Ex-Premie Forum 7 Archive
From: Sep 18, 2001 To: Sep 21, 2001 Page: 4 of: 5


Mel Bourne -:- Israeli WTC workers take day off on Tues 11th..... -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 06:29:06 (EDT)
__ Suedoula -:- Re: Israeli WTC workers -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 22:15:33 (EDT)
__ Katie -:- Mel, a question -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 10:49:54 (EDT)
__ AJW -:- They knew in advance. -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 06:54:13 (EDT)
__ __ Jim -:- Prove it, Anth -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 11:13:07 (EDT)
__ __ __ AJW -:- See above Jim. -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 12:18:14 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Jim -:- And just who is 'THEY'? -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 14:32:07 (EDT)
__ Joe -:- Ridiculous and Disgusting -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 14:34:32 (EDT)
__ __ AJW -:- Joe, a question. -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 07:05:13 (EDT)
__ __ __ Joe -:- Some Partial Answers -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 11:55:49 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ AJW -:- Thanks Joe (nt) -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 12:29:29 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Katie -:- Thanks, Joe -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 12:15:35 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- Hi Katie -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 13:54:50 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- Re: Hi Joe -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 14:05:42 (EDT)
__ __ __ Katie -:- Anth, a partial answer -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 11:27:52 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ AJW -:- Thanks Katie. -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 12:32:29 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- You're welcome, Anth -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 12:51:59 (EDT)
__ Nigel -:- Good grief, Mel.. -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 11:27:27 (EDT)
__ __ AJW -:- Don't shoot the messenger Nigel. -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 07:17:01 (EDT)
__ __ __ Nigel -:- Re: Don't shoot the messenger Nigel. -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 12:08:57 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ AJW -:- I take your point Nigel. -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 12:26:08 (EDT)
__ __ Mel Bourne -:- Re: Good grief, Mel.. -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 12:09:33 (EDT)
__ __ __ Scott T. -:- Small, hairy, distorted pseudo-humans. -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 18:51:57 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Mel Bourne -:- Re: Small, hairy, distorted pseudo-humans. -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 06:21:17 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Mel continues to stick foot in mouth -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 13:16:35 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Mel Bourne -:- Re: Mel continues to stick foot in mouth -:- Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 07:18:22 (EDT)
__ Jim -:- Get lost, Mel -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 11:09:24 (EDT)
__ __ AJW -:- Hey Jim. -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 12:23:04 (EDT)
__ __ Mel Bourne -:- Re: Get lost, Mel -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 13:42:57 (EDT)
__ __ __ Jim -:- An 'alternative point of view'? -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 20:58:03 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Mel Bourne -:- Re: An 'alternative point of view'? -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 06:31:25 (EDT)
__ __ gerry -:- Jim, -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 11:25:44 (EDT)
__ __ __ Pat:C) -:- Jim, gerry - I've watched this anonymouse -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 13:11:36 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ AJW -:- Mel -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 07:24:38 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- That's such bullshit, Anth -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 13:24:41 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Dermot -:- Yes Pat -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 14:33:49 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Pat:C) -:- Dermott, I remember Mel -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 14:48:09 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ gerry -:- Re: Jim, gerry - I've watched this anonymouse -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 14:14:22 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Pat:C) -:- Yes, Gerry re Mel Bourne -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 14:20:14 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Mel Bourne -:- Re: Jim, gerry - I've watched this anonymouse -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 13:25:16 (EDT)
__ salam -:- Re: Israeli WTC workers -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 10:52:21 (EDT)
__ __ Jean-Michel -:- Strange thing about conspiracy theories -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 11:22:37 (EDT)
__ __ __ Scott T. -:- Viennese Humor: Die Juden und die Radlfahrer -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 12:06:00 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ btdt -:- Re: Viennese Humor: Die Juden und die Radlfahrer -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 00:34:12 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Re: Viennese Humor: Die Juden und die Radlfahrer -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 19:13:54 (EDT)
__ __ __ Scott T. -:- Re: Strange thing about conspiracy theories -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 11:58:55 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Dermot -:- Deference? think your guess is wrong Scott -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 12:59:36 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Not a guess. -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 16:48:13 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- I think we need the citations on this one -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 17:01:34 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- You asked for it. -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 17:56:05 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Dermot -:- Political/social science !!!!!!! -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 04:24:26 (EDT)
__ __ __ Salam -:- Re: Strange thing about conspiracy theories -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 11:37:44 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ JohnT -:- Re: Strange thing about conspiracy theories -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 12:04:20 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Dermot -:- Please clarify John T -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 13:25:07 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Jean-Michel -:- And no frogs killed !! -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 11:46:53 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- No Latvians either. -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 12:01:28 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Salam -:- Re: And no frogs killed !! -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 11:59:35 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Jean-Michel -:- Waht about premies ? -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 12:22:52 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ salam -:- Re: Waht about premies ? -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 13:18:43 (EDT)
__ __ Scott T. -:- Political Paranoia -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 11:21:33 (EDT)
__ __ __ JohnT -:- Re: Political Paranoia -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 11:56:24 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Re: Political Paranoia -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 12:13:27 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ JohnT -:- the point -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 15:47:55 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Re: the point -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 17:21:52 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ JohnT -:- thanks but ... -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 06:33:06 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ cq -:- Paranoia hijacking politics? Or vice-versa? -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 15:04:51 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Mickey the Pharisee -:- Re: Paranoia hijacking politics? Or vice-versa? -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 23:50:45 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ cq -:- Re: Paranoia hijacking politics? Or vice-versa? -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 16:15:40 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Mickey the Pharisee -:- Re: Paranoia hijacking politics? Or vice-versa? -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 19:06:16 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ cq -:- Whooah! I said whooah there pardray ... -:- Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 15:42:21 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Mickey the Pharisee -:- Re: Whooah! I said whooah there pardray ... -:- Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 16:51:27 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Re: Paranoia hijacking politics? Or vice-versa? -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 17:26:18 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ cq -:- Re: Paranoia hijacking politics? Or vice-versa? -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 15:17:39 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- Re: Political Paranoia -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 12:55:30 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- You got it! -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 18:08:54 (EDT)
__ JohnT -:- Take it to 'Anything Goes' [nt] -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 09:47:56 (EDT)
__ Scott T. -:- TROLL ALERT [nt] -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 09:31:42 (EDT)
__ __ Mel Bourne -:- Re: TROLL ALERT -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 11:47:26 (EDT)
__ __ __ Mel Bourne -:- Gerry, re TROLL ALERT -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 13:12:57 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ gerry -:- Mel your post is empty, try again [nt] -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 15:48:54 (EDT)

Jean-Michel -:- Major Update on the EV-DLM Papers download page -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 06:22:43 (EDT)
__ Trying () ) -:- Trying nt -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 09:09:19 (EDT)
__ __ ())())())())())())())()) -:- ())())())())())())()) -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 19:14:53 (EDT)
__ __ Trying again -:- Re: Trying again -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 09:10:46 (EDT)
__ __ __ Try once more -:- Trying once more -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 09:11:53 (EDT)

Dermot -:- The coming war in Afghanistan -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 04:51:48 (EDT)
__ cq -:- Afghanistan not defeated since Alexander the Great -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 16:00:21 (EDT)
__ __ Scott T. -:- Afghanistan and Alex -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 19:01:12 (EDT)
__ PatD -:- A Blast from the Past -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 11:01:18 (EDT)
__ __ AJW -:- Scarey poems Pat (nt) -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 07:37:44 (EDT)
__ toby -:- Are you ready for that? -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 10:38:23 (EDT)
__ Amazing -:- amazing article, thanks. [nt] -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 09:15:36 (EDT)
__ JohnT -:- Nice one Dermot -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 08:42:55 (EDT)
__ Here's a link -:- to a D.C. Think Tank -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 06:11:18 (EDT)
__ Rick -:- Re: The coming war in Afghanistan -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 05:16:03 (EDT)
__ __ btdt -:- Re: The coming war in Afghanistan -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 08:43:51 (EDT)

Annie -:- Message to Deborah -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 04:42:28 (EDT)
__ Deborah -:- Re: Message to Deborah -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 16:17:49 (EDT)
__ __ Annie -:- Thanks. -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 18:40:57 (EDT)
__ __ __ Deborah -:- NO! Thank you -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 23:20:27 (EDT)
__ __ Francesca -:- Geez Deb, I knew some of those folks -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 18:28:39 (EDT)
__ __ __ Deborah -:- Re: Geez Deb, I knew some of those folks -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 23:39:01 (EDT)
__ Annie -:- what jihad is -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 09:12:04 (EDT)
__ __ Forum Janitor -:- I don't think I like you -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 10:03:09 (EDT)
__ __ __ Salam -:- Re: I don't think I like you -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 10:58:33 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Re: I don't think I like you -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 19:10:21 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ gerry -:- Re: I don't think I like you -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 11:12:56 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Salam -:- OK, no prob, leave it to me -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 11:41:00 (EDT)
__ __ __ Annie -:- I don't think I know you. -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 10:26:40 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Forum Janitor -:- Re: I don't think I know you. -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 10:34:21 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Annie -:- thanks, and a question. -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 10:52:12 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Depends -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 12:01:47 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Annie -:- for Jim -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 18:47:00 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Why won't you answer me, Annie? -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 21:41:41 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Francesca -:- People would have no reason ... -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 20:48:20 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Francesca -:- Just saw post to Jim--you're not the old Annie [nt] -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 20:56:23 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ PatD -:- Persons close to maharaji..... -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 19:25:44 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- A perfect example of passive aggression -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 11:04:19 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Annie -:- Taking the Stand -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 18:38:24 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- Annie, I heard about phone tree in NY and DC -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 13:47:08 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Examining your 'testimony' -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 23:30:47 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Francesca :C) -:- Jim, yes, um hmm! -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 00:20:27 (EDT)

suchabanana -:- commentary by an American born in Afghanistan -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 02:09:21 (EDT)
__ Francesca :C) -:- Uh, such, who is WW? -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 00:30:49 (EDT)
__ __ such -:- your neighborhood -:- Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 19:05:40 (EDT)
__ salam -:- Correction -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 11:34:45 (EDT)
__ __ such -:- re'know what you're talking about' -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 15:28:45 (EDT)
__ Jean-Michel -:- I've been there in 1968 -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 06:36:51 (EDT)
__ btdt -:- Re: commentary by an American born in Afghanistan -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 02:55:58 (EDT)

Michael Read -:- open letter to the terrorists -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 00:00:45 (EDT)
__ salam -:- are you serious? -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 13:20:42 (EDT)

Victoria H. -:- Canadian tv commentator Gordon Sinclair -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 23:52:12 (EDT)

a0aji -:- Who's Who -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 22:21:39 (EDT)
__ Rick -:- swell bunch of fellows and gals, thanks (nt) -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 11:16:00 (EDT)

a0aji -:- The 'war can be avoided' fantasy -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 20:45:58 (EDT)
__ Scott T. -:- Read this -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 21:08:45 (EDT)
__ a0aji -:- Re: The 'war can be avoided' fantasy -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 20:59:26 (EDT)

Deputy Dog -:- Wow, not one comment about my message below! -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 18:42:20 (EDT)
__ Francesca -:- Dog, at the risk of getting flamed -:- Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 14:18:59 (EDT)
__ gerry -:- Throw a dog a bone -:- Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 20:26:21 (EDT)


Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 06:29:06 (EDT)
From: Mel Bourne
Email: None
To: All
Subject: Israeli WTC workers take day off on Tues 11th.....
Message:
Or so the Pakistani press thinks. Interesting, but true or false?

Mel
[ A new passover? ]

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 22:15:33 (EDT)
From: Suedoula
Email: None
To: Mel Bourne
Subject: Re: Israeli WTC workers
Message:
False. See Francesca and Katie's post with the link to the Rumors of War page.

Best to all,
Susan

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 10:49:54 (EDT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Mel Bourne
Subject: Mel, a question
Message:
Were there really 4000 Israelis that work in the WTC buildings? I have never heard this. This number seems awfully high to me - and if you want to determine the verity of this report (which I think is false - especially since they seem to be confusing 'Israelis' with 'Jews' in a very anti-semitic way), I would question that first.

The rest of the news report is truly strange - and if you read the list of the other titles of news reports, obviously part of a campaign to try and accuse Israel of being involved with the attacks. Israel seems to be hated more than the US in the Middle East.

BTW, there are a bunch of Jewish people (posters and lurkers; exes and premies) who read this forum - they are not all pro-Israel, either. Reports like this are hurtful to them. Hope you can understand that.

Take care,
Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 06:54:13 (EDT)
From: AJW
Email: None
To: Mel Bourne
Subject: They knew in advance.
Message:
Hi Mel,

Somebody definitely knew in advance (see my post about Switzerland above) as shown by the massive selling of insurance and airline shares immediately before the attack.

I wonder how badly the powers that be want to know who it is?

Anth the headless goat.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 11:13:07 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: AJW
Subject: Prove it, Anth
Message:
What report? Where? Come on now, you don't just say stuff like that without backing it up. Where is it?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 12:18:14 (EDT)
From: AJW
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: See above Jim.
Message:
It was on Channel 4 News.

Anth the headless lettuce.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 14:32:07 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: AJW
Subject: And just who is 'THEY'?
Message:
Who's the 'they' that knew in advance, Anth?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 14:34:32 (EDT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Mel Bourne
Subject: Ridiculous and Disgusting
Message:
Mel, I wish you wouldn't spread around garbage like that. It really isn't helpful at a time like this.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 07:05:13 (EDT)
From: AJW
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Joe, a question.
Message:
Hi Joe,

On a related topic. The first reports in New York said there were 25,000 people in each of the WT Towers. Around half or so must have been above the crashes. When the disaster was first reported, the casualty estimates, that nobody dared speak, were anything from 20,000 upwards.

But now the figures given are something like, 5,000 missing, and a couple of hundred dead.

This is radically different from the original estimates. Do you think the US are trying to play down the numbers, or were there much fewer people in the buildings than originally estimated? Or is there another explanation?

Anth, wondering about it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 11:55:49 (EDT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: AJW
Subject: Some Partial Answers
Message:
I have heard varying reports on the number of workers in WTC, but it's between 40,000 and 50,000. Plus many thousands more visit there everyday, including tourists who go to the top to get the amazing view from the towers. Fortunately, if you can say that, there are a number of reasons the deaths weren't higher, although I still have a hard time getting my brain around 5,400, and while most are still listed as missing, they are almost certainly all dead.

1. People in New York go to work later in many businesses. Except for the stockbrokers, others often don't show up for work until 9:30 AM or later. This is partly because the West Coast is 3 hours behind. So, in the West, we tend to start work earlier, and I'm often at work by 7:30 or 8:00 partly because I need to talk on the phone to the East Coast to get people before the lunch hour. So, many people weren't in the buildings yet at 8:48 AM when the first plane hit, and obviously didn't enter either building after it did. And in WTC 1, the plane hit above the 90th floor, way up high. I think in WTC 2 it was lower, around the 70th floor, but still way more than halfway up. People below obviously had more of a chance to escape.

2. I know a bunch of people who work for Aon, which was on floors 92-97 in WTC 2. Out of 1100 workers, they are missing 200. Aside from the people who hadn't arrived at work yet, many of the Aon people evacuated when the plane hit WTC 1, and many of them were out of the building or on the lower floors before the plane hit WTC 2, 20 minutes later. Unfortunately, those who didn't leave the building before the SECOND plane hit, probably didn't get out because the plane hit BELOW the floors Aon was on. So, WTC 2 might have been largely evacuated before the second plane hit.

3. Although WTC 1 was hit first, it collapsed later than WTC 2 and the plane hit on the highest floors. So, people had more time to get out before the building collapsed. I have an email from a guy who was on the 87th floor of WTC 1 when the plane hit a few stories above him. He, and all the people he knew, walked down 87 floors in a very, very, frightening and harrowing trek to the ground and got out. The stairs were packed with people, who were freaked, but very orderly. At one point the lights went out, and each person put their hand on the shoulder of the person in front of them, and they marched out. I can't even imagine how terrifying that must have been.

