posts:

Then he copied a post about her.

This hardly constitues spamming or harrassment. And he said JUST THIS ONCE

What part of that is unclear?

Looks more like a slight prod to me but then I'm not responsible for all the world's ills...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 17:15:37 (GMT)
From: Yves
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: Katie's lucky. All I got was Obnoxious and weirdo
Message:
May I get some of this for my collection? Please.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 03:44:03 (GMT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: great post title as usual, Ger - sheesh!
Message:
I guess Brian gets so many unwanted e-mails from premies that it's warped my brain. Give me a break. I SAID I was unclear about what he was DOING - it was hard to tell from that post. Obviously you can read his mind better than I can. However, from the sentence 'This will avoid my sending you a copy everytime it is updated.', it sounded like he was e-mailing her the posts from the thread. Yes, sending repeated unwanted e-mails IS spamming! And too much of it is harassment. Double sheesh!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 04:06:07 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Will you two PLEASE stop fighting??! (nt)
Message:
gggggggg
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 12:47:39 (GMT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Watch it, Jim - you're next! (nt)
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 03:50:32 (GMT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Gerry
Subject: And, Gerry
Message:
THIS is a cheap shot: then I'm not responsible for all the world's ills.... Remind me never to tell you anything privately that I don't want all over this or any other forum.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 12:50:00 (GMT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Gerry
Subject: And, Gerry, again...
Message:
Gerry, I think I probably over-reacted in that last message. After reading your messages to Susan et al., it seems like you were talking about a general attitude that you don't like, rather than my personal 'survivor syndrome', which I have discussed with you privately. If this is the case, I apologize.

Take care,
Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 14:19:30 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: actually Katie
Message:
I don't remember any mention of 'survivor syndrome' in email or on the forum. I do remember your explaining a similiar thing right here on the forum. One thing I have going for me here-and perhaps the only thing--is I don't divulge confidential information--Runamok an exception, of course.

Amazing how our world views can be so diametrically different. I still like and respect you though. In fact I like most everyone here, even if I argue with them. I don't expect reciprocity.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 19:09:32 (GMT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Yo! Pick-up the phone.
Subject: That wasn't Joan's song it's Elton John's (nt)
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 06:20:21 (GMT)
From: carol
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Knew that, but the context was lover/premie nt
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 23:31:49 (GMT)
From: a0aji
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Jesus I was wondering when someone wld credit EJ
Message:
I think the woman's (man's?) name was Leslie Duncan (I remembered it as 'Sandy something' -- ha!) who wrote it, and it was published on an Elton John album entitled 'Tumbleweed Connection'.

Song is 'Love Song' by Leslie Duncan (EJ vocals).

http://adelaida.net/music/texts/johne70t.html

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 23:45:05 (GMT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: a0aji
Subject: Thanks, I remember it from the EJ album...
Message:
But I didn't know Elton/Bernie didn't also write it.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 19:03:34 (GMT)
From: Sir Dave
Email: None
To: Yo! Pick-up the phone.
Subject: If I was Joan Apter (and FA please read)
Message:
If I was Joan Apter I'd tell you to take a long walk off a short pier. Nobody likes to be threatened and that is what you are doing here. You are threatening Joan Apter.

I think perhaps the forum admin should delete your posts since threats are not allowed here.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 21:00:34 (GMT)
From: Yves
Email: None
To: Sir Dave
Subject: Hey Omer Simpson are you totally out of touch?
Message:
I read it all once more and am still trying to design the proper insult that would express my utter disgust with you previous post. Omer Simpson is all I could come-up with. I am sorry. Where did you read an explicit or an implicit threat you dim-witted, snail-eating, turkish-toilet-user wearing color underwear? (how was that?)

Your apologies were accepted as well as your promise never to do it again.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 20:38:36 (GMT)
From: Yves
Email: None
To: Sir Dave
Subject: How do you mean?
Message:
I just reproduced two messages from the previously archived page. Nothing I wrote myself. Ghee. No wonder I got to become paranoid. Ghee. This is weirder than myself. I didn't do nothing wrong amd am trying my best to act normal. Please acknowledge my effort. Ghee. Please Micheal Dettmers, help me. Ghee. Jesus Murphy.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 22:27:36 (GMT)
From: Sir Dave
Email: None
To: Yves
Subject: How do you mean?
Message:
You could clarify butter than that, Yves. I've never eaten a snail in my life, that's Jean-Michel's department. I've never seen the Simpsons for more than 30 seconds so I don't know who Omer Simpson is. The rest of the insults are undoubtedly true and therefore, no insult.

I've been in touch with the Dominatrix from Hell and she has put the video onto CD for me to upload snippets to my new website - The Truth about Yves.

They call you weird but they used to call me mad. That was before I invented condoms for giraffes.

But what's the interest in Joan Apter? Do you fancy her or something?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 19:29:27 (GMT)
From: janet
Email: None
To: Sir Dave
Subject: thats not a threat--just a 'heads-up' favor!
Message:
i sent one like to to Hilly Zeitlin when his name popped up on the board. Most folks do appreciate being signaled if their names have turned up in some way the public might read. it gives them a valid chance to see it and respond in time, if they want to. where did you get the threat from?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 19:55:43 (GMT)
From: Sir Dave
Email: None
To: janet
Subject: Not just that one post
Message:
I was refering to Yves posts to and on the subject of Joan Apter, particularly the ones in this thread (there is another one below titled 'Stay tuned'.

This is harrassment, in my book, with veiled threats of continued harrassment in future. I find it distastful and totally unnecessary. I also found Yves threats to Mike Dettmers to be equally obnoxious. I think some people will agree with me here.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 13:31:42 (GMT)
From: Yves
Email: None
To: Sir Dave
Subject: Thanks for the compliment
Message:
'Obnoxious' is my favorite word. Right next to 'weirdo'. Keep them coming you Kermitt kissing miss Piggy. On the other hand, 'I think people will agree with me' is as valid an argument as 'The devil made me do it' and 'That's what god wants me to do'. Since we are at it I may argue 'My mother said you're wrong.' Beside you are a dislexic-agnostic who hasn't yet decieded whether or not 'Dog' exists.

By the way, I think you imagined things that are not in my previous post based on things I didn't write in other previous posts. This is called 'hallucinations' and it could happen to perfectly sane, altough weird and obnoxious individuals as myself.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 23:49:20 (GMT)
From: Cynthia
Email: None
To: Sir Dave
Subject: I agree 100% Sir Dave...
Message:
As Katie said, if Yves has been emailing Joan Apter it could be a very serious offense, and definitely not what this forum is about, as far as I can see.

I've been wanting to start a thread about hierarchies in the cult, but I can't tonight. I think it's a topic we need to discuss. Maybe tomorrow, or whoever wants to, start the thread. The hierarchies within communities, ashrams, at DECA, etc., it goes on an on. The closer one gets to m physically the dynamics change dramatically. The privileges change; the intensity and stress levels increase, the sense of entitlement emerges, and much, much, more. I think it might be a productive topic here, especially now that Michael Dettmers has been so forthright recently.

If I were Joan Apter and receiving such emails, I would call authories. It's harrassment. Everyone has a right to their own pace in dealing with exiting the cult (if that's the case with her), and it's not anyone's place to dictate, especially through threats, when and how that should come about.

Also, I'm getting pretty tired of the Joan Apter threads, too. I haven't participated and I believe she should be left alone.

Thank you for your posts here, Sir Dave and Katie, too

Best,
Cynthia

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 19:15:34 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Sir Dave
Subject: I must have a blind spot
Message:
I just don't see the threat. Care to point it out?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 19:23:45 (GMT)
From: Sir Dave
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: Mine eyes have seen
Message:
The threat is the implied threat of continued harrassment of Joan Apter by Yves unless she becomes a singing canary. That is obvious.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 14:22:55 (GMT)
From: Yves
Email: None
To: Yo! Pick-up the phone.
Subject: Stay tuned
Message:
Joan - for I think she is may be an intelligent person - did - or will soon - understand Fatrat is bound to be back into the public limelight. When he does, anything may happen and every news organization will visit the forum's archives and be linked to her email where she may be questionned. When this happen, she must ask herself wether she would prefer to be labeled as a pro-mie linked to a questionable (and, who knows, criminal) organization or as someone who cooperated with cult-critics.

Joan acted for years as - among other things - a crowd-stirrer who promoted the idea Fatrat was divine. She also was a major close devotee and may, this is a question, have been an accomplice with criminals, rapists, pedophiles and a criminal organization.

I'd like to know where she stands now on the matter.

May lawyers, baristers, esquirers and legal counsels to anyone concerned take note 'Fatrat' is a fictional character. Any link to real individual or/and organization isn't made here.

May Charles Cameron take note it is only a matter of time before he is held accountable for some 'Non-fiction' book he wrote.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 19:42:32 (GMT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Yves
Subject: Why?
Message:
Joan - for I think she is may be an intelligent person - did - or will soon - understand Fatrat is bound to be back into the public limelight.

