Ex-Premie Forum 7 Archive
From: Oct 11, 2001 To: Oct 17, 2001 Page: 2 of: 5


Jean-Michel -:- Gerry ? Check the typo -:- Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 12:29:44 (EDT)
__ gerry -:- Link fixed, thanks J-M [nt] -:- Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 12:37:50 (EDT)
__ __ hamzen -:- While you're here Gerry -:- Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 14:00:47 (EDT)
__ __ __ Julian -:- Re: While you're here Gerry -:- Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 14:20:30 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ gerry -:- How's that, fellers? -:- Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 15:28:36 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Dermot -:- Hey Gerry -:- Tues, Oct 16, 2001 at 17:50:06 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ hamzen -:- Appreciate the change Gerry -:- Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 17:35:34 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Dermot -:- It's fine Gerry -:- Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 15:59:20 (EDT)

Jim -:- What the hell is CD on? -:- Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 12:01:18 (EDT)
__ suchabanana -:- guitar shopping,drinkin' beer,+ a girlfriend -:- Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 17:25:48 (EDT)
__ __ Timmi -:- Re: guitar shopping,drinkin' beer,+ a girlfriend -:- Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 20:55:03 (EDT)
__ CD -:- Re: is CD on? -:- Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 16:42:15 (EDT)
__ __ bill -:- a study binge? -:- Tues, Oct 16, 2001 at 18:52:37 (EDT)
__ __ __ CD -:- Re: study OT? -:- Tues, Oct 16, 2001 at 20:13:25 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Deborah -:- You're a LIAR CD -:- Tues, Oct 16, 2001 at 21:28:27 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ CD -:- Re: You -:- Wed, Oct 17, 2001 at 02:07:40 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Deborah -:- Re: Oh really???? -:- Wed, Oct 17, 2001 at 19:02:38 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- What are YOU doing here?? -:- Wed, Oct 17, 2001 at 14:12:23 (EDT)
__ __ gerry -:- Chris I warned you... -:- Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 17:05:45 (EDT)
__ __ __ bill-CD MUST know what -:- beer the lord drinks. [nt] -:- Tues, Oct 16, 2001 at 18:54:04 (EDT)
__ __ __ SC -:- Hands off gezza, the McInturff's mine! -:- Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 22:26:29 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ such -:- Breedlove [nt] -:- Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 22:42:20 (EDT)
__ SC -:- Yea, if we wanted syrup we'd go to ELK -:- Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 12:16:08 (EDT)

Vicki -:- Rape of a child -:- Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 08:53:36 (EDT)
__ Cynthia -:- Re: Rape of a child -:- Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 18:49:01 (EDT)
__ __ such -:- EV no like check designations;+abbrevs... -:- Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 21:15:10 (EDT)
__ __ __ Dermot -:- Really funny Such ! [nt] -:- Tues, Oct 16, 2001 at 16:16:15 (EDT)
__ __ __ Cynthia -:- Good One, Such...LOL! [nt] -:- Tues, Oct 16, 2001 at 15:20:27 (EDT)
__ Suedoula -:- Well said, Vicki (nt) -:- Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 09:02:39 (EDT)

gabfest -:- well blow me down!! -:- Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 05:09:50 (EDT)
__ Timmi -:- Re: well blow me down!! -:- Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 20:58:44 (EDT)
__ JHB -:- Re: well blow me down!! -:- Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 06:46:24 (EDT)
__ __ gabfest -:- Thanks for the update nt -:- Tues, Oct 16, 2001 at 03:57:15 (EDT)

JHB -:- Reading Locked Threads -:- Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 02:23:50 (EDT)
__ Barbara -:- Yes...Comes Up Blank [nt] -:- Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 02:28:06 (EDT)
__ __ cq -:- Likewise (nt) -:- Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 07:06:03 (EDT)
__ __ __ gerry -:- Upgrading your browser may help -:- Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 11:21:39 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ cq -:- Re: Upgrading your browser may help -:- Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 14:50:25 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Barbara -:- Re: Upgrading your browser may help -:- Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 11:38:16 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ hamzen -:- Don't blame you -:- Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 14:08:28 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Cynthia -:- I use Netscape 4.7 -:- Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 14:48:16 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Barbara -:- Thanks, Ham and Cynthia... [nt] -:- Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 14:53:49 (EDT)

Peter C -:- Gullibility -:- Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 00:08:06 (EDT)
__ Tim -:- Re: Gullibility -:- Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 09:14:50 (EDT)
__ AJW -:- That's funny Peter. -:- Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 04:26:22 (EDT)
__ Jim -:- Just one question -:- Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 02:02:03 (EDT)
__ __ For Peter C. -:- Re: Just one question, and one challenge -:- Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 14:11:33 (EDT)

Peter Cramer -:- :O - Repost from Assistante Forum Admin -:- Sun, Oct 14, 2001 at 23:54:45 (EDT)
__ Deborah -:- hey asshole -- try this formula -:- Tues, Oct 16, 2001 at 22:41:07 (EDT)
__ AJW -:- That's right Pete. -:- Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 04:40:18 (EDT)
__ __ CW -:- Re: That's right Pete. -:- Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 09:40:57 (EDT)
__ __ __ AJW -:- Ahoy there Cat. -:- Tues, Oct 16, 2001 at 05:41:45 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Catweasel -:- Avast ye scurvy dog -:- Tues, Oct 16, 2001 at 09:59:01 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ SC -:- Must admit , 1st officer Anth is -:- Tues, Oct 16, 2001 at 10:29:08 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Dermot -:- To Catweasle..a begrudging :) [nt] -:- Tues, Oct 16, 2001 at 10:24:26 (EDT)
__ hamzen -:- And how many premie posters on Lifes Great? -:- Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 00:09:56 (EDT)
__ __ SC -:- Care to enlighten us hamzen? -:- Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 01:02:28 (EDT)
__ __ __ hamzen -:- A lot less than ex-premies that's for sure -:- Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 07:05:19 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ SC -:- Not on a global scale, not at all -:- Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 09:53:58 (EDT)
__ __ __ Mr. Dooley -:- According to your owner -:- Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 07:01:40 (EDT)

Sir Dave }( -:- My words cast in a grey/white background -:- Sun, Oct 14, 2001 at 21:29:06 (EDT)
__ Sir Dave -:- Christ - you didn't have to delete them! -:- Sun, Oct 14, 2001 at 21:45:33 (EDT)

Jim -:- On no, I'm not good enough either! -:- Sun, Oct 14, 2001 at 18:51:08 (EDT)
__ Jim -:- Here's their ad on ELK -:- Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 12:13:21 (EDT)
__ __ hamzen -:- I reckon you should try Mitch Ditkoff -:- Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 20:37:53 (EDT)
__ Tonette -:- \Dear Jim, -:- Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 01:44:44 (EDT)
__ Tonette -:- \Dear Jim, -:- Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 01:31:01 (EDT)
__ Tonette -:- \Dear Jim, -:- Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 01:31:00 (EDT)

Jim -:- What's OT about Recent Ex's? -:- Sun, Oct 14, 2001 at 18:06:09 (EDT)
__ Jim -:- My beef with Recent Exes -:- Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 21:31:06 (EDT)
__ __ Scott T. -:- Structure and Recent Escapees -:- Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 22:41:50 (EDT)
__ __ __ Jim -:- Therapeutic? -:- Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 22:47:14 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Re: Therapeutic? -:- Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 22:51:10 (EDT)
__ __ Mike Finch -:- Re: My beef with Recent Exes -:- Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 22:21:28 (EDT)
__ __ __ Katie -:- Thanks, Mike - good post [nt] -:- Tues, Oct 16, 2001 at 10:23:17 (EDT)
__ __ __ Jim -:- Re: My beef with Recent Exes -:- Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 22:32:29 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Mike Finch -:- Re: My beef with Recent Exes -:- Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 23:10:49 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Re: My beef with Recent Exes -:- Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 23:35:02 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Mike Finch -:- Re: My beef with Recent Exes -:- Tues, Oct 16, 2001 at 02:24:18 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Re: My beef with Recent Exes -:- Tues, Oct 16, 2001 at 08:46:12 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Mike Finch -:- Re: My beef with Recent Exes -:- Tues, Oct 16, 2001 at 09:15:11 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Dermot -:- Hey, Mike Finch -:- Tues, Oct 16, 2001 at 09:42:21 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Mike Finch -:- Re: Hey, Mike Finch -:- Tues, Oct 16, 2001 at 10:12:45 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JHB -:- Hey, Mike Finch, thought of doing a journey? -:- Tues, Oct 16, 2001 at 13:53:34 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Mike Finch -:- Re: Hey, Mike Finch, thought of doing a journey? -:- Tues, Oct 16, 2001 at 14:56:45 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ The apple juice dispenser -:- h-e-l-l-o s-i-r -:- Tues, Oct 16, 2001 at 11:13:48 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Too bad you see it that way -:- Tues, Oct 16, 2001 at 10:27:21 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- Sorry for being so obnoxious, Mike -:- Tues, Oct 16, 2001 at 11:44:34 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Mike Finch -:- Re: Too bad you see it that way -:- Tues, Oct 16, 2001 at 10:45:41 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- How's the processing going, Mike? -:- Wed, Oct 17, 2001 at 14:38:15 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Mike Finch -:- Re: How's the processing going, Mike? -:- Wed, Oct 17, 2001 at 15:15:24 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pat:C) -:- Oh, goody, I'm waiting with baited breath, Mike -:- Wed, Oct 17, 2001 at 15:29:54 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pat:C) -:- Where the hellhave you been, Mr Finch? -:- Tues, Oct 16, 2001 at 14:01:16 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Mike Finch -:- Re: Where the hellhave you been, Mr Finch? -:- Tues, Oct 16, 2001 at 15:06:36 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pat:C) -:- Of course, I'm itching to know -:- Tues, Oct 16, 2001 at 15:44:23 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Mike Finch -:- Re: Of course, I'm itching to know -:- Tues, Oct 16, 2001 at 16:18:29 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ In case you're interested -:- M's comments -:- Tues, Oct 16, 2001 at 17:34:46 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Dermot -:- The reminices of a middle aged man -:- Tues, Oct 16, 2001 at 18:05:31 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Mike Finch -:- Re: M's comments -:- Tues, Oct 16, 2001 at 17:49:49 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pat:C) -:- Thanks, Mike -:- Tues, Oct 16, 2001 at 16:45:17 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- Re: Hey, Dermot -:- Tues, Oct 16, 2001 at 10:00:51 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Dermot -:- Hi Katie -:- Tues, Oct 16, 2001 at 11:30:20 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- Re: Hi Dermot -:- Tues, Oct 16, 2001 at 11:49:40 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Deborah -:- Hi Katie -:- Tues, Oct 16, 2001 at 22:54:18 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Re: Hey, Katie -:- Tues, Oct 16, 2001 at 10:23:52 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- Re: Hey, Katie -:- Tues, Oct 16, 2001 at 10:45:42 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Netiquette re email privacy -:- Tues, Oct 16, 2001 at 15:29:39 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Re: Hey, Katie -:- Tues, Oct 16, 2001 at 11:16:06 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- 'passive-aggressive' - good god -:- Tues, Oct 16, 2001 at 11:22:21 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- OK, you win -:- Tues, Oct 16, 2001 at 11:33:18 (EDT)
__ Vicki -:- Re: What's OT about Recent Ex's? -:- Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 08:34:34 (EDT)
__ __ Pat:C) -:- Now, don't be shy, Vicki -:- Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 15:49:52 (EDT)
__ __ Loaf -:- Re: RE -:- Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 13:36:40 (EDT)
__ __ __ Jim -:- What's that mean, Loaf? -:- Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 19:55:22 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Loaf -:- Re: What's that mean, Loaf? -:- Tues, Oct 16, 2001 at 02:30:15 (EDT)
__ __ __ Cynthia -:- To: Loaf -:- Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 19:20:25 (EDT)
__ __ __ Dermot -:- Don't bogart that cheese and wine ,Jim :) [nt] -:- Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 18:06:58 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Moley -:- Pass it over to me ... [nt] -:- Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 20:31:13 (EDT)
__ salam -:- Re: What's OT about Recent Ex's? -:- Sun, Oct 14, 2001 at 21:45:02 (EDT)
__ __ Mummiji -:- Don't bait me Saucykins!!! :| [nt] -:- Sun, Oct 14, 2001 at 22:34:07 (EDT)
__ RichMandrake -:- Jim, The Recent Exes Forum... -:- Sun, Oct 14, 2001 at 21:01:26 (EDT)
__ Moley -:- Good point Jim -:- Sun, Oct 14, 2001 at 20:27:33 (EDT)
__ __ Moley -:- BTW Anyone know what's the matter with RE? -:- Sun, Oct 14, 2001 at 20:29:34 (EDT)
__ __ __ Francesca -:- It's down, so I've heard [nt] -:- Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 00:11:56 (EDT)
__ __ __ Pat:C) -:- Maybe you've been blackballed [nt] -:- Sun, Oct 14, 2001 at 20:50:43 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Moley -:- Re: Maybe you've been blackballed -:- Sun, Oct 14, 2001 at 20:58:02 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- Server's down, Moley - and sheesh, Pat! (nt) -:- Sun, Oct 14, 2001 at 21:56:16 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ hamzen -:- Authoritarianism breeds paranoia -:- Sun, Oct 14, 2001 at 23:45:07 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- I reject paranoia -:- Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 08:18:56 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ hamzen -:- Then we know you're not smoking -:- Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 18:22:28 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- Smoking -:- Tues, Oct 16, 2001 at 10:12:01 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Loaf -:- VOTE for Loafie -:- Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 03:29:13 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ hamzen -:- me Mr Alcohol now -:- Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 17:30:08 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pat:C) -:- Re: Authoritarianism breeds paranoia -:- Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 03:24:59 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Seriously though. -:- Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 21:52:03 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- I'm I'm getting getting posted posted twice twice -:- Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 21:55:18 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- Hey katie... -:- Sun, Oct 14, 2001 at 22:00:50 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- It's on EPO -:- Sun, Oct 14, 2001 at 22:08:42 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- Just remembered: Maharaji Watch [nt] -:- Sun, Oct 14, 2001 at 22:10:57 (EDT)
__ JHB -:- Re: What's OT about Recent Ex's? -:- Sun, Oct 14, 2001 at 18:17:14 (EDT)
__ __ Scott T. -:- Re: What's OT about Recent Ex's?? -:- Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 16:00:21 (EDT)
__ __ __ JHB -:- Re: What's OT about Recent Ex's? -:- Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 17:37:08 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Re: What's OT about Recent Ex's? -:- Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 21:42:55 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Seriously though. -:- Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 21:52:03 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- I'm I'm getting getting posted posted twice twice -:- Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 21:55:18 (EDT)
__ __ Jim -:- Re: What's OT about Recent Ex's? -:- Sun, Oct 14, 2001 at 18:27:55 (EDT)
__ __ __ JHB -:- Re: What's OT about Recent Ex's? -:- Sun, Oct 14, 2001 at 18:56:13 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Jim -:- Re: What's OT about Recent Ex's? -:- Sun, Oct 14, 2001 at 22:21:15 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Tonette -:- Oh yes, Jim, you are a regular here -:- Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 02:18:09 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Loaf -:- do you mean that jims a bully ? Why not say it. [nt] -:- Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 08:35:02 (EDT)


Date: Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 12:29:44 (EDT)
From: Jean-Michel
Email: None
To: All
Subject: Gerry ? Check the typo
Message:
in the link to EPO (top of the page) - ' -
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 12:37:50 (EDT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Jean-Michel
Subject: Link fixed, thanks J-M [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 14:00:47 (EDT)
From: hamzen
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: While you're here Gerry
Message:
the link above is not just to ex-followers sites,
and would it not be possible to mention anything goes at least as the off topic adjunct to this site, otherwise it does rather look as though you're trying to diss the competition, as a libertarian you'll know authoritarianism does rather breed paranoia, and we are trying to inculcate niceness here at the mo no?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 14:20:30 (EDT)
From: Julian
Email: None
To: hamzen
Subject: Re: While you're here Gerry
Message:
it does rather look as though you're trying to diss the competition

I'd say that was true.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 15:28:36 (EDT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Julian
Subject: How's that, fellers?
Message:
Much obliged for the good idea.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 16, 2001 at 17:50:06 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: Hey Gerry
Message:
I'm just watching that Mel Gibson film 'conspiracy theory', the hero is called 'Gerry' .....now who does that remind you of? :)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 17:35:34 (EDT)
From: hamzen
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: Appreciate the change Gerry
Message:
Thanks
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 15:59:20 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: It's fine Gerry
Message:
I don't why people are being so finnicky. Everything works itself out in the wash eventually.