But this guy said he was only out of the building 15 minutes when it collapsed. He and many others ran as fast as they could to get away from the debris. Everytime I think about this, I start to tremble a little.

I don't think anyone is playing down the numbers, which would be impossible to do, because it's all public information, eventually, and Gullianni and others would never want to be accused of cooking the numbers.

One more thing. Canter Fitzpatrick Securites, a big bond trading company, was on the highest floors of WTC 1 and I don't think anybody got out. They were above the level of where the first plane hit. I read where the Los Angeles office of the company called the New York office after the plane hit and put the call on the speaker system in the LA office. Apparently, at some point, the people in New York said the offices were filling with smoke and that they couldn't get out.

I think it was probably some of those people who jumped out of the building to a quick death rather than be burned to death. And I can't imagine what it was like for the co-workers in LA to listen to that. God, this whole thing just makes me sick, and so sad.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 12:29:29 (EDT)
From: AJW
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Thanks Joe (nt)
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 12:15:35 (EDT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Thanks, Joe
Message:
I hope you are all right. It's been pretty horrible here - so many people who work with me (and of course many of the students) have family in the DC area. I don't know if many of the students really 'get it' yet - they have never experienced anything like this before - but no doubt it will hit home sooner or later. It's quite scary for those of us who grew up during the Vietnam war - or the duck-and-cover era. Lots of flashbacks to both those times for me, Brian, and many other people we know.

I can't get the picture of the people running away from the big dust cloud (which began to cut them off at street crossings) out of my head. The stories are just horrendous. And the images of people jumping (which, thank god, they stopped playing on TV, were so awful.

Lots of love to you - and take care,
Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 13:54:50 (EDT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Hi Katie
Message:
I'm fine, just sad and distracted, but otherwise okay. I think I mentioned my friend Julie is okay, although I haven't talked to her directly, only to her mother.

I was embarrassed to say that one of my main clients is in New York, and on Tuesday morning, I couldn't remember their address. Everything is phone and email these days, so I hadn't looked at it in a long time. Turns out, they were way up town and everyone is okay. I have gotten to know those people pretty well, and I like them a lot.

I am very worried about what is next. I think the best thing is to talk about it, and not just pretend things are okay. On the other hand, I think it's important to be a little defiant and not allow this to limit our lives too much.

I have to fly to Chicago at the end of the month, and I'm a little apprehensive, but I'm going if I can get on a plane. As far as I am concerned, they can ex-ray me from head to toe if that's what it takes to make flying safe. I'll show up early if that's what it takes.

I know what you mean about the images. They will always we with us.

Take care and much love,

Joe

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 14:05:42 (EDT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Re: Hi Joe
Message:
Hey Joe -
Glad you are all right - and that your friends are all right. I know you knew a lot of people in the financial business.

This has been rough for me. Talking about it does help - although arguing about it doesn't help me (although maybe it helps other people.) Very few people where I work will discuss it - which is hard for me. The college kids are either shocked or disaffected - I can't tell which. It is like it is not real to most of them - maybe it's more like a movie?

I am worried about what happens next too - it's frightening. Have talked to my mother some about Pearl Harbor, which is helpful, since she's quite politically savvy and can put this into that context very well.

I'm VERY politically torn by this - to the point of contradicting myself at times. I think you know that my mom worked with Colin Powell and my mom and dad knew John McCain (my mother, who is very liberal, like me) thinks both of them are really good people. I dislike Bush, but I do feel empathy and compassion for him in having to deal with this. And of course, growing up in a military family, and mostly in DC has left its mark on me - especially being raised in a post-nuclear, very fearful, environment.

I'm glad you are going to fly - I am encouraging other people to do it too. I also think we need to be defiant, although I can understand why people are afraid. And it's still far safer to fly than drive.

Lots of love to you too -
Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 11:27:52 (EDT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: AJW
Subject: Anth, a partial answer
Message:
Joe may be able to be more authoritative than this, but I'll take a stab at it.

First, people work all different shifts at the WTC, so while there may be 50,000 people working in the buildings each day, they are not all there at one time.

Second, the first crash happened at 8:45 - many businesses start working hours at 9 AM, and so people who work the 9-5 shift may not have been at work yet - and likely did NOT go into either building if they saw the crash..

Third, I haven't heard exactly where the planes hit, but it was high up on the buildings - around the 90-100 floors - so many people were below the crashes. A LOT of people got out - including many people in the second building hit who were already spooked by the bombing in 1973.

So I think there were much fewer people in the buildings than estimated, and also that a lot of people got out. (I know that some friends and relatives of people I know got out right away - they were on the lower floors.)

BTW, my opinion is that they are never going to find most of those missing people. That is going to be very hard to accept - and people are going to need a lot of support.

Love,
Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 12:32:29 (EDT)
From: AJW
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Thanks Katie.
Message:
I guess there's a lot of people in NYC counting their blessings, as well as the thousands who are grieving.

Thank God most people got out.

I find the forum more informative than the news at the moment.

Anth.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 12:51:59 (EDT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: AJW
Subject: You're welcome, Anth
Message:
I was also amazed that so many people got out - when I saw those buildings collapse, I just couldn't picture it happening. Of course, I knew that there were lots of rescue workers in there, which was horrrible to imagine.

Re the news. I have ONLY watched CNN since last Thursday since most other major networks in the US reported that 10 people had been arrested at JFK and LaGuardia 'possibly attempting to hijack planes again'. This was an erroneous report (the people were detained and released, except for one guy who hit a cop), and it scared a lot of people for no reason, including me. My boss, who is a good friend, was flying to Munich the next day, and I was terrified for him.

I can't say that CNN has been perfect by any means, but they are doing a decent job. They showed an excellent documentary about Afghanistan made by a British-born Afghani woman (you may know her name - I can't recall it) last night, which I appreciated. And I believe they are trying to be non-sensational.

Love,
Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 11:27:27 (EDT)
From: Nigel
Email: nigel@redcrow.demon.co.uk
To: Mel Bourne
Subject: Good grief, Mel..
Message:
You sound like you're willing to give this absurd and disgusting nonsense the time of day. Or at least half-willing to.

(Funny, but I seem to remember you requiring altogether more rigorous standards of evidence when, say, accepting that Jagdeo was a pedophile. A couple of years back I remember you referred to such posts as 'libellous' - even though the evidence was already strong. Well that's all water under the bridge, I guess.)

But the flakiness of this uncorroborated - and clearly invented -story is obvious, and the most vile suggestion is the implication that 4000 Israelis would stay off work, knowing the WTC was about to be attacked, without alerting work colleagues or the authorities.

Like I said, truly disgusting.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 07:17:01 (EDT)
From: AJW
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Don't shoot the messenger Nigel.
Message:
Nigel,

Mel isn't saying he agrees with what's in that article. He's adding as a morcel of a picture we are all trying to build up of what's going on at the moment.

You can't assume he agrees with it, just because he shows it to us.

At the moment, any view that disagrees with the party line, is starting to be seen as 'supporting terrorism'. It's crazy. It is not a 'good vs evil' situation. Sooner or later, people have to start communicating with each other, and showing some respect for each other.

Extreme views and mindless violence from either side just make things worse.

Anth the dislocated shrew.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 12:08:57 (EDT)
From: Nigel
Email: None
To: AJW
Subject: Re: Don't shoot the messenger Nigel.
Message:
Anth - Mel's 'true or false' question creates a 'parity of probability ' effect, also giving at least the appearence of willingness to believe this nonsense. Or that's how I read it.

If I, say, were to publish here a link to some Nazi website claiming the holocaust never happened, together with a similar 'true or false' question, wouldn't that be pretty irresponsible? I would similarly only be the messenger, but that doesn't mean worthless messages deserve to be spread when there are gullible people all too ready to believe them.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 12:26:08 (EDT)
From: AJW
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: I take your point Nigel.
Message:
I wonder if Mel does.

Anth the kid sandwich.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 12:09:33 (EDT)
From: Mel Bourne
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Re: Good grief, Mel..
Message:
Nigel

Sure the figures are prepostorous, but apparently Shabak has high level infiltration into middle eastern extremist groups, which, if true, certainly makes prior knowledge of the attack possible.

Mel

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 18:51:57 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Mel Bourne
Subject: Small, hairy, distorted pseudo-humans.
Message:
'preposterous' isn't actually compatible with 'possible' in any meaningful sense. Again, 'possible' to the same extent that the universe is composed of old photos of Humphrey Bogart, maybe. But you're a dope to link the two, especially in this context at this time. Proves you've lost touch with your own human perceptions. YOUR OWN, not ours! Your apology would be appropriate. Learn.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 06:21:17 (EDT)
From: Mel Bourne
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Re: Small, hairy, distorted pseudo-humans.
Message:
Scott

You're becoming as obtuse as Jim!

1. I merely provided a link to the Pakistani news site, I didn't write the article, for God's sake. So there's nothing for me to apologise for!

2. Let me reiterate the simple point that I subsequently made....it is possible that Shabak may have known of the New York attacks before they were made because of the high level of infiltration they allegedly have into the Islamic extremist movements. You have not directly addressed this possibility, only derided me by critising a juxtapostion of words. I can only assume that you are trying to say that the Shabak prior knowledge is impossible but are unable to provide any plausible explanation as to why? Am I correct?

Mel

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 13:16:35 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Mel Bourne
Subject: Mel continues to stick foot in mouth
Message:
Your default on human character is what's so appalling. Consider how entirely offensive the speculation is. Consider how flimsy and speculative it is. Consider the source. Then consider your own motive for dropping it here knowing as you do how sensitive so many of us, especially Americans or in this case jews would be, to such an insulting theory. You posted that with glee, Mel. Not the kind of person I ever want to know.

It's also impossible to prove that you didn't have any prior knowledge, Mel. After all, you weren't in the WTC last Tuesday, were you?

You

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 07:18:22 (EDT)
From: Mel Bourne
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: Mel continues to stick foot in mouth
Message:
Jim

It's also impossible to prove that you didn't have any prior knowledge, Mel. After all, you weren't in the WTC last Tuesday, were you?

True Jim, but, unlike Shabak it seems, I haven't had penetrated the higher levels of Islamic extremist groups, have I? So it would probably be easier to make a case against them for prior knowledge than against me.

...especially Americans or in this case jews would be...

What's so special about 'Americans and Jews' that they should be afforded more sensitivity than anybody else anyway. There is untold suffering going on in the world outside America and Israel, some of it, maybe, even caused by America and Israel.

You posted that with glee, Mel

You were not present when I posted it, so you cannot possibly, make such an assertion (unless you've gone all 'new agey and 'psychic'), and, for the record, I didn't. I generally seek out the opposing view point to try to understand a different perspective and motivation. I try to be as open minded as possible. It's an essential requirement of my job to invetsigate opposing points of view so the process of resolution between the parties that I'm involved with can be adequately and fairly facilitated. Sometimes this process can be painful for the people involved, but this isn't necessarily a bad thing.

This approach carries over to politics, I guess. During the Kosovo crisis I bookmarked a link to the Serbian Ministry of Information which I read regularly. In the standoff between China and Taiwan I had links to the Peoples Daily and the Taipei Times to read both sides and try to understand the merit (if any) of the opposing arguments. In the present situation I have links to the Pakistani press (obviously) and have tried to search links to the Afghani press that aren't filtered through the US (unsuccesfully).

The only mistake I made was underestimating the degree of sensitivity here by publishing the link. For that I apologise, but I was actually flabbergasted with the reaction, which I suspect has as much to do with me ('premie' Mel) rather than the material, especially after my link to the CIA Watch list site.

Unlike you, Jim, I don't wish people a fate like the poor victims in the WTC just because they seek and discuss the situation from a more challenging (and unpopular)perpective.

Mel

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 11:09:24 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Mel Bourne
Subject: Get lost, Mel
Message:
Funny, all those forum discussions over the last couple of years, times when you would trot out your disingenuous moral concerns. You always were a worm, Mel. Too bad you couldn't have been in the WTC September 11th. Yeah, that's right.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 12:23:04 (EDT)
From: AJW
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Hey Jim.
Message:
Funny, all those forum discussions over the last couple of years, times when you would trot out your disingenuous moral concerns. You always were a worm, Mel. Too bad you couldn't have been in the WTC September 11th. Yeah, that's right.


---

Jim,

This is way over the top. Mel doesn't deserve it.

Who else you wanna take out besides Mel?

You should calm down, then apologise.

Anth, hope my family don't get a bill for the bullet.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 13:42:57 (EDT)
From: Mel Bourne
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: Get lost, Mel
Message:
C'mon Jim, what's wrong, an alernative point of view too confronting for you?

Mel

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 20:58:03 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Mel Bourne
Subject: An 'alternative point of view'?
Message:
An alternative point of view is that you're a sorry excuse for a human being. Like it?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 06:31:25 (EDT)
From: Mel Bourne
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: An 'alternative point of view'?
Message:
Typical old Jim, when you can't debate the issue, attempt to belittle the opponent. You've said nothing pertinent to endorse or refute to the subjects that I've raised, Jim, only emotional reactionary garbage!

Mel

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 11:25:44 (EDT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Jim,
Message:
Even I didn't bite at that one. If four thousand people were told not to go to the WTC wouldn't be reasonable to assume at least one would sound the alarm? Amazing little piece of state sponsored propaganda (pakistani that is.)

Did you get my email?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 13:11:36 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: Jim, gerry - I've watched this anonymouse
Message:
over the past week jumping here and posting away in a frenzy and stopped reading its posts after the second one had that smarmy tone.

Could you fill me in on Mel's history here. Is he simply one of the many incarnations of David Roupell that have been used over the past four years? Or is that too ''conspiracy theory'' for you?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 07:24:38 (EDT)
From: AJW
Email: None
To: Pat:C)
Subject: Mel
Message:
Hi Pat,

My exchanges with Mel have always been civilised and reasonable. Unlike most premies who appear here, he did answer questions honestly, rather than dodge them.

He's always come across as an intelligent, reasonable person. Sure, he's caught up in a cult, but weren't we all?

Anth, often unintelligent and unreasonable.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 13:24:41 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: AJW
Subject: That's such bullshit, Anth
Message:
How in the world you could ever say that Mel's long, long history of defending Maharaji is reasonable is beyond me. In a world of entirely unreasonable cult members, Mel might look better than some but that's about it. You give him far, far too much credit. Would you like me to comb the archives?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 14:33:49 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Pat:C)
Subject: Yes Pat
Message:
I agree with Gerry. Mels not in the same category of some of those famous trolls you know so well :)I wouldn't really call him a troll.

Of course I don't agree with him completely on everything (but then do I agree with anyone on everything?) but I don't think he should be hounded out or made to feel unwelcome.

He's ok I think.

Surprised you don't remember him anyway.....I think he wrote a good, caring about post re the Jagdeo issue if my memoery serves me well. Along with other reasonable stuff.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 14:48:09 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: Dermott, I remember Mel
Message:
I do remember Mel's post about Jagdeo. I just don't know what he was like before I arrived 9 months ago. Lately I've been having run-ins with other Oz premies and am a bit touchy because they change their tunes and names so fast. Also this anti-semitic post of his really was unnecessary nonsense.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 14:14:22 (EDT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Pat:C)
Subject: Re: Jim, gerry - I've watched this anonymouse
Message:
Mel's OK. He's coming around. In fact I think he's close to exiting.
He's a social worker in OZ with obvious compassion for his clientele, which I believe are the native Australians.

He's definitely not Roupell.

Maybe you should know I treated him poorly in my less than compassionate days, a few lifetimes ago. I've evolved since then, really.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 14:20:14 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: Yes, Gerry re Mel Bourne
Message:
I have always enjoyed his posts in the past but the political stuff of course has polarised a lot of us. (I notice you didn't comment on my warmongering post - Food, propaganda, law enforcement.)