Intelligence, or lack thereof, has nothing to do with it. Both smart and dimwitted people are in and out of the Maharaji cult.

When he does, anything may happen and every news organization will visit the forum's archives and be linked to her email where she may be questionned. When this happen, she must ask herself wether she would prefer to be labeled as a pro-mie linked to a questionable (and, who knows, criminal) organization or as someone who cooperated with cult-critics.

Why? The fact is, hardly anybody has even heard of Maharaji, and those who have just remember him as that flash-in-the-pan child-guru, now relic, from the 70s. I would be surprised if even ONE news organization would even be interested in Maharaji, or even know who he is/was, let alone 'every' news organization.

As to what Joan thinks about Maharaji and his cult, that's up to her.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 23:37:38 (GMT)
From: a0aji
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Why?
Message:
Why? The fact is, hardly anybody has even heard of Maharaji, and those who have just remember him as that flash-in-the-pan child-guru, now relic, from the 70s. I would be surprised if even ONE news organization would even be interested in Maharaji, or even know who he is/was, let alone 'every' news organization.

As to what Joan thinks about Maharaji and his cult, that's up to her.

I wish someone knew how to interest the media in this web site.

At least, I think I wish that. :)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 23:41:33 (GMT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: a0aji
Subject: Be careful what you ask for...
Message:
At least with Maharaji being as obscure has-been, more interested in holding on to his wealth than garnering new followers, there are hardly any aspirants -- hardly any new people getting involved with his cult. But if there was publicity, it would turn a lot of people off, but might also give him some new recruits. It is amazing how gullible people can be, and as they say, there is not such thing as bad publicity.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 23:09:44 (GMT)
From: Rick
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Why?
Message:
I agree with you completely. I think at one time, maharaji was of interest to the news media but at that time they couldn't get much information. If he had continued to garner followers at the rate he was going in the mid-seventies, it might be a different story.

But now it's really a has-been cult with watered-down features. There isn't enough allure for the weak and weary, much less a bored media audience with a short attention span.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 23:54:51 (GMT)
From: Cynthia
Email: None
To: All
Subject: ....Not with a BANG but a whimper.....(nt)
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 17:31:05 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Yves
Subject: Stay tuned
Message:
Yves:

This strikes me as a strategy that could have a very unpleasant backlash. Stop it. We have a significant net presence and these people will contact is if they want to contribute. A politely worded letter, or snailmail, would be appropriate but anything more seems counterproductive. The worst scenario would be to come across as a bunch of flakes with no coherent strategy or agenda who want to insinuate ourselves into other's lives. You're very entertaining, but please back off.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 23:17:14 (GMT)
From: a0aji
Email: and_on_anand@yahoo.com
To: Scott T.
Subject: Stay tuned
Message:
Agree. Harassment (which is what this is) is never appropriate. I don't get the particular fixation on Joan Apter bit, either -- wtf is up with that?

Sounds personal.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 14:50:40 (GMT)
From: AJW
Email: None
To: Yves
Subject: Lighten up a bit Yves.
Message:
Hi Yves,

If someone is brainwashed, and becomes a member of a cult, and starts doing all the things that cult members do, I don't really think it's fair to blame them as individuals for their cultish behaviour.

We all did and said stupid things when we were following the Lard. It makes me cringe to think of some of the things I said to people to get them to 'dedicate', ''surrender'', or even join the cult. I'd hate to think I was personally responsible for it all. All you can do is admit you made mistakes, apologise and try and make amends.

I don't think it helps anybody to continually attack individuals and hold them personally responsible.

We all started to follow Maharaji with the best of motives and intentions. It turned sour when we realised he wasn't who we'd all thought he was.

Maybe Joan is thinking about quitting the cult too, but messages here attacking her won't encourage to come on the Forum for support when she finally takes the long walk.

Lighten up a bit Yves.

Anth Ex-rabble-rouser-for-the-Lord

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 17:39:25 (GMT)
From: Carol
Email: None
To: AJW
Subject: I agree.She was being sincere. Love to know ...
Message:
what she feels about it all now.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 14:33:45 (GMT)
From: Susan
Email: None
To: Yves
Subject: you are doing it again
Message:
Dear Yves,

I just want to say that on principle I have become opposed to these sorts of join us or we'll ruin you posts.

I would not recognize Joan Apter on the street and I do not know her. I have really done a lot of thinking about the PAM blaming we ( myself included ) have engaged in.

I do think all former premies should speak out. I believe it is right. I believe PAMs especially should do so. They have an opportunity to help a lot of people and to not do so is wrong. But, I am very uncomfortable with harrassing them.
I truly believe, x rated or not, they were cult victims too, and perhaps even bigger victims, and some of them are CURRENT victims, and that the basic humanity of these people should be respected.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 18:14:17 (GMT)
From: Yves
Email: None
To: Susan
Subject: Yep. That's the kind of guy I am.
Message:
I thought PAM meant 'Pedophiles Active around Maharaji'. Maybe JA

1) has been a sincere premie for 30 years and sincerely believing Fatrat to be God

or

2) is wickedly kijaying us to think she thinks fatrat's divine farce and and deserves to be shaken down her tree

or

3) has been considering quitting and need to be respectfully let alone for another decade or two until she finally decides it was all wrong and dies

or

4) could contribute to this important misson-from-god which could be completed faster than anyone think once everyone available agree to stop kijaying the Malibu wino.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 19:46:16 (GMT)
From: janet
Email: None
To: Yves
Subject: coerced confession is inadmissable
Message:
yves--lay off the caffeine for a day and look at this.
if joan had her doubts, she isnt gonna explore and admit them unless they come undone in her own time. a coerced confession isnt what you want. it isnt admissable, acceptable, genuinely voluntary and therefore holds no internal strength nor integrity. no one is gonna want to stand up for what they have decided until they do decide it! AND YOU DON'T USE SCARE TACTICS TO ENCOURAGE SELF DETERMINATION!!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 16:46:47 (GMT)
From: Yves
Email: None
To: janet
Subject: This was posted below
Message:
Janet was accusing me below of being rude. This is what I answered.

'I am not asking for confession. I am asking for integrity. My question is this: where do you stand JA?

You are a devotee? Fine.
I have another question.

You are not a devotee? Fine.
I have another question.

You pretend to be neutral? You are full of shit.

You haven't come to terms with this yet? Come-on. How long will it take?

Simple.

So far, no answer is worse than Richard Simmon doing a duet with Celine Dion.'

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 16:33:51 (GMT)
From: Yves' away
Email: None
To: janet
Subject: Hold it right there.
Message:
I am not asking for confession. I am asking for integrity. My question is this: where do you stand JA?

You are a devotee? Fine. I have another question.
You are not a devotee? Fine. I have another question.
You pretend to be neutral? You are full of shit.
You haven't come to terms with this yet? Come-on. How long will it take?

Simple.

So far, no answer is worse than Richard Simmon doing a duet with Celine Dion.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 19:19:56 (GMT)
From: Sir Dave
Email: None
To: Yves
Subject: But I could be worse
Message:
How would you like it Yves, if a wrote here that I will put all of those pics on the web which I have of you and that black leather clad dominatrix?

Well look here Yves, I've already put them up on the web and all I have to do now is post the URL to this forum and all the world will see you in your wimpering glory before the Dominatrix from Hell.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 16:39:54 (GMT)
From: Yves
Email: None
To: Sir Dave
Subject: Please blur my partner's face
Message:
And avoid posting those with politicians on it.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 19:53:56 (GMT)
From: janet
Email: None
To: everybody
Subject: we lost our focus right here!! backbiting!!
Message:
so much for discussing what to take to joan. no wonder they wouldnt deign to answer us, from up there at the palace, of the Fool on the Hill.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 18:17:37 (GMT)
From: Hal
Email: None
To: Yves
Subject: Crawl back into your hole Yves nt
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 17:41:12 (GMT)
From: Carol
Email: None
To: Susan
Subject: Yes. And acronym PAM: means person around M? nt
Message:
see, empty
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 14:50:37 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Susan
Subject: quit naggin' the guy
Message:
I just want to say that on principle I have become opposed to these sorts of join us or we'll ruin you posts.

This is your interpretation of Yves' post and I just don't see it as that. He has a right to express his opinion, as much as you do.

To me, you appear to have taken on the role of the forum's 'moral conscience' or some such nonsense. You are not.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 17:43:25 (GMT)
From: carol
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: anyone can b responsible for moral content dufus
Message:
Anyone who chosses and cares about it, anyway.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 17:54:13 (GMT)
From: Carol
Email: None
To: Gerry
Subject: Sorry to call you dufus, Gerry.Feeling catty pssss
Message:
psss
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 18:02:16 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Carol
Subject: That's OK, Carol, I've been called worse
Message:
I understand angry impulses, believe me. It was mild, I didn't take any offense. Besides, you are entitled to your opinion. At least you have a real world experience by which you can judge me. No need to apologize.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 18:46:58 (GMT)
From: Carol
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: Cool, Gerry Are you coming this way again?
Message:
You should see our cats!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 15:02:02 (GMT)
From: Susan
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: I have a right to say what I think
Message:
just like you do so freely.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 20:12:48 (GMT)
From: Yves
Email: None
To: Susan
Subject: No you don't
Message:
No you don't and I have a right to say so.