After Sep 11th this place got consumed with politics (understandably) but I knew itwould eventually return to focus. You just happened to give it a jerk in that direction and some people felt you were a little too authoritarian about it. Well what's done is done.

Speaking for myself, it's all pretty simple. If I want to post on topic (obviously the odd humorous or slightly OT once in a while , as is usual)then I post here. Anything really OT i'd go to AG and if I wanetd to address premies on their own turf then I'd use LG. They are all just a click away.

If I wanted a bit of privacy I'd put on my sunday best and apply to R.Ex and be refused for being a mad Irishman hahaa.

I was a bit narked with you over the posts you deleted when I was responding to Cynthia. Scott has been upset with you ....others too I guess. Overall though, I'm sure things will settle down.

All you people who've put up websites and FA forums etc etc ....good on ya .....I just read and post.A lazy bastard with little time.

Cheers

Dermot

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 12:01:18 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: All
Subject: What the hell is CD on?
Message:
Someone sent me this post of CD's this morning. He's replying to SC who said:

For those of us who know the 'pam' in question, there are some serious errors of fact and imagination contained within the document.

CD's answer:

I hope that the recent PAM post doesn't generate another debate on this site with everybody taking sides and defending their opinions. The PAM post pros and cons debate can take place in its natural setting on F7.

It is preferable to have people post their own honest understandings of their own human condition on this site. We don't have to be attacking or defending to have something worthwhile to share. We can take the initiative to state what is good in our lives. Everybody has glimpses of what is the best in life. Our thoughts and opinions, though interesting and of practical value at times, are not at the top of the list.
Does it really matter where we were born and grew up?
Is there anything common to human beings or will we always be lost in the debates and battles over our differences?

What in the world is this strange, strange person talking about? Sir David whimsically put together a forum for premies and gave it to them. CD renamed it (and stubbornly refused to correct his grammatical error -- goe sto show you). Ever since then he's tried to advance this vague agenda wherein people would talk about what's 'positive' in life and not really discuss anything. Of course the only 'positive' things CD has ever mentioned are buying guitars, drinking beer and his girlfriend. In spite of that, he's constantly cajoling people to 'say something positive'.

Can you imagine this person in real life?

No, I can't either.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 17:25:48 (EDT)
From: suchabanana
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: guitar shopping,drinkin' beer,+ a girlfriend
Message:
hey, JH, sounds like CD is having some kinda fun! makin' muzick wid dose guitars [and dat goilfwend], drinkin dose nectarful suds -- y'know, dat horizontal latitude gwatitude attitude, dat borscht brau [und frau] bliss of intoxication appreciation, dat bhakti latke devotion of mall sheckels participation.

hey, it's all 'bout dat, dat fulfillment, dat feeling inside -- oy -- y'know, like when you bwing home dat cherry Les Paul with dose PAFs and plug it inta dat classic Marshall stack, chug a tall frosty cool 'un -- an blow dose ears ta kingdom cum. like da hammer of Thor [er, mace of Shiva] smashing all illusion. mazeltov! den, ya REALLY start to hear dat divine innear musique! like, there the Unstruck Music sounds of itself. hahaha [hooboy, i'm tellin ya, dat's vun meshugganah technique dat works every time! I larnt it from dat bloody-fingered bastard rockrugu Pete Townsend. go figure...]

but, .com ta tink of it, CD does get a lil' schitzy wid dat FA policing - maybe it's related to dose phases of da moon, or mood swings, or sometin'... y'know, like dat Kabir song -- what a wunnaful night fer dat mood dance, just swinging on a star, don't know Who you R, or wouldja rather be a phlegm...

hey, I kin actuarily imagine -- like my thilly fwend wid da beer mug dat said eiydhiwNay - 'even in yer dumbest haze I will Not acKnowledge you'. so, I think maybe CD's suspended from a swing, y'know, like between da poles of da conscious an da unconscious, there has da mind made a swing. an dat mind doesn't know if it's comin or goin... [well, you know what marji and dan quail say, on dat account: a mind is a terrible ting ta have! marji also say: dere's a SuCker Bjorn every minute. hohoho]

hey, it's jus somora dat cult fun-dumb-mentalism. [kinda like somosa. or a somata. you know, like dat guy who vent to da gwocer and said, 'I'll have 2 lbs of limburger, 1/2 lb of baloney, and 1 lb of somata.' 'Hey Mac, What's somata?' 'I dunno - what's somata you?!' hehehe]

so, it could be like a simple pwoblem of seaman ticks or jes mis.com munitions, er misc communal vacations, er missed commuter stations, er MS computer mainframes - y'know, like premspeak is nebulous buzz-coded hieroglyphics... and when someun's between a wok and a herd place, there the twain shan't meat, etc. so, maybe dat partially explains da miscommunications and CD's gramma's tickled hairs [er, CD's grammatical errors]. Didja git mah pint?

oh [almost forgot] -- C'mon, say something 'positive', fer a change. Ok, I'm 'positive' that marji has been ripping off and misleading da pwemies. hohoho [btw, i like da Whim Cycle II]

Pease et lenticulae,

JSBA aka J. SuchaBanAna

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 20:55:03 (EDT)
From: Timmi
Email: None
To: suchabanana
Subject: Re: guitar shopping,drinkin' beer,+ a girlfriend
Message:
Thanks! I haven't laughed out loud for days! Bless you!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 16:42:15 (EDT)
From: CD
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: is CD on?
Message:
>Ever since then he's tried to advance this vague agenda wherein people would talk about what's 'positive' in life and not really discuss anything.

Discussions are fine. Just don't become so enamoured with your logic that you lose track of what is greater than your mental visions.

I can take a decent lambast. You do a good job on me at times - g. But don't let your success with humour fool you as to what lurks behind the scenes of this comedy.

>Can you imagine this person in real life?

Yes, I am for real. And even you, the great Jim, can not resist a great guitar. That is, I hope you haven't become so 'wise' in your advanced years that you have forsaken the simple pleasure of wild music, good cheer, love and the sharing of positive vibes.

Do I see big problems confronting all of us that need to be sorted out? Yes debate and effort are necessary to achieve solutions! Yet, if those problems are the only challenges we see in our lives and consume all our time, then we certainly wasted a grand opportunity.

Cheers,
CD

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 16, 2001 at 18:52:37 (EDT)
From: bill
Email: None
To: CD
Subject: a study binge?
Message:
Hi CD,
To be briefly on topic, do you think Mili is the CAC guy?

I am working through Andrew Troelsen's book c# and the .net platform.
whazzap with you in your studies?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 16, 2001 at 20:13:25 (EDT)
From: CD
Email: None
To: bill
Subject: Re: study OT?
Message:
>To be briefly on topic, do you think Mili is the CAC guy?

Don't have any inside info on that one. I doubt it though. I find it odd that the CAC issue is recently ressurected on this site.

>whazzap with you in your studies?

You should email me to discuss the off topic private stuff.
I have only recently responded here to a couple of posts aimed directly at me. I don't interfere with the goings on here.

CD

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 16, 2001 at 21:28:27 (EDT)
From: Deborah
Email: None
To: CD
Subject: You're a LIAR CD
Message:
You left lots of posts attesting the cyber-stalking investigation of EX-premies on this forum. And you celebrated it like the dancing Pakistanis after Sept. 11th. You knew damn well what was going on and you couldn't contain your excitement so you leaked hints for weeks before the CAC attack.

Aren't you proud that your Master is in good company with Bin Laden. Of course, bin Laden could show little peewee PremPal a thing or two about conducting a Jihad.

Your cult makes me sick! Your lies do not fool most of us CD. You are involved in some pretty sick shit.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 17, 2001 at 02:07:40 (EDT)
From: CD
Email: None
To: Deborah
Subject: Re: You
Message:
>You left lots of posts attesting the cyber-stalking investigation of EX-premies on this forum.

You are whacked!
You do a disservice to your own ex-premie cause.
Maybe you are a plant.

Your allegations are not only untrue, they are vicious. You have a problem.

>You are involved in some pretty sick shit.

You had better look in the mirror and also get a second and third option. The stuff you are spouting is untrue and slanderous. It is the root of false rumours and misguided hatred.

CD

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 17, 2001 at 19:02:38 (EDT)
From: Deborah
Email: None
To: CD
Subject: Re: Oh really????
Message:
So you say,

You are whacked!

Oh really??? You don't say!

You do a disservice to your own ex-premie cause.

And who would say is doing a service to the ex-premie cause, CD? As Fraud would say, 'That wuz a slip!'

Maybe you are a plant.

Wow! CD, that was a big leap in logic =)

Your allegations are not only untrue, they are vicious. You have a problem.

My allegations that you GAVE hints foreshadowing the attack are NOT untrue. And SC and CW gave their share of hints as well. If you kept the archives I could prove it to you. Perhaps we can dig up the posts you left on EPO. The very act of CAC is vicious, therefore it is the perpetrators who are vicious, not me. YOU are the FA of Lies Great and would have known who was who and what they were up to? And if you ARE involved, than you my dear, YOU have a problem.

You had better look in the mirror and also get a second and third option.

This sentence doesn't make sense. Do you mean a second or third opinion or what? And how will looking in the mirror help me prove anything?

The stuff you are spouting is untrue and slanderous.

How do you think the people who were portrayed feel. How do you think we, who are friends here on Forum feel. Is it only valuable that a premie not have something unfavorable said about them. Why are YOU more important than the twelve exes who were on CAC?

It is the root of false rumours and misguided hatred.

No, my accusation is based upon what I witnessed in your posts prior to CAC. And I don't have misguided hatred. Accusations and hatred are not intimately linked CD. Sometimes they go together, many times they don't. If I hate the perpetrators of CAC, it is justifiable, not misguided. The perpetrators, and their supporters on the other hand, are misguided.

You had the nerve to ban Jim and I from the forum that was set up by our very own and premie-friendly member Sir Dave. Why, out of fear, do you pick and choose whose comments to surpress.

You can play GAWD and surpress my voice on your forum but you can't do it here. You should not be allowed to post here due to your unreasonable bias and irresponsible fear-driven management of a forum created here and given to you.

I don't believe you really knew absolutely nothing about the CAC events. That's all their is to it!

Maybe you should have been more honourable. Apparently you think your honour is expected in the face of your dishonourable actons and reactions.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 17, 2001 at 14:12:23 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: CD
Subject: What are YOU doing here??
Message:
Chris,

You blocked Deborah and me from LG and Gerry ordered you off this forum. What are you doing here?

Besides, you have to admit that there was a bit of a celebration on LG after CAC, a celebration you did nothing to quell. I'm new at this, but maybe you're passive-aggressive? I mean someone is, aren't they? Isn't that you? Really, for a guy who is always going off about being positive, why weren't you able to stand up for decency in the face of that most decidedly UN positive website? What do you think you do that's so damn positive anyway?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 17:05:45 (EDT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: CD
Subject: Chris I warned you...
Message:
You gotta let those guitars outgas one at a time. You can can't be surrounding yourself with all twenty five of them at once in a small room. That's nitro lacquer yo're messin' with. You could die!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 16, 2001 at 18:54:04 (EDT)
From: bill-CD MUST know what
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: beer the lord drinks. [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 22:26:29 (EDT)
From: SC
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: Hands off gezza, the McInturff's mine!
Message:
He just bought a beautiful Breelove guitar as well. I'm seething with env.. err, admiration and interest at such a right royal axe collection.

Can't wait for the US economy to dive so he has to sell up, my Quantas ticket and suitcase full of readies is on standby.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 22:42:20 (EDT)
From: such
Email: None
To: SC
Subject: Breedlove [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 12:16:08 (EDT)
From: SC
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Yea, if we wanted syrup we'd go to ELK
Message:
I gotta admit, that was a smart and humerous composition Jimbo, the last lines lead to a superb punchline. Man, humour is the great unifier, doesn't really matter the subject, it's the construction that gets the belly moving...also cd's post did sound unusually pious.

As long as there's humour, there's hope for us all.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 08:53:36 (EDT)
From: Vicki
Email: None
To: All
Subject: Rape of a child
Message:
This posting is more for those who are still participating in the world of knowledge and are happy with Maharaji and all he has to offer.

Your happiness, your inner peace, your joy and bliss come at the price of a child being raped. More than one child being raped.

Your money, that you currently donate to Elan Vital, allows Elan Vital to harrass and abuse these victims.

Your money, that you currently donate for the spreading of knowledge, allows Elan Vital to seek legal counsel to protect itself from litigations that a person, acting on behalf of Maharaji, raped premies children.

Your money, on behalf of Elan Vital, is forcing the parents of at least one victim to make a choice between his daughter and Maharaji.

Every event you go to. Every video you watch. Every time you sit down to enjoy knowledge, you do so at the cost of a child being bound and gagged and raped.

Every dime of salary form Elan Vital to its paid employees or reimbursted expenses for those who aren't, came at the expense of the rape of a child.

Every day that goes by that neither Maharaji or Elan Vital comes forward and addresses these matters openly, above board and publicly, comforts, supports and helps the victims, they do so at the expense of the human beings who were raped as children.

Everyday Maharaji and his wife and his children eat food, sleep in the residence, ride in a car, fly in a jet, have fun on a boat, shop in Beverly Hills, do so at the cost of a rape of a child.

If anyone feels that this cost is not too high a price to pay, then you are indeed involved in the right organization.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 18:49:01 (EDT)
From: Cynthia
Email: None
To: Vicki
Subject: Re: Rape of a child
Message:
Hi Vicky,

Everything you said is true except for one thing: I am certain Jagdeo raped many children. So, to all premies who contribute to the coffers of Maharaji and his various orgs, please think before you write your next check.

Better yet, designate on your checks or credit card charges that you want the funds to be allocated for ''Abuse victims of Jagdeo-Condoned and Ignored by Maharaji.''