And I absolutely hated this thread that he started. I may be unhappy with Zionism but I am definitely not pro-Muslim. In fact I just wish all the religious zealotry would disappear.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 13:25:16 (EDT)
From: Mel Bourne
Email: None
To: Pat:C)
Subject: Re: Jim, gerry - I've watched this anonymouse
Message:
Pat

Why don't you read the archives for yourself, Jim's opinion is obviously going to be biased!

Mel

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 10:52:21 (EDT)
From: salam
Email: None
To: Mel Bourne
Subject: Re: Israeli WTC workers
Message:
After WTC, conspiracy theories abound
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 11:22:37 (EDT)
From: Jean-Michel
Email: None
To: salam
Subject: Strange thing about conspiracy theories
Message:
They don't have much impact in Europe .... Typical of some countries.
Nobody will be bothered even one second here reading something like this.

Why ?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 12:06:00 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Jean-Michel
Subject: Viennese Humor: Die Juden und die Radlfahrer
Message:
The following is re-posted from the Usenet group rec.sport.rowing:

Two men are sitting in a cafe discussing politics. One finally asks the
other: 'do you know who is at fault for all the troubles in the world?'

The second man asks: 'Who?'

The first man responds: 'The Jews! The Jews... and the bicycle riders!'

The second man, astonished, asks the first: 'The bicycle riders?!?! Why
the bicycle riders?'

The first shrugs his shoulders: 'Why the Jews?'

'Die Juden und die Radlfahrer' was always a buzz-phrase in my house. I
remember as a child never understanding that joke. I used to ask my
father 'why the bicycle riders?' In response, he'd just tell the joke
again. Then one day I understood.

Servus, Nick.

Charles Ehrlich
Zurich, Switzerland
--

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 00:34:12 (EDT)
From: btdt
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Re: Viennese Humor: Die Juden und die Radlfahrer
Message:
Switzerland? You are so lucky! Some of the happiest days of my life were spent as a college kid wondering through Swizerland. The beauty was spectacular but the people are what I remember most. Friendly and wonderful. Of course the food was delicious and the wine was great, but oh those cows! I took lots and lots of pictures of the cows! Switzerland!!! You are one lucky person.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 19:13:54 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: btdt
Subject: Re: Viennese Humor: Die Juden und die Radlfahrer
Message:
BTDT:

Well, actually I live in the Washington, DC Metro area. The post is quoted from a fellow who contributes to the Usenet rowing group, who happens to live in Switzerland. This isn't the only forum that's discussing these issues. In fact, I only know of one that isn't. It's a geek forum on computer hardware. They aren't very helpful either, unless you get their attention with some new-fangled silicone doo-dad.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 11:58:55 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Jean-Michel
Subject: Re: Strange thing about conspiracy theories
Message:
JM:

My guess is that European countries have a built in deference to authority not found in North America (at least not to the same degree). It's just a guess though, but if true I'd expect less susceptability to conspiracy theories in Canada than the US, although there's that intervening variable of the Quebecois. Deference explains a lot more than people realize.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 12:59:36 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Deference? think your guess is wrong Scott
Message:
Scott. Perhaps the English (not Irish, welsh, scots) were deferent once but no longer. And the French deferent???? You must be kidding yeah? Look at the demonstartions and campaigns undertaken over the last 40 years in US compared to Europe but discount Vietnam because that was a very unique event. You'll find untold lack of deference in Europe (UK,Italy, Germany France etc etc).!! You'll also find a much broader, vital political environment too. An environment where the greens , commies and other diverse parties have a VOICE. Not a loud voice by any means but louder than in America.

No once again I'm sorry to pop your illusion of your wonderful counrtry but the deference (where it really matters that is) lies more on your shores. Two super funded capatilist parties (like Britain you essentially have a 'one party' state ...one day it's called Democrat/Labour next day Rep/Tory ....of course there are differences between the parties but not in any radical way at all....I suppose Britain does have the Lib Dems as a rising third force)

So I think Scott your society is the more deferent. Deferent to the media/political parties. Why else would you have no decent public health care ? No decent employee rights? and for large swathes of your country ....such extreme poverty/ under education. Could it be because the American people don't look to Europe and see how good the healthcare is in comparison etc and just deferentially accept the state of things? Total capitalism. Now I'm all for capaitalism as a matter of fact but not rabid capitalism.

Scott if the Bush election fiasco had happened in Europe I don't think the Eurpoeans would have been as deferential as the Americans.

By the way, I'm observing and responding here. You're perfectly entitled to your view....I've no qualms about that whatsoever.....but Scott, you do come out with some whacky stuff sometimes.

And please don't label me 'Anti - American ' because you know what? I'm not. I like America and Americans.Friends can honestly criticise though , yeah? Recently the term 'anti-American' is taking on the same resonace as ' Anti-semetic' ie valid or at least debatable criticism is lumped in with the extremely hateful criticism and classsed as 'Anti-whatever'. Lets hope it doesn't turn from 'anti-American' jibes to Mcarthyist 'Un-American' jibe then your fellow of political paranoia will have a field day !!

Im as critical about America, Israel etc etc as I am about my birthplace. That's healthy I think. Doesn't mean I'm out and out 'anti'.

Cheers Scott .......sorry if I've rambled a bit here. Ha ha it seems a lot of what you say I disagree with .....in a friendly way of course :)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 16:48:13 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: Not a guess.
Message:
Dermot:

I'm a political/social scientist and I'm not really guessing about this deference thing. The difference between the US and Europe is documented for as long as we have had opinion surveys, going back to the 1930s. It is large, significant, and robust. The order going from most to least deferencial would be Continental Europe, Ireland, England/Scotland/Wales, Canada, United States. I don't know any political or social scientists anywhere who contest it. The only part of my conjecture that was a *guess' has to do with the relationship to political paranoia. Want citations? I've got piles of them.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 17:01:34 (EDT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: I think we need the citations on this one
Message:
Dermot:

I'm a political/social scientist and I'm not really guessing about this deference thing. The difference between the US and Europe is documented for as long as we have had opinion surveys, going back to the 1930s. It is large, significant, and robust. The order going from most to least deferencial would be Continental Europe, Ireland, England/Scotland/Wales, Canada, United States. I don't know any political or social scientists anywhere who contest it. The only part of my conjecture that was a *guess' has to do with the relationship to political paranoia. Want citations? I've got piles of them.

--Scott


---

My guess is that European countries have a built in deference to authority not found in North America (at least not to the same degree). It's just a guess though, but if true I'd expect less susceptability to conspiracy theories in Canada than the US, although there's that intervening variable of the Quebecois. Deference explains a lot more than people realize.
-my emphasis

Christ all fucking mighty Scott.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 17:56:05 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: You asked for it.
Message:
I'm really not guessing, though it seems I constructed the sentence poorly. You have me there. Should have read something like: 'My guess is that the cause of the difference lies partly in the greater deference shown authority in France and Europe, compared to the US.' This is a virtual medium, not a published peer reviewed journal, and at 2 AM my fingers sometimes get in the way of my head.

Requested citations include (but are not limited to) Carll Everett Ladd, S. M. Lipset, Larry Diamond, David J. Greenstone, Louis Hartz, Talcott Parsons, Ronald Inglehart, Juan J. Linz, Paul Lazarsfeld, Joseph Schumpeter, Aaron Wildavsky, James Q. Wilson, Mattei Dogan, and last but not least Alexis de Toqueville (participant observer, since he predates opinion polls). Best I could come up with on short notice, but it's the tip of the iceberg.

I also have the World Value Survey dataset with measures of policital and social deference for about 1500 participants in each of 80 to 100 countries for three 'waves' in the 1980s through 1999, if you happen to have facility with statistics. You can run simple cross-tabulations, or regressions using controls. Heck, there might even be a measure or two for 'political paranoia' that you could use as the dependent variable to test my theory.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 04:24:26 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Political/social science !!!!!!!
Message:
Yes and if I put my mind, effort and research to it you know I could come up with contradictory evidence.

We both know political/social science ....like all social sciences....is not an EXACT science , so much depends on the culture, bias, prejudices and interpretations (as well as DEFINITIONS !! start with ..deference ! ) of the social scientists.You know as well as I do that schools of thought can range from extreme right wing to extreme left and everything in between.

So far you've just listed a whole heap of names. Who are they ? what's their background? Where do they come from ? In my book , without impugning anyones integrity, such questions are as relevant in evaluating 'social' science as the actual issue under the spotlight.

Cheers

Dermot

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 11:37:44 (EDT)
From: Salam
Email: None
To: Jean-Michel
Subject: Re: Strange thing about conspiracy theories
Message:
because u are French maybe? :)

still, no Isreli was killed.

what, ah ok.

[p.s I think you are doing a good job updating the site while all this is happening, 5 chappaties for you]

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 12:04:20 (EDT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: Salam
Subject: Re: Strange thing about conspiracy theories
Message:
It maybe that no Israeli nationals were killed, but I would imagine many Jewish people were caught up in the disaster, as indeed were Muslims; probably Sikhs and Hindus, certainly Xians and atheists.

I believe a person can one hold dual US and Israeli citizenship (also Irish or Puerto Rican - but no others!) so the question of whether any victims did hold Israeli passports may have to wait for families to volunteer the info. I imagine they have more important concerns right now, n'est ce pas?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 13:25:07 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: Please clarify John T
Message:
Are you talking about US citizenship? I mean, do you mean that a US citizen can also hold an Israeli, Irish or Peurto Rican passport as well as a US one but for other countries only one passport is allowed?

Holy bejeebus , that means I may become a US citizen for a little while. Hhahaha ....when business activity gets to dizzy heights maybe Ill need to be in the worlds most rampant capitalist environment !!

Hmmm Virginia? Conneticut ? cowboy country? New Mexico ? Alaska? (no far too cold)....what a choice though eh ? I'll have my American flag on a pole in the garden with a litle Irish flag next to it :) .....

America, America la la la la la la la .....don't worry, I'll learn all the words !!

And if any of you Brit bastards have a go at my country ....my god I'll show ya what an American is made of !!!!

NO OFFENCE TO ANYONE INTENDED :)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 11:46:53 (EDT)
From: Jean-Michel
Email: None
To: Salam
Subject: And no frogs killed !!
Message:
and almost no Frenchie : would you also conclude it's a french-jewish conspiracy ?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 12:01:28 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Jean-Michel
Subject: No Latvians either.
Message:
Well, I don't know that for *sure*.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 11:59:35 (EDT)
From: Salam
Email: None
To: Jean-Michel
Subject: Re: And no frogs killed !!
Message:
I read somewhere that all the French were in fact jews, so your question could be valid.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 12:22:52 (EDT)
From: Jean-Michel
Email: None
To: Salam
Subject: Waht about premies ?
Message:
None got killed, by M's grace ....
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 13:18:43 (EDT)
From: salam
Email: None
To: Jean-Michel
Subject: Re: Waht about premies ?
Message:
I remember years ago in London Belsize Park, there was this old premei and she became an instructor. She was saying that one day the whole world will come to an end, and maharaji will call all the premies and this light will shine and srround the premies and nothing will happen to them. Like some grandma story. There is only one problem with this senario that I see, by the time this happens, there won't be any premies. so I don't kinow how the story ends.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 11:21:33 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: salam
Subject: Political Paranoia
Message:
Salam, et al:

I've recently become very interested in the work of a fellow named Jerrold Post at George Washington University. He's one of the luminaries an the field of 'Political Psychology,' and has studied and coined the term 'political paranoia' of which these latest conspiracy theories are but examples. He also believes that the 'cause' of the WTC event is to be found primarily the psychology of the cult, and that the only place where this significantly intersects with 'anti-US anger' is in the recruitment phase. Subsequent to that it's just a matter of psychological bonding to the group and to it's leader. In other words, pretty familiar stuff to us.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 11:56:24 (EDT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Re: Political Paranoia
Message:
the only place where this significantly intersects with 'anti-US anger' is in the recruitment phase.

I can believe it. That is why a cool head, patience, and a steady nerve are essential. There is no need to act as an unwitting recruitment sergeant for al Qaida, no need at all. Islamicists the world over are with the US and Nato et al on this one.

Remember that the US and Nato exerted itself to protect Europe's only Muslim population just recently. We have a considerable reserve of goodwill.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 12:13:27 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: Re: Political Paranoia
Message:
John:

Yes, and I'd say that one even needs to go so far as to *encourage* mainline Islam to start fighting back actively against the cults, giving them the tools, etc. One has to intervene in the cycle of recruitment. But I reiterate, don't confuse this link with the *cause* of the attack. Our actions and the subsequent anti-US anger were not the cause, and only a provocation to the extent that the cult defines them as such. Had they not had their particular gripes they'd have found others, or simply made some up. This is no small point.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 15:47:55 (EDT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: the point
Message:
Had they not had their particular gripes they'd have found others, or simply made some up. This is no small point.

That would seem to be somewhat of an article of faith, rather than a proven fact. Perhaps it is a tenet of the Crusaders.

Terrorism is not (usually) an isolated act by an isolated individual, but is much more a group phenomena, so the enquiry into Why ..? may look more at social circumstances and less at individual psychpathology.

For every active terrorist combatant, you are likely to find dozens of non-combatant supporters; many more passive supporters; and vast numbers of sympathisers for the cause who decry the terrorists methods.

This means that the causes the terrorists are identified with (at least initially) are crucial to their growth, and to a great extent, their continuing abilty to function.

Also, the hard core surrounded by increasingly softer layers of support is what makes a guerilla campaign hard to defeat with merely bombs and bullets. Actions need to avoid moving folk from soft to hardline support, even as they neutralise the combatants.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 17:21:52 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: Re: the point
Message:
Guerilla campaigns are one thing, cults are another. Can't believe you'd argue about this. I think you're just attached to your thesis that these acts were 'caused' by some series of actions by the US and/or it's allies. If you believe that then it makes as much sense to argue that we're just too overtly 'sinful' in comparison to Islam, in which case we'll have to compel women to take up the veil, suppress and punish homosexuality, and modify *our* culture in myriad ways, all to avoid the next terrorist act. All, I believe, to little effect since it would only cause the cult to grow very much as it has already done in Afghanistan.

To believe that there is a modifiable 'cause' is to not understand the situation, leading to a failed analysis and the wrong response.

The social circumstances play a role in the sense that they 'cull the ground' for the cult, provide maintenance opportunities and opportunities for social control, create conditions for 'fellow travelers' who are not in the cult but perceive it as a legitimate social movement and therefore support it, etc. You find more cult activity whenever you find an uptick in social isolation, and you find more social isolation (as a general rule) with more depressed economic circumstances (see the Marienthal studies by P. Lazarsfeld). There are other mitigating factors though. Village life, and other 'mediating institutions' mitigate the tendancy. But the problem is that the more the village culture of the Middle East moves into the modern world the more it's dominated by 'mass' society, which tends to isolate people. So in the Islamic world you now have conditions ripe for widespread exploitation by political/religious 'warrior' cults, with the mix of mass culture and depressed economic circumstances. The specific tenets of Islam also lend it to this exploitation, as well as it's reluctance to deal with cults aggressively, or to find and codify the roots of secular life in the religious doctrines (as the Jews have done, for instance).

You can impact the ability of cults to survive by changing the social circumstances, but that is not the same as saying that the social circumstances are the *cause* of the terrorist acts. You need to grasp this distinction. It's critical. Prior to establishment of the CCC and other 'workfare' programs under the Roosevelt administration radical political or quasi-religious cults were rampant. These included the 'Silver Shirts' and other Fascist groups, Father Coghlin(sp?), and even Huey Long (All the King's Men). The reason none of these groups ever achieved the ascendancy they did in Europe was primarily due to the ability of Roosevelt to establish social institutions that cut into the isolation produced by unemployment. Austria had 'the dole' rather than workfare, so it left people isolated while it supported them. The result was the widespread rise of Fascism, a virulent political cult. So you had more or less the same socioeconomic conditions, but a profound difference in result. (See *The Politics of Unreason* by S.M. Lipset).

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 06:33:06 (EDT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: thanks but ...
Message:
... what did I say that you actually disagree with?