Or

Yes you do and so do I.

Either way. Whatever suits you best.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 21:13:42 (GMT)
From: Susan
Email: None
To: Yves
Subject: we both do ( have the right )
Message:
Yves, I just wanted you to think about it. I of course think you have a right to speak your mind.

Remember your 'are we on speaking terms?' post? I answered yes, and that I do laugh at your posts and I think we both want the same thing, I just feel strongly that your tactics are not the kind that I feel are fair.

Believe it or not I kind of like you. I hope you'll consider what we are trying to say about threats and coercion.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 14:57:30 (GMT)
From: Yves
Email: None
To: Susan
Subject: Praise the board
Message:
I haven't read your 'speaking terms' answer yet but am glad you don't hold bad feelings about me. I am a very sensitive indvidual, you know.

Please read my 'confession' in the Joan Apter II thread below Jim's post titled 'My two cents'. I promised to try to act normal and be dull and predictable. Let's not raise hopes too high here, but I promise to do my best.

As for the two previous posts, take it tong-in-chong as most everything I post. Seriously, your 'I have a right to speek' had me question who grants these rights. Nobody, right? Grant it to yourself then. If Dog existed (I also am a dyslexic-agnostic) I'd thank her (and somewhat feminist) for freedom of speech and beer.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 15:04:44 (GMT)
From: Susan
Email: None
To: Susan
Subject: Gerry, you are very insulting and I am sick of it
Message:
Marianne used that expression about me, and I do not want the label.

What is wrong with you that you are so mean and nasty? You like making people feel bad? Big kick huh?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 15:17:06 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Susan
Subject: I am equally sick of your tsk tsk tsking
Message:
I wasn't aware that Marianne used that expression.

Guess I'm not the only one who noticed. I know Marianne is your friend, and she meant it sincerely, I imagine, but I think you go over board as you probably think I do. So I guess it balances out.

No, I don't like hurting people, thanks for the slam, though.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 17:46:16 (GMT)
From: Carol
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: tsk tsk tsk tsk etc. Your interpretation! nt
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 17:34:43 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: fitzroy@liverpool.ac.uk
To: gerry
Subject: I think there's a difference, Gerry
Message:
Yves has a right to express an opinion, so has Susan, and so do you. Sure. The trouble is, Yves is enlisting people's support in starting a harrassment campaign of a person not present. As such I don't think Susan advising others against is really 'nagging', nor is suggesting Yves rethink his tactics.

I agree with Susan that Yves telephone proposal could be seriously counter-productive, not to mention plain nasty. If high-placed PAM's, past or present, are ever going to open up or defect it won't be achieved with this sort of strategy.

(Hmm, does that make me 'nag' too?)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 18:02:36 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: I think there's a difference, Gerry
Message:
I just reread Yves' post. I don't see anything in it that suggests he is enlisting people for a harrassment campaign or advocating calling her on the telephone.

I don't see any strategy being described either. Or Susan asking Yves to reconsider his 'tactics' for that matter.

All I see is a guy blowing off a little steam at one of the main 'pushers' of Rawats obnoxious cult.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 18:23:46 (GMT)
From: Hal
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: I think there's a difference, Gerry
Message:
Gerry,

Many of the people on this forum were major pushers of Maha's cult. I've listened to Anth many times singing the praises of the lard with all his heart and jethro and others. I was a guy who stood up at programs and convinced people too. I was a goddam aspirant co-ordinator the whole works. Come on Gerry , there is one cult leader and the rest are cult victims.

Hal

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 07:15:13 (GMT)
From: Hal
Email: None
To: Hal
Subject: If I judge honchos for perpetrating
Message:
the MYTH gerry then I have to judge myself and any premie who ever gave satsang singing the praises of the Lard.

As I'm not into beating myself up about that I can't condemn them or beat them up over it.

Hal

Yes I liked the quote by the fake Casteneda. I dislike my own sense of self importance and I don't like seeing pomposity and arrogance in others. Self righteousness really gets my goat too.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 18:35:04 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Hal
Subject: Well you liked the Castaneda quote by Eric also
Message:
so much for your judgement.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 18:22:43 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: I think there's a difference, Gerry
Message:
I just reread Yves' post. I don't see anything in it that suggests he is enlisting people for a harrassment campaign or advocating calling her on the telephone.

Well the title of the thread addressed to Everyone is 'Yo, pick up the phone'. I read that as invitation for others to harass Joan Apter, and that interpretation would be in line with some of Yves previous posts about dealing with PAM's.

I don't see any strategy being described either. Or Susan asking Yves to reconsider his 'tactics' for that matter.

Maybe not, but there is an implicit message that JA is an inappropriate target (and therefore the tactic is misguided, no?)

All I see is a guy blowing off a little steam at one of the main 'pushers' of Rawats obnoxious cult.

As AJW says lower down, we were all once pushers and well as being victims. I think we need to bear that in mind.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 18:33:40 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Yo pick up the phone
Message:
Yves once explained that he uses psuedos occasionally and they all began with 'Y' That's all I thought it was, and maybe he can clarify this. But I can see your concern, though.

I agree that there is only one cult leader and the rest are victims to a point.

If Mike Dettmers hadn't been prodded a little do you think he would have come forward on his own? He seems to have benefitted from the discussion as much as we have. Perhaps it would be the same with Joan.

After all Joan is a public presence on the web like Mike is.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 17:47:36 (GMT)
From: Carol
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: If so, nag on, Nigel! nt
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 15:03:56 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Susan
Subject: He has a right to express his opinion, as much as
Message:
you do. Guess you missed that part.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 18:28:22 (GMT)
From: Hal
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: He has a right to express his opinion, as much as
Message:
Sure he has a perfect right to express his opinion . I have a right to tell him to crawl back in his hole. People like him who are twice as unbalanced as Joan Apter damage the credibility of this forum and certainly would have discouraged me from ever posting here.

Hal

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 17:33:15 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: He has a right to express his opinion, as much as
Message:
Gerry:

He has a right, but whether it's wise is certainly fair game no?

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 17:36:34 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: fitzroy@liverpool.ac.uk
To: Scott T.
Subject: Synchronicity, heh?! (nt)
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 17:57:30 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Synchronicity, heh?! (nt)
Message:
Nigel:

The issue is probably more like alienation than synchronicity. I mean, I'm not really interested in being identified with a sort of marginalized response to Maharaji so I feel compelled to comment if some people start behaving marginally. Yves isn't way over the line, but he seems to have crossed it. The most damning thing a cult leader could probably say about us is that we're a bunch of over-the-top nut cases. So, it's not so much about the potential of a positive image as it is the consequences of a decidedly negative one. Anyway, 'speechless unity' and 'speechless alienation' are equally abhorrent.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 18:10:41 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Perhaps it wasn't clear what I meant...
Message:
...or it was clear, but I didn't quite understand the relevance of your reply!

I used the the word 'synchronicity' to refer to the fact that you and I posted to Gerry within the space of a minute as each other making the same points, though you did it more succinctly than me.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 19:29:53 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Perhaps it wasn't clear what I meant...
Message:
Nigel:

The trouble with one word replies I guess. I had not read the other post and thought you were saying something like, 'let's all get together on an approach or strategy.' So I was saying, essentially, 'let's just not get too far apart.' Completely irrelevant to your intended meaning, of course. How're things going on the dissertation, BTW. Have you defended your proposal yet?

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 19:46:35 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Perhaps it wasn't clear what I meant...
Message:
Still early days on the doctorate. Haven't even begun my thesis, and haven't done much research yet. The Phd is part- time, and I'm over-loaded with teaching at present, not to mention I have this wretched forum habit to feed!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 00:59:31 (GMT)
From: Steven Quint
Email: sequint@home.com
To: Everyone
Subject: Bye
Message:
I wish you all the best.

Guru Maharatweed is definitely the lord of the universe, I've figured it all out.

I think I'm going to go commit myself to a mental hospital.

Steve

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 23:14:43 (GMT)
From: Q
Email: None
To: Steven Quint
Subject: Don't bother...
Message:
this whole planet is a mental institution.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 17:35:06 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: Q
Subject: for once we agree on something
Message:
My first reaction after checking in was, 'ok you stupid idiot now what? You have put yourself in the hands of a bunch of disorganized weirdos who are just doing their job and half assed at that'
And it was true. They messed up on everything including not returning my valuables because someone misfiled them.
But I am still glad I took the time out for my own sake. They were just background music and something to put up with. The time out was in and of itself very valuable. Living 24 by 7 in a real life lunatic asylum is hard w/o breaks.
I'd just go to an expensive spa next time though. More freedom but the drugs aren't as good.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 19:25:53 (GMT)
From: cq
Email: quartus@postmaster.co.uk
To: Steven Quint
Subject: Why bother? Therapeutic is ex-premie.org's middle
Message:

name.

