Ex-Premie Forum 7 Archive
From: Dec 09, 2001 To: Dec 17, 2001 Page: 4 of: 5


Joe -:- Maharaji's Sex With Premies -:- Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 01:14:47 (EST)
__ BT -:- Re: Krishna & Gopis -:- Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 22:30:22 (EST)
__ SC -:- Joe the Southern Baptist -:- Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 21:44:11 (EST)
__ __ Joe -:- Oh David thanks for that -:- Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 01:05:18 (EST)
__ __ Suzanne -:- You can never be around my kids -:- Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 01:01:59 (EST)
__ __ __ SC -:- Shut the fuck up -:- Thurs, Dec 13, 2001 at 01:30:42 (EST)
__ __ __ __ Suzanne -:- Now it's an angry deviant -:- Thurs, Dec 13, 2001 at 11:44:26 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ SC -:- Not at all Mother Mary -:- Thurs, Dec 13, 2001 at 22:23:10 (EST)
__ __ __ __ CAC Patrol -:- Don't step in this doodoo [nt] -:- Thurs, Dec 13, 2001 at 03:30:00 (EST)
__ __ __ Jethro -:- Re: You can never be around my kids -:- Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 03:56:55 (EST)
__ __ __ __ The Very Rev Cat -:- Re: You can never be around my kids -:- Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 04:53:59 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ Pullaver -:- Re: You can never be around my kids -:- Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 23:24:36 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ Jethro & Hamzen -:- Re: You can never be around my kids -:- Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 08:11:40 (EST)
__ __ Marshall -:- Re: SC The Idiot -:- Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 22:10:39 (EST)
__ __ __ SC -:- Marshall the NOBODY -:- Sat, Dec 15, 2001 at 00:31:15 (EST)
__ __ __ __ Jim -:- Ha ha ha, another cowardly ghost threat -:- Sat, Dec 15, 2001 at 16:53:40 (EST)
__ __ __ __ PatC...Don't feed the trolls, -:