You seem to be using every opportunity to push the idea that Nothing Needs To Change in the way America conducts itself among the community of nations. You bolster that rigid view by calling al Qaida 'a cult', but the term is left undefined. Is Catholicism a cult; or Zionism; or indeed the IRA? I think not, for as far as I know people are not tricked into such organisations and then gradually exposed to their hidden agenda. Each of them is explicit about its docrines and beliefs. That is not to say that these organisations do not have cult like features - as indeed do US militia groups. But I think it will prove more helpful to consider al Qaida as being like, well, the IRA, rather than EV!

The practical difficulties involved in arranging to, ah, apprehend Mr bin Laden have a lot to do with public sentiment in places like Pakistan; Iran; Afghanistan itself; Tajikistan; Uzbekistan; and so on. I am concerned that you seem to wish to ignore the reasons for those sentiments, prefering to dismiss them as no more than cultish delusions.

Your view may reflect the official view of the American administration, but I think you will find it is not one shared by the Nato allies. Like it or not, and whether it is justified or not, anger at American actions is something that can aid al Qaida both in its recruitment and in its campaign, and this is a factor that needs to taken seriously and countered.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 15:04:51 (EDT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Paranoia hijacking politics? Or vice-versa?
Message:
No small point there at all, Scott -

- in that, just as Bin Laden has 'hijacked' Islam in an attempt to give credence to his anti-US stance, Christianity itself (as preached by JC) was hijacked by the religious authorities in Rome (via the Roman Emperor Constantine) to give rise to the appalling treatment of the Muslims - especially during the Crusades (a term which Mr Bush would be advised to stop using) during the Middle Ages.

But I have to disagree with you when you imply that US actions had nothing to do with the cause of this attack. We all (hopefully at least) TRY to take responsibility for our actions. But for America - and the UK - to deny that they are, at least to some extent, the author of their own misfortunes is, IMO, as futile as Maharaji denying that he had any part to play in being responsible for the current criticisms of him that are made here on this forum and on EPO.

Or is the sense of outrage that Muslims feel when their own innocent citizens are bombed by the US (with the UK in tow) somehow less valid than the outrage felt by us Westerners at last week's carnage?

It's 'all well and good' as long as your enemy's only got the equivalent of sticks and stones to throw at you. But when the stakes get higher ...

PS - the military regime that currently has power in Pakistan (only since 1999 wasn't it?) is evidently in danger of alienating its own people. If the pro-Bin Laden faction overpowers it, you know what that means? It would mean that, for the first time in history, terrorists would have control of a country with nuclear capability.

The US, and those in coalition with the US, need to think VERY carefully about the consequences of their future policies.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 23:50:45 (EDT)
From: Mickey the Pharisee
Email: None
To: cq
Subject: Re: Paranoia hijacking politics? Or vice-versa?
Message:
' in that, just as Bin Laden has 'hijacked' Islam in an attempt to give credence to his anti-US stance, Christianity itself (as preached by JC) was hijacked by the religious authorities in Rome (via the Roman Emperor Constantine) to give rise to the appalling treatment of the Muslims - especially during the Crusades (a term which Mr Bush would be
advised to stop using) during the Middle Ages.'

Chris, I may be misunderstanding what you wrote here: are you saying that Rome and Constantine 'hijacked' Christianity in order to mistreat Muslims? There weren't any Muslims when Constantine was around. The Crusaders mistreated everyone, Orthodox Christians included, and everyone agrees that it was a terrible thing. I disagree that Constantine's Edict of Toleration 'hijacked' Christianity.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 16:15:40 (EDT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: Mickey the Pharisee
Subject: Re: Paranoia hijacking politics? Or vice-versa?
Message:
Whoooah! Hold it right there, Pardray.

I'm not immune to being stupid from time to time, but I hope I'm not that stupid.

No Michael, I'm not saying that Constantine 'hijacked' Christianity in order to mistreat Muslims. There's at least 300 years between Constantine and Mohammed isn't there?

Interesting though to hear you say that 'the Crusaders mistreated everyone' Now you're getting closer.

For the crusaders (mind if I give them a lower-case 'c'?) to mistreat anyone, they must have had a doctrine/ideal upon which they based their supposed 'legitimacy'/right to mistreat others, no?

Now where did that come from?

Was it Jesus the Christ? (though he might have supposedly once said 'I come not to bring peace, but a sword ...', I don't think he had the followers of the Prophet Muhammed specifically in mind).

Was it Paul, who used his purchase of Roman citizenship to spread his own version of the Christ's message?

Or was it Constantine, the Roman Emperor who found himself in a position to exploit the (already distorted) fundaments of Christian belief in order to strengthen his own power base?

Just WHO was it that gave that decisive twist to an apparently pacifist/ahimsa message of ('love thy neighbour', ... 'do good to them that hate you', ... 'love thine enemy' ???

If it wasn't Constantine, then I hope he (and you) can forgive me for attempting to lay responsibility at his Holy Roman Feet.

And if not him, then WHO hijacked Christianity (and who still does?) into being an excuse for demonising your opponents and 'justifying' their ill-treatment? Are you telling me that the Emperor Constantine would have had nothing to do with such a policy? (yes, I know Mohammed wasn't born until 600 and something).

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 19:06:16 (EDT)
From: Mickey the Pharisee
Email: None
To: cq
Subject: Re: Paranoia hijacking politics? Or vice-versa?
Message:
Chris, I asked you to clear that up because I had trouble believing that you would be that stupid, but you must admit, your sentence was not exactly an example of precise writing, was it?

' Demonising your opponents and 'justifying' their ill-treatment' was not a Christian innovation; you must be familiar with the history of that era. The Pagans demonised Christians and blamed them for bad weather, economic problems, and familial discord. Christians were tortured and executed by the peace-loving Romans until Constantine became Emperor and issued the Edict of Toleration which ended the persecution of the Christians and allowed the return of their property. Constantine did show favor to the Christian religion and did give them money and buildings and did stop feeding them to the lions. He did call an Ecumenical Council in Nicea in order to encourage the Christians from fighting among each other and to try to bring unity to the Church. I don't see those as evil acts, and I don't think that Constantine 'hijacked' Christianity. He was the Roman Emperor, but he was not very Roman; he moved the capitol from Rome to the 'New Rome,' Constantinople (now Istanbul), which became the seat of the Eastern Church. Constantine's Church became the Eastern Church, so I really don't think that it is accurate to accuse Constantine of the violence and excesses of the Roman or Western Church. The Roman, or Western Church was a source of much of the violence, as were the churches which aligned with the Western Church after the split in 1054 C.E.. The Crusades were a product of the Western Church. Maybe we should blame Cyril of Alexandria, whom I believe can be implicated in the murder of Hypatia in 415 C.E.. Perhaps we should blame it on the Donatists in North Africa and their violence against catholic (not Roman Catholic) Christians. I think that it is more accurate to place the blame at the feet of Pope Leo IV who said that anyone who died in the defence of the Church would gain a heavenly reward, or John VIII who stated that such a person could be counted as a martyr. It is accurate to blame St. Augustine and his 'Just War' theology. But I disagree that Constantine is to blame; the Eastern Church preached pacifism for a long time (but not forever, alas!).

But, of course, the Pagans, the Muslims, the Gnostics, the Zoroastrians, the Manicheans, and all other religions of the world never demonized or killed any of their opponents; such atrocities were only performed by Christians, right Chris? If it hadn't been for Constantine, the followers of Muhammad would have only sprinkled flowers upon their opponents.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 15:42:21 (EDT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: Mickey the Pharisee
Subject: Whooah! I said whooah there pardray ...
Message:
Whooah! I said whooah there pardray ...

Thanks for the potted history, but you really are grasping the wrong end of the stick if you think my citing of Constantine was intended as an attack on your religion.

The point I originally wanted to make was re. Mr Bin Laden's hijacking of the whole heritage of Islamic faith to further his own diabolical agenda. I chose the crusades as a well-known (if not the best-known) historical example of how an essentially pacifist religious belief-system can be used to further a cause which embodies the very antithesis of what we call godliness.

I chose to cite the emperor Constantine's influence on the Christian message as being a turning point - if not the major turning point in the promotion of the Christian belief-system. Christianity, initially a creed that had very little political power, had, under Constantine, somehow become integral to the whole edifice of power throughout the Roman Empire. From being a threat to Roman authority, the Christ, together with a version of his message, had, under the Emperor Constantine, become the embodiment of all temporal (as well as spiritual) Authority.

That was a pretty big change in Christianity's fortunes, considering what came before, wouldn't you say?

Hence my reason for citing Constantine as being the fulcrum of that change in the balance of Christianity's influence on the world. A change which saw the unholy coupling of the message of the Christ with the authoritarian power-base of the Roman Empire, a coupling that resulted in a marriage of Church and State which eventually would refuse to tolerate any form of diversity of belief.

That's how I see Constantine's legacy - as being one of THE major turning points in the history of Christianity. And that's why I wrote:

'Christianity itself (as preached by JC) was hijacked by the religious authorities in
Rome (via the Roman Emperor Constantine) to give rise to the appalling treatment of the
Muslims - especially during the Crusades'

Well, you're right - I could have been clearer, it's true. I should have said 'which eventually gave rise to', rather than leaving the meaning open to the interpretation of it being designed to give rise to mistreatment of the Muslims. Point taken.

But if it's clarity we're after, I have to take issue with the last paragraph of your post, which quite frankly worries me, Michael. You seem to be implying that I've singled out Christianity as being the 'only' religion that has demonized and killed its opponents. No, Sir, that was never my intention. Christianity is NOT the only one, though it certainly has a place in history as being among the worst examples of its sort. Far more so, I would say, than the Gnostics, Zoroastrians and Manicheans you cite; and as for the Buddhists and Hindus ...

And I hope you're aware that that last paragraph of yours could easily be read as implying that, because other religions have killed and demonised their opponents throughout history, it's therefore OK for Christianity to have done the same.

I hope that's not what you intended to say. And I hope you don't think I'm deliberately misrepresenting you by pointing that out.

Till we lock horns next time.

PS. Constantine's last words on his deathbed were supposedly 'Not the sword! Not the sword! - Knowledge!' Do you think he might have forseen the carnage and brutality to come?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 16:51:27 (EDT)
From: Mickey the Pharisee
Email: None
To: cq
Subject: Re: Whooah! I said whooah there pardray ...
Message:
Constantine's Edict of Toleration was an important moment in Christian history because it ended the persecutions, but Christianity had been gaining some power before that moment; the bishops and deacons were the ones taking care of the poor and most cities had pretty much turned that function over to the Church. Perhaps the would have eventually gained power over a long period of time, but I agree that Constantine help accelerate the process.

My last paragraph was a knee-jerk reaction to what I perceive as the regular knee-jerk opposition to Christianity around this site. You're right, I do not believe that just because the Pagans and others killed and demonized their opponents that it was right for the Western Church to do so; I think that it is wrong for anyone to do that.

The Zoroastrians murdered thousands upon thousands of Christians in Persia and Asia; this doesn't justify the Crusades or the Spanish Inquistion (both products of the Western or Roman Church), so maybe we should include Zoroastrians amongst the worst. Hindus and Buddhists have done their share, too. As have atheist Communist governments. And Muslims have quite a history of nasty behaviour towards Infidels and even other Muslims. I guess that everyone, theist or atheist, seems to kill and demonize opponents. Perhaps everyone is hijacking their respective faiths, but I still don't see Constantine as a hijacker.

Maybe the dying Constantine wanted someone to stick their fingers in his eyes and ears!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 17:26:18 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: cq
Subject: Re: Paranoia hijacking politics? Or vice-versa?
Message:
But I have to disagree with you when you imply that US actions had nothing to do with the cause of this attack. We all (hopefully at least) TRY to take responsibility for our actions. But for America - and the UK - to deny that they are, at least to some extent, the author of their own misfortunes is, IMO, as futile as Maharaji denying that he had any part to play in being responsible for the current criticisms of him that are made here on this forum and on EPO.

I'm not saying there isn't a relationship. I'm saying the relationship isn't *causal*. It's a vital distinction, because when you prioritize your response you put causes ahead of influences. See the point?

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 15:17:39 (EDT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Re: Paranoia hijacking politics? Or vice-versa?
Message:
Let me see if I read you rightly here, Scott.

It sounds to me that you're saying that the terrorists' 'cause', which presumably is to see the so-called 'Great Satan'/Adversary (i.e. the USA - and those in coalition too, perhaps) brought to its collective knees, is, as it were, an article of faith for them. And anything that 'adversary' does, or does not, do won't change their basic premise one iota. In other words, the USA is their sworn enemy, and militant Islam won't rest until and unless their perceived enemy is annihilated, regardless of what the USA does. That's your point, yes?

Well, if that's how you perceive the terrorists' position, I have to say - you might be right.

And if you are right, what then?

Human nature dictates an automatic, survival-based, 'knee-jerk' if you like, reaction to such a threat: annihilate it.

I see that coming through in some of your posts quite strongly, Scott, though most often you've shown the maturity and decency not to 'lay into' those of us on this Forum who choose to challenge your views.

If I may say so, you've often stated your case with a degree of clarity, and a lack of hysteria that puts much of Bush's populist rhetoric and hyperbole to shame. Admittedly he's playing to a much wider audience, and if his advisers have recommended that he should appeal to the baser instincts of the population in order to try to achieve the solidarity and steadfastness of purpose that he'll need to see this thing through, then he'll probably do what his advisers tell him. He's not had the years of experience it takes to do otherwise. I only hope that they're not 'playing to the pits' as it were, in the misguided belief that popularity is more important than practicality, as far as policy is concerned.

But to get back to the point.

Which has to be this: how to deal with a large group of people, living in all corners of the globe, who believe in an ideology which ultimately threatens the lives of all of us? How to deal with them without risking further destabilisation of an already delicate situation? Evident not least in the state of the global economy at present.

While you're asking yourself that question, mind if I do the same?

We need time to think about the consequences of this. At least, I do.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 12:55:30 (EDT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Re: Political Paranoia
Message:
Had they not had their particular gripes they'd have found others, or simply made some up. This is no small point.

If this is true, then I really don't get it. What are their motives? Or is just like premies with their refusal to see the truth?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 18:08:54 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: You got it!
Message:
Gerry:

What are their motives? Or is just like premies with their refusal to see the truth?

You got it! The social control employed to keep them in line makes Maharaji look like a rank amateur though. They walk in the door of the cult, and never leave. The primary control has to do with the Doctrine of Predestination. It involves some odd paradoxes. One would think that predestination would cause people to be fatalistic, but it's not the case. The trick is that they *don't know* their predestined fate. (Though the leader holds the keys.) Thus, they can't afford to be fatalistic. You'd think it would also dawn on people that this is a magnificent con game, but they rarely get it without help.

This was also the engine behind Calvinism, BTW, but manifested as acquisition of wealth in pursuit of 'a calling,' rather than pusuit of glory in battle. Slight modification of the doctrine produced radically different results. At least, that's what I think is the case based on the writings of Max Weber the founder of political sociology. Still controversial I guess, but pretty sound theory, and Jerrold Post has gone a long way toward proving it. I think Durkhiem's theories about suicide and 'anomie' may also be relevant. Suicide, the most private of acts, has it's roots in social control.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 09:47:56 (EDT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: Mel Bourne
Subject: Take it to 'Anything Goes' [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 09:31:42 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Mel Bourne
Subject: TROLL ALERT [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 11:47:26 (EDT)
From: Mel Bourne
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Re: TROLL ALERT
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 13:12:57 (EDT)
From: Mel Bourne
Email: None
To: Mel Bourne
Subject: Gerry, re TROLL ALERT
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 15:48:54 (EDT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Mel Bourne
Subject: Mel your post is empty, try again [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 06:22:43 (EDT)
From: Jean-Michel
Email: None
To: All
Subject: Major Update on the EV-DLM Papers download page
Message:
Major update on The Elan Vital - Divine Light
Mission Papers Download Page.