At least, it could be.

... and don't think you'll be any better received by the lunatics who are in charge of the state-controlled asylums (does that mean Clinton?)

;)

Sorry, you guys and gals who are employed by the NHS, (-that means NIMH to you US brethren and sistren, - in Canada I don't know what they're called) - but what you gave me just didn't feel like therapy. No doubt you meant well.
(but a former lunatic like me would say that, wouldn't I)?

Actually, Steve, before taking such a drastic step, if you'd like to talk things over with someone who's been on the receiving end of the state's 'corrective' treatment, feel free to email me at the above address, if you'd like a second opinion.


Maybe we have more in common than the chance initial of your last and my middle name.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 21:11:22 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: cq
Subject: Who's on first?
Message:
cq:

No doubt you meant well.
(but a former lunatic like me would say that, wouldn't I)?

Now you're beginning to remind me of an Abbot and Costello skit:

C: I'm not crazy. In our family only my brother is crazy.
A: How do you know that?
C: My brother told me.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 17:41:23 (GMT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Yeah, like Groucho Marx never said ...
Message:
I may look like an idiot and talk like an idiot but don't let that fool you. I really am an idiot.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 02:22:07 (GMT)
From: Sir Dave
Email: sirdavid12@hotmail.com
To: Steven Quint
Subject: Let it be bye for now
Message:
In some ways, this forum can be a bad thing for people who want to forget all about Maharaji and walk away from the trip because it can uncover old wounds which were best forgotten.

But it is a good place to vent and read the ongoing saga of the life and times of the Lord of the Universe. I'd advise you to just glance at it now and then and think, 'Oh that old trip' and feel that you've walked away from it.

That is far more healthy than getting bogged down in the Maharaji trip again. Because as an ex-premie, one can become too obsessed with the Haharaji mind-fuck and it only means then that the beast with two heads is still affecting one negatively.

Me personally, I like to use this place as an excuse for some of my bad British humour and my compulsive obsessive disorder which causes me to keep updating The Truth about Maharaji website.

I keep meaning not to spend too much time here and these days I don't but it's nice to keep abreast of things without it getting heavy. I wish you well and I hope you don't disappear from here for good and post more, even if it's just now and then, to let us know how you're doing.

Cheers.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 03:18:51 (GMT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Steven
Subject: Let it be bye for now
Message:
Hi Steven -
I agree with Sir David that this forum can get very intense - both for people who are just exiting, and for people who have walked away and not thought about M in years. It brings up a lot of old memories and feelings that can be hard to handle.

I hope you feel that you are welcome to come back at any time.

Take care -
Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 01:34:18 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: Steven Quint
Subject: Bye
Message:
Best of luck to you . As I said before this place will be here whenever you want to post if you think it can help.
It might be too intense right now. I can certainly undestand that. It's been a year and a month since I finished my 'stay' at the local chill center.

I hope I didn't hurt your feelings.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 01:15:31 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Steven Quint
Subject: Bye
Message:
Steven:

I've enjoyed your fertile contributions, and don't think anything has been 'out of bounds' or 'over the top.' You don't seem imbalanced to me, in terms of your posts, so it's just possible that your might be exaggerating the effect of your internal turmoil. Best of luck and do what you need to do to get past this.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 01:11:21 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Steven Quint
Subject: Bye
Message:
Best of luck, Steve.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 17:06:38 (GMT)
From: Cynthia
Email: None
To: Steven Quint
Subject: Bye
Message:
I wish you all the best. Be good to yourself.

Cynthia

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 22, 2000 at 21:29:13 (GMT)
From: DJURO
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: How are you?
Message:
How are you?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 22, 2000 at 22:05:49 (GMT)
From: a0aji
Email: None
To: DJURO
Subject: How are you?
Message:
Well, some atoms got together and were combined into heavier elements, and when that star went nova, spewed out to form new stars and concomitant planets. Time passed. A planet cooled and was just the right distance from the star it orbited about.

Single-celled life arose out of the primordial goo, on that world. It immediately started dissing me -- it's been going on ever since.

How are you?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 22, 2000 at 22:17:08 (GMT)
From: DJURO
Email: None
To: a0aji
Subject: How are you?
Message:
How do you know all that?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 13:19:40 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: None
To: DJURO
Subject: HERE'S how it all got started...
Message:
The first ever Perfect Master acquired his status neither through divine revelation nor memetic transmission. He worked it all out for himself. Y'see he was a neanderthal - and of the last generation to walk the planet. (Let's call him 'Og'). And neanderthals had bigger brains than homo sapiens so realising Knowledge was kids' play. So Og propagated Knowledge to fellow-neanderthals as they sat around their caves gossiping and whittling stone axes because TV hadn't been invented. And his big-brained followers found it equally easy to realise Knowledge, so - as you can imagine - the Peace Bomb exploded pretty damn rapido from the lowlands of southern Germany, all across Europe, Africa and Asia etc., until there wasn't an unrealised neanderthal left, and, lo, the mammoth lay down with the sabre-toothed tiger and all was peace and harmony around the primeval camp-fire.

And it was only in old age that Og realised the error of his ways and came to regret insisting that all the caves become ashrams and their inhabitants celibate ashramites. Neanderthal Man as a species was now doomed, since all the devotees were past child-bearing age. There was at least hope for the Knowledge itself, but it involved getting homo sapiens in on the act - a lesser breed of hominid, to be sure - but it was his only hope. So Og set out and journeyed long and far seeking a divine successor amongst the tribes that heretofore he had considered inferior evolutionary rivals (though they did have lovely teeth and a natural sense of rhythm). But the hom saps didn't want to play ball. They said Og was a bighead just like all the other neanderthals, as well as a bit of a know-all

'But I do know all…' Og protested. That's the whole point of omniscience. Why else go in for it..? Trust me…'
'You don't know nothing we don't know…' the hom saps of the Indus Valley jeered. 'Bet you can't make fire, can you? Or toasted yak-cheese sandwiches? We've been doing it for ages…'
'Huh! I could make a thermo-nuclear reactor if I wanted. I am omnipotent...' rejoindered Og, a little pompously.

'…And if you worship me, one of you will be my living perfect master successor thingy. It's a good deal. Caves all over the world and more wheels than you can imagine. Loads of chicks and that…'
The hom saps glanced scornfully at the sorry-looking group of elderly neanderthal ladies in their perfumed tiger-skins who 'accompanied' Og on his divine mission.
'er, meet the gopis…'

'Go on then…' the hom saps continued.
'Go on, what?'
'Make a thermo-bloody whatever it was…'
'Sorry, I can't right now…'
'Why not? You just said you could…'
'It doesn't work like that. First you must have faith in me…'
'Why the fuck should we? You're bleedin bonkers, mate…' the hom saps replied, sniggering at the roughly-beaten bronze crown the Master had taken to wearing.

And there it might have ended… but for one lonely hom sap who liked the sound of the gopi thing, and came and prostrated before Og.

'…and you'll surrender the reins of your life? Are you quite sure about this? Losing the pension and all?…' Og eyed the humanoid specimen with suspicion and disappointment.

The solitary devotee gazed up wistfully at Og's Lordly cranium. 'Yup. Why the hell not? Between you and me, the axe-whittling and - let's face it - the whole fucking stone age begins to pall after a bit…'

And so the sacred truth was passed on. But to the wrong chap, unfortunately

'So when do I get to realise Knowledge, Og ji?' asked Krishna (for it was he).
'Listen, pal, I gave you this most precious gift. What more do you want? It's all there. You've just got to go realise it. Once you've realised it, you'll realise you've realised it and Bob's your auntie's hubby…'
'Well I've realised I have so much more to learn, Og ji. May I kiss your feet now?'
'What again? - if you must… You got a fetish or something? - or is it to do with the small brain?'
'I don't know, Master. You tell me… I'm just a beginner.'

'Oh sod this for a game of soldiers…' said Og, 'It was so much simpler in the early days…'

As Og slumped back on his straw pillow, Krishna realised that he had yet to realise whatever it was he was supposed to be realising

'Tell me, oh Master, am I the chosen one? How should I carry your message to the world?'

'I give up…' croaked Og, 'You can paint yourself blue and take up the fucking flute for all I care…'

'Thank you Lord…'

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 13:42:28 (GMT)
From: a0aji
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: HERE'S how it all got started...
Message:
Hurry, Krishna!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 22, 2000 at 23:25:33 (GMT)
From: Eric
Email: None
To: DJURO
Subject: Exhausted
Message:
This place is exhausting! Just about had my fill. Might check back in another 20 years time and see if the conversation and the company has evolved, progressed, moved on or checked out.
Ciao guys, it's been fun, educating, but exhausting .....
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 22, 2000 at 23:29:24 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Eric
Subject: Avoiding the obvious MUST be tiring
Message:
What do you think you'll be thinking about Maharaji 20 years from now, Eric?