That might get some attention. It might give some victims like Abi some compensation.

Thanks, Vicki,

Cynthia

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 21:15:10 (EDT)
From: such
Email: banana@arthurandersen.net
To: Cynthia
Subject: EV no like check designations;+abbrevs...
Message:
dey'll jes send back da cheques if ya designate how you want dose donations spent. see, otherwise, dat could make 'em actually accountable - to some governmental tax agency, church status or not.
is all part of dat gwace, dat divine game, dat gwatitude, dat rawrat bank account appreciation,etc... y'know, dat proverbial cheat 'n deceit, fer cryin out lard.

here r some ex-cerpts from da revised dictionary of cult abbreviations [30th anniversary edition]:

[EVI] CPAs: cheatin' pwemmie accountants

guru: guy, uses, rips off, underlings; get us ripped,ugly!

LOL: Lord of Lard, Laughing out lard, lots of lard

PWK: person with Kabiritis, people working for 'kakistocracy', person with ketosis, person without knowledge

EVI: EVent-ual Idiocy, Every Version Insidious

SEVA: Swindled Elan Vital Assets

jsca: just sharing chitchat adinfinitum

DLM: don't leave a message, don't love a massa

PAM: person against miragey

epo: extra-sensory perception organization

elk: endangered species

agya: asshole grilling yer asshole

dogma: [name of] any doggy of da massa; massa's dog-slave

premie: premature infant e-borted; person ranting erroneously, mindlessly in emptiness

lila: lil' illogical lard act[s]

arti: asshole ritual testimonial inculcation; asshole-reeking tray indoctrination

holi: hell of a lard incarnate

jagdeo: jackal assailant, guru's demonic evil organization

Prem: a Spam pretender, primadonna ranting at empty minds, [short for] premadonna

Rawat: recycled asshole with appalling tendencies; Ravana's asshole with asura tentacles

knowledge: something you can get in college and from life [and da history and learning channels]

dat feeling: taking a nice deep breath

dat love: feeling good about yerself and life

dat appreciation: being thankful for what dat universal energy has provided any of us

da possibility of knowledge: doing well on the SATs and getting accepted at a university, or getting an athletic or other scholarship

participation: donating to da American Red Cross or Oxfam

Peace and lentils,

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 16, 2001 at 16:16:15 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: such
Subject: Really funny Such ! [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 16, 2001 at 15:20:27 (EDT)
From: Cynthia
Email: None
To: such
Subject: Good One, Such...LOL! [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 09:02:39 (EDT)
From: Suedoula
Email: None
To: Vicki
Subject: Well said, Vicki (nt)
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 05:09:50 (EDT)
From: gabfest
Email: None
To: All
Subject: well blow me down!!
Message:
I was present at the demise of the last forum when, Jim, Katie, JHB and the gang blew that forum into pork and wee beans. I was so depressed by the whole episode that I stopped lurking on the forums altogether. By chance, I had a look today and lo and behold the gang is back, yahoo.

I have 2 questions for the forum:

1) Are there archives here that I can peruse as I am keen to see what the forum had to say after the events of 9/11

2) Is it acceptable under present circumstances that a man who believes that he is god is at liberty to pilot jet aircraft over US territory. We now know what nutty beliefs can lead to! Surely M is a security threat every time he takes off and anyway what controls are there over who gets into an aircraft with him, no doubt, he avoids normal airport security.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 20:58:44 (EDT)
From: Timmi
Email: None
To: gabfest
Subject: Re: well blow me down!!
Message:
2) Is it acceptable under present circumstances that a man who believes that he is god is at liberty to pilot jet aircraft over US territory. We now know what nutty beliefs can lead to! Surely M is a security threat every time he takes off and anyway what controls are there over who gets into an aircraft with him, no doubt, he avoids normal airport security.


---

Damn good point. Is he really loose in the air, and shouldn't he be grounded given his ''god'' complex?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 06:46:24 (EDT)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: gabfest
Subject: Re: well blow me down!!
Message:
After F5, Brian handed EPO over to me (with J-M still updating stuff), and Sir Dave started F6 which he susbsequently closed down following being threatened on the CAC site. Read all about it on F6 archives (linked on EPO). Then Gerry started F7 but we're having arguments here as well. After Sept 11 the forum became pretty much 100% political for a while (understandably, no one gave a fuck about some fat guru). After a while Gerry and others tried to get the forum back on topic, and in the end Gerry laid down the law about off topic posts which upset some people. Off topic stuff has moved to the new Anything Goes Too forum run by Charles or Pat (I forget which), along with bitching about Gerry. Jim is currently having another pop at the Recent Exes forum, and generally life goes on as normal. While you're here, check out Abi's 'Fregmentation' and Pam's 'Memoirs' posts below.

The archives since Sept 11th are sitting on my hard drive waiting for me to put them live.

John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 16, 2001 at 03:57:15 (EDT)
From: gabfest
Email: None
To: JHB
Subject: Thanks for the update nt
Message:
boo
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 02:23:50 (EDT)
From: JHB
Email: jhb@ex-premie.org
To: All
Subject: Reading Locked Threads
Message:
Gerry and everyone else,

Although I can read locked threads using IE, with Netscape, my default browser, all the posts just give a blank screen. Does anyone else have this problem with Netscape?

John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 02:28:06 (EDT)
From: Barbara
Email: None
To: JHB
Subject: Yes...Comes Up Blank [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 07:06:03 (EDT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: Barbara
Subject: Likewise (nt)
Message:
Likewise (nt)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 11:21:39 (EDT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: cq
Subject: Upgrading your browser may help
Message:
I can read locked threads with Netscape 6 and Internet Explorer 5.5

I bet if you upgraded your browser, it would work for you.
[ netscape ]

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 14:50:25 (EDT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: Re: Upgrading your browser may help
Message:
Thanks for the suggestion, and I know I'm probably in a minority, Gerry, but most of my browsing is done on a University network - and only employees of the Uni I.T. department can authorise upgrades.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 11:38:16 (EDT)
From: Barbara
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: Re: Upgrading your browser may help
Message:
Thanks, Gerry. I'm using my husband's prehistoric laptop for a while and figured it was my computer that was the prob, and not the site, so I didn't bother mentioning the blank screens. I'm afraid to upgrade this old tank for fear of pushing it over the edge to its demise.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 14:08:28 (EDT)
From: hamzen
Email: None
To: Barbara
Subject: Don't blame you
Message:
know a number of people who've had awful problems with netscape 6, completely fucked their systems in a couple of cases, I wouldn't touch it with a bargepole until large numbers of people have vouched it is now safe, I know there's been an update already, and this from someone who hates microshaft with a vengeance.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 14:48:16 (EDT)
From: Cynthia
Email: None
To: hamzen
Subject: I use Netscape 4.7
Message:
and I've heard nightmares about Netscape 6. I can't stand Internet Explorer, either, but I have the right version to read locked threads.

I guess if I really am interested, I'll switch to the IE5.5 I have, but Netscape Communicator #6 is too buggy for me...

Cynthia

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 14:53:49 (EDT)
From: Barbara
Email: None
To: Cynthia
Subject: Thanks, Ham and Cynthia... [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 00:08:06 (EDT)
From: Peter C
Email: None
To: All
Subject: Gullibility
Message:
Gullibility: 'Disposed to believe too readily and therefore to be easily deceived'

Gullible:'Easily deceived or duped'

Just post any old BS (please make sure that has a lot of sex & money scandal, drop a few 'new' fabrications and spin nicely) and you guys buy it (with admiration, exclamation points and best of forum awards).

Fascinating, just fascinating...

Peter Cramer

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 09:14:50 (EDT)
From: Tim
Email: None
To: Peter C
Subject: Re: Gullibility
Message:
How come then, Peter, that you don't address any of the substantive points that you characterise as BS?

Until you do that you smack of ostrich.
Best
Tim

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 04:26:22 (EDT)
From: AJW
Email: None
To: Peter C
Subject: That's funny Peter.
Message:
Having somebody who worships, funds, and believes without a doubt, a decadent, fucked up, Indian meglomaniac, telling me I'm gullible because I don't believe in the cult line anymore is a joke.

Just for the record Pete:

I guess you believe there is such a thing as 'Perfect Master'.

You believe that the flashy colours you see when you press your eyes is your infinite soul.

You believe God tastes of snot.

You believe you are part of a cosmic game in which the Lord of the Universe appears as a philandering, greedy, lying alcoholic.

And you're calling us gullible.

How much money went from your pocket into the cult coffers in the last year Pete?

It's just like when people in the cult turn round and accuse people who have left, of 'joining a cult'.

Like I said below Peter, you've got your head up your arse.

What are you afraid of?

I saw the light Pete. Leaving a fucked up guru is an experience that can't be decribed in words. You have to experience it for yourself. Go on Pete. Do yourself a favour. Stop putting yourself down. Break free.

Gullible. HA HA HA HA HA HA HEEE.

Hey Pete, do you still believe in Santa Claus. After all, the evidence is there to see each Christmas morning. A billion Christain children can't all be wrong can they? (Anyway, he eats the mince pie I leave for him.)

Anth the no longer easily deceived and duped.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 02:02:03 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Peter C
Subject: Just one question
Message:
What if you're wrong?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 14:11:33 (EDT)
From: For Peter C.
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: Just one question, and one challenge
Message:
Peter-

Since you believe us to be a bunch of gullible people who would believe anything negative about maharaji, however false it may be, I have an interesting challenge for you.

Why don't you make up something negative about maharaji, based on all of the rumours and inuendo here on the forum, and post it as an ex-pam who is now leaving, and see if anyone would believe it?

If it's that easy to fool people, why not have a go at it?

Cheers

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 14, 2001 at 23:54:45 (EDT)
From: Peter Cramer
Email: None
To: All
Subject: :O - Repost from Assistante Forum Admin
Message:
Did you know that there are 30 regular posters here currently from the USA out of a pop of 280,000,000?

And that there are 8 regulars from the UK out of a pop of 60,000,000?

And that there are 7 regular posters from Australia 5 of whom are anonymous out of a pop of 15,000,000 and that 5 of those seven post from Sydney?

Wow! The anti anti-Maharaji movement is growing...! Premies of the world beware!

ROFL, ROFL and again ROFL

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 16, 2001 at 22:41:07 (EDT)
From: Deborah
Email: None
To: Peter Cramer
Subject: hey asshole -- try this formula
Message:
1. figure out how many premies their were in late 70's.
2. figure how many people received K per year

3. Add figures from (2.) to (1.)

Now sharpen your pencil. Don't have a pencil. Well you can dip that pointed head of yours into some ink. Don't drown, yet. There's still time for that.

4. Subtract the figure premies still supporting Maha's criminal cult from (3.) and you will know HOW MANY ONE-TIME PREMIES defected.

too bad you have be shown how to figure it out. But only a premie troll who thinks he is smart but alas! is only thinking in a vacuum like a brainwashed cultist would devise adding up the posters on the EPO. You really are an asshole. Really! You ARE an asshole.

Apparently 90% of those who should be supporting the BigHead are no longer around. Luckily some of us have chosen to be here so that some of the others will get unstuck in the cult, get the details they need to make that decision themself and get support or perhaps friendship they deserve afterwards.

have a day :)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 04:40:18 (EDT)
From: AJW
Email: None
To: Peter Cramer
Subject: That's right Pete.
Message:
Did you know that there are 30 regular posters here currently from the USA out of a pop of 280,000,000?

And that there are 8 regulars from the UK out of a pop of 60,000,000?

And that there are 7 regular posters from Australia 5 of whom are anonymous out of a pop of 15,000,000 and that 5 of those seven post from Sydney?

Wow! The anti anti-Maharaji movement is growing...! Premies of the world beware!

ROFL, ROFL and again ROFL


---

And the cult is crumbling under the drivel of information that comes out of this sorry band.

By the way, while we're talking statistics, in the UK, out of over 40,000 people who joined the cult, less than a couple of thousand are left. The distillate at the bottom of the bucket consists of people with personality problems who have nothing else happening in their lives (many middle aged and single), hardcore fanatics trying to climb to the top of the cult career ladder. (At least that's getting easier, as the honchos quit in droves). And a handful of sincere folk, been around for years, running on faith alone, waiting to get on the internet. Once they find out what's going on, they don't last long.

Your cognac-breathed master does take us more seriously though Pete. He just wasted thousands of hard-begged premie dollars on hiring an expensive New York lawyer to close us down. He doesn't want his blind followers to find out what he's up to does he Pete.

And when they do find out, they cry, 'Lies, lies.'

Having a bit of a problem with reality are we?

You missed the point though Pete. It's not how many people write what we post here, it's how many people read it.

But to be honest, we can't take all the credit for the collapse of Balyobullshits mission. The real culprit is sitting in his remote controlled bedroom, sipping cognac, thinking if he can get away for the afternoon to shag Monica.

And there's only one of him.

At least we've got God on our side, (sip, hic, tell Marolyn I'm going to a Visions meeting. Bring round the Merc. I'm out for the afternoon. Hope I can get a hard on today.)

Anth, who has been burning in hell and suffering since he left the Perfect Master. Ha, ha ha ha.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 09:40:57 (EDT)
From: CW
Email: None
To: AJW
Subject: Re: That's right Pete.
Message:
Hard to deny Anth.
Your own Admin coughing up that choicelittle fact.
30 is 30
The other 12000 hits are when divided by hitsthe 1200 hundred EV monitors. Kinda brings a big smile to my dial
So you keep spinning and the other 29 members of your group therapy
will eventually work out their relevance.
5 in Sydney?I wonder whether they ever thought about sharing the one terminal? Anth , you have to be kidding.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 16, 2001 at 05:41:45 (EDT)
From: AJW
Email: None
To: CW
Subject: Ahoy there Cat.
Message:
Hi Cat,

I don't give a shit how many 'regular posters' there are here (whatever a 'regular poster'. Once every year is regular you know.)

I also don't give a zombies pube where they live. It doesn't matter.

What's important is that these people have made information available that your master would rather be kept secret.

Now people can read about what really goes on behind the security fences at Rawats mansions. Shit, it's your money that paid for it Cat. Why shouldn't you find out what the Captain is really up to?

I'm starting to see a picture of an ostrich.

Anth the robin in the mirror.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 16, 2001 at 09:59:01 (EDT)
From: Catweasel
Email: None
To: AJW
Subject: Avast ye scurvy dog
Message:
Anth do you think I give a toss? What is it with you? I'm deeply shocked at your raw cynical vision.%)Is this that gentle and kind teacher of the young kiddies slurring his words and leering at nuns whilst he fumbles to expose what can no longer be seen? His pungent whiskey breath vaporising on the cold cornish air as he waits for new ships to lure onto his dark jagged rocks of despair....Oh Anth....tis tragedy we behold...
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 16, 2001 at 10:29:08 (EDT)
From: SC
Email: None
To: Catweasel
Subject: Must admit , 1st officer Anth is
Message:
sounding considerably less fluid and flowing of late. In fact yesterday I detected a tone of almost vicious nature delivered to one unsuspecting seaman. This will not do!