Download the website's contents, and have the whole website on your computer's hard disk.
[ EV-DLM Papers Download Page ]

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 09:09:19 (EDT)
From: Trying () )
Email: None
To: Jean-Michel
Subject: Trying nt
Message:
Trying())
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 19:14:53 (EDT)
From: ())())())())())())())())
Email: None
To: Trying () )
Subject: ())())())())())())())
Message:
())())())())())())())
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 09:10:46 (EDT)
From: Trying again
Email: None
To: Trying () )
Subject: Re: Trying again
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 09:11:53 (EDT)
From: Try once more
Email: None
To: Trying again
Subject: Trying once more
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 04:51:48 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: All
Subject: The coming war in Afghanistan
Message:
Once invasion begins we can probably assume Russia in particular and probably China will not rock the boat, destabalise things and generally fuck it up. The biggest problem outside of Afghanistan will be massive civil unrest in Pakistan with the Government there backing the US/Allies with much of the population backing its muslim neighbour.

Anyway, it was reported yesterday that Bush wants the British SAS to play a leading role and go in there first. The SAS was in there helping Afghanis against the Russians and it also has a lot of experience in training the Pakistani army in the mountaineous regions.

So here's a report from an ex-SAS man from todays Guardian. Afghanis will prove a tough nut to crack by all accounts
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
IN THE DEAD ZONE:

We were there to assess their fighting capability
and to retrieve Soviet equipment. It was 1979 and
the Afghans were fighting a superpower with
tactics they had used against the British before the
first world war. Watching them fight was like
watching an old western: the cowboys would come
into a valley and down would come the Indians. My
task was to teach them modern guerrilla tactics.
Without them, they would be exterminated.

I tried to go without preconceptions, but it was
hard. Before leaving Britain, everyone said be
careful, they are barbaric, they'll chop you up. My
boss at MI6 gave me a Flashman novel about
Muslim brutality - his idea of a joke. After a few
months adjusting, however, I found the Afghans to
be very pleasant. We got along. I respected their
bravery; they respected the way I instructed them.

I had more difficulty coping with the physical
terrain. When I arrived in Peshawar, an Afghan
military leader warned me, 'I hope you are fit, my
men march very quickly.' No problem, I thought. I
was used to marching. But my God; up, up, up we
went. We entered the Hindu Kush mountains and
started climbing. Above 3,000m the oxygen started
to thin and my concentration to lapse. The Afghans
were used to it, but anyone else feels really
light-headed.

As fighting terrain, it is an absolute nightmare. It's
a natural fortress. You can't get very far with
vehicles; you get bogged down and the passes are
too steep. The Russians had a bloody awful time.
They really got stuck. It's one thing to put in your
infantry, but you've got to keep them within range
of your artillery and your mortars. With bad
mountain passes, this is almost impossible.

None of this matters to the Afghans: they have it all
organised, moving from one village to the next,
where they have bases stocked with food. This is
how they have fought and won wars for the past
200 years, with little bases all over the place and
holes in the ground where everything is buried.
This allows them to carry as little as possible and to
cover ground much faster than a western force
could. We didn't use tents. We lived in caves or
slept rough. There were guys in the army just
carrying a weapon, three magazines and some
naan bread, wrapped in a shawl on their back.
There is no way a western soldier could carry
heavy equipment and keep up with them.

For a foreign army, establishing a supply route
would be very difficult. To try to carry food and
water up those mountains, some of which are
4,000m high, would be madness. Because of
bacteria, you have to carry bottled water and each
gallon weighs 4.5kg. On some days, we were going
through 11 to 15 litres. A soldier marching in those
hills is going to burn between 4,000-5,000 calories
a day. You need high-calorie, Arctic rations. Meat
doesn't last more than a couple of days, so must
be killed fresh. I contracted hepatitis from bad
food.

And, of course, there is the weather. Towards the
end of this month, the winter will start setting in. It
begins with rain; then it freezes, then it snows. By
the middle of October the snow will be very deep,
up to neck height. A journey that takes three days
to walk in summer will take 10 days in winter. The
freezing conditions rule out helicopter support. The
mist in the valleys invites crashes.

The Afghan fighters know the mountains as well as
a farmer from Wales knows his hills. They are like
mountain goats. I heard someone on the radio say,
'Yeah, we can put in a load of four-man teams.'
Well, that's ridiculous. The Hindu Kush is a vast
expanse of land. What can a four-man team do
that you can't do with a satellite? Never mind a
needle in a haystack; it's like a needle in the middle
of Wembley stadium.

Besides, a western task force will stick out like a
sore thumb in the Hindu Kush. Most of the Afghan
fighters wear sandals with old car tyre treads on
the bottom. So a western boot print is instantly
trackable. Once identified, the soldiers are sitting
targets. We trained the Afghans in the art of 'shoot
and scoot'; they would lay a little ambush, let rip
and disappear. They picked it up very quickly.
Before long, they had learned to let the Russian
convoys get half way up a pass and then blow a
hole through their middle. The lucky ones died
instantly. The unlucky were chopped to pieces in
the aftermath. In the Hindu Kush, don't expect to
appeal to the Geneva convention.

The Taliban don't have much in the way of
weapons. Their best defence is their terrain. When
I first arrived, all they had were old 303s, sniper
rifles, and some bolt-action guns. Very few had
Kalashnikovs - they weren't used to
semi-automatics. Now of course, they are much
more sophisticated, although their weapons
maintenance is virtually zero; a lot of it won't have
been upgraded since the Russian war. They might
have a few Stingers left - one of the best,
shoulder-held, surface-to-air missiles. But whether
they're serviceable or not is debatable. They have
a lot of old ZSU23s, one of Saddam Hussein's
favourite weapons, which can be used in ground or
air support. It's a three-barrel, 50-calibre machine
gun, usually arranged in groups of two, three or
four, and it's fearsome. It has a range of about
4,000m, so if you're coming in on a helicopter and
have four of these blasting away at you, it's
devastating. They drive their Toyota pick-ups
around with these things mounted on the back.

Then there are the landmines. In the early 1980s,
they cleared a buffer zone between Pakistan and
Afghanistan - an area equal to four days' walk -
then put in observation posts on the high ground
and mined it all. Everything that entered the area
was obliterated and it is possible that the ground is
still mined. They are small mines, the size of tennis
balls, made of plastic so you can't detect them.

As for the composition of the army, most of the
men were 17-24 years old. In some ways, the
Afghan soldiers were no different from young guys
everywhere; there was camaraderie. They might
go and smoke a bit of opium, but for religious
reasons, they wouldn't drink. They would get up at
first light for prayers and would cover some
distance before the sun came up. They would stop
five times a day for prayer, although never during
battle. I believe the Koran says that if you are
engaged in combat, then you are excused from
prayers. But they always prayed afterwards. They
were normal Muslims, not fanatics.

Still, in terms of their efficiency as an army, their
biggest problem was the mullah influence over
them. Because of the doctrine that it's a great
honour to die in a holy war, they were fearless and
took risks that western soldiers perhaps would not.
This is not the point of a military exercise, which is
to defeat the enemy and live to fight another day. If
you are reckless with your life, you risk depleting
the army before it has won. But it was almost
impossible to raise this issue with them; it would
have invited a lot of trouble.

It is, in my opinion, extremely unlikely that Bin
Laden is hiding in the mountains. He must have a
base from where he can communicate. He can't
communicate from inside the Hindu Kush. He is
more likely to be on the north-west frontier of
Pakistan, a heavily populated area that the west will
be loath to attack. It is like the IRA tactic of hiding
behind women and children; of hiding in a kids'
playground. Besides, he will want to be somewhere
where he can get CNN coverage of the attack on
America, to admire his work.

Most of the Afghan military leaders I encountered
operated from the comfort of Peshawar in
Pakistan. They didn't take part in any fighting,
because they wanted to be around when the
fighting was over, to reap the benefits.

If it comes to a ground war, I believe the western
forces will have a very slim chance of victory. The
last army to win in Afghanistan was that of
Alexander the Great; everyone else has got mauled
and pulled out. The CIA made an awful lot of maps
when they were there, but a map is only as good
as the person using it, and there is no safe way to
get troops in. The Afghans are a formidable
enemy. I should know. We in the west pointed
them in the right direction and with a little bit of
training, they went a long way.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 16:00:21 (EDT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: Afghanistan not defeated since Alexander the Great
Message:
Afghanistan not defeated since Alexander the Great ...

... and here comes Dubbya

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 19:01:12 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: cq
Subject: Afghanistan and Alex
Message:
Well, Alexander didn't so much conquer as convert it.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 11:01:18 (EDT)
From: PatD
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: A Blast from the Past
Message:
Then we brought the lances down , then the bugles blew ,
When we went to Kandahar , ridin' two an' two ,
Ridin', ridin', ridin' two an' two ,
Ta- ra-ra-ra-ra ,
All the way to Kandahar , ridin' two an' two.


---

---

---

---
-

When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plain's ,
And the women come out to cut up what remains ,
Just roll up your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier.

From 2 poems by Rudyard Kipling

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 07:37:44 (EDT)
From: AJW
Email: None
To: PatD
Subject: Scarey poems Pat (nt)
Message:
bang bang
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 10:38:23 (EDT)
From: toby
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: Are you ready for that?
Message:
Yes , I agree it would take mass of support to take the country.
Mass of men.
Mr. Bush said that this would be a long time campaign. I agree.
But America must be ready to take Pakistan too, if the muslim mob is
taking over the government and so the nuclear weapons.
If they are not ready to do this, they shouldn't even start.
The most natural ally would be India in that case.

Toby

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 09:15:36 (EDT)
From: Amazing
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: amazing article, thanks. [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 08:42:55 (EDT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: Nice one Dermot
Message:
I think the truth is slowly sinking in that al Qaida's plan was to lure the States into first a bombardment (which would ensure hatred from the locals) and then a ground invasion to capture Mr bin Laden.

From al Qaida's point of view all this would be a Good Thing. They saw it could be possible to slaughter US squaddies in large number while large parts of the Islamic world erupted in fury against the States. Given the sophistication and foreign knowledge of too many of the more vocal American 'experts' and 'strategists' the plan could well -- and it appears very nearly did -- succeed.

It may be of interest that from 1970 thru 1977 Britain's SAS fought in Dhofar, against communist insurgents from Yemen, also successfully, also in an arid and mountainous region that is home to fierce Islamic tribesmen and their families. Unfortunately, the government they supported was itself far from democratic, and today a group of young Britons languishes in jail in that country, for guerrilla attacks against the Yemini regime.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 06:11:18 (EDT)
From: Here's a link
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: to a D.C. Think Tank
Message:

[ Think Tank ]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 05:16:03 (EDT)
From: Rick
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: Re: The coming war in Afghanistan
Message:
Yeah, but Bush said we'd root these guys out. Thanks for a good article, Dermot.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 08:43:51 (EDT)
From: btdt
Email: None
To: Rick
Subject: Re: The coming war in Afghanistan
Message:
Lets's send him and the twins in first.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 04:42:28 (EDT)
From: Annie
Email: None
To: All
Subject: Message to Deborah
Message:
'Okay Annie, so you've recognized that it was mistaken identity, so why do you accuse me of throwing my HATE at you. '

OK I didn't feel like it was an accusation, I thought it was a strained but polite request. Your
words to me in the previous post seemed hateful:

'Fuck off Annie. I made a statement not to praise Maha for ANYTHING,
get it. Get lost. I was NOT debating anything, NOR was I distorting anything, etc.
You are a son of a bitch liar. When Maha's JIhad started, that was the day you left.
You told us to fuck off, remember you psycho bitch. We told you to fuck off as well.
So are you catweasel? You like Jihads. Maybe you'll get hit yourself.
So fuck off already, stop posting here.
Damn you !'

I didn't deserve it, first of all, and secondly it hurt, especially at the time with all that has been happening.

I am not sure what you are referring to here, if you could clarify:
'And you sounded susupicious the second time you posted with the BigHead quote'

Thank you for your apology,
I read below that you were at Deca, and I am wondering if we knew each other there.
Annie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 16:17:49 (EDT)
From: Deborah
Email: None
To: Annie
Subject: Re: Message to Deborah
Message:
Annie, what I had to say was a case of mistaken identity. These words were intended for someone who was here during the time I mentioned. Has somebody informed you what went on. Email Jim, he's the best to inform you. And that wasn't you. You weren't here therefore the words weren't for you.

you asked: I am not sure what you are referring to here, if you could clarify:
'And you sounded susupicious the second time you posted with the BigHead quote'

You left a post with an article about the innocent people in Afghanastan, I responded with the post that is was a *must read, although I thought you were the same Annie.

Then I thought you were actually Catweasel or another malicious troll (get story of Maha's Jihad and CAC to understand). Annie, the previous one told us she was an aspirant for 10 yrs. Then I read your post where you said Maha was concerned, etc. and I thought you were the other Annie who was now saying you were a premie and therefore fucking us around.

Annie, it's because of the sensitivity of the entire planet that I was appalled about such a cruel and ill-timed hoax. Trust me, I am NOT going around looking for a fight. I avoid the malicious premie posts. I may discuss them IF i've read them with other exes but I refrain from answering their posts. I can't afford the poisonous energy any more than I'm sure you can. So I lashed out. Those trolls use other names all the time.

you said: Thank you for your apology,
I read below that you were at Deca, and I am wondering if we knew each other there.

Thank you for accepting my apology. Believe me it was clearly mistaken identity with justifiable a reaction, especially under the circumstances.

And at Deca, I was there off and on during 1981-83 (me thinks). I remember an Ann (beautiful and blonde) from the complex. I was close with Peter Dettmers, Bruce Asai, Odie, Jinda, and LeRoy West who ran the Hangar and of course others whose names escape me. I spent most of my time at the hangar in Admissions.

Lots of love to you,

Sorry again for mistaken identity, next time I'll try and clarify first.

Deborah

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 18:40:57 (EDT)
From: Annie
Email: AWSosman@aol.com
To: Deborah
Subject: Thanks.
Message:
Deborah,
I appreciated this very much, and there are no residual hard feelings here. I wrote the post below, mostly to gerry and Jim, before I had read this. Thank you for accepting my acceptance of your apology.
I think I left Deca in the spring of 1980 -- I worked in the first hangar, before the complex was acquired, and then in the hangar at the Deca complex, doing admin support, and then in the offices once they were constructed. I remember two Deborahs but I guess they wouldn't have been you. [And I have never been blonde, nor particularly beautiful.]

Here's to Hope.
Best wishes, Annie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 23:20:27 (EDT)
From: Deborah
Email: None
To: Annie
Subject: NO! Thank you
Message:
Hi Annie,

Thank you for accepting my acceptance of your acceptance of my Apology.

Deborah

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 18:28:39 (EDT)
From: Francesca
Email: None
To: Deborah
Subject: Geez Deb, I knew some of those folks
Message:
Bruce Asai and LeRoy West, for sure. If I've got Bruce right, he was from LA and used to work for Hughes. He moved in the ashram there and was sucked up by the great DECCA talent hole. LeRoy West goes back to 1973, when he was doing some recording in LA with Jacques Sandoz.

Francesca

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 23:39:01 (EDT)
From: Deborah
Email: None
To: Francesca
Subject: Re: Geez Deb, I knew some of those folks
Message:
Francesca,

Yes, they were my buddies. Bruce did work at Hughes Aircraft. He was one of the main engineers working for 'the client'. Bruce is the guy who would get me front row seats. He had connections. He would also buy me tickets to go see BigHead if I was broke. I was one of those premies who always got to programs 'by da grease'.

LeRoy and I used to hang out alot. We loved to dance together at parties. He lived in Miami at that time. Then he moved to NewYork were he did business and partied with RajaJi. Lived in a huge fabulous apartment with doorman. I think he is still in the folds of the cult.

LeRoy would tip me off when 'BigHead' was coming (DECA) and tell me how I could chase BigHead's darshan. He knew the ropes and knew I was a player. I used to have so much fun with him. We were so mischievious.