Care to hazard a guess?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 22, 2000 at 23:42:52 (GMT)
From: Eric
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Hot on my tail
Message:
Jim, what can I say ... I have no answers for you .... who knows what I am gonna think in 20 years time ....

I wish you all the best and a good, goodnight ....

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 00:53:24 (GMT)
From: Cynthia
Email: None
To: Eric
Subject: zen thread above (nt):::))))
Message:
b
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 22, 2000 at 17:19:44 (GMT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: Jim and Everyone
Subject: Is this a guilt trip? Or just plain ignorance?
Message:
Just over 24 hours since I posted, but already in inactive, hence the continuation here.

To Jim:

I was talking about would-be exes; i.e. 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?

.
.
.

Jim replied:

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.

.
.
.
First things first, Jim

You call it a 'guilt trip'. Does this mean that, if there were people like I describe out there who feel that way, you then would feel guilty?

Interesting.

And secondly, do I know of any people who fit this description personally?

The answer is no. But then they wouldn't be posting here, would they?

So what we're left with (until such time as one comes forward) is a situation in which your attitude could be deterring people from freeing themselves from the Maha, but then again, has not been proved to be doing so.

All it is is a possibility.

Clear so far?

Now why should potential exes be hesitant to post here?

Doubting the Maha is one thing. But many of your posts are as much anti-'new age' as they are anti-Maha. And, for some reason, you give the pro-'new agers' as much of a hard time as the pro-Mahas.

This is where I think you go too far. It's one thing to attack someone's belief in one particular suspect 'guru'. To widen your field to the whole of 'new-age' belief systems only weakens your position. By tarring all with the same brush, I suggest Jim, that you are making it all the easier for borderline ex-premies to say 'no, I can't go that far. There's value in meditation, 'new-age' though some think it to be'. And back they go to the safety of what they're familiar with.

Let me make it clear - this, until proven otherwise, is just a possible scenario. But should it be ignored simply because no borderline ex has yet found the motive for opening up with you on this Forum?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
and finally, in response to your post that reads:


Date:
Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 18:29:42
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.


You don't hear me saying that Jim, because discussing 'spirituality, meditation, religion, new age thinking, all sorts of stuff' isn't primarily why this Forum exists. It's about the Maha, and people who are trying/succeeding (and hopefully not failing) to be free of their former dependency on him.

This site should not, I suggest, be used to try and dissuade people from practising/believing in anything OTHER than the Maha.

That's not part of the remit.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 22, 2000 at 20:05:27 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: cq
Subject: Who's ignorance?
Message:
You call it a 'guilt trip'. Does this mean that, if there were people like I describe out there who feel that way, you then would feel guilty?

No, it just means that you're trying to make me feel that way. Big diff.

And secondly, do I know of any people who fit this description personally?

The answer is no. But then they wouldn't be posting here, would they?

So what we're left with (until such time as one comes forward) is a situation in which your attitude could be deterring people from freeing themselves from the Maha, but then again, has not been proved to be doing so.

All it is is a possibility.

Clear so far?

What we're left with is your imagination. Sorry, like I said before, I don't buy it, not for a minute. If someone starts breaking away from Maharaji, they start breaking away. I don't know of anyone who's ever said they negotiate their departure on certain terms such that they threaten to stay in the cult rather than abandon all the more general spiritual ideas their cult beliefs are nested in. That's just your fantasy. Fine, you're welcome to it. But personally, I think it's just an excuse to throw some curtains up around the new age shit that you don't want to defend. That is, I think that you're just scapegoating these phantom victims when you're the one who feels that your ideas aren't safe enough here.

Doubting the Maha is one thing. But many of your posts are as much anti-'new age' as they are anti-Maha. And, for some reason, you give the pro-'new agers' as much of a hard time as the pro-Mahas.

Well, that's not true at all. I really vent a lot of anger, at times, anger and disdain, at premies. When they try to lie to me about our common past, like Blue Max or Eric have been doing about the ashram or like X was doing about Maharaji's 'agya' about drugs, yeah, I lose it. I think that kind of deception is amazingly shameless and I say that.

When I discuss new-age beliefs here with people it's rarely a heated exchange. And why should it be? It's only when they use a new-age technique to do the other shit, lying and dissembling, that I get pissed off. That's all natural and justified and ususally the most effective communciation available at that point IF you're going to keep talking. It comes down to that at times. It's either that or just give up. Throw your hands up, say 'whatever' and walk away.

The thing is, for some reason, that's harder to do here than in the real world where you do literally walk away. Or get distracted by something else. Or anything. But here, the post that irks is the one that's just sitting there, right in print, in front of you, waiting for a reply. It ain't going anywhere (not for a few days anyway) and, frankly, it's just hard to resist, at times. That's just the nature of the medium.

This is where I think you go too far. It's one thing to attack someone's belief in one particular suspect 'guru'. To widen your field to the whole of 'new-age' belief systems only weakens your position.

Bullshit. That's not true at all, nor is there any reason I can think of why it would be. In fact, a very, very good case could be made out for the exact opposite proposition. Indeed, a necessary case, perhaps.

By tarring all with the same brush, I suggest Jim, that you are making it all the easier for borderline ex-premies to say 'no, I can't go that far. There's value in meditation, 'new-age' though some think it to be'. And back they go to the safety of what they're familiar with.

Nope! Don't buy it.

Let me make it clear - this, until proven otherwise, is just a possible scenario. But should it be ignored simply because no borderline ex has yet found the motive for opening up with you on this Forum?

At this point, Chris, they're just your imaginary friends. So your imaginary friends won't talk with me? God, what a loss.

You don't hear me saying that Jim, because discussing 'spirituality, meditation, religion, new age thinking, all sorts of stuff' isn't primarily why this Forum exists. It's about the Maha, and people who are trying/succeeding (and hopefully not failing) to be free of their former dependency on him.

This site should not, I suggest, be used to try and dissuade people from practising/believing in anything OTHER than the Maha.

That's not part of the remit.

Tell you what, Chris. You get people to stop espousing the validity of knowledge as a 'spiritual tool', with or without the guru, to stop referring to new age leaders and religious prophets for backup and authority for whatever they're saying, to stop invoking peoples' birth charts, other-world experiences. etc. and I'll stop discussing those things too.

Is that fair?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 20:09:03 (GMT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: 'trying to make you feel ...' WHAT is THAT???
Message:
Jim, I've half a mind to take you seriously (but would I be over-qualified?)

Can you mean that?

I MAKE you feel guilty?

Phew, take a look at that, will you?

What I'd like to do is to encourage you to treat people who might be about to become ex-premies with the same kind of respect as you had for yourself when YOU were about to become an ex-premie.

Or were you then 'negotiating your departure' as you call it?

Negotiating with whom???

Phew, Jim, you certainly have come on defensive all of a sudden.

(thinks ... all of a sudden? - or was that my imagination again?)

You talk of 'new-age shit' that 'I don't want to defend'. - I certainly DON'T want to waste my time definding it, and why should you want to waste your time defending its antithesis? Do you equate 'new-age' with the Maha? If so, why?

You say that when you quote 'discuss new-age beliefs here with people it's rarely a heated exchange.'

Hah!

Tell it to the recipients!

Jim I'm going to stop here, because it's obvious that you and I are not going to see eye-to-eye on this. There are other 'points' in your post that to you might seem as clear as light of day. To me they sound like you're just attempting to defend a position that is weak. Hence your 'imaginary friends' jibe.

Suppose this is a game of poker. You've just played your hand (a la 'imaginary friends').

What if a non-imaginary 'friend' that you envisage me supporting were to post now?

Hmmmmm?

We'll see.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 20:28:01 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: cq
Subject: ring on your imaginary friends, Chris
Message:
Chris,

I never said that you'd succeed in making me feel guilty. I said that you were trying to do so. That's a 'guilt trip'.

But anyway, yeah, find me one person who's going to say that they think M's a fraud but aren't going to leave him because they don't want to have the rest of their new age beliefs challenged here.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 18:18:30 (GMT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: I've got it. You're a lawyer... everybody twist
Message:
(hope the Zappa references are evident enough).
.
.
That must be trick you learned in law-school, Jim.

Interesting how it turns what was a perfectly reasonable idea into apparent nonsense, just by twisting a little here, exagerating a little there ...

It's obvious why you're dissing the idea. You've too much at stake to even consider the possibility of being a force that might actually encourage premies to stick with the Maha. Naturally you're appalled at the idea. And you would feel very guilty if such a thing were happening.