Methinks he should no longer be keeping stock of the rum rashions below deck.

Maybe it's time Rear Admiral Glenji payed him an inspection visit.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 16, 2001 at 10:24:26 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Catweasel
Subject: To Catweasle..a begrudging :) [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 00:09:56 (EDT)
From: hamzen
Email: None
To: Peter Cramer
Subject: And how many premie posters on Lifes Great?
Message:
quite,
really I can't believe all premies are as brainless as the shower that show up here.

If we're talking numbers how comes there are less premies now than thirty years ago after gm's non-stop flying, total devotion to the cause of k, etc etc

Really.......!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 01:02:28 (EDT)
From: SC
Email: None
To: hamzen
Subject: Care to enlighten us hamzen?
Message:
Just how many premies are there on this planet...

As of Monday October 15th 2001?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 07:05:19 (EDT)
From: hamzen
Email: None
To: SC
Subject: A lot less than ex-premies that's for sure
Message:
even a five year old can work that out, and 95% of the premies are in India, who quite often have multiple gurus, oh yes he's done a grand job of communicating the wonders of k.

But in either case, premie or exes, only a tiny proportion of each post on forums, that's why Cramers post is so totally stupid.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 09:53:58 (EDT)
From: SC
Email: None
To: hamzen
Subject: Not on a global scale, not at all
Message:
But yes, both of our internet groups are very small compared to the wider population out there!

I think M communicates quite well about K generally. He certainly seems inspired at times but can be repetitive. I looked at the Adi De Samraj site that someone here gave us the url to. That guy seems pretty involved in the 'I'm such a great gift to you all' type thinking. He certainly appears to take advantage of people's gullibility and quest for spiritual fulfilment. Though he's a clever speaker, I felt that he was trying a bit hard to dazzle his audience with clever words and theories rather than deliver a message of any great significance and meaning.

I agree, most of the premies would be in India. Though I believe the African nations are growing in numbers of interested people.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 07:01:40 (EDT)
From: Mr. Dooley
Email: None
To: SC
Subject: According to your owner
Message:
Just how many premies are there on this planet...

As of Monday October 15th 2001?


---

none except for those times when it's in his self interest to say how wonderful everyone is doing. Do you ever get tired of all the mind-fucking switcheroo's he pulls? Do you even notice? Ever discuss it openly with others?

Ever notice how that system which EV has most together has to do with the in flow of money? Ever notice how that system which EV has least together is Cult Member Services? Just a coincidence?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 14, 2001 at 21:29:06 (EDT)
From: Sir Dave }(
Email: sirdavid12@hotmail.com
To: All
Subject: My words cast in a grey/white background
Message:
The top two paragraphs of the intro at the top of the forum were written by me. I wrote:

''Welcome to the forum for all people who used to be followers of Maharaji. This place is for you to share your thoughts and express yourself. Your own experiences of your time as a premie and your current realisations today will be of great interest to the people here, so please feel free to speak.''

When I wrote, ''forum for all people who used to be followers of Maharaji'', I was meaning that the forum is for anyone who used to be a premie and my words, ''and your current realisations today will be of great interest to the people here'' means that I was welcoming people's current ideas and realisations, regardless of whether they were about Maharaji or not.

The truth is, I was attempting to steer this forum away from the obsession with Maharaji and make it more of a general meeting place for ex-premies to talk about absolutely anything they felt like.

But I never had a chance to complete my task, as we all know.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 14, 2001 at 21:45:33 (EDT)
From: Sir Dave
Email: None
To: Sir Dave }(
Subject: Christ - you didn't have to delete them!
Message:
Shit! I need a cup of tea, fast. Or shall I make some chai?

At least you kept my N.B.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 14, 2001 at 18:51:08 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: All
Subject: On no, I'm not good enough either!
Message:
Got my own rejection letter, this one from Erika Andersen at PleaseConsiderThis.com:

Dear Jim,

Thank you for your comments. However, when you 'dare' us to reply to your allegations, we can only say that we are already doing so in the articles on our site; we believe this is clearly stated in our Welcome letter.

We have all come to feel that it's a waste of time (ours and yours) to address ourselves directly to you and other 'hard-line' anti-Maharaji folks; your minds are made up, and we have no interest in changing them. We created this site to speak to people who are interested in Maharaji and who are trying to decide how they feel and think about him, and for whom an alternative to the points of view expressed on the Forum, and other anti-Maharaji/Knowledge websites, might be helpful.

We assume you will continue to make negative allegations about Maharaji and Knowledge, and we will continue to respond to them through the medium of this site.

Regards,
Erika, David, Mitch and Bob

I guess it's too late for me to pretend I'm anything but a hardline anti-M'er. But what about some of the more open-minded people here? Say some recent ex (not 'Recent Ex') disgreed with Erika et al., would his comments be welcome? How about a chronic waverer like Sandy?

Who would Erika, David, Mitch or Tom think it wasn't a waste of time discussing M with? Beside other cult members, I mean?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 12:13:21 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Here's their ad on ELK
Message:
Please consider this

I just wanted to let you know that the four of us have created a website for the purpose of offering an alternative point of view to the negative allegations being made by some people about Maharaji and Knowledge on the Internet. We've tried to really stick to our own experiences, and to be honest, reasonable, humorous and loving. We'd love to invite you to take a look at it. The address is www.PleaseConsiderThis.com. '

PleaseConsiderThis.com is a labor of love, something that each of us decided to do individually and then joined together to undertake. If you'd like to submit an article for the site, that would be great! We're hoping this site becomes a forum for people who love and respect Maharaji to offer a positive counterpoint to the accusations being made -- without stooping to the level of those making them.

Warmly,
David Andersen
Erika Andersen
Mitch Ditkoff
Bob Johnson

Wihtout stooping to our level? Good luck, you warm, humourous group of individuals, you.

Anyway, yet another set of premies pretending to take on the myriad, disturbing allegations against their master but afraid to openly discuss them. Let's see now, we've had ELK, It Ain't So, Glasser's 'Truth About Maharaji', CD's LG (which blocked me and Deborah and threatens to block or censor any other ex who persists in discussing M openly). There's Appreciation and, of course, Maharaji's own site which asked for feedback but only mentioned receiving a few positive emails. Add to that EV's own site with it's ridiculous FAQs.......is there a single premie site willing to discuss M openly and honestly?

NO!

Oh yeah, I forgot Harlan's old site. Yet another absurdity.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 20:37:53 (EDT)
From: hamzen
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: I reckon you should try Mitch Ditkoff
Message:
I live in hope of being proved wrong about the whole premie community.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 01:44:44 (EDT)
From: Tonette
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: \Dear Jim,
Message:
You have to understand that we, at this web-site, are so totally enamoured of and brainwashed by Maharaji and his cult that we couldn't possibly consider that our life, our understanding, our reason for existence, could possibly be undermined by you and the hateful people on EPO.
You guys have it all wrong. There is a perfectly perfect understanding and explanation for Maharaji and His mission while he is on the Earth. Maharaji is exempt from basic moral ground rules. After all, He is the perfect master. Sorry you don't understand nor have realized this fact. Maybe next life time or by 'The Grace of Maharaji,' you as his devotee will come back into his fodder, I mean grace.
So, just so you understand, this is not rejection on your Master's part, only a 'dressing down.'
Maharaji understands, He knows, He sees your confusion. Just meditate and once again you will understand and the doubt of your mind will simply disappear.

Love, and by his grace, Erika, Dave, Mitch and Bob

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 01:31:01 (EDT)
From: Tonette
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: \Dear Jim,
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 01:31:00 (EDT)
From: Tonette
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: \Dear Jim,
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 14, 2001 at 18:06:09 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: All
Subject: What's OT about Recent Ex's?
Message:
Gerry's latest forum guideline states that off-topic threads that degenerate into arguments will be blocked. Fine, I can live with that. But, tell me please, what in the world is off-topic about the Recent Ex's forum and what it takes for admission to its cherished sanctum?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 21:31:06 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: My beef with Recent Exes
Message:
On further reflection, I think I can articulate better today what bothers me about RE. I don't like what it's existence implies about this plain, ol' regular forum and I think that it plants an insidious and unfair prejudice against this forum in the minds of its members.

Farfetched? Maybe yes, maybe no.

Okay, to begin with, is there anyone who joins me in the opinion that ideally we should all be able to chat with each other in a free, unstructured environment? I remember when there were just a couple of exes to talk to. The idea of fragmenting that small group of post-cult netizens would have been preposterous. Why break up a party that's barely hit critical mass? Back then, people were just happy to have other ex-premies to talk to at all. Personality, situational and ideological conflicts arose from time to time but whatever, eh? All the exes got along for the most part, given the hundreds of thousands of posts, and, with a few memorable exceptions, the only truly serious conflict was between exes and premies. Premies, as we know, are prone to lie, dissemble and simply distort the common history we all enjoy. That's part and parcel of being a cultmember unfortunately and we've all dealt with the frustration that dishonesty and denial poses in varying ways. Some of us are models of gracious poise and equanimity in its face (me, for instance), others aren't. Because we chose a long time ago to allow premies unfettered access and expression here, there's always been the premie / ex conflicts to deal with. However, save and except a few roiling food fights and barroom brawls, the forum's been a fairly civil environment overall between exes. So long as we stay away from politics, things are generally A-OK.

Along comes another forum which nominally justifies itself on the theory that 'Recent Exes' have delicate constiutions and are, essentially, akin to preemie ex-premies. Pesonally, I don't buy that proposition, not generally, in any event. RE was started by a paranoid guy named Runamok who needed a private, sworn-to-secrecy kind of place to fulmigate about the injustices of the forum and the world at large. It was not then and I bet it's never served the supposed unique needs of fragile Recent Exes. The people who joined initially were, I believe, people who wanted to shelter their spiritual or religious beliefs from scrutiny. Over time, I believe that the site has grown into just a private watering hole for them and others who talk about the same things we all do here except with the extra comfort of knowing that no one, premie or ex, will say anything even slightly challenging. The real problem I have with that is that the site is advertised as some sort of natural destination for real 'recent exes'. Why? Probably because I believe that RE members likely do continue to diss this forum, as per the long tradition stemming back to Run himself, and that that disrespect naturally rubs off, to some extent, on new particpants. The FA's smug, self-satisfied email to Steve proved all that to me in spades. If these people really think they're all of that, what must they think of the rest of us?

Yes, I'm concerned about what happens when some new ex doesn't join RE (a pig in a poke if there ever was one as they have no idea what they're applying for except that it's got their name all over it). Over time, I believe, the person takes on the RE attitude about this forum, that it's a rough-and-tumble environment, downright rude, in fact, and certainly no place for open, heart-felt communication. Well, if my fears are at all justified, that would be truly unfair. Yet, those are my fears, that RE is developing into an alternative forum for 'nice' people leaving this as .........what?

So, what do I want? I think that RE should definitely not be advertised as some sort of natural half-way house for exitting premies. It's a private club for people who want a private club and that's about it. There's no more reason why a recent ex should settle in there than anyone else and I'm suspect of the badmouthing this forum gets in that secret venue. I'm not suggesting that RE is the venemous gossip pit it was when Run was running it but I'm still concerned that its members might be, more subtly perhaps, slagging this forum in such a way as to cool peoples' interest here.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 22:41:50 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Structure and Recent Escapees
Message:
Jim:

is there anyone who joins me in the opinion that ideally we should all be able to chat with each other in a free, unstructured environment?

Isn't a free unstructured environment a net? Maybe that's why we keep getting caught in it. I dunno. Jurgen Habermas talks about 'unconstrained communication' but he spends most of his time coming up with rules about how to determine who's winning an argument, what sort of argument it is, etc. So, unstructured? Maybe not. Perhaps we're just trying to structure the wrong thing. Then again, an argument about argumentation might take up the rest of the century...

It does seem appropriate to have a forum that's specifically designed to be therapeutic, provided the managers and administrators know what that entails and have some expertise. Perhaps it's even OK to have a therapeutic environment, even if it's not all that 'clinical.' But it seems that the rules ought to be spelled out beforehand, and no one should be refused admittance if they meet the entrance criteria and are respectful of the rules. Having this arbitrary set of standards is silly, possibly dangerous, and as you point out directly contradicts the stated purpose of the RE forum. Hell, I think they ought to even let *me* in, as long as I knew, accepted, and followed the rules. Might be interesting, and after all I only left the cult for good some 20 years ago. I have shirts older than that.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 22:47:14 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Therapeutic?
Message:
Scott, I doubt that RE is any way 'therapeutic' any more than any of this conversation about the cult and us is. It's just a bunch of people talking, I reckon. But yes, you should be admitted, I guess. Feeling a little self-managing these days? Want me to talk to the FA for you?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 22:51:10 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: Therapeutic?
Message:
I just want a cool hand on my forehead, actually.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 22:21:28 (EDT)
From: Mike Finch
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: My beef with Recent Exes
Message:
Hi Jim

I am not really going to argue for or against, but here are a few points:

I think that it (RE) plants an insidious and unfair prejudice against this forum in the minds of its members.

I don't think it does, for the simple reason that the most active posters in RE also post here on F7 and its previous incarnations. In other words, RE does not consist of a mostly different group of posters, but rather a subset of posters who post here on F7 who want another Forum to air things in a different environment.

Okay, to begin with, is there anyone who joins me in the opinion that ideally we should all be able to chat with each other in a free, unstructured environment?

Yes, I agree. The important word in your sentence of course is 'ideally'.

However, save and except a few roiling food fights and barroom brawls, the forum's been a fairly civil environment overall between exes. So long as we stay away from politics, things are generally A-OK.

This is a subjective opinion and not fact.

The reason I applied to join RE was because I did not feel things were generally A-OK here. I think that they are often A-OK, even mostly A-OK, but there is enough here that is not OK that I needed to find a more sheltered environment.

When I initially posted here, I had none of your certainty. I felt uncertain, even fragile in many respects - still do. I needed exactly what you call 'a fairly civil environment', but the responses I got were far from civil (from you, actually, amongst others). Disagreeing with what I say is fine, but doing so in a hostile and aggressive manner is not fine.

Anyway, this is post is not about me, but to point out that some people find this F7 hostile and aggressive, and they cannot discuss their feelings in such an environment.

So most posters on RE are in this category - posters on F7 who go to RE for a gentler environment. They are not recent exes who first go to RE as a kind of half-way house to prepare them for the rough and tumble of here.

The real problem I have with that is that the site is advertised as some sort of natural destination for real 'recent exes'.

That might be some people's take, but not, I think, most. Just a different environment.

I believe that RE members likely do continue to diss this forum...and that that disrespect naturally rubs off, to some extent, on new particpants.

I have not read of F7 being dissed; the only negative stuff about F7 I read on RE is the perceived hostility that some feel if they expressed their views - particularly views that are not out-and-out negative to M and K, but rather asking questions, tentatively.

Over time, I believe, the person takes on the RE attitude about this forum, that it's a rough-and-tumble environment, downright rude, in fact, and certainly no place for open, heart-felt communication.