Do you remember Billy and Carol White? Raven and Robin (last name forgotten)? OH so many people I remember fondly.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 09:12:04 (EDT)
From: Annie
Email: AWSosman@aol.com
To: Annie
Subject: what jihad is
Message:
I thought this was worth passing on, since the word 'jihad' gets thrown around alot.
<<
WHAT JIHAD IS:

-- The Arabic word ''jihad'' is often translated as ''holy war,'' but a more accurate translation is ''holy struggle.'' Islamic scholars say the term ''holy war'' was actually coined in Europe during the Crusades to mean a war against the Muslims.

-- In a purely linguistic sense, the word ''jihad'' means struggling or striving. There are two different, unrelated words which mean war.

-- In a religious sense, as described by the Koran and teachings of the Prophet Mohammed, jihad means striving for the benefit of the community or the restraint of personal sins. It can refer to internal as well as external efforts to be a good Muslim, or believer. Scholars say it primarily refers to efforts to improve oneself.

-- Jihad is a religious duty.

-- If jihad is required to protect the faith against others, it can be performed using anything from legal, diplomatic and economic to political means. If there is no peaceful alternative, Islam also allows the use of force, but there are strict rules of engagement. Innocents -- such as women, children, or invalids -- must never be harmed, and any peaceful overtures from the enemy must be accepted.

-- Military action is therefore only one means of jihad, and is very rare. To highlight this point, the Prophet Mohammed told his followers returning from a military campaign: ''This day we have returned from the minor jihad to the major jihad,'' which he said meant returning from armed battle to the peaceful battle for self-control and betterment.

-- In case military action appears necessary, not everyone can declare jihad. The religious military campaign has to be declared by a proper authority, advised by scholars, who say the religion and people are under threat and violence is imperative to defend them. The concept of ''just war'' is very important.

-- The concept of jihad has been hijacked by many political and religious groups over the ages in a bid to justify various forms of violence. In most cases, Islamic splinter groups invoked jihad to fight against the established Islamic order. Scholars says this misuse of jihad contradicts Islam.

-- Examples of sanctioned military jihad include the Muslims' defensive battles against the Crusaders in medieval times, and before that some responses by Muslims against Byzantine and Persian attacks during the period of the early Islamic conquests.

WHAT JIHAD IS NOT

-- Jihad is not a violent concept.

-- Jihad is not a declaration of war against other religions. It is worth noting that the Koran specifically refers to Jews and Christians as ''people of the book'' who should be protected and respected. All three faiths worship the same God. Allah is just the Arabic word for God, and is used by Christian Arabs as well as Muslims.

-- Military action in the name of Islam has not been common in the history of Islam. Scholars says most calls for violent jihad are not sanctioned by Islam.

-- Warfare in the name of God is not unique to Islam. Other faiths throughout the world have waged wars with religious justifications.
>>

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 10:03:09 (EDT)
From: Forum Janitor
Email: None
To: Annie
Subject: I don't think I like you
Message:
Tread lightly, my dear. This is an Ex-Premie forum, remember.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 10:58:33 (EDT)
From: Salam
Email: None
To: Forum Janitor
Subject: Re: I don't think I like you
Message:
But she does explain it the way it is am afraid.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 19:10:21 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Salam
Subject: Re: I don't think I like you
Message:
Salam:

The issue is, just how robust is her explanation? Is it powerful enough, for instance, to withstand the alternative interpretation posed by Islamic Jihad movement out of Egypt, Hamas, or UBL's Sunni conception. The fact is that regardless of what it means in the body of Islam it is susceptible to being kidnapped by extremism, so it's valid for westereners to be alarmed. Make this an Islamic problem and we'll rest easy.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 11:12:56 (EDT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Salam
Subject: Re: I don't think I like you
Message:
I have no problem with her cut and paste job on the definition of 'jihad.'

I do have a problem with her bugging Deb with this new thread given Deb has already apologized. Annie is aware enough to see that Deb, not unlike myself can be somewhat volatile at times and this attempt at provocation should be seen as just that: a passive aggressive attempt at provocation.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 11:41:00 (EDT)
From: Salam
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: OK, no prob, leave it to me
Message:
Hey Annie,

you leave Debbie alone or I bug you,

})})Do you undertand })})

good.

Now be a good girl and tell us about jihad while I thumb my mostashes.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 10:26:40 (EDT)
From: Annie
Email: None
To: Forum Janitor
Subject: I don't think I know you.
Message:
Dear Janitor,

I am uncertain as to why you posted that, or from where you are drawing your conclusion that you don't think you like me.
If you wish to be more specific about WHY you don't think you like me I will consider what you have to say, and hopefully I will learn something, if your criticism is valid.
I am no threat to you, or anyone, if that is your concern.

Annie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 10:34:21 (EDT)
From: Forum Janitor
Email: None
To: Annie
Subject: Re: I don't think I know you.
Message:
I've read most, if not all of your posts. You reek of passive aggression.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 10:52:12 (EDT)
From: Annie
Email: None
To: Forum Janitor
Subject: thanks, and a question.
Message:
Dear Janitor and anyone else who wishes to respond,
I do know my own reasons for visiting this forum, and several times have stated what they are; but I have been accused of being a liar, and met with a fair amount of [I think] unprovoked hostility. In the midst of everything going on, it has seemed unnecessarily unkind.

I really don't want to be posting here if I am unwanted; I've been told in the past I was welcome. If this is no longer true I can certainly disappear.

Am I unwelcome here?
Annie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 12:01:47 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Annie
Subject: Depends
Message:
You're welcome here if you can discuss things honestly. No one has any time for premies's lies and evasions. We've all been premies before, don't forget. We've all been through the process of looking at Maharaji openly and honestly and that's how we left. Naturally, we don't have a lot of patience for premies who come here who won't do what we did mentally but who rather defend their cult leader at all costs. I know that the last times I ever tried to talk with you about any of this, whether on the forum, in email or even on the phone, you put up such a dense wall of new age defenses, it was impossible. Take a look at your posts in the archives, you'll see what I mean. You made a point, however 'nicely', of demonstrating how one can use new age gross relativism and other neat tricks to avoid anything.

So, are you 'welcome' here? To me, I just figure, what's the point? Unless you're willing to go further this time and to really discuss Maharaji without flinching, you're just another premie time and patience-waster.

I'm blocked from Lifes Great but someone who isn't told me that you were saying that EPO had lots of distortions although, like all premies, when pressed, you wouldn't or couldn't name any. That kind of accusation is tiresome. I know you know what I mean. So why do you do it? There are many cold, hard facts alleged about Maharaji that premies can't deal with and, like I say, unless you've changed somehow since you last posted, I don't expect you can either.

For example, how do you feel about the fact that Maharaji 'x-rated' premies closest to him so he could have someone to party with? All those years you were faithfully living in the ashram, he's secretly partying and -- make no mistake -- orchestrating a big lie to fool the likes of you and me and Scottie and Cintra and Surry and Pierre Mesmejean? That's either true or it isn't. If it's true, we were duped by our so-called 'master'. I knew you then and I don't care what you say now, I know that if you'd have learned that then you would have been deeply, deeply hurt and disillusioned.

And how do you, of all people, feel about the fact that Maharaji has, for years apparently, had an affair with Monica Lewis, your own ex-husband's supposed girl friend, not to mention the many other premie women he had people like Dettmers pimp for him? Again, say what you will but the Annie I knew would have been shaken to the bone with that revelation back in the day.

Or how about the fact that Maharaji now denies that he ever claimed to be God? Again, you were there. You know. So how do you feel about the fact that this guy can't take any responsibility for his own past but has to try to blame it on anyone and everyone but himself?

You and I have a good mutual friend in Scottie. Scottie left Maharaji sometime earlier this year as you know. I know that you know because he told me that he showed you the journal he kept during his exitting. It was a poignant and beautiful expression of one honest man's search for a thread of truth in what he realized was a large blanket of lies. He posted much of it on on the forum and people really appreciated the depth of his thought, sensititivy and honesty. He told me, though, that you described it as his 'descent into madness'. Annie, you should fall so hard.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 18:47:00 (EDT)
From: Annie
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: for Jim
Message:
Here is my LIG post. I had said to John that I think there is distortion of fact on the EPO site, and he very politely asked me to be more specific as to what I saw as being distorted.
...
Hi John,

Primarily I refer to the forum. A great deal of rumour and assumption is posted as if it were fact. I have noticed this for a long time. Also there is a definite prejudiced slant to most of what I have seen presented on the EPO pages. I don't consider it deliberate distortion, but I see it as distortion nevertheless.

Are you familiar with the play 'Rashomon'? It is a 3-part, 3-character presentation, 3 different versions of the same murder. Each piece enacts the events as seen & recalled through the eyes of one of the characters: the murderer, the murderee, and the witness to the murder.

What are the facts? Someone was murdered, someone murdered and someone witnessed. It is not a matter that a person has to lie about facts, in order to distort them. Each of us sees and processes life from our singular and peculiar view. No two persons see exactly the same thing.

How I see it is this: much of what is presented -- as the ultimate truth about Maharaji -- has been viewed and presented through a particular filter. It is not objective fact. I have appreciated that links are included there to non-ex-premie websites, even if it is for the purpose of making premies look foolish. But for that purpose it's not exactly an act of generous impartiality.

Michael Dettmers' personal opinions and anecdotes could be balanced, for example, by interviews with persons who have been equally close to Maharaji, some for many years longer than Michael was working with him. Can you understand?? There are many who have worked very close to Maharaji, for many years, and they have an entirely different point of view, even of the same facts. They are not stupid brainwashed people.

On the forum, premies are frequently portrayed in narrowminded stereotypical ways, blanket generalizations and assumptions are routinely made and stated as fact: for example, what premies like, think, want, are trying to do, etc. People write of others' motives and thoughts as if they were omniscient. Premies who post there have done this as well.

I can't take the time to give you exact quotes and examples from the pages, but it's all there.
best wishes,Annie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 21:41:41 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Annie
Subject: Why won't you answer me, Annie?
Message:
Annie,

Thanks for reposting your LG post but, really, that's hardly an answer to my own post. What about all the things I asked you about? Care to try again? Or are we already in 'duck' mode?

Yes, I'd appreciate a more responsive reply, if you don't mind. Meanwhile, I'll comment on your LG post. But please don't just pick it up from here at the expense of my earlier comments. It makes me feel like I'm not being heard and that makes me sad .... :(

*********************************************************************

Primarily I refer to the forum. A great deal of rumour and assumption is posted as if it were fact. I have noticed this for a long time. Also there is a definite prejudiced slant to most of what I have seen presented on the EPO pages. I don't consider it deliberate distortion, but I see it as distortion nevertheless.

What are the rumours or assumptions you're talking about? A lot of premies have a real problem dealing with some of the evidence here and try to dismiss it that way. I'm not saying you're doing that although that is what I expect. How can we know, though, unless you specify? Before you do, however, remember that first-hand accounts are hardly 'rumour' or 'hearsay' as so many premies seem to think. Moreover, even hearsay can tell the truth. But what are you talking about? And what do you mean by 'assumptions' in this context anyway?

Are you familiar with the play 'Rashomon'? It is a 3-part, 3-character presentation, 3 different versions of the same murder. Each piece enacts the events as seen & recalled through the eyes of one of the characters: the murderer, the murderee, and the witness to the murder.

What are the facts? Someone was murdered, someone murdered and someone witnessed. It is not a matter that a person has to lie about facts, in order to distort them. Each of us sees and processes life from our singular and peculiar view. No two persons see exactly the same thing.

Typical premie response but hardly persuasive. Yes, people can indeed misconstrue a situation or event because of their limited information or vantage point. But they can also get it right, don't forget. Much of what Maharaji and his cult followers argue about is far beyond fair dispute. For example, the issue I raised with you earlier (but which you avoided), whether or not Maharaji ever claimed to be God. There's no room for any honest disagreement. Yes, at times, Maharaji coyly said he wasn't God. Granted. But he also most definitely said he was and that's what he now flatly denies. No fair-minded person outside the Maharaji cult would ever dispute that Maharaji said so, regardless of perspective, no matter how many people you asked to consider the matter.

Furthermore, even where there are different views based on different perceptions and experiences, that's no excuse to stonewall, is it? Maharaji and his cult members have put up several websites now pretending to meet the ex-premie allegations head-on. Again, no reasonable person in the world would ever think they've done that. Dettmers says that Maharaji killed a man driving to the airport in India. He was there, he knows the names, he's even named the names -- Randy Prouty, for instance. But there's no denial, just a pathetic attempt to dismiss Dettmers as a bitter egotist. It's laughable, really. Can't see it? Too bad for you.

How I see it is this: much of what is presented -- as the ultimate truth about Maharaji -- has been viewed and presented through a particular filter. It is not objective fact. I have appreciated that links are included there to non-ex-premie websites, even if it is for the purpose of making premies look foolish. But for that purpose it's not exactly an act of generous impartiality.

What are you talking about? This kind of vague talk is worthless unless you're going to roll your sleeves up and delve into the facts. But, unless you've changed, you won't do that. Hence, this just looks like a transparent ploy on your part to avoid their import. The facts, Annie, the facts. DID Maharaji really send Dettmers out to pimp for him with premie women? Yes or no? What's wrong, don't like the term 'pimp'? Fine, how about 'pick up'? The fact is Dettmers alleges that this happened. He's either lying or he's not. We're not talking art appreciation you know.

Michael Dettmers' personal opinions and anecdotes could be balanced, for example, by interviews with persons who have been equally close to Maharaji, some for many years longer than Michael was working with him. Can you understand?? There are many who have worked very close to Maharaji, for many years, and they have an entirely different point of view, even of the same facts. They are not stupid brainwashed people.

Last point first, they may not be stupid but they may most definitely be lost in a cult. You know that. As for 'balance', tell me how you could ever balance the fact, if true, that Maharaji sent Dettmers out to pick up premie women, that he'd spot the cuties in darshan and work from there? If that's true what can you say? That he only did it once or twice and the rest of the time played the lotus-flower guru part to the hilt? What? At a certain point, Annie, you have to face the facts. Funny how there isn't a single person from the cult who's come forward to debate Dettmers and others on these points. Are you prepared to do that? No, I didn't think so.

On the forum, premies are frequently portrayed in narrowminded stereotypical ways, blanket generalizations and assumptions are routinely made and stated as fact: for example, what premies like, think, want, are trying to do, etc. People write of others' motives and thoughts as if they were omniscient. Premies who post there have done this as well.

Hey, Annie, I've got news for you. Premies are often all those things, oh yes they are. Not always, of course not always, but often enough. No apologies there and please, save me the 'everyone's as-unique-as-individual-snow-flakes' sentiment. Snow flakes aren't all that different from one another. Neither are many premies. That's why it's a cult. That's why there are no surprises at cult meetings. Maharaji tells his little jokes, everyone laughs a little too much. It's all the same. We've all been there, including you.

I can't take the time to give you exact quotes and examples from the pages, but it's all there.
best wishes,Annie

Without the 'exact quotes and examples' your comments are worthless.
[ Proof that Maharaji's a liar ]

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 20:48:20 (EDT)
From: Francesca
Email: None
To: Annie
Subject: People would have no reason ...
Message:
... to put things that are favorable to Maharaji on EPO. We are ex cult members telling it like it is from our own perspective. Do you think the opinions on the other side are any more objective?

Of course not. So I think your criticism it a bit one sided. You think EPO is slanted, but then you don't say that the pro-Maharaji stuff is slanted, which of course, it is. Much of the pro-Maharaji stuff on the websites borders on the ridiculous, if you ask me. My only purpose in participating in anything to do with Maharaji besides meet and greet old and new friends is to say what a joke he is. I'm past debating the issue. If you like him, go on ahead, but you'll find scant support for your views here.

Again, EPO and the forum do not tailor itself to each person who has some idea of what should be done there, nor should they be critized merely on the ground that they aren't what you'd like them to be. If you want arguments from both sides, make your own website! It gets a little tiresome to hear people rag, when anyone can go over to Geocities and make their own website for free. Also, EPO and many of the expremie websites link to the premie and Elan Vital websites. You don't see them linking to EPO or any of the expremie websites. We're not afraid of their views. We don't share them, and aren't afraid to have the views compared, side to side. If someone really wants to see their stuff, a few mouse clicks does the job quite handily.