Perhaps that's why you won't let yourself even entertain the possibility of taking the idea seriously. In a strange way, Jim, the vehemence of your reply betrays the shakiness of your position.

Why shaky? Simply because you and I don't know whether or not there are people out there who HAVE started to doubt the Maha and who WOULD read this Forum if it weren't for your (and a few others') antagonism towards spirituality in general.

The fact that you're not prepared even to entertain that possibility, let alone discuss it, says more about you than you might think, Jim.


Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 20:37:27 (GMT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Make you feel guilty, Jim? But why?
Message:
Where did guilt come into all this? I gave you the benefit of the doubt, hence the thread's title.

Anyway, gotta go now. Till tomorrow.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 23:08:51 (GMT)
From: a0aji
Email: and_on_anand@yahoo.com
To: cq and Jim
Subject: Will you bicker someplace else, please, gentlemen?
Message:
I wish the two of you would take your pointless bickering to e-mail, and if you like, publish the digest in a single message. This public bickering is really unfair to the rest of us, who have to load the index twenty times just to make sure a real post (of substance, length, and on-topic) wasn't missed. It also loads the server down, which costs the site maintainer money. As I recall, donations from the ex-premies are being requested to cover such overages.

There is absolutely no way to pre-screen here for suspected content and substance, since even the length of a post is unknown, prior to loading. This leaves screening for byline, which I'd rather not do -- Jim is in a lot of threads that do interest me; cq's threads seem all to be about content, about prescribing content.

Well now you have my prescription.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 17:35:03 (GMT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: a0aji
Subject: Prescribing content? Like you?
Message:
If that's what you think all my posts have been about for the past year, then I suggest you've been a little over-selective in your reading.

The subject of this thread (about potential exes being hesitant to post here) is valid.

Why should they expect to be hassled for their 'new-age' beliefs systems? (if they have any).

Jim doesn't hassle anyone for ascribing to other belief systems such as Judaism, Xtianity etc. Why not? presumably he recognises it's not the place to do that. So why does he attack people for beliefs (e.g. astrology) that have NOTHING to do with the Maha?

I'm all for encouraging this place to be more on-topic. You seem to be too. Good.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 18:47:42 (GMT)
From: a0aji
Email: and_on_anand@yahoo.com
To: ne1
Subject: Prescribing content? Like you?
Message:
Doesn't seem like you addressed my issue, about the bandwidth, cq. Last paragraph, first sentence seemed to approach it, and I appreciate that much.

Everyone:

The 'frames/no frames' feature of the forum really improves the situation.

If you have a decent amount of memory (RAM) in your computer, and a decently fast processor -- and a good web browser, try the frames. It's made my experience of the forum much easier on the time-budget, because indexes don't reload with every single message unit retrieved.

Hat's off to the Engineer for 'frames'. Great functionality. Appreciated.

I'm curious to know if WebTV and other non-traditional internet platforms have bandwidth issues here.

a0aji

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 22, 2000 at 18:22:05 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: None
To: cq
Subject: I actually disagree, Chris
Message:
- at least, I don't think there should be any taboo areas for discussion, especially since magical thinking played a serious part in sustaining our beliefs.

My little gripe at Jim below was to do with the style and tone of a number of posts rather than the subject matter.

By your suggestion would only New Age and religious beliefs be sacrosanct? How about when people starting posting challenges to Darwinism - as sometimes happens? That's my surrogate religion, after all. Is it fair for exes to challenge my faith like that?!

But mainly, I think, the moral, philosophical and scientific kinds of discussion here can be really useful to exes trying to reshape their world-views. Maybe a little less shouting and name-calling would help, but on the whole, I think it's healthy to get it all out in the open.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 18:42:09 (GMT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Taboo??? We're talking about air-time here, Nige
Message:

Look, how long since you read this Forum? I mean really read it, thread to thread? - and every post in every one of those threads.

I used to.

But these days when I have to start a new thread because my reply to yesterday's post has gone into the inactive index - well, you get my drift? There just isn't the space to talk about anything and everything here.

I, personally, am into atheism at the moment. And guess what? - I post on an atheist forum. About atheist topics. And I've decided not to vent my ideas about that subject here at ex-premie.org. Call it a self-induced censorship if you like, (self-imposed taboo even), but there IS a reason why I don't post about that kind of material here.

I'm sure you can see the advantages that brings.


Have I read you correctly when you say that YOU think I'm suggesting that new age and religious beliefs are quote 'sacrosanct'? I think Nigel that, somewhere down the line, you must have mis-read me.

You're familiar with the idea of splatter-shot? Like when your target's so wide you'll need a double barrel of lead shot just to have a chance of nicking a feather?

Perhaps I'm losing you (me as well, since I'm not into guns and the analogy could get decidedly misinterpreted.

My point was simply this: 'all and everything about Maharaji' is what this Forum's host site claims to be. Now you and I could get into a very interesting discussion about (say) the pagan origins of the Christian religion. And maybe we'd attract a few new-agers and pro-Mahas into our discussion. But the subject matter is SO wide that, if everyone took that approach (i.e. bringing every hobby-horse they've ever jumped on) into the argument, this Forum would degenerate into a mass of verbiage that had absolutely NO cohesion at all.

Taboo? - No, that's not it. It's more about being subject-specific.

Do you watch (for instance) watch Sky Sport for the chance of getting the occasional update on Marcel Proust's interpretation of the value of wet-dreaming?

Hope you get my drift ...

.
.
.
Now for a reply to Jim

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 19:57:22 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: cq
Subject: OK, Chris, you've expressed yourself -- done?
Message:
Chris,

If you think that new age thinking is not relevant to the discussion here, if you want to limit your discussions accordingly, be my guest.

I disagree with your premise and don't accept your recommendation.

Can we leave this now or do you have something new to add?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 20:10:49 (GMT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: OK, Jim, you've expressed yourself -- done? (nt)
Message:
idiot
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 20:16:13 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: cq
Subject: If anyone's an idiot here, Chris .........
Message:
Come on, fella, is that the best you can do?

You raised an issue (again!), started a thread and I replied. You ignored my reply so I replied again. And this is all you can say for yourself?

Good work, Chris. You REALLY made your point this time.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 20:19:09 (GMT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Ignored your reply? RELOAD, buddy, (nt)
Message:
Then aim.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 20:33:59 (GMT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: cq
Subject: OK your 20 minutes is up. Gotta sign off now(nt)
Message:
asdfasd
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 20:35:15 (GMT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Make that 15 minutes (nt)
Message:
sdhg
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 19:09:55 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: None
To: cq
Subject: Taboo??? We're talking about air-time here, Nige
Message:
Perhaps I misinterpreted or misrepresented you, Chris, when I read you as suggesting New-Age/religious beliefs should be specifically sacrosanct. But in a way, with the cult being effectively a new-age religion, it has a natural affinity with the cult, and many recent exes still feel affiliated to related beliefs about Karma, Master's etc. (BTW: 'New Age' is just another term for 'Ancient Wisdom', as far as I can see.) So there will be a far greater lielihood of insecure brand-new exes defending that kind of territory rather than Atheism or whatever. For others, fence-sitters, maybe, to see dearly-cherished assumptions about, say, reincarnation challenged or to read alternative, non-spiritual takes on altered states or meditation might be the crucial keys to destroying the cult allegiance.

But to your main point about air-time. I understand what you mean, here. Forum turnaround is so great that it is often frustrating keeping up with threads before they vanish. Fortunately there is still an archive, and when the FA's doing his/her job properly the 'ot' posts are weeded out before they get into the archive. Also, it is frequently the short, ON-topic threads which do most harm here, if you think of the recent posting habits of Steve Q and Yves.

And at the same time the average on-topic thread very quickly wanders off-topic, such is the nature of human beings once they get chattering. But I think that's good. Part of the forum's role is to serve as a support network, and it probably helps newcomers to get to know the regular posters and understand where they are coming from, and what they now believe.

It helps to know who you're talking to before accepting their rejecting their views on Maharaji.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 19:31:43 (GMT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Hmmmmm ... getting to know you ... getting to
Message:
well, yeah, ... if you got the idea that new-age ideas were sacrosanct to me - Jeezuz H firkin CRYst on a crutchless bicycle ...

Take that as a 'yes', will you?

How did you get to that conclusion?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 19:37:55 (GMT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: ... it's all in the inference
Message:
my above post could be taken two VERY different ways.

'TAKE THAT AS A YES, WILL YOU?'

means two very different things, depending on how you say it.

(as it happens it was meant to mean that new-age ideas are NOT sacrosanct to me, simply because they encompass such a wide area of meaning - and some promoters of those ideas are con-artists - sans doubt.)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 01:08:48 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Tone and Content
Message:
Nigel:

Ultimately people change their own minds, usually in private. If, by tone or otherwise, you usurpe their own critical thought process (however inadequate they might have become) by trying to substitute your own you may actually be impeding their ability to change their minds. While I may not know exactly where to draw the line sometimes it's not a close call.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 06:14:44 (GMT)
From: a0aji
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Tone and Content
Message:
Nice turn of phrase Scott T. Beam me up, Scott T.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 22, 2000 at 19:03:15 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: For example...
Message:
Eric quotes some edifying thought-bubble from Castaneda, and in the thread that follows some useful links appear exposing him as a fraud (yours among them!)