It certainly is rough-and-tumble. It is not downright rude, but can be at times. A lot of open, heart-felt communication occurs here, and it is the place for it - it would be good if everyone who wanted to felt welcomed enough to be open and heart-felt. The fact is that some don't, and they want another place - I have no problem with it being considered a 'private club', in fact I agree with you that that is what it is !

-- Mike

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 16, 2001 at 10:23:17 (EDT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Mike Finch
Subject: Thanks, Mike - good post [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 22:32:29 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Mike Finch
Subject: Re: My beef with Recent Exes
Message:
When I initially posted here, I had none of your certainty. I felt uncertain, even fragile in many respects - still do. I needed exactly what you call 'a fairly civil environment', but the responses I got were far from civil (from you, actually, amongst others). Disagreeing with what I say is fine, but doing so in a hostile and aggressive manner is not fine.

I guess 'hostile and aggressive' is pretty subjective too, huh? Tell me, Mike, what happened to you that was so bad when you first posted? In particular, what did *I* say that qualifies?

Anyway, this is post is not about me, but to point out that some people find this F7 hostile and aggressive, and they cannot discuss their feelings in such an environment.

Well this is the very myth that troubles me. I've seen a lot of all sorts of expression, 'hard' and 'soft', if you will, on this forum over the years. I don't buy that people can't discuss their feelings here although I fully accept the fact that RE members have told themselves so. I mean, really, what happened to you here that was so bad? And how did you then express yourself on RE any differently? Isn't it the case that RE shelters people from challenges to their various spiritual and religious beliefs no matter how civilly expressed?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 23:10:49 (EDT)
From: Mike Finch
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: My beef with Recent Exes
Message:
I guess 'hostile and aggressive' is pretty subjective too, huh?

Of course - that was pretty much the main point of my post.

Tell me, Mike, what happened to you that was so bad when you first posted? In particular, what did *I* say that qualifies?

Can't remember now, but if I saw the whole thread again I think it would be obvious. Nothing 'happened' to me that was bad, just a more aggressive response than I had hoped for. But I don't remember what it actually was, so I accept that my accusation is not provable in court, your honor.

Anyway, I don't care any more, and that is not the point of my post.

I don't buy that people can't discuss their feelings here

Surely you must buy that *some* people cannot. And if some people cannot, what's wrong with their having their private club ?

I mean, really, what happened to you here that was so bad? And how did you then express yourself on RE any differently?

Nothing happened to me that was so bad. I don't think I expressed myself on RE any differently, but I felt more able to express myself, knowing that responses would not be hostile. And by 'hostile' (= negative) I don't mean 'challenging' (= positive).

Isn't it the case that RE shelters people from challenges to their various spiritual and religious beliefs no matter how civilly expressed?

I am not sure. Certainly lovey-dovey acceptance of everything one says is not challenging. But is it not possible to be challenging and civil ? That would lead me to support my beliefs, and thus to question them, and even change them if necessary - in other words, real growth. Challenging and hostile won't do that; non-challenging and non-hostile won't do that; but challenging and non-hostile - now that is a magic combination.

-- Mike

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 23:35:02 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Mike Finch
Subject: Re: My beef with Recent Exes
Message:
Without particulars it's hard to say anything about what happened. As a point of curiosity, personal growth, potential defamation and or name-clearing, we could search the archives and find that first thread. But that might be a bit much, I guess.

I wonder, Mike, if 'pam' whoever he or she may be, feels ill-treated already what with all the skepticism about his or her genuineness. Different things happen in group discussions over time. I know because I took a course in 'group communication' once. :) People find different roles for themselves, that's one thing. The adjustment process for that must necessarily be a bit intimidating for many. In terms of this forum, I wouldn't know because I was here at the start. But, yeah, I can see how entry could be a bit delicate. I'm sad to see that there's a whole forum based on the premise that this place is 'just too much', though. I guess what I'd hate to see is someone -- who I'll never know -- come here and early on, before settling in as best they can, applying for refuge on RE, getting in and forever and a day thanking their lucky stars that they have such a shelter. Isn't it possible that some recent ex, or at least recent posting ex, might follow that course? That we'll never know them in that case?

We could have made this forum a much more gentle place at the get go by keeping out premies, just like RE does. But everyone thought that was, on balance, a bad idea for us and them. We wanted premies to benefit from the many wonderful things said and considered here. Don't you ever feel that way about RE? Aren't there some simply fantastic things said there that should be shared with the premies and ex-premies as a whole?

These are some of my thoughts as I gnaw away at this issue.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 16, 2001 at 02:24:18 (EDT)
From: Mike Finch
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: My beef with Recent Exes
Message:
Without particulars it's hard to say anything about what happened. As a point of curiosity, personal growth, potential defamation and or name-clearing, we could search the archives and find that first thread. But that might be a bit much, I guess

I agree it is a bit much, but wanting to substantiate what I wrote, I went to the archives and dug these out.

Here is part of your post to me on Jan 30 2001 at 03:57 GMT:

Well that certainly puts you a cut above us sheep here. see, Mike, it sounds like you, unlike me for instance, are a true individual. Like the Marlboro man, maybe. People like me, eh, we're nothing. Like I say, sheep. Common. You, on the other hand, well you know all about how many levels of logic? Wow! Too much, man. Too fucking much....

But then, like I say, you sound like you're cut from some very special cloth the likes of which I may know nothing about

You know, you just might the only premie that avoided promulgating the cult programming when you gave satsang.

Then again, you may be full of shit.

Here is part of your post to me on Jan 31 2001 at 16.14 GMT:

No, you're not a cult apologist, and you're not a premie or an ex-premie, and you're not saying whether this or that is true, you're just not 'buying into it', (just like you never bought into the rest of the shit we all bought into years ago, I guess) and you'd love to answer this question or that but it was asked wrongly, and you won't comment on Maharaji's character other than to say that it isn't as depicted here and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah!

Pleasure to meet you, Mike, I'm sure. Please accept my deepest apologies for treating your original post with anything les than the great respect and appreciation that you think it deserved.

The really interesting thing is that re-reading your comments now, 9 months later, they seem pretty tame - challenging with sarcasm and even wit, one might say.

But at the time I thought the above was very aggressive and hostile. Only a month or two before this, I was a fully paid up premie for 30+ years; it was one of the greatest challenges of my life to come out and post on F5 (OK, I don't want to get too dramatic !), and I had some pretty strong and opposing emotions going on.

And against this backdrop, I found this tone hurtful - and other responses were much worse (friend Gerry I recall was particularly obnoxious !).

I was challenged by many people at that time, and found most of it thought-provoking; uncomfortable, painful even, but ultimately I am grateful for being challenged. But if you read the threads at that time, most of the challenges were (dare I use the word ?) loving, that is, friendly and welcoming.

As you point out, this is all subjective (isn't everything ? No, I don't want to set you off on a solipsism thread !). I consider myself fairly robust and articulate, but if I at that point found the above hurtful, un-loving and unwelcoming (even though now I don't), I can certainly sympathize with others exiting the cult who cannot face aggessive criticism at that time.

I am not defending RE, I am just giving you my reasons why I applied to join it.

-- Mike

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 16, 2001 at 08:46:12 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Mike Finch
Subject: Re: My beef with Recent Exes
Message:
Mike,

Let's not forget that I was replying to a post of yours in which you accused us 'hardliners' of being a cult in and of ourselves all the while maintaining that you yourself were a premie who, unlike others, was somehow beyond being a cult member. So, yeah, them's fighting words around here, aren't they? So you got teased a little. It sure wasn't the only reaction you got. Patrick, Patrick, Disculta, Anth, La-ex and others were downright warm and inviting. Susan, Jethro and Lesley were confrontational but extremely civil. I mean it wasn't that bad, was it?
[ The archive page ]

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 16, 2001 at 09:15:11 (EDT)
From: Mike Finch
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: My beef with Recent Exes
Message:
Let's not forget that I was replying to a post of yours in which you accused us 'hardliners' of being a cult in and of ourselves all the while maintaining that you yourself were a premie who, unlike others, was somehow beyond being a cult member.

I am not saying that what I posted should not have been challenged. Re-reading my words 9 months later makes me squirm a little, I admit, and so I can well imagine your and other's reaction.

So you got teased a little.

My point is this: Right now, I can accept that I was 'teased'. But back then, in a fragile and even scared state, it came across as well beyond 'teasing' or confrontational - I experienced it at the time as extremely hostile and negative.

As you said previously, it is all subjective. All I am saying is that this kind of thing is the reason that some people might prefer RE - why in fact I applied to join it. That is all.

It sure wasn't the only reaction you got... I mean it wasn't that bad, was it?

No, 9 months later it doesn't seem that bad at all. In fact, overall it was amazingly positive, and has helped me clarify in myself many things. Still, at the time it was painful enough to make me want to sidle into a more protective cocoon.

-- Mike

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 16, 2001 at 09:42:21 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Mike Finch
Subject: Hey, Mike Finch
Message:
Hi again

Thought you'd disappeared into some undergrowth of EV or something, so it's heartening to know you're still reading and posting, whether it's on R.Ex or wherever.

I can genuinely see both sides here. I've read your posts to Jim (also read Cynthia's ) and as far as I'm concerned, if you're comfortable posting there and you find it beneficial then ultimately it's your choice. Of course we're talking of two distinct animals. One public, one private. I also understand that some people are more sensitive , others more hard-skinned. I'm more of a chameleon myself , haha …and change from one to the other but being an impulsive dare devil the hard skin often covers the sensitive :) ……but it's always right there wrapped round my bones!

However, I also have a lot of sympathy with Jim's vague feelings of unease about R.Ex in terms of how it may, actually or even just perceptually, affect the integrity (yep, the public forum does have it somewhere or other ! ) and effectiveness of the forum.

On top of that , the particular case of Steve's recent rejected application is bound to raise questions and personally I found it sad. Yes I know it's a private forum , so no one has the right to expect automatic acceptance but I couldn't for the life of me see why dear old Steve should be rejected. It's not as if it's Opus Dei or anything. You see, going back a fair while, I've read and appreciated Steve's posts .He's always appeared to me to be open, up-front and oftentimes insightful. Whatever problems he has , are purely a matter for sympathy/empathy not judgement. I don't think he's ever been aggressive, over-bearing or , to use the pertinent word you used 'hostile'. Also, I think he has been 'self-managing' as best as can be under the circumstances. Plus, if the R.Ex is a place for someone of a sensitive nature to air posts in private then show me a better candidate.

No, whether it was intended or not, it brought back memories of the cult hierarchy with the bongos at the bottom. Not, I hasten to add, that Steve is in anyway in that category. Far from it in my opinion.I also hasten to add that these are just the inevitable questions and impressions outsiders would think/feel about Rex.
As you say, Rex is mainly comprised of exes who also post here. I'm not suggesting any great conspiracy or anything. The only actual members I know of are yourself, Moley, Cynthia and Katie. I'm not gagging to know the full ensemble but I'm sure everyone else on the Rex forum is as sincere as the four of you. Still …why then was Steve rejected? Puzzling.

I'm not arguing that you or anyone else shouldn't be there….jeeze….it's none of my business. A while back Katie even pointed me in the direction of R.Ex when for some reason or other I was a bit pissed off with something or other. Of course I was curious but on reflection, given how I manage time so poorly (!) and given that I knew I'd still use the public forums sooner or later ,I decided to give it miss. On the basis of Steve's experience and given that I'm occasionally controversial, I probably would have been rejected anyway :) Truly though, I've no urgent desire to join but nor do I want to undermine it any serious way.

Having said that, one thing I appreciate about this forum is its public aspect. I think, if only for the sake of lurkers, the main endeavours of Exes should be as open and as public as possible.I'm not suggesting that our posts be especially addressed to the lurkers. No way.Personally I try to say what I think and feel and try (not always successfully) to communicate with the person I'm actually addressing. That means, inevitably,(given the natural flow of the forum) that there'll be posts of mine in the archives I'd rather weren't there. Well, such is life. Give me 'warts and all' to EV spin, anyday.
The cult we've all left has operated , still does and probably always will operate with as much secrecy as possible. The 'rough and tumble' (look at the break up of f6 or the recent politics) is par for the course and in my opinion ultimately healthy. A real breath of fresh air after decades of stage management and secrecy. Even if I get stung once in a while, I can always pick myself up, dust myself down and start over…out in the open. Hey, I already know I'm not perfect so what the hell !
One thing's for sure though. Before I ever posted here I was grateful I could read here. The 'rough and tumble' was the crowning glory in my opinion.

So I think the value of the public aspect of this forum is something to be considered and if you don't mind me saying so Mike, particularly in your case. I don't mean to say you're under any overbearing obligation or have any over-riding responsibility beyond your comfort zone but heck, let's face it, you were a PAM. Also, you weren't just a bureaucratic PAM or someone who climbed the greasy pole at the expense of others, no , you had a personal relationship with the cult leader. You were one of his favourites. As far as I could gather you were always a somewhat reluctant PAM and pretty much retained your integrity from start to finish. The fact of the matter is though, you were a PAM!

I understand you when you tell Jim how sensitive you felt after 30 years in the cult, making your first tentative steps on this forum and encountering a 'hostile ' welcome. Well actually, if you drag up the whole threads it wasn't all hostile ,if I remember correctly. Anyway, as you pointed out, that's water under the bridge now. Hey, when I first posted here as 'ex-altarboy' I walked straight into a blazing row with the now ( in some quarters) notorious Bazza. My anonymity was shortlived because it's not really my nature to be less than up-front but my feud with Bazza continued for a while. He asking this, accusing that blah blah , me telling him I've seen careerists like him by the score in EV blah blah blah. For a little while I thought ' fuck this for a game of soldiers, I don't need this shit' Ultimately though, so what? I, like you, had a long time in the cult. 73 to Long Beach 96. Then a couple of years or so of increasingly serious doubts. Then reading the forum on and off whilst just really hanging in the cult superficially, probably out of habit. Then finally concluding that I wanted out, lock, stock and barrel.

So we have a lot in common apart from me being a foot soldier and you a PAM. Big difference though. I'm the sort of guy a PAM wouldn't remember. One of many. You're the sort of guy many would remember. All those foot soldiers I knew. When I was sitting for hours on end in the Palace of Peace it was you, mainly , who gave the satsang. When I was serving in the upstairs kitchen before and after getting k, it was you in the mahatmas flat next door popping in for your apple juice after hours of med. When I was merely dreaming of personal darshans to come, it was you telling me of your close encounters with the cult leader, from early days Prem Nagar to here, there and everywhere. Now, you probably don't remember me handing you the apple juice but I remember giving it to you. You see? Of course I'm not saying you're any better than me (or worse) but your voice in public has a certain resonance that mine doesn't have. Many hundreds (maybe thousands) will remember Mike Finch as that basically decent guy who at times the cult leader was actually besotted with. You may not want to share a barrel load of your personal experiences in public but even your general views will help a lot of people escape unnecessary clutches. Not that that's a given mind you. Ultimately each individual deals with their own stuff. When I first read the forum there were no PAMS. Just the early archives of that asram premie vagabond Jim ( :) ) , Katie, Robyn et al et al et al. It wasn't PAM hood that made any difference to me it was just individual voices making sense despite occasional personal discords. Still, a PAM'S voice is always welcome.