A forum of course, is no more than the opinions of people that post there. You like what some people say, you don't like what others say. There is no one who is going to be able to control that, except to block certain posters.

I also disagree about the rumor and assumption being predominant here--I think your view is very slanted on that account. The only people who say that just refuse to believe what people are saying, from their own experiences. I've tried to stay true to my own experiences, what I personally witnessed and experienced, and so have many others. Again, you get used to each poster's voice and 'consider the source.' Many posters have a lot of credibility with me.

It really seems like you haven't yet left the cult, but I'd be the last one to tell you to hurry. Each person does whatever they do in their own time and in their own way. At first I also thought you were the same Annie that posted here about a month ago, and thus the reason for some of the reactions you got.

I'm not reading here much lately, as people are a bit volatile. I do know of a premie who is a friend of mine in New York who is OK, but I saw your original post and didn't feel like responding. I didn't feel I needed to mention his name on this forum to a total stranger.

Also, your pro-Maharaji stance puts people off, because that is not what this forum is about. Jim and some others like to debate, but frankly, I stay out of a lot of it. But unfair criticism of the worthy people who have put so much work into EPO, and my friends new and old who post here--I will respond.

Best wishes,

Francesca

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 20:56:23 (EDT)
From: Francesca
Email: None
To: Francesca
Subject: Just saw post to Jim--you're not the old Annie [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 19:25:44 (EDT)
From: PatD
Email: None
To: Annie
Subject: Persons close to maharaji.....
Message:
....can post here & have been able to post on the previous forums if they believe that people like Dettmers are being economical with the truth.

None have done so .

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 11:04:19 (EDT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Annie
Subject: A perfect example of passive aggression
Message:
...met with a fair amount of [I think] unprovoked hostility. In the midst of everything going on, it has seemed unnecessarily unkind.

One other reason I am feeling less than generous towards you is your nauseating willingness to try and get mileage out of the tragedy we just experienced. Repellent really.

Maybe that's what really bothers me about you. Otherwise you're harmless, I guess. But I really don't see the purpose of your starting this thread just to fight with Deb.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 18:38:24 (EDT)
From: Annie
Email: AWSosman@aol.com
To: gerry
Subject: Taking the Stand
Message:
Dear Anyone,
I fear that no matter what I write, it's going to be misinterpreted, or disbelieved. Nevertheless I will make one more try. This is all about me me me -- but I feel like I am on trial, so I'm taking the witness stand. Here is my version of things:

Originally I wasn't going to respond to Deborah's apology. At first I thought it was not genuine, because it seemed she was still attempting to blame me for something. Later I re-read her post, and I re-thought it, and decided that I was incorrect. So I wanted to acknowledge her extending to me an offer of peace. But because the thread was gone from the page, I thought she might not see it; therefore I posted it as a new message.

Gerry called it a passive aggressive attempt at provocation of Deborah. But there was no agenda to provoke her. If I was not warm and fuzzy about it, I'm sorry; but her posts to/about me were somewhat raw, and so was I. I felt justified to answer as to why I had used the word hate in my post to her. I quoted back to her own words, in explanation. I also asked her in a perfectly neutral way if we might have known each other at Deca. I don't understand how any of what I have written could be construed as an attempt to harass or provoke her.

I wrote this in an earlier post, but I want to repeat it: I came to the Forum last week to see what was being written here about the events, to see if there were people from New York I might know who had been hurt or killed. I posted a couple of quotes, without giving my name, because they were good, and relevant, and there was no point bringing up our differences at that time by identifying myself as an unwelcome intruder. I posted the letter from an Afghani American, under my own name, as well as another post, re Blame, and had a few warm and respectful responses.

Then I read some posts indicating that nobody had heard anything from Maharaji until his message had appeared on the website, and I stated very simply that I had received that phone call. For that I was accused by complete strangers of lying, being a fucking bitch, and having all sorts of past crimes and ulterior motives.

In that same post I was making a query about premies or expremies from New York. Now I'm not sure if anyone even read to the end of the post; the only responses I received were in regards to being unwelcome because I am not an expremie.

I was making a particular point of not disrespecting the forum guidelines for premies who post here. I didn't want to get into any debate, I did not have the heart for it, and I had come there for connection with human beings, not to preach nor to fight. I stated that in my posts to Deborah and Pat.

I found the post from SC, in that same thread, to be as offensive as the exinsults, but in a different way; ie, I have no interest in a them-and-us mentality, and don't care to be particularly associated with people who do, because it is a mindset that to me feels really slimy.

I do not see myself as being different from other people, in that each of us is feeling our own way through our own lives, making choices and mistakes which are our own, learning things which are known only to ourselves, changing, growing up.

Jim vouched for my identity, and Katie also posted something very nice, and people softened up a bit. But still it seems that here I am damned by some, no matter what I may say. I know full well that I am not a liar, that I have no agenda to do anything to anybody here, or fool anyone, or hide anything. To the best of my abilities I speak the truth and try to walk my talk in my life. People may, and do, interpret me however they wish -- what can I say to that?

To Gerry's allegation that I am nauseatingly trying to get mileage out of the tragic recent events -- that's a really big stretch. The Jews and Palestinians have stopped attacking each other, at least for a time. I guess I was expecting something similar here, hoping that there would be some sense of our unity as human beings, rather than all this divisive and confusing nonsense. I was uncertain for a few days as to the safety of many people, including two young cousins who live and work in Manhattan. I live on the edge of DC, my daughters' father works across the street from the Pentagon, I was afraid for my children, I felt broken hearted for all the loss, all the wounds, all the blame and sorrow and evil. I found myself for a couple of days breaking down crying over really insignificant things. I came to the forum to connect with people, not to start another war. But I think I am unwelcome.

Jim -- I have no problem speaking frankly and openly about Maharaji. But you bring up issues about which I have no first hand knowledge, and ask me to explain or justify them. I can't. I can speculate about these things, but I don't know, and my speculations will be inclined to view him as innocent. It is the way I am. With everyone, not just him. I simply do not see Maharaji the way you wish me to. I've been 'disillusioned' about Maharaji over and over and over again, year after year. You likely do not believe me, but illusions have been dispelled. This has not turned me against him.

I will repost my LIG post here so you can read it yourself. If you like, I will forward to you my relevant correspondence with Scottie, and you can see for yourself the nature of our communications, and the context of the 'descent into madness' quote -- which you have TOTALLY misinterpreted, and thus misrepresented here.

If you don't trust me to tell you the truth, you can email Scottie and ask him to clarify, or to fwd the emails himself. I am not sure if I have your email address. I sent you an email last night but do not know if you received it. If you want a more indepth answer to questions you posed in your post, email me or telephone, I am not trying to avoid answering you. Why do you, who frequently challenge anything that is not hard fact, ask me to speculate about what I might have felt, back when I was in the ashram and you knew me -- how can I know? I can only guess, and how relevant is that? Maybe back then I wouldn't have been able to feel anything at all -- for I learned at a very young age not to feel. It has taken me a very long time to learn how, and to trust myself. My own journey has not been so different from many of you. But I cannot blame Maharaji. I was very screwed up long before I met him.
Annie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 13:47:08 (EDT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Annie
Subject: Annie, I heard about phone tree in NY and DC
Message:
It made me kind of sad, because of the large numbers of EX-premies in those cities who weren't officiallyl contacted (although I hope their premie friends and aquaintances called them), but it was thoughtful as far as it went.

Hope you are OK - it's tough to live in DC these days.

Take care,
Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 23:30:47 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Annie
Subject: Examining your 'testimony'
Message:
Dear Anyone,
I fear that no matter what I write, it's going to be misinterpreted, or disbelieved.

Too bad you feel that way. I never do except for when addressing a group of Maharaji cult members, like when I used to be able to post on LG. But in general I never feel that way. I expect a reasonable mix of agreement, disagreement, indifference perhaps. But not the complete lack of communication you do. If it's really like that for you, there must be a reason. Could it be that you're trying to defend the indefensible?

Nevertheless I will make one more try. This is all about me me me -- but I feel like I am on trial, so I'm taking the witness stand. Here is my version of things:

Already a bad sign. Your 'version of things'? Is that even close to what you 'honestly believe to be true'? I wonder.

Originally I wasn't going to respond to Deborah's apology. At first I thought it was not genuine, because it seemed she was still attempting to blame me for something. Later I re-read her post, and I re-thought it, and decided that I was incorrect. So I wanted to acknowledge her extending to me an offer of peace. But because the thread was gone from the page, I thought she might not see it; therefore I posted it as a new message.

Gerry called it a passive aggressive attempt at provocation of Deborah. But there was no agenda to provoke her. If I was not warm and fuzzy about it, I'm sorry; but her posts to/about me were somewhat raw, and so was I. I felt justified to answer as to why I had used the word hate in my post to her. I quoted back to her own words, in explanation. I also asked her in a perfectly neutral way if we might have known each other at Deca. I don't understand how any of what I have written could be construed as an attempt to harass or provoke her.

I wrote this in an earlier post, but I want to repeat it: I came to the Forum last week to see what was being written here about the events, to see if there were people from New York I might know who had been hurt or killed. I posted a couple of quotes, without giving my name, because they were good, and relevant, and there was no point bringing up our differences at that time by identifying myself as an unwelcome intruder. I posted the letter from an Afghani American, under my own name, as well as another post, re Blame, and had a few warm and respectful responses.

Then I read some posts indicating that nobody had heard anything from Maharaji until his message had appeared on the website, and I stated very simply that I had received that phone call. For that I was accused by complete strangers of lying, being a fucking bitch, and having all sorts of past crimes and ulterior motives.

In that same post I was making a query about premies or expremies from New York. Now I'm not sure if anyone even read to the end of the post; the only responses I received were in regards to being unwelcome because I am not an expremie.

I was making a particular point of not disrespecting the forum guidelines for premies who post here. I didn't want to get into any debate, I did not have the heart for it, and I had come there for connection with human beings, not to preach nor to fight. I stated that in my posts to Deborah and Pat.

I found the post from SC, in that same thread, to be as offensive as the exinsults, but in a different way; ie, I have no interest in a them-and-us mentality, and don't care to be particularly associated with people who do, because it is a mindset that to me feels really slimy.

I do not see myself as being different from other people, in that each of us is feeling our own way through our own lives, making choices and mistakes which are our own, learning things which are known only to ourselves, changing, growing up.

Sad to say, the ex's have been recently attacked by some truly reprehensible premies who've conducted the same kind of viscious and immoral campaign that Scientology's infamous for. Sad to say (for you, that is) there's even reason to believe that Maharaji authorized, possibly even requested, these attacks. This is the climate you've entered.

as for your last comments above, it's silly to say you don't see yourself as different than other people. Of course you do, depends on the context. You're an American like the guy next door to you. But you're also a premie and he isn't. To say that we're all just going through life making our choices, etc. is kind of like saying nothing at all. Why bother? Too banal to mention. The fact is that we do have a real point of discrimination here, much as you might not want to deal with it. We were once all members of the Maharaji cult. Now only some of us are. That's a difference worth talking about.

Jim vouched for my identity, and Katie also posted something very nice, and people softened up a bit. But still it seems that here I am damned by some, no matter what I may say. I know full well that I am not a liar, that I have no agenda to do anything to anybody here, or fool anyone, or hide anything. To the best of my abilities I speak the truth and try to walk my talk in my life. People may, and do, interpret me however they wish -- what can I say to that?

I don't think you speak the truth to the best of your abilities at all. At all, at all, at all!. In our own discussions you've often begged off difficult questions with some very unsatisfying demurrer that you just weren't going to get into it any further. That part you're avoiding, Annie, the part you won't 'get into' just might be where the truth of the matter lies. In fact, I think it is.

To Gerry's allegation that I am nauseatingly trying to get mileage out of the tragic recent events -- that's a really big stretch. The Jews and Palestinians have stopped attacking each other, at least for a time. I guess I was expecting something similar here, hoping that there would be some sense of our unity as human beings, rather than all this divisive and confusing nonsense. I was uncertain for a few days as to the safety of many people, including two young cousins who live and work in Manhattan. I live on the edge of DC, my daughters' father works across the street from the Pentagon, I was afraid for my children, I felt broken hearted for all the loss, all the wounds, all the blame and sorrow and evil. I found myself for a couple of days breaking down crying over really insignificant things. I came to the forum to connect with people, not to start another war. But I think I am unwelcome.

Personally, I don't think you were really doing anything but just what you say you were. To that end, your reception here might well hve been hasty and unfair. But there is always a live issue here and that's Maharaji; can't really get away from it. Not here anyway.

Jim -- I have no problem speaking frankly and openly about Maharaji. But you bring up issues about which I have no first hand knowledge, and ask me to explain or justify them. I can't. I can speculate about these things, but I don't know, and my speculations will be inclined to view him as innocent. It is the way I am. With everyone, not just him. I simply do not see Maharaji the way you wish me to. I've been 'disillusioned' about Maharaji over and over and over again, year after year. You likely do not believe me, but illusions have been dispelled. This has not turned me against him.

This is what I mean. You really should bite your tongue when you talk about how committed to the truth you are. Maharaji has been fucking your ex-husband's girlfriend, Monica Lewis, for years now. This is beyond dispute. To say you have no 'first hand' knowledge is like some holocaust revisionist saying that he wasn't at Auschwitz so how could he ever be expected to have an opinion about Hitler. Don't believe me? Ask Michael (which one? Taek your pick -- Dettmers, Donner, or how about Wood?) You're just avoiding the facts, that's hardly the sign of someone interested in the truth.

Besides, what about the simple question about whether or not Maharaji is lying when he now claims to have never said he was God? You didn't discuss that at all. Was it because it your excuse about 'not being there' doesn't fit? Seems like it.

I will repost my LIG post here so you can read it yourself. If you like, I will forward to you my relevant correspondence with Scottie, and you can see for yourself the nature of our communications, and the context of the 'descent into madness' quote -- which you have TOTALLY misinterpreted, and thus misrepresented here.

If you don't trust me to tell you the truth, you can email Scottie and ask him to clarify, or to fwd the emails himself. I am not sure if I have your email address. I sent you an email last night but do not know if you received it. If you want a more indepth answer to questions you posed in your post, email me or telephone, I am not trying to avoid answering you. Why do you, who frequently challenge anything that is not hard fact, ask me to speculate about what I might have felt, back when I was in the ashram and you knew me -- how can I know? I can only guess, and how relevant is that? Maybe back then I wouldn't have been able to feel anything at all -- for I learned at a very young age not to feel. It has taken me a very long time to learn how, and to trust myself. My own journey has not been so different from many of you. But I cannot blame Maharaji. I was very screwed up long before I met him.
Annie

Nope, don't buy it. I did know you then and I do believe, although of course it's speculation, that you would have been shocked, hurt and deeply wounded to learn then what you can learn now, if you only had the guts to. But you were very dedicated then. Maharaji was your whole life. It mattered more, I guess. The truth, I mean. Now you're older, more settled into your ways, not about to change things too drastically. You're not leaning as much on Maharaji as you did in the ashram so you can afford to just kind of fudge the whole thing. Lots of premies are like that. Indeed, it seems to be the unspoken cult strategy for dealing with Maharaji's many failures and quastionable history. Superficiality as an alternative to confrontation.

As for your comment to Scottie, yes, maybe I did get the context wrong. All I know is you said it and, upon hearing that, I didn't think well of you, no I didn't.

My email's changed:

jamesheller@home.com

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 00:20:27 (EDT)
From: Francesca :C)
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Jim, yes, um hmm!
Message:
This is brilliant:

Now you're older, more settled into your ways, not about to change things too drastically. You're not leaning as much on Maharaji as you did in the ashram so you can afford to just kind of fudge the whole thing. Lots of premies are like that. Indeed, it seems to be the unspoken cult strategy for dealing with Maharaji's many failures and quastionable history. Superficiality as an alternative to confrontation.