As a result how many forum readers won't now be rushing out to buy Journey to Ixlan? (sp?)- and they may even strike mescalito from their future spiritual options, thus saving themselves much time and trouble.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 02:14:05 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: good example
Message:
Leaving M left me in a void.
The first couple months posting here were a livesaver to me. It was the one place I could go to get AWAY from all the well meaning advice givers. They all wanted me to replace my guru with you name it - pujas, other meditation and yoga techniques, channeling, Wicca (which I kinda like after all I was raised Catholic) and on and on.

This was the one place where I could read about ex's who had decided to leave all of that behind and explore evolution and scientific analysis. I needed that at the time.
Now some time has passed and I am willing to at least consider some things like acupuncture amd, uh, well that 's about it. After all one can't swallow SOMA all day.

I don't know if attacking people for their beliefs if done harsely works for most cases.
I remember a thread where I was complaining about being attacked and you said 'I don't believe in negative energy Selene'
Well, now perhaps you see why I was ranting at the time.
But I am not in that space anymore. Stuff has happened in my life to make me see what is really important. And as much as I love the net, I can I hope now put it into perspective.
And one result of this has been that I can see some of the confrontations as a good thing. Most of them. But that is how I learn. Concepts and talk rarely if ever help me until I go through it.
We all can't be warm fuzzy all the time and we don't have to be here and I think that is great.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 02:21:26 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Selene
Subject: LOL The line of the day...
Message:
After all one can't swallow SOMA all day.

Hey, that was GOOD !!!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 02:25:12 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: it's real life experience
Message:
I can't.
Mostly cause I'd stumble all over at work and I fear greatly the withdrawals if I became a regular user.
Whatever keeps me in line right? :)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 22, 2000 at 17:37:34 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: cq
Subject: I partially agree, Chris
Message:
With this, anyway:

This site should not, I suggest, be used to try and dissuade people from practising/believing in anything OTHER than the Maha.

I'm currently in a quandary over whether or not to disabuse people from their dearly held beliefs. For example, last night we were sitting around the table with some friends after dinner and at one point a person started in on Joe about his catholic beliefs. It was four 'exes' and one true believer. It seemed inherently unfair and I quickly jerked the conversation away from that topic.

Later I was thinking about this and wondered if it were ever appropriate to try to convince people that their beliefs sucked. Certainly this must be the case in some instances, but where does one draw the line?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 22, 2000 at 17:56:59 (GMT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: Drawing the line? depends on mutual consent ...
Message:
... either that, or the strength of the desire to try and indoctrinate the other with your own belief/non-belief systems.

I seem to remember that, as premies, we were encouraged to do a LOT of trying to convince people that their old beliefs sucked. Trouble was, we just didn't know then how much the NEW beliefs we were trying to tout sucked as well.

It's tricky territory, knowing when/when not to challenge someone's belief system. Most Xtians I think, are fair game, because they believe in a doctrine that says 'a faith unchallenged is a weak faith' (though no doubt the Inquisition had a different angle on it). But there are definitely some faiths I can think of that I wouldn't dare to challenge, simply because I wouldn't like to end up like ... Salman Rushdie, for instance.

But maybe, if Joe had expressed a willingness to put his beliefs up for discussion around the dinner table, and there was enough of an atmosphere of mutual trust to pursue the dialogue into potentially dodgy areas, perhaps it would have been a night to remember (and hopefully for all the best reasons!)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 22, 2000 at 18:05:14 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: cq
Subject: Drawing the line? depends on mutual consent ...
Message:
Well, Joe's a good guy, and although I detest the catholic church, I got the distinct impression he was VERY unconfortable having his beliefs dissected over dinner.

Also the person who challenged him did so in a rather confronting manner. It seemed inappropriate to me.

However, the new age thing does seem to tie in with a lot of the beliefs we held as premies. Perhaps it's fair game after all. And we have the safety of being 'once removed' through the medium of the internet. It's much harder to attack someone's beliefs when you see the obvious pain and distress on their face...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 22, 2000 at 21:01:23 (GMT)
From: Bin Liner
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: Drawing the line? depends on mutual consent ...
Message:

That's right gerry.

I've said things here to people that I'd never say face to face.

Especially strangers in a bar.

I like my nose the way it is.

The rule book on cyberspace etiquette is yet to be written , & will never be followed when it is.

I think it's great that anybody can say anything.

I would certainly have still been a premie , although of the ' total spacer' variety , if it hadn't been for the internet & this website.

Anyone who thinks someonelse is getting unfairly trashed here should say so.It's difficult , but not impossible ,to detect the human being on the other side of the screen.

BTW WHATS YOUR FUCKING PROBLEM WITH THE FUCKING CATHOLIC FUCKING CHURCH ARSEHOLE MOTHERFUCKER.

Sorry , couldn't resist that. We send our children to a Catholic school because...... blah blah , yawn etc.

Keep on trucking.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 22, 2000 at 21:05:23 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Bin Liner
Subject: My problem with the catholic church...
Message:
has something to do with the size ten asshole I developed during my stint as an altar boy...


JUST KIDDING !!!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 19:43:46 (GMT)
From: HAA
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: Hahahahahahahahhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaa......!!!
Message:
HAH!

Best yet, Gerry,

mwuh,

cwq

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 03:13:38 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: HAA
Subject: agreed
Message:
and you gave ME a line of the day award Gerry?
OK OK I admit it I showed that post to a couple friends and we all thought it was funny. All of us were raised catholic of course.

Selene politically incorrect again!!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 22, 2000 at 19:50:25 (GMT)
From: Eric
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: Respect
Message:
I think, ultimately, one has to allow some respect for an individual's belief. If it's not something you can stomach, change the subject. We are, after all, only ex-changing opinions and opinions are always subject to change.

Another quote, this time from Buddha .... is he a fraud too?

'When the light of true knowledge has dispelled the darkness of ignorance, when all existence has been seen as without substance, peace ensues. Everything, whether stationary or movable, is bound to perish in the end.'

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 20:16:48 (GMT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: Eric
Subject: Respect??? 'when all existence is seen as' WHAT???
Message:
'without substance'???

Is that the 'peace' the Maha wanted to bring?

Think about what those words mean. PLEASE.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 18:26:02 (GMT)
From: Carol
Email: None
To: Eric
Subject: We are, after all, only ex-changing opinions
Message:
and opinions are subject to change!

I agree. I have been critcised for changing opinions here, even called stupid and such. I think it is only natural for ex-premies to go through several changes of belief since they thought they KNEW IT before. And we influence each other: initially, it wasn't just my beliefs that drew me in; it was the other people who were telling me and showing me about M amd K who drew me in by their sincerity and enthusiasm.

The sincerity and hopefully, respect, shown here can do a lot to help a person re-examine and redefine thier beliefs in present time. There is no time but the present in which to be after all.

I like to say now that what I believe is always subject to change and that even if I believe something strongly, I know I may be wrong in the end....whatever the end may be! And that position is just fine! It makes some folks, (probably Jim) feel crazy, 'though, I'm sure; or that I'm just hopeless or something!

Scott gave the position I think I share with Janet, (from what she wrote earlier here) a couple of names: hermeneutics and deconstructionism vs. pragmatism (Scott, yours? or is that part of mine ,too?I think I'm pragmatic about many things)as seen in the thread Oct 20th Mumbojumboism.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 01:31:56 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Eric
Subject: Respect
Message:
Eric:

I think, ultimately, one has to allow some respect for an individual's belief. If it's not something you can stomach, change the subject. We are, after all, only ex-changing opinions and opinions are always subject to change.

It's up to you to not get yourself confused with your beliefs. Some beliefs are so deeply held that the distinction may be hard to make. But from a philosophical point of view there's no good reason to respect beliefs unless the believer is more powerful than you. A belief is fair game. Directly challenging a belief may not be the best way to change someone's mind, so respect for and understanding of the believer comes into play. Ultimately it's both a normative and pragmatic consideration.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 22, 2000 at 20:10:57 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Eric
Subject: Why?
Message:
I think, ultimately, one has to allow some respect for an individual's belief. If it's not something you can stomach, change the subject. We are, after all, only ex-changing opinions and opinions are always subject to change.

Could you imagine this discussion on an ex-Heaven's Gate member page? Would you try to stop former follower from challenging any current member's belief? You know, the die-hard doughhead thinks that Applewhite really did take his lucky flock up to rendezvous with the aliens. How much respect would you allow for that individual's belief?

When is enough enough, Eric?