I'm not trying to say your first responsibility is a public one , I'm just asking you to consider what I've said. I don't know if you read Chucks post in the recent PAM thread here ? He makes good sense re the real purpose of the forum being so much more than just a 'club'. It's a good post anyway.

So I hope you'll use this place more in future. The more the merrier. If you prefer Rex only, that's cool too.

Cheers

Dermot

PS : Did you ever find a good translation of Gilgamesh? Was I wrong about the quote I mentioned? The guy holding the hand of his child etc….could have been some Sumerian text I was reading if it wasn't in Gilgamesh.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 16, 2001 at 10:12:45 (EDT)
From: Mike Finch
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: Re: Hey, Mike Finch
Message:
Hi Dermot

I agree with most of what you say.

I'll admit I am embarrassed about the early Palace of Peace days - cruising in for the apple juice - but it is very hard not to act superior when everyone treats you as being superior. That is why now I am so against cults and hierarchies where those above and below you are seen in absolute terms - by that, I mean the position in the hierarchy of one person to another is not seen as merely an organisational convenience, but in terms of inferiority and superiority. Very de-humanizing.

As far as RE goes, I am not defending or justifying it - I was trying to give Jim the reason why I personally went there.

As to posting here, I am not going to do so out of some sense of duty, but I do cruise this Forum, and may well post here now and then.

Thanks for the apple juice. Did I thank you at the time (ie recognise you) ? Or did I look through you as some robot apple-juice dispenser ? No - don't tell me !

-- Mike

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 16, 2001 at 13:53:34 (EDT)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: Mike Finch
Subject: Hey, Mike Finch, thought of doing a journey?
Message:
Mike,

You probably have thought about it, but I know your personal journey would be a damn good read:-)

John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 16, 2001 at 14:56:45 (EDT)
From: Mike Finch
Email: None
To: JHB
Subject: Re: Hey, Mike Finch, thought of doing a journey?
Message:
Thanks John - I hadn't thought about it, but I will now.

-- Mike

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 16, 2001 at 11:13:48 (EDT)
From: The apple juice dispenser
Email: None
To: Mike Finch
Subject: h-e-l-l-o s-i-r
Message:
T-i-m-e f-o-r y-o-u-r j-u-i-c-e .......heck no, I'm not the servile type, I never thought you were superior , just lucky (?) to be around Prem nagar in the early days and lucky (?) enough to have something more than a picture on the wall/figure on the stage experience. I guess I treated you with a little bit of respect but not too much ....hey people have to earn my respect, I don't hand it out freely :)

Your flatmate Yoganand (who eventually gave me K), I never did like him and he knew it. And no bloody way would I pranam to him....he just gave me K because I was part of the furniture I think.

No, the point about the apple juice was that the minions remember the famous people but there are too many minions for the famous really to remember. Haha whatever.

As for the 'sense of duty' thing , I tried to emphasise that wasn't what I meant.However, just using this place as a default base (in public rather than private)would ,I believe, be beneficial to not only yourself but others too, given your cult fame. I don't think I've ever posted here out of a sense of concious duty as in 'oh shit I've got to do this but don't really want to ', nevertheless , I feel duty bound to be public and honest about the weird way I wasted my whole adult life worshipping a cult leader and his family biz.

Cheers

Dermot

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 16, 2001 at 10:27:21 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Mike Finch
Subject: Too bad you see it that way
Message:
As to posting here, I am not going to do so out of some sense of duty, but I do cruise this Forum, and may well post here now and then.

Don't you know how haughty that sounds?

Hm, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm hearing something in your voice you don't intend. But yeah, Dermot is indeed appealing to 'some sense of duty' in you? Is that all so bad?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 16, 2001 at 11:44:34 (EDT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Sorry for being so obnoxious, Mike
Message:
Here's what I saidin reply to this statement of yours:

(Mike Finch) 'I don't have an opinion on whether M is specially divine, or ordinary mortal - actually I couldn't care less. The question that interests me is: What, if anything, can I get from M and K, whoever and whatever he is ? And I don't believe that this question can be answered by anything other than personal experience.'

Gerry the terrible:

'OK, Mike, honeymoon's over. Yes, you sure are getting premie-ish when you say the above. And it's this attitude that irks me most about the entire cult: my 'experience,' what I can get, get get out of it etc.

This stuff makes me puke. The cult turns nice people like you into thoughless self-centered droids who end up sputtering nonsense ala Sandford Pass. What about the rest the cult victims? The ones that committed suicide over this nonsense, the ones who worked themselves into permanent disability at DECA, or the ones who became seriously mentally ill because they couldn't live up to Fatass's scrambled and contradictory 'message?'

What about all these broken people, huh? Oh never mind, it's YOUR EXPERIENCE that really matters and fuck the rest of us suckers, right? You don't give a ratass about other victims past or future, right? As long as you have a nice 'experience.' Yeah, you're a real sweetheart and I'm a bulldog because I say fuck this attitude and rotten self-centered cult apologists who promote it.

And of course the fatass guru is not 'divine.' What the fuck !!! Can there be any question about this? Jesus fucking Christ, get real. You REALLY need to read the main part of this website and get your head screwed back on about all this. It's time for Mikey to grow up and get over this destructive fairy tale.'

Jeez I guess I needed a chill pill or somethin'

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 16, 2001 at 10:45:41 (EDT)
From: Mike Finch
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: Too bad you see it that way
Message:
Don't you know how haughty that sounds? Hm, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm hearing something in your voice you don't intend.

I think you are Jim. It may sound haughty to you, and I am sorry if that is so, but I do not mean it in any haughty or superior sense.

I am saying that I have my own agenda, and am going to pursue it. If that is haughty, then so be it. In any case, it takes so much time keeping up with these posts !! Even this little sub-thread has taken up so much of my time !!

Dermot is indeed appealing to 'some sense of duty' in you? Is that all so bad?

No, it is not bad - message heard and understood ! Currently being processed...

-- Mike

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 17, 2001 at 14:38:15 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Mike Finch
Subject: How's the processing going, Mike?
Message:
Don't you know how haughty that sounds? Hm, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm hearing something in your voice you don't intend.

I think you are Jim. It may sound haughty to you, and I am sorry if that is so, but I do not mean it in any haughty or superior sense.

I am saying that I have my own agenda, and am going to pursue it. If that is haughty, then so be it. In any case, it takes so much time keeping up with these posts !! Even this little sub-thread has taken up so much of my time !!

Dermot is indeed appealing to 'some sense of duty' in you? Is that all so bad?

No, it is not bad - message heard and understood ! Currently being processed...

-- Mike


---

Mike,

If you've read my post above ('What if Dettmers had posted on RE?') you can see my more general concerns. You say you have your own agenda. What is it?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 17, 2001 at 15:15:24 (EDT)
From: Mike Finch
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: How's the processing going, Mike?
Message:
If you've read my post above ('What if Dettmers had posted on RE?') you can see my more general concerns.

Yes, a good post, and I have to agree - if Dettmers had posted on RE only, then the history of ex-premie-dom would clearly be different, no doubt about it.

You say you have your own agenda. What is it?

Good question. Give me a day or two to think that through, and I will post my answer. Probably have it as a new thread.

-- Mike

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 17, 2001 at 15:29:54 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: Mike Finch
Subject: Oh, goody, I'm waiting with baited breath, Mike
Message:
But be warned it is addictive having such an appreciative and intelligent audience as the forumites. ;)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 16, 2001 at 14:01:16 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: Mike Finch
Subject: Where the hellhave you been, Mr Finch?
Message:
What a treat to have you back here. I can remember when you arrived I thought that people were expecting to much out of you and did not give you any breathing room probably because of your cult honcho status.

At the time I thought you could handle it because I had not yet met a ''sensitive'' cult honcho. Most seemed to have very thick skins. Then you got sick (just like I did after first arriving here) and I thought ''Oops, he is actually just as thin-skinned as me.''

Anyway, I'm glad you found a place to detox and I'm also glad you're posting here a bit. I hope you are well and happy and celebrating your return to freedom and sanity.

PS Did you follow the CAC attack incident? Any thoughts on that?

PPS I also want to thank for posting under your real name right from the start. Hopefully one day you will understand just how important that gesture was.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 16, 2001 at 15:06:36 (EDT)
From: Mike Finch
Email: None
To: Pat:C)
Subject: Re: Where the hellhave you been, Mr Finch?
Message:
What a treat to have you back here. I can remember when you arrived I thought that people were expecting to much out of you and did not give you any breathing room probably because of your cult honcho status.

Thanks Pat; you were particularly warm and supportive when I arrived.

Yes I did follow the CAC attack; I have no new revelations or insights other than what was expressed here at the time.

I also want to thank you for posting under your real name right from the start

I understand that many people need to post anonymously; but I could not do it !! Anyway, Anth and Bazza kind of forced the issue for me - rather like being pushed into a swimming pool on a cold day !

Take care

-- Mike

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 16, 2001 at 15:44:23 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: Mike Finch
Subject: Of course, I'm itching to know
Message:
all about what you've been through the past couple of months.

Do I have to join RE to find out? ;)

There are a couple of new Brit exes here and maybe they can cajole you into talking a bit more here. I have no intention of telling you that you have an obligation but but...just kidding.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 16, 2001 at 16:18:29 (EDT)
From: Mike Finch
Email: None
To: Pat:C)
Subject: Re: Of course, I'm itching to know
Message:
No, I am happy to post here now and again. No cajoling needed !

-- Mike

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 16, 2001 at 17:34:46 (EDT)
From: In case you're interested
Email: None
To: Mike Finch
Subject: M's comments
Message:
Hi Mike Finch,

I don't know you but thought you might me interested in Maharaji's comments from a couple of months ago. He was talking about the early days in England and said something like, 'Carol used to drive me around in her Cortina 'til she couldn't do it anymore...Then there was Mike...he had a van from Exeter University and he'd drive me around in it....and I got very fond of that van...we spent hours and hours in front of the American Embassy because sometimes we'd start in the morning from there and end up back in front of the embassy at the end of the day...we had a lot of great times in that van.'

No big point here, just thought you might want to hear him talking about you instead of the fun-house reflections for a minute.

Now back to the regularly scheduled emissions and omissions.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 16, 2001 at 18:05:31 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: In case you're interested
Subject: The reminices of a middle aged man
Message:
Yeah for a kid out of India it must have been quite an experience. New country, dreams of building an empire, bonds of friendship with certain people.......why oh why is his memory now so selective? Why does he ignore the real facts about the people who either lived in his ashrams or if they didn't live in an ashram, nevertheless responded to him as he wanted and directed ......only to years later more or less call them liars?????

It's good and only natural for him or anyone to have fond memories of times, places and above all people of long ago ......if only his idealism didn't turn out to be the sordid affair it did.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 16, 2001 at 17:49:49 (EDT)
From: Mike Finch
Email: None
To: In case you're interested
Subject: Re: M's comments
Message:
He was talking about the early days in England and said something like, 'Carol used to drive me around in her Cortina 'til she couldn't do it anymore...Then there was Mike...he had a van from Exeter University and he'd drive me around in it....and I got very fond of that van...we spent hours and hours in front of the American Embassy because sometimes we'd start in the morning from there and end up back in front of the embassy at the end of the day...we had a lot of great times in that van.'

Thanks for the reminder. I know he has reminisced many times about this episode - he even spoke about it at the Nottingham event.

Actually I have very fond memories of that time.

-- Mike

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 16, 2001 at 16:45:17 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: Mike Finch
Subject: Thanks, Mike
Message:
I'm looking forward to it. Sure sounds like you're standing firmly on your own two feet.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 16, 2001 at 10:00:51 (EDT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: Re: Hey, Dermot
Message:
Hey Dermot -
IMHO, the RE forum is more like this forum was when it was smaller (say, in Forum III days). Thus I feel more comfortable discussing personal matters on there - I realize that the main forum has a very wide audience, including people from EV who monitor it (and CAC-like people who save personal posts!). There are some things I don't want to say to everyone in the world. I'm not talking about anything controversial - I'm talking about my reactions to a death in my family (Brian's dad died a few weeks ago, and I talked about that there, for example), an illness, relationships, being raised in an apocalyptic-thinking family, and other personal things. Not to mention the fact that these matters are all OT things on this particular forum - and probably boring to most people as well.

Another point - sometimes former PAM's don't WANT to talk about Maharaji - or at least not right away - and have more pressing personal matters they wish to discuss. It's hard to do this on a very public forum when everyone who reads it might know you. Your post kind of illustrates why it's a problem for them to then post publically under their real names - there are certain expectations of them here.

I realize that the existence of a private forum rubs people the wrong way - and that they can imagine that all sorts of things are going on there (which isn't true, really). Bbut because of I want to talk about there, I, personally, need it to be confidential and civil.

Won't comment on Steve's rejection except to say that I wish he would have discussed it with the FA's there rather than on F7. Other people have done this and it has worked out well for all concerned. The FA's on RE, like FA's everywhere, are human - and this past month or so has been rough on all of us because of world events. But they are still capable of listening - and if one assumes they are not (as Steve apparently did), then why would one want to join such a forum in the first place?

Love,
Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 16, 2001 at 11:30:20 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Hi Katie
Message:
:) Wherever you feel happiest and most comfortable is obviously the best place to be. If someone prefers the REx, who am I to disagree with them? My post was just putting across my own take on things.

As for PAMs ....again I can ONLY speak for myself and surmise that had I been a PAM and then left the cult,at some point I'd go public. Of course, that's just me. I tried to express my view to Mike without putting him under a sense of 'obligation' to do something he was clearly not at ease with. It's his call ultimately, I was just SUGGESTINg he considers it.

I don't know the full details re: Steve.....had i been FA I wouldn't have thought twice about accepting first time round.I'd have told him the confidentiality rules and left it at that. If it's just what you say it is ......a quiter environment where other stuff (personal/ot etc ) can be discussed along with on topic stuff....I can't see why he was rejected. Again , just my take.

Anyway

Be well Katie

Cioa

Dermot

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 16, 2001 at 11:49:40 (EDT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: Re: Hi Dermot
Message:
Here's the deal, Dermot. The FA's of RE get the letter asking for admission; they either respond to it saying 'not right now, but we can talk' or post the letter on the RE forum. Then the members of the RE forum can say YES, that person sounds good, or NO, I don't feel comfortable having that person there because (a)s/he's my ex-husband/wife, ( b ) s/he shouted obscenties at me for no reason several times on the public forum, (c)s/he put a private e-mail on the public forum, (d) s/he is still too much 'on the fence', (e) s/he sent me threatening e-mails, etc. etc. etc. Basically, the primary objective is to protect the comfort level of the people currently using the RE forum - even if that means a new member is turned down for one of the above - or another - reason.

In Steve's case, the FA has already said that s/he made a mistake in handling his application letter - and has apologized in public and private and has generally beat themselves up about it enough to satisfy anyone here who is looking for 'justice'. (This is not addressed to you personally, Dermot - obviously.)

Hope you are well, too - weird times we are living through these days.

Love,
Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 16, 2001 at 22:54:18 (EDT)
From: Deborah
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Hi Katie
Message:
I've read just a little bit about Recent Ex and would like to know more about it. Is it possible for me to visit, or does that require obtaining membership.

have I already blown the possibility of getting a password because I've shouted obscenities. I thought it was a good reason when I did it. Sometimes I was mistaken. Other times, well, I'm not diplomatic!

Anycase, nice to see your posts here. Even though it upsets me to see you and Jim fight.

Deborah

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 16, 2001 at 10:23:52 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Re: Hey, Katie
Message:
IMHO, the RE forum is more like this forum was when it was smaller (say, in Forum III days). Thus I feel more comfortable discussing personal matters on there - I realize that the main forum has a very wide audience, including people from EV who monitor it (and CAC-like people). There are some things I don't want to say to everyone in the world. I'm not talking about anything controversial - I'm talking about my reactions to a death in my family (Brian's dad died a few weeks ago, and I talked about that there, for example), an illness, relationships, other personal things. Not to mention the fact that these matters are all OT things on this particular forum - and probably boring to most people as well.

How does a forum for personal, off-topic matters translate into being for 'Recent Exes'?

Another point - sometimes former PAM's don't WANT to talk about Maharaji - or at least not right away. Your post kind of illustrates why it's a problem for them to then post publically under their real names - there are certain expectations of them here.

I'm sure Dermot realizes that some former PAMs don't want to talk about Maharaji. That doesn't stop him from making a case for why they should.

I realize that the existence of a private forum rubs people the wrong way - and that they can imagine that all sorts of things are going on there (which isn't true, really). Bbut because of I want to talk about there, I, personally, need it to be confidential and civil.

Again, how is any of that related to being an ex-premie, recent or otherwise?

Won't comment on Steve's rejection except to say that I wish he would have discussed it with the FA's there rather than on F7. Other people have done this and it has worked out well for all concerned.

Not necessarily. The fact that the last person 'worked it out' privately with the FA's, if that's the case, did little to shed light for Steve or others about the process. It was still arbitrary and capricious enough that Steve was hnadled as he was.

The FA's on RE, like FA's everywhere, are human - and this past month or so has been rough on all of us because of world events. But they are still capable of listening - and if one assumes they are not (as Steve apparently did), then why would one want to join such a forum in the first place?

What are you saying? That, if he was really sincere, Steve should have overlooked the extremely insulting and patronizing rejection email from the FA and continued to beg for admission? And the fact that he didn't -- and didn't keep his anger and confusion to himself so as to protect RE for some absurd reason -- just proves he didn't really want to join anyway? That's what it sounds like.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 16, 2001 at 10:45:42 (EDT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: Hey, Katie
Message:
Well, Jim, if I'm going to answer you, I have to address something you said in a previous post:

However, save and except a few roiling food fights and barroom brawls, the forum's been a fairly civil environment overall between exes.

I disagree. I don't feel comfortable posting on Forum 7 or other public ex-premie forums because YOU have consistently ridiculed and criticized me because I don't agree with you about certain things - both on-topic and off-topic. I am not talking about 'challenging' me - I'm talking about making fun of me and generally trying to marginalize me on this forum. You have made it clear that you don't want me posting on this or any other ex-premie OR premie forum (your last post to me on Lifes Great was "Get the fuck out of here", if you recall.)

Now to answer your post:
RE the name 'Recent Exes' - it's archaic. I was the one who set up that forum, not Runamok, and I did so because I had several recent exes e-mailing me. These people did not want to post on the main forum so I thought it would be good for them to have a place to talk. As it happened, several other people who were NOT recent exes also wanted to have a flame-free private forum, and asked to join too. So the forum is now more about 'Life after Maharaji' than anything else - and a name change has been considered. By the way, the personal topics I brought up are NOT off-topic on RE - one thing I like about the RE forum.

You may not feel that needing to talk about personal matters in one's life has anything to do with being an ex-premie - I do. I tend to respond to certain events in my life with programming associated with being an ex-premie - and with other events in my life that led up to me being a premie, and then an ex. I have found that other ex-premies really can understand and illuminate certain feelings I am having in a way that most people who have never been premies have not.

Re Steve - what I was trying to say is that communicating privately as a FIRST option is often the best way to resolve conflicts. Yes, I wish he has e-mailed the FA back instead of e-mailing you and having you post the e-mail. Once a conflict gets on to Forum7, everyone is bound to have an opinion about it, and the issue often becomes magnified into yet another food fight. Steve's immediate assumption that he could NOT talk to the FA, and his later remarks about wanting everything in the open, does make me wonder why he wanted to join a confidential forum in the first place. I don't think that's so weird.

I also feel strongly about publishing private e-mails without permission from the sender. Yes, I know it's legal, but it's not ethical, and it's RUDE. This has nothing to do with 'protecting RE' - it's about the privacy of the FA who sent the e-mail, who now has been trashed all over this forum and condemned by many people here. Steve obviously wanted revenge - well, he got it. I hope it makes him feel better - although I am sorry that he felt so hurt that he needed revenge.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 16, 2001 at 15:29:39 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Netiquette re email privacy
Message:
I also feel strongly about publishing private e-mails without permission from the sender. Yes, I know it's legal, but it's not ethical, and it's RUDE.

By the way, I also published my own letter from Erika Andersen in which she explains how her website, PleaseConsiderThis, isn't about to discuss M further with die-hards like me. Do you think that was rude too?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 16, 2001 at 11:16:06 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Re: Hey, Katie
Message:
Well, Jim, if I'm going to answer you, I have to address something you said in a previous post:

However, save and except a few roiling food fights and barroom brawls, the forum's been a fairly civil environment overall between exes.

I disagree. I don't feel comfortable posting with YOU here because you have consistently ridiculed and criticized me because I don't agree with you about certain things - both on-topic and off-topic. I am not talking about 'challenging' me - I'm talking about making fun of me and generally trying to marginalize me on this forum. I don't feel comfortable posting ON-topic on this forum because of that. You have made it clear that you don't want me posting on this or any other ex-premie OR premie forum (your last post to me on Lifes Great was 'Get the fuck out of here', if you recall.)

You and I have a long, unpleasant history, true. Our fundamental differences have been aired and discussed many times before. I won't bother getting into it with you now again because to do so seems futile. To me, you're the epitome of passive-aggressive, what I am to you I can just imagine.

Now to answer your post:
RE the name 'Recent Exes' - it's archaic. I was the one who set up that forum, not Runamok, and I did so because I had several recent exes e-mailing me. These people did not want to post on the main forum so I thought it would be good for them to have a place to talk. As it happened, several other people who were NOT recent exes also wanted to have a flame-free private forum, and asked to join too. So the forum is now more about 'Life after Maharaji' than anything else - and a name change has been considered. By the way, the personal topics I brought up are NOT off-topic on RE - one thing I like about the RE forum.

You may not feel that needing to talk about personal matters in one's life has anything to do with being an ex-premie - I do. I tend to respond to certain events in my life with programming associated with being an ex-premie - and with other events in my life that led up to me being a premie, and then an ex. I have found that other ex-premies really can understand and illuminate certain feelings I am having in a way that most people who have never been premies have not.

Sounds quite interesting if that's a theme you explore regularly there. What can I say? Sounds great.

Re Steve - what I was trying to say is that communicating privately as a FIRST option is often the best way to resolve conflicts. Yes, I wish he has e-mailed the FA back instead of e-mailing you and having you post the e-mail. Once a conflict gets on to Forum7, everyone is bound to have an opinion about it, and the issue often becomes magnified into yet another food fight. Steve's immediate assumption that he could NOT talk to the FA, and his later remarks about wanting everything in the open, does make me wonder why he wanted to join a confidential forum in the first place. I don't think that's so weird.

I'm just trying to imagine what Steve's reply might have been:

Dear FA,

I appreciate how busy you and your fellow FA's are, both being professionals and everything (me, I'm currently unemployed as you know), but I wonder if I could perhaps persuade you to reconsider my application. Yes, I understand that I might seem like a disruptive, flaming kind of guy but, please, FA, we all make mistakes, huh? What you say about becoming a good self-manager just sounds so good. As soon as you said it I realized that I, too, would like to be like that. I, too, want to be able to resolve problems quickly. See? I'm getting back to YOU nicely, aren't I? Come on, FA, have a heart, will ya'?

Hoping you don't find THIS email disruptive, I remain, ever in your hands,

Steve

An invitation to grovel. How appealing.

I also feel strongly about publishing private e-mails without permission from the sender. Yes, I know it's legal, but it's not ethical, and it's RUDE. This has nothing to do with 'protecting RE' - it's about the privacy of the FA who sent the e-mail, who now has been trashed all over this forum and condemned by many people here. Steve obviously wanted revenge - well, he got it. I hope it makes him feel better - although I am sorry that he felt so hurt that he needed revenge.

There be nothing to trash if there was noting to trash.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 16, 2001 at 11:22:21 (EDT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: 'passive-aggressive' - good god
Message:
Find me a 'passive-aggressive' sentence in my description of how you have treated me. Do you even know what the word means? I think it's a convenient label for YOU to put on women you don't like.

Frankly, I think YOU have been far more passive-aggressive than I have in your 'cute' references to me in posts to other people. These are supposed to be joking, but always have a sting to them.

No point in trying to talk to you if you are gonna label me - and no, I do not feel comfortable posting on a public forum where you have access - especially after being told many times by you that I don't belong here.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 16, 2001 at 11:33:18 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: OK, you win
Message:
You're right, Katie. Maybe PA isn't the right term. What do I know? Look, I'm an idiot. Misogynistic idiot. Please, let's stop this before we get locked! You win.

(I know, I know. THIS is probably PA. Sheesh!)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 08:34:34 (EDT)
From: Vicki
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: What's OT about Recent Ex's?
Message:
I understand the fear of taking a stand against m and ev. In the beginning, I was standing on such shaky ground. I thought I was having a nervous breakdown after nearly thirty years of having m and k central in my life. I remember a program happening in Miami two days before my first child was born. I asked my doctor if I could fly across country and the look the man gave me, while incredulously telling me no airline in their right mind would let me on. The disappointment and guilt just about swallowed me whole. Can you imagine such stupidity? Of course this was also the ushering in of the new knowledge era when it wasn't cool to be having children. It ran so deep, this life with knowledge. It still does, in many ways, and it isn't easy. So going to a place where maybe it's a bit 'safer' as in, not so public, helps some people.

All that 'openness' that is required to stay in the world of k gets transferred to exiting, and it is shattering. It's a raw, vulnerable, completely exposed sort of feeling, unless of course a person is so consumed by anger at being duped it circumvents these feelings, but they eventually come up to the surface.

In the beginning I was scared posting here. I still don't know if I'm gonna get blasted for saying something, but now I'm not so tender and learn from opposing views, unless of course, I'm being verbally abused for the sheer sport of it.

The head of ev has a very strong personality, at least in my opinion. He never seemed to be particulary caring and actually quite rude on several conference calls. Lately, there was a sort of attempt by him to seem more people friendly and personaable, but it was a joke for me. The one sincere guy they had had been demoted, as such, to some lower level job. So for a pam to go up against these people, and m's rantings, I've got to give them credit.

It's nice for us to have people post on this forum, because it is always helpful to hear what people are going through. Maybe I can't give words or definition to a troubling feeling I'm having, then after reading a posting, it clarifies something for me and I can move a bit forward in regaining my footing without m.

When I extricated myself from my duties with ev, it involved informing local premies that I was no longer a city contact. I had not told anyone what I had learned about ev and m's shenanigans, except one person who called me, that has access to pam's and gave me an earful. I told her I wasn't interested in sharing with premies what I had learned, and by the way, she confirmed everything I heard via epo, except she didn't know about jagdeo. One person specifically asked why, after all these years, I would leave and I said that I could no longer be a part of anything that allowed the rape of a child, and that the small amount of money I had contributed made it possible for this guy to fly around the world abusing children, and still enables ev to abuse the victims in the name of legally protecting their back sides. Her reply was that the money also helped spread this knowledge.

There is no justification, ever, that the price for spreading inner peace is the rape of a child.

Gee, would m let his daughters be raped if it meant he couldn't spread knowledge? I would hope he would retire, but then again, 50 million dollars is a lot of money.

One thing I did get from this conversation was pwks who see him as just a regular person like Clinton have no trouble separating his actions from his mission. But the biggest thing is, they are not directly affected in their life, so it doesn't matter. The illusion the videos and events create permeate a premie's life, and they think that's what it's all about. Final, no questions asked. I found it frightening that because it didn't happen to their child, it didn't affect them and has nothing to do with them.

Luckily for me, it was the generousity of the people who support this forum that they exhibited patience, tolerance and understanding which greatly helped me retain my sanity while sorting through this whole sordid mess of m and k and ev.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 15:49:52 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: Vicki
Subject: Now, don't be shy, Vicki
Message:
Your post above really needed a thread all to itself as it was full to the brim with lots of other stuff besides the RE forum. Beautifully written. Thanks.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 13:36:40 (EDT)
From: Loaf
Email: None
To: Vicki
Subject: Re: RE
Message:
What a lovely thoughtful post Vicky.. recent exes is a nice safe place for people to begin to come to terms with their journey, and their feelings for knowledge and M without having anybody bully them into jumping one way or the other. It is a place with a lot of potential - where quiet voices can be heard, and it isnt to everybody's taste...
Fundamentalists like Jim would be about as welcome there as the taliban at a cheese and wine party.

Apart from the non-flaming aspect of it, the confidentiality thing is important.. no matter whether Jim or whoever feel people SHOULD either be outed or be unafraid, lots of people find the process of leaving extremely painful and personal.

Anyway, i value it... but I remember when I was rejected by the previous FA (Seth) and it happened in what seemed to me at the time to be a deeply insensitive way. This was partly due to my own hyper-sensitivity, but he definitely rubbed me up the wrong way... so I can fully sympathise with Steve, I was hurt and felt rejected.. but that doesnt mean that the place doesnt have value and a function in the journey of different people.

On the gossip front.. all you guys really arent missing anything exciting by not being in there.. its just a bunch of old hippies, mainly women, sitting round talking about stuff.

Leaving His lotus feet, where can we go ?

Loaf.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 19:55:22 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Loaf
Subject: What's that mean, Loaf?
Message:
Fundamentalists like Jim would be about as welcome there as the taliban at a cheese and wine party.

What's that mean? Fundamentalist in what respect and as opposed to what exactly?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 16, 2001 at 02:30:15 (EDT)
From: Loaf
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: What's that mean, Loaf?
Message:
You seem to have strongly held beliefs Jim.. anti-astrology, anti-mysticism, anti-meditation... and with very good reason.

Lets allow people to express and unfold at their own pace. I will say this.. F7 is an invaluable sharp cornered coffee table compared to RE - without which RE could be one scatter cushion too many.

But there are toddlers about...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 19:20:25 (EDT)
From: Cynthia
Email: None
To: Loaf
Subject: To: Loaf
Message:
Hi there,

I haven't read most of the posts in this thread, but I can vouch that the Recent Exes private site is a very safe place to go in which to discuss matters of a more personal nature without being confronted.

I think that it requires approval and a password makes a few folks cranky here, but so what? I spent some time at the Recent exes forum a couple of years ago, and it proved to be a helpful and safe place to express personal issues.

I also agree that whatever is said by participants on Recent Exes Forum be kept confidential. It's more like group therapy than a forum and from my past experience, was a safe harbor from the rugged cliffs of Forum 4, 5, 6 and 7.

Whoever participates there needs some special attention, privacy (not secrecy) and the assistance of more experienced ex-premies, and I applaud it's existence.

Thanks,
Cynthia

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 18:06:58 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Loaf
Subject: Don't bogart that cheese and wine ,Jim :) [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 20:31:13 (EDT)
From: Moley
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: Pass it over to me ... [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 14, 2001 at 21:45:02 (EDT)
From: salam
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: What's OT about Recent Ex's?
Message:
gerry should go and fly a kite.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 14, 2001 at 22:34:07 (EDT)
From: Mummiji
Email: None
To: salam
Subject: Don't bait me Saucykins!!! :| [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 14, 2001 at 21:01:26 (EDT)
From: RichMandrake
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Jim, The Recent Exes Forum...
Message:
Has its place...It serves a different purpose than this forum and part of that purpose is to protect those of a more 'delicate' disposition than you in expressing and communicating about MahaRawat and Knowledge...Thus the Password protection and the restriction on membership. Being a Private Forum, Members have a right to reject anyone that they feel will be inflamatory or not be able to abide by the Forum's Rules...VERY Unlike the PUBLIC Forum 7.
The Forum Administrator is a Good and Sincere Person who is trying her BEST to Support and Administer the Recent Exes Forum....She is NOT the 'Perfect One' and therefore may make mistakes from time to time...Generally, however I find her to be doing an Excellent Job...at a Time when she and The Forum have been experiencing Much Stress......I applied to the Forum..and was Accepted..(no accounting for Taste) if I had been rejected I would have accepted that as the price one pays for applying to a PRIVATE Forum...where the members of the Forum decide who they feel comfortable with accepting...
By the Way...Ironically I find your Posts about the Present GeoPolitical Situation to be Remarkably Level Headed and Non-Inflamatory.....DAMN Jim...You have a Reputation to Protect..Get it Together.....:-)...All the Best...RichMandrake..
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 14, 2001 at 20:27:33 (EDT)
From: Moley
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Good point Jim
Message:
How can a forum for ex-premies be off-topic on an ex-premie forum?
Especially when its participants seem to come from here.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 14, 2001 at 20:29:34 (EDT)
From: Moley
Email: moldy_warp@hotmail.com
To: Moley
Subject: BTW Anyone know what's the matter with RE?
Message:
I can't get on it today.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 00:11:56 (EDT)
From: Francesca
Email: None
To: Moley
Subject: It's down, so I've heard [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 14, 2001 at 20:50:43 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: Moley
Subject: Maybe you've been blackballed [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 14, 2001 at 20:58:02 (EDT)
From: Moley
Email: None
To: Pat:C)
Subject: Re: Maybe you've been blackballed
Message:
God Pat - maybe you're right. I thought it was a bit wierd that absolutely no one else has asked what's happened to the site, or emailed me, or anything.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 14, 2001 at 21:56:16 (EDT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Moley
Subject: Server's down, Moley - and sheesh, Pat! (nt)
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 14, 2001 at 23:45:07 (EDT)
From: hamzen
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Authoritarianism breeds paranoia
Message:
in my experience,
but that's what happens when people feel disenfranchised, they start suspecting the worst.
That's why democracy is so crucial.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 08:18:56 (EDT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: hamzen
Subject: I reject paranoia
Message:
Seriously. I hate it, and think it's residue from the cult and my own apocalyptic thinking.

Hi Hamzen, btw.
Love,
Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 18:22:28 (EDT)
From: hamzen
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Then we know you're not smoking
Message:
much skunk don't we, it's not my cup of tea either, but I know a couple of people who've got seriously para on some of the industrial strength stuff around, not pleasant.
As for apocalyptic thinking, don't get me started there, although I've even started to come to terms with that without walking away from it, mind you it's taken me ten years out of cult thinking to be able to deal with that stuff, I was just SOOOO sensitive before.

Hope we're gonna see you over at ag2 if the mood strikes you, great vibe over there so far, and think chuck could be cool as an admin

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 16, 2001 at 10:12:01 (EDT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: hamzen
Subject: Smoking
Message:
Only smoke cigarettes - and for the very reason you mentioned :).

I've worked hard to get rid of my apocalyptic programming, but the remains of it have come in handy in the last month. One positive thing about it is that I don't worry as much about survival as other people might - having faced the fact that we all could die any time when I was a child.

BTW, Hamzen, I agree with you re global warming. One huge problem in the US is that global warming is seen as a political rather than an environmental issue - or in other words, 'liberals' made it up to advance a no-growth agenda. Getting people to believe it's happening is the hard part here.

Love,
Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 03:29:13 (EDT)
From: Loaf
Email: None
To: hamzen
Subject: VOTE for Loafie
Message:
A Vote for loafie is not a WASTED Vote.

Policies will come later.

Hi ham... you coming up to seach the fields again ?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 17:30:08 (EDT)
From: hamzen
Email: hamzen@hotmail.com
To: Loaf
Subject: me Mr Alcohol now
Message:
so probably not, hey but give us an e-mail loafie, it would be good to hear from you
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 03:24:59 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: JHB
Subject: Re: Authoritarianism breeds paranoia
Message:
Well, I can't really discuss standards that aren't standards here John, because I can't really figure out whether it's allowed. But if one were to apply your standard consistently it'd make for an interesting change in the 'format' right? Especially since Jim doesn't even appear to know what his agenda is. Perhaps he should just be allowed to post asterisks until he figures it out?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 21:52:03 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Seriously though.
Message:
The standard (because there is such a thing) that would make sense in terms of the 'theory of communicative action' is to require that Jim, and other posters, not be deceptive about their intentions and agenda. (Now who, do you suppose, might be a little deceptive about their agenda around here?) And the penalty for nonconformity with that standard is simply to lose the argument. It's not really all that complicated. The essential problem is that we have no agreed upon way to determine when someone has either lost or won an argument, hence arguments never stop until people are simply exhausted. Again, it's not rocket science. Banning argumentation is a boneheaded way to deal with the situation. Sorry, but that's the truth. I'll probably be banned for saying it, but it's the heart of the matter.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 21:55:18 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: I'm I'm getting getting posted posted twice twice
Message:
Is this some sort of Cheech and Chong justice? I got blocked so now my posts are each showing up twice?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 14, 2001 at 22:00:50 (EDT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Hey katie...
Message:
If you had a page with information on RE, what it is, who to contact, etc, I would link to it. I just happen to have a space open between 'Flame Free' and WW Link-up.'
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 14, 2001 at 22:08:42 (EDT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: It's on EPO
Message:
There's a description on EPO which is probably sufficient for now.

BTW, to clear up any possible confusion, I am not either of the FA's of Recent Exes, in case anyone was wondering, although I am a member. Have quit the FA business for good (I'm sure you can relate, Gerry - snicker.)

One idea of what could go into the empty space is Chuck's site with all the links - I can't remember the name.

Take care, Gerry - and I hope this thread doesn't disintegrate into an 'internecine' fight! Might be headed that way.

Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 14, 2001 at 22:10:57 (EDT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Just remembered: Maharaji Watch [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 14, 2001 at 18:17:14 (EDT)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: What's OT about Recent Ex's?
Message:
Jim,

Those who think RE has value will continue to contribute to it, and those who think it has no value for them personally will not contribute to it.

So Jim, what is your agenda in raising the subject? Getting rid of RE? Getting rid of the FA? Removing links to RE on EPO? Getting the FA to behave a little better but allow RE to continue?

What is it you want? I can't speak for Gerry and neither agree nor disagree with him locking that thread, but it was clear the thread was developing into an irresolvable slanging match.

John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 16:00:21 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: JHB
Subject: Re: What's OT about Recent Ex's??
Message:
John:

I can't speak for Gerry and neither agree nor disagree with him locking that thread, but it was clear the thread was developing into an irresolvable slanging match.

So the rule has now evolved, and being on topic is no longer sufficient? As long as there's an argument that doesn't promise to resolve itself soon the thread gets locked? And you also have to post your agenda up front in order to justify posting? Oh yeah, this is fun alright.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 17:37:08 (EDT)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Re: What's OT about Recent Ex's?
Message:
Scott,

I wasn't speaking for Gerry so why are you talking to me about rules? I was just making an observation as someone who has had to deal with irresolvable disputes taking up half the forum.

John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 21:42:55 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: JHB
Subject: Re: What's OT about Recent Ex's?
Message:
Well, I can't really discuss standards that aren't standards here John, because I can't really figure out whether it's allowed. But if one were to apply your standard consistently it'd make for an interesting change in the 'format' right? Especially since Jim doesn't even appear to know what his agenda is. Perhaps he should just be allowed to post asterisks until he figures it out?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 21:52:03 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Seriously though.
Message:
The standard (because there is such a thing) that would make sense in terms of the 'theory of communicative action' is to require that Jim, and other posters, not be deceptive about their intentions and agenda. (Now who, do you suppose, might be a little deceptive about their agenda around here?) And the penalty for nonconformity with that standard is simply to lose the argument. It's not really all that complicated. The essential problem is that we have no agreed upon way to determine when someone has either lost or won an argument, hence arguments never stop until people are simply exhausted. Again, it's not rocket science. Banning argumentation is a boneheaded way to deal with the situation. Sorry, but that's the truth. I'll probably be banned for saying it, but it's the heart of the matter.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 21:55:18 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: I'm I'm getting getting posted posted twice twice
Message:
Is this some sort of Cheech and Chong justice? I got blocked so now my posts are each showing up twice?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 14, 2001 at 18:27:55 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: JHB
Subject: Re: What's OT about Recent Ex's?
Message:
Those who think RE has value will continue to contribute to it, and those who think it has no value for them personally will not contribute to it.

Well apparently Steve Quinn thought RE might have some value (hard for him to know, of course, being that he couldn't actually see the thing) and he wanted to contribute. Unfortunately, as the FA so clearly explained, he doesn't have that, je ne sais quoi, that little som'n som'n that RE's looking for.

My agenda? Well, in this case the problem came to me, I didn't go looking for it. But when Steve showed me the FA's email I was disgusted. And no, I don't think her apology means much. She said what she thought believing that no one but crazy ol' Steve would see it. What'd she care? It's only when others see how snobby RE is that she started to backtrack. My agenda? I don't know. What's yours in asking? :)

I most certainly think that you should remove the links to RE in the circumstances, now that you ask. Either that or explain that RE is not really a forum for Recent Exes but is, instead, a small, select group of people who like to talk with one another. Period.

As for whether the issue was 'irresolveable' ('unresolveable' perhaps?), I'm not so sure. I can't help but wonder, though, who else wasn't good enough? Or am I stating it too clearly? Come on, John, aren't you a little curious too?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 14, 2001 at 18:56:13 (EDT)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: What's OT about Recent Ex's?
Message:
My agenda is that if people want a private forum they can have one. If there are restrictions on membership then sometimes the dividing line between who is welcome and who isn't will be blurred. Shit, even Nigel had bad words said about him when Moley suggested he join. I think I should qualify the link on EPO about it being a private forum with no guarantee of entrance.

Your agenda is still unclear. I suspect you have some idea of justice, but now you're turning it into an attack on Gerry's judgement.

I'm not a member of RE myself. I was reluctantly let in to RE (by Run) and then thrown out for not contributing enough:-)

BTW 'irresolvable' is fine according to Oxford (but what do they know about the English language?:-))

John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 14, 2001 at 22:21:15 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: JHB
Subject: Re: What's OT about Recent Ex's?
Message:
My agenda is that if people want a private forum they can have one. If there are restrictions on membership then sometimes the dividing line between who is welcome and who isn't will be blurred. Shit, even Nigel had bad words said about him when Moley suggested he join. I think I should qualify the link on EPO about it being a private forum with no guarantee of entrance.

Oh yeah, of course people should have all the private forums they want. Who could argue with that? What offends me though, now that you mention it, is that your link to Recent Ex's is right up there as an invitation to all and sundry to apply to .... to what exactly? A private little club which really has nothing at all to do with being a 'recent ex' and everything to do with just not being here, if you want to be honest about it? Right now, your blurb is misleading. It suggests that there's a forum particularly for and about the unique and arguably delicate process of leaving the cult. That's not true, is it? And, as you say, your blurb doesn't explain that not everyone's welcome. Perhaps you could solve the problem by explaining that RE is really a gathering place for non-disruptive and mature self-managers. That might eliminate some of the confusion not to mention keep out the riff raff.

Your agenda is still unclear. I suspect you have some idea of justice, but now you're turning it into an attack on Gerry's judgement.

Lord have mercy if the day's come when those two things are mutually exclusive and I just didn't notice! My 'agenda' is unclear to me, John. Iy's true I'm no friend of RE as I recall its inception as a place for Runamok to bitch to anyone who'd listen that the Forum was a cult and I its leader. I understand it's far from that now and believe that it's probably just a nice, alternative forum for exes who don't want to have to defend their spiritual beliefs, don't like dealing with premies or have grudges against some regulars here (like me for instance). Fine. But, as in all instiutions, a creation myth develops over time. What's RE's? That it's a place for kind and gentle folk? What's that make the rest of us? (Yes, Fran, I know).
And then to see the purported rasion d'etre turned upside down so that one of the very people that forum could possibly serve, a guy with admitted difficulties leaving the cult because of his own consitution but also because of his long entrapment, gets rejected because he's not 'mature' or 'self-managing' and able to 'resolve problems quickly on and off site' ... well, yeah, it pisses me off. Who do these people think they are anyway? And no, I'm not happy that EPO refers newcomers to them as a matter of course.

I'm not a member of RE myself. I was reluctantly let in to RE (by Run) and then thrown out for not contributing enough:

Are you free to talk about this? I mean, really, John! But, seeing as you are anyway, what do you mean 'reluctantly'? And how were you thrown out? By who? What'd they say? I hope it wasn't a self-managment problem. I hate those.

BTW 'irresolvable' is fine according to Oxford (but what do they know about the English language?:)

And there I was just trying to help!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 02:18:09 (EDT)
From: Tonette
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Oh yes, Jim, you are a regular here
Message:
In fact you helped get this forum up and running. Now, I don't have alot to contribute to this discussion as I have never asked for a password to the Recent Ex Forum. But I would like to say that in spite of some of the references to you, most recently in PAM's Memoirs, and the times you have told me to fuck off, and the times you have told people, me included, that we are just plain stupid, well, you are not shy in sugaring your words. Sorry about the sentance structure and rambaling and spelling, but, well, what the hell, I am scientific by nature and have not concqured the English language like yourself.
Back to my point anyways, Jim, you are quite valuable here and I can see in the last few months that you have greatly diminished your attacks here
But you have to admit, Jim, by your profession you do have a bit of an edge in expressing the written word?

Tonette

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 08:35:02 (EDT)
From: Loaf
Email: None
To: Tonette
Subject: do you mean that jims a bully ? Why not say it. [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index