Not to pick on Annie per se, because I don't really know her at all -- but I have old friends that fit this description to a 'T.' It seems that in not 'leaning' on Maharaji as much, they've got a lot of room to fudge it. Some of them are also into other spritual trips so that Maharaji is just part of the smorgie. Some have even moved on and don't practice Knowledge but are surprised that I don't like Ratso.

Although, to tell you the truth, I knew mild versions of some of his transgressions and didn't care when I was cultized. Living in LA in the 70s, we were the 'worldly' premies. (I suppose the story is the same in NY or any major city.) Hollywood, the LA thing, yeah, the wierd guru. So what, man? Kinky? Pouring motor oil and crap in people's hair? Divoon, I tell you.

Yeah, baby.

Francesca

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 02:09:21 (EDT)
From: suchabanana
Email: organicbananas@mikegaberaphael.com
To: All
Subject: commentary by an American born in Afghanistan
Message:
Commentary from WW, a writer and columnist in Davis CA, who comes from Afghanistan. [This needs to be common knowledge and e-mail is how it will become so. Pass it on!]

I've been hearing a lot of talk about 'bombing Afghanistan back to the Stone Age.' Ronn Owens, on KGO Talk Radio today, allowed that this would mean killing innocent people, people who had nothing to do with this atrocity, but 'we're at war, we have to accept collateral damage. What else can we do?' Minutes later I heard some TV pundit discussing whether we 'have the belly to do what must be done.' And I thought about the issues being raised especially hard because I am from Afghanistan, and even though I've lived here for 25 years I've never lost track of what's going on there. So I want to tell anyone who will listen how it all looks from where I'm standing. I speak as one who hates the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden. There is no doubt in my mind that these people were responsible for the atrocity in New York. I agree that something must be done about those monsters. But the Taliban and Bin Laden are not Afghanistan. They're not even the government of Afghanistan. The Taliban are a cult of ignorant psychotics who took over Afghanistan in 1997. Bin Laden is a political criminal with a plan. When you think Taliban, think Nazis. When you think Bin Laden, think Hitler. And when you think 'the people of Afghanistan,' think 'the Jews in the concentration camps.' It's not only that the Afghan people had nothing to do with this atrocity. They were the first victims of the perpetrators. They would exult if someone would come in there, take out the Taliban and clear out the rats nest of international thugs holed up in their country. Some say, why don't the Afghans rise up and overthrow the Taliban? The answer is, they're starved, exhausted, hurt, incapacitated, suffering. A few years ago, the United Nations estimated that there are 500,000 disabled orphans in Afghanistan--a country with no economy, no food. There are millions of widows. And the Taliban has been burying these widows alive in mass graves. The soil is littered with land mines, the farms were all destroyed by the Soviets. These are a few of the reasons why the Afghan people have not overthrown the Taliban. We come now to the question of bombing Afghanistan back to the Stone Age. Trouble is, that's been done. The Soviets took care of it already. Make the Afghans suffer? They're already suffering. Level their houses? Done. Turn their schools into piles of rubble? Done. Eradicate their hospitals? Done. Destroy their infrastructure? Cut them off from medicine and health care? Too late. Someone already did all that. New bombs would only stir the rubble of earlier bombs. Would they at least get the Taliban? Not likely. In today's Afghanistan, only the Taliban eat, only they have the means to move around. They'd slip away and hide. Maybe the bombs would get some of those disabled orphans, they don't move too fast, they don't even have wheelchairs. But flying over Kabul and dropping bombs wouldn't really be a strike against the criminals who did this horrific thing. Actually it would only be making common cause with the Taliban--by raping once again the people they've been raping all this time. So what else is there? What can be done, then? Let me now speak with true fear and trembling. The only way to get Bin Laden is to go in there with ground troops. When people speak of 'having the belly to do what needs to be done' they're thinking in terms of having the belly to kill as many as needed. Having the belly to overcome any moral qualms about killing innocent people. Let's pull our heads out of the sand. What's actually on the table is Americans dying. And not just because some Americans would die fighting their way through Afghanistan to Bin Laden's hideout. It's much bigger than that folks. Because to get any troops to Afghanistan, we'd have to go through Pakistan. Would they let us? Not likely. The conquest of Pakistan would have to be first. Will other Muslim nations just stand by? You see where I'm going. We're flirting with a world war between Islam and the West. And guess what: that's Bin Laden's program. That's exactly what he wants. That's why he did this. Read his speeches and statements. It's all right there. He really believes Islam would beat the west. It might seem ridiculous, but he figures if he can polarize the world into Islam and the West, he's got a billion soldiers. If the west wreaks a holocaust in those lands, that's a billion people with nothing left to lose, that's even better from Bin Laden's point of view. He's probably wrong, in the end the West would win, whatever that would mean, but the war would last for years and millions would die, not just theirs but ours. Who has the belly for that? Bin Laden does. Anyone else?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 00:30:49 (EDT)
From: Francesca :C)
Email: None
To: suchabanana
Subject: Uh, such, who is WW?
Message:
Are you sure "WW" wasn't pulling your leg, or is that his real name? That article was published in Salon.com

at: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2001/09/14/afghanistan/
(sorry, can't add the link because I'm editing this message.
By Tamin Ansary, who it says, is a writer in San Francisco, and the son of a former Afghani politician.

I received this same story from several other sources. One was prefaced with:

'What it's like living in Afganistan. What Bin Laden is up to:

Dear Friends,
The following was sent to me by my friend Tamim Ansary. Tamim is an
Afghani-American writer. He is also one of the most brilliant people I
know in this life. When he writes, I read. When he talks, I listen.
Here is his take on Afghanistan and the whole mess we are in.
-Gary T.'
The piece was signed: 'Tamin Ansary.'

We got the same piece from my cousin, who said if was from an Afghani living in the 'Bay Area.'

It also cirulated at work. Are you sure your 'WW' friend wrote this piece?

Francesca

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 20, 2001 at 19:05:40 (EDT)
From: such
Email: None
To: Francesca :C)
Subject: your neighborhood
Message:
Wali W. from Sac., CA.

during the long war with the Soviets, the survivors of his family fled Afghanistan with only the clothes on their backs and their prayer rugs.

Salaam and lentils,

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 11:34:45 (EDT)
From: salam
Email: None
To: suchabanana
Subject: Correction
Message:
The Talaban are Afghanies. If this fellow knows anything then he should also know that the Talaban [Talaba'h] were the orphined children of people fighting against the Russian. These children lost one or both of their parent, and in many cases all their family, they were taken to the Pakistan borders and put into refugee camps and looked after by aid agencies. They then joined a 'Madrassa' or school run by the extrem right UJI party [Jamiat-Ulema-Islam] or which can be translated to litrery to the Islamic Science Organisation and has it's secretry as Maulana Abdul. These schools where made in hell. Non of the students have seen a TV or a woman, they do nothing all day but memorize the Q'uoran and study Islamic 'Shar'a'h'. Those student graduated as fanatics, they know nothing except for Islam, they do what the Ulma tell them, death, starvation, deprevation, turtor doesn't mean anything to them. The students themselves are the meat in the grinder, they know no altrnative. Couple that with a country where about 35% of the population live in poverty, a death rate of 10% and a countinous war with India on Kahmir and you get what we have now. you may want to know that the next in line for their hate is India, the idole worshipers.

bin Ladden has nothing to do with Islam, he is only using the Talaban for his own purposes. His beaf is that when he came back from the war with Russia and the start of the Gulf war, he and his men wanted to fight the Iraquies without help from the west. When his country, Saudia Arabia told him to stick it up his nose because there was too much American strategic interest involved he turned sour aginst his countey and America in particular because he thought that the American infidels desecrated the holy land of the Mohamad. He got his ass kicked, went to Sudan, did his number, America chased him in Sudan, got kicked out because no one in Sudan was prepared to cop the cost of what was going to happen next, got the boot again and went back crying to mum when the Talaban came to control the country. That is his position.

So what I want to say, is I think it's better to know what you are talking about rather than ramble incomprehensibly the way this fellow does.

As for bombing them, well fuck all, those guys can live on dry grass and snow. There is nothing in their country that can be destroyed casue it's already is destroyed. Let's not forget, that the Talaban are forcing the peole of their country into submission.

but fuck this, it's a long story.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 15:28:45 (EDT)
From: such
Email: None
To: salam
Subject: re'know what you're talking about'
Message:
my friend WW was born in Afghanistan, where his dad was a governor of a province. Then the Russians came in and began taking over the country and killed all the male adults of his family, and he and his young brothers became boy mujihadeen guerilla fighters, until the Russians drove out the rebel forces in that area.

Then the surviving family members fled to Pakistan, then India, then Germany and the US, where some are now American citizens with their own young families. There are about 60-70,000 Afghanis living in the Bay Area alone.

Now, WW's opinions are clearly his own, and also based on his experiences and his information sources.

Peace and lentils,

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 06:36:51 (EDT)
From: Jean-Michel
Email: None
To: suchabanana
Subject: I've been there in 1968
Message:
For a couple of weeks. Visited all these places, Heirat, Kandahar, Kabul, Bamyan (and the huge buddas), Bandyamir etc.

The country was already very poor, everything was almost a ruin, but the people lovely. I can imagine what's left after decades of war ! NOTHING.

They've been exploited and abused by the fundamentalists/extremists, and drugs' traders.

There can't be much left in this country ..... not worth killing innocent people anyway.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 02:55:58 (EDT)
From: btdt
Email: None
To: suchabanana
Subject: Re: commentary by an American born in Afghanistan
Message:
What publication does he write for?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 00:00:45 (EDT)
From: Michael Read
Email: None
To: All
Subject: open letter to the terrorists
Message:
In the name of Allah the Merciful, please, do not kill any more
people.

There are many who wish you peace though thier governments do have
people in them that do not wish you peace. Many still do and we are
speaking up.

We do not like the killing of anybody - for any reason.

We understand that you have strong reason to fight for your selves and
your way of life. You have been attacked by many great powers.

You have held and kept the name of Allah alive. Many of us are now
studying the Koran. We may not become formally Muslims. But we will
strive to understand all the ways of Allah.

I do not know if this message will ever reach you. I pray that it
does.

I would rather meet you heart to heart and person to person.
If we are dead, how can we pray together?
If we kill each other's children, who will play together on this good
good earth?

God in His Mercy has given us a garden. Shall we turn it into a
charnel house? Is this how we repay the universe for these gifts?

I do not want to turn on the television or pick up a newspaper and
learn about and see the torn bodies of children. Nor do I want to see
the fractured earth layered over with death.

If this is what you want to see and the legacy you wish to leave, what
can be done?

Think about the laughter of the animals and the children. Do you not
hear God's voice - even there?

Why destroy that?

Please find a peaceful path.

Praise the Name of Names!

With love eternal - Michael

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 13:20:42 (EDT)
From: salam
Email: None
To: Michael Read
Subject: are you serious?
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 23:52:12 (EDT)
From: Victoria H.
Email: None
To: All
Subject: Canadian tv commentator Gordon Sinclair
Message:
TRIBUTE TO THE UNITED STATES

This, from a Canadian newspaper, is worth sharing.

America: The Good Neighbor.

Widespread but only partial news coverage was given recently to a remarkable editorial broadcast from Toronto by Gordon Sinclair, a Canadian television commentator. What follows is the full text of his trenchant remarks as printed in the Congressional Record:

'This Canadian thinks it is time to speak up for the Americans as the most generous and possibly the least appreciated people on all the earth.

Germany, Japan and, to a lesser extent, Britain and Italy were lifted out of the debris of war by the Americans who poured in billions of dollars and forgave other billions in debts. None of these countries is today paying even the interest on its remaining debts to the United States.

When France was in danger of collapsing in 1956, it was the Americans who propped it up, and their reward was to be insulted and swindled on the streets of Paris. I was there. I saw it.

When earthquakes hit distant cities, it is the United States that hurries in to help. This spring, 59 American communities were flattened by tornadoes.

Nobody helped.

The Marshall Plan and the Truman Policy pumped billions of dollars into discouraged countries. Now newspapers in those countries are writing about the decadent, warmongering Americans.

I'd like to see just one of those countries that is gloating over the erosion of the United States dollar build its own airplane. Does any other country in the world have a plane to equal the Boeing Jumbo Jet, the Lockheed Tri-Star, or the Douglas DC10? If so, why don't they fly them? Why do all the International lines except Russia fly American Planes?

Why does no other land on earth even consider putting a man or woman on the moon? You talk about Japanese technocracy, and you get radios. You talk about German technocracy, and you get automobiles. You talk about American technocracy, and you find men on the moon - not once, but several times and safely home again.

You talk about scandals, and the Americans put theirs right in the store window for everybody to look at.

Even their draft-dodgers are not pursued and hounded.

They are here on our streets, and most of them, unless they are breaking Canadian laws, are getting American dollars from ma and pa at home to spend here.

When the railways of France, Germany and India were breaking down through age, it was the Americans who rebuilt them. When the Pennsylvania Railroad and the New York Central went broke, nobody loaned them an old caboose. Both are still broke.

I can name you 5000 times when the Americans raced to the help of other people in trouble. Can you name me even one time when someone else raced to the Americans in trouble? I don't think there was outside help even during the San Francisco earthquake.

Our neighbors have faced it alone, and I'm one Canadian who is damned tired of hearing them get kicked around. They will come out of this thing with their flag high. And when they do, they are entitled to thumb their nose at the lands that are gloating over their present troubles. I hope Canada is not one of those.'

Thought you all might be interested in this.

Love,
Victoria

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 22:21:39 (EDT)
From: a0aji
Email: None
To: All
Subject: Who's Who
Message:
During the events of the past week, I'd come to realize how little I'd paid attention to the names and offices of the key players emerging on the cable newscasts, before the tragedy of the 11th.

Tonight, I found a neat link describing the Bush Cabinet -- looks fairly accurate.

If you have any relevant URLs (especially, any talking heads seen on CSPAN from the Pentagon) I'd appreciate a post here (as well as anything else you'd like to add).

-a0aji


[ Bush Administration - Washington Post dotcom ]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 11:16:00 (EDT)
From: Rick
Email: None
To: a0aji
Subject: swell bunch of fellows and gals, thanks (nt)
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 20:45:58 (EDT)
From: a0aji
Email: None
To: All
Subject: The 'war can be avoided' fantasy
Message:
I've read a lot of interesting ideas about war; many of them deal with, in one form or another, the inevitability of war.

Is war inenvitable?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 21:08:45 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: a0aji
Subject: Read this
Message:
The book itself is out of print, but this passage gives the gist of what he says in *How to Think about War and Peace*.
[ Adler on War and Peace ]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 20:59:26 (EDT)
From: a0aji
Email: None
To: a0aji
Subject: Re: The 'war can be avoided' fantasy
Message:
Is war inenvitable?

---

Inevitable, even?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 18:42:20 (EDT)
From: Deputy Dog
Email: None
To: All
Subject: Wow, not one comment about my message below!
Message:
I was expecting a few gnarlies but nothing! You guys must either be slipping or you agree.

BTW it should read '1.2 billion Muslims.'

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 14:18:59 (EDT)
From: Francesca
Email: None
To: Deputy Dog
Subject: Dog, at the risk of getting flamed
Message:
I went down and read your post. I thought it was a pretty good post, for a thumbnail sketch. There is some truth to this partriarchal religion stuff.

I'm not reading a lot of the stuff here and not posting much because people get offended quite easily these days -- a bit jumpy I'm afraid.

Best wishes to you,

Francesca

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 18, 2001 at 20:26:21 (EDT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Deputy Dog
Subject: Throw a dog a bone
Message:
You know Dep, reading the 'new' pro-Goober website, reading Lifes Great, reading the EV FAQ's, all this, new people posting saying they have just left the cult after 28 years,

we really are making a difference. We really are putting a hole in RawRat's stockings, people are getting free, we are winning !!!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index