And, by the way, do you really think that any of us will change our opinions and go back to Maharaji? How about you? Do you envision a day when you might change your beliefs and leave him?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 22, 2000 at 20:40:31 (GMT)
From: Eric
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Why?
Message:
Jim, I am not posting here in the hope I am going to change anyone's opinion. Never heard of Heaven's Gate, so I can't comment, however, if it was something I wasn't interested in I wouldn't bother with it. I guess I could find a chat room full of Nazis if I looked, but as fascism isn't really my thing, I'm not looking for it.

I'm posting here mainly because I'm having some fun and I am also interested. My feeling about most of what I've read here is that you guys were/are all very, very sincere and you really put your whole lives on the line. We all did, Jim. I did/have too. Obviously somewhere along the line you became disillusioned and that is where we differ.

What caused the disillusionments are very individual. Ashram clsoing. Stupid, arrogant coordinators, wife leaving, husband leaving, boy/girlfriend leaving,having children, M changing his stand on things, it could even be because someone lost a job. There's a lot of reasons why people move on.

My point is ... no matter what M said or didn't say, did or didn't do, when it is all said and done, we are responsible for the decisions we make in this life. And the events that are gone over and over here are from a long way back in the past, Jim. And for the most part it seems to be in an American past. It's a very small group on the whole that posts here.

I do think it is healthy for everyone who visits this site to see discussions coming from both sides of the fence. I mean you wouldn't want to come across as a bunch of narrow-minded bigots would you?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 01:50:16 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Eric
Subject: Why?
Message:
Eric (not Jim):

What caused the disillusionments are very individual.

I think you're kidding yourself here. There was nothing personal in my disillusionment. I had long since ceased to be hurt by the Guru or his influence. I was disillusioned because I found that Maharaji was simply not what he represents himself to be. To understand what's really going on you sometimes need to sacrifice what you wish were going on. It would be much simpler if Maharaji were what he claims to be (pick a decade) but it's a practical impossibility. It pisses me off a little that he has gotten rich at this subterfuge, but worse things have happened. I'd just prefer that people got things straight. It makes for a more rationally secure universe. Who knows, at some point we may actually *need* to know what's going on.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 13:06:38 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: fitzroy@liverpool.ac.uk
To: Scott T.
Subject: Great line Scott: 'To understand..'
Message:
To understand what's really going on you sometimes need to sacrifice what you wish were going on.

In a nutshell. Eminently reusable quote there.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 22, 2000 at 22:52:19 (GMT)
From: Bin Liner
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Why Not.
Message:

You've got it Jim.

Sincere & taken for mugs. That makes me angry , even though I made the decision to follow the bastard.

It's not a 'long way back in the past', it's from a long time back in the past until now.

That means it's definitely present.

I'm English ,& as he was 1st brought here (England), by English people , I'd like some of them to explain themselves.

C'mon Mahatma Saphlanand , get your arse out of the woodwork.

It'll do you good.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 22, 2000 at 21:02:57 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Eric
Subject: Reasons people leave the cult
Message:
Beyond your mundane, non-M threatening reasons, most people I know left because the 'experience' as it were, left plenty to be desired, goober was a terrible meditation teacher, the whole set up was authoritarian and oppressive, and the leader, er speaker was a money grubbing, ignorant, babbling little tyrant.

Your pointing to sources or reasons outside of the cult and its 'leader' are suspect, and frankly, insulting to the intelligence of the people here who know better.

This garbage about 'responsibility' you cult members and new-agers in general like to spout bugs me to no end. It's just such crap to say free will and responsibility in the same sentence as 'mind control brainwashing cult.'

As far as the number of participants here, how would you know?

And thanks for the passive-aggressive insult for about the 'narrow-minded bigots.' Something about your wimpy ass cult and its sleazy leader breeds this contemptuous attitude. The nut doesn't fall far from the tree, Eric.

PS: I find it shocking you never heard of the Heaven's Gate cult, but in retrospect, this isn't all that surprising given how deeply you have your head buried in the sand...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 19:08:18 (GMT)
From: Carol
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: Resonsibility again
Message:
Gerry said:It's just such crap to say free will and responsibility in the same sentence as 'mind control brainwashing cult.'

I differ in that I think the point being made here, or if not, what I believe personally, is that it takes our free will and recognition of responsibility to leave behind old cultish ways of thinking. And for some who have done that, it also inspires one to share the way of thinking that helped make then free!

I don't understand why you hate hearing about 'responsibility' and equate it with new age thinking! It is an over reaction IMHO, as is your very rude response to Eric.

Alhough I have to somewhat agree with the last point you made, except I would use the words 'head in the sand'. But then, I sympathise because I've certainly had to wipe the sand out of my eyes from time to time. I don't think it helps anyone to yell at them for it unless you are warning then about a stampede or something!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 19:27:54 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Carol
Subject: My you can help me here, Carol
Message:
Where was I rude in my post to Eric 'reasons people leave the cult.' Please be specific so I can see it.

Now the responsibility thing: Eric suggests that we were responsible for what happened to us in the cult. I say there is a VERY diminished responsibility when you are in the domain of brainwashing, which is exactly what we are talking about here in terms of cult indoctrination.

Alhough I have to somewhat agree with the last point you made, except I would use the words 'head in the sand'.

I SAID 'HEAD IN THE SAND.'

Can you see why communicationg with you can be exasperating for me?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 05:54:30 (GMT)
From: Carol
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: My you can help me here, Carol
Message:
So Sorry Gerry, I told you I have had to wipe the sand from my own eyes. I thought for sure you must have said his head was in a different place! Maybe I read that from someone else somewhere today! Or, I must have been thinking of the tone of this post:

Gerry:Neither can I:

Eric:'Those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it.'
Or something like that.

Gerry:Anyway, yours is another stupid quote from a fraud. In fact, a murderous fraud. But that doesn't seem to matter to you, as long as you get a hit of that special 'inner experience.'

Carol: This is very insulting!

Eric:'There is only one courage'

Gerry:Oh really, only one, huh? god that's shallow.

Eric:and that is the courage to go on dying to the past, not to collect it, not to accumulate it, not to cling to it.

Gerry:Of course a cult leader would like his dupes to forget the past, forget their origins, forget their family ties. Yes
forget the past, don't cling to it, but cling instead to the words of the cult leader. And of course surrender your all,
especially your wallet.

Eric:We all cling to the past, and because we cling to the past we become unavailable to the present'

Gerry:This is just plain stupid. And you are just a fucking head wonk wind up and time waster...

Carol now: Now that was definately insulting! Or maybe it was the one with this subject line to Eric:
Gerry:Then you're a bigger asshole that I thought.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 15:07:26 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Carol
Subject: You butchered it all up
Message:
and took it completely out of context.

Not fair.

This person admitted he/she was merely winding people up with the specific intention of 'throwing another log on the fire.' Anything to take the heat off of goober. Not nice. My responses were deserved.

You see Carol, there's rude and then there's RUDE. I'm guilty of the former, this wanker is guilty of the latter.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 19:18:28 (GMT)
From: carol
Email: None
To: Gerry Jim Eric
Subject: Reasonability, respond-ability
Message:
Just trying to cover for my typo in creative and thoughtful ways!

I don't think using the word responsibility and a dictim to make choices in the present imlpies that cult member were entirely responsible for their thinking while in the cult. I agree with you that it it is wrong for premies to say we *were* responsible for everything related to our premie experiences.

We were not equally able-to-respond, therefore we were not responsible for our beliefs and actions while we surrendered to M. But now it is a different story. That word is meaningful to understand and use to take us into a clear headed state of an ability-to-respond.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 19:34:05 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: carol
Subject: WWhat in the world...
Message:
How is 'ability to respond' equivalent to responsiblity?

A baby has the ability to respond, but certainly no one would suggest a baby carries any sort of 'responsibility.'

Carol, this is word warping. It is confusing.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 22, 2000 at 20:59:24 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Why?
Message:
My point is ... no matter what M said or didn't say, did or didn't do, when it is all said and done, we are responsible for the decisions we make in this life. And the events that are gone over and over here are from a long way back in the past, Jim. And for the most part it seems to be in an American past. It's a very small group on the whole that posts here.

Heaven's Gate? You've never heard of them? Where are you anyway? HG was the cult that all committed suicide in San Diego a couple of years ago. You know, they followed 'Bo' who was going to take them to meet up with the aliens he said were hiding behind the Hale-Bopp comet. They all ate jello.

But, anyway, no, you're wrong. We are not responsible for being the victims of a fraud. That's entirely wrong. Maharaji's a quack and his medicine was bogus. He offered an elixer that, he claimed, would lead us into a state of God-realization, the very state he pretended to be in. It wasn't just to feel kind of nice and peaceful.

That promise was bullshit and we got suckered. He's responsible. Plain and simple.

The 'American' thing is wrong too. It was everywhere. Where you from again?

Have you read the DLM / EV Papers part of this site? Please do before you say anything futher. You don't know what you're talking about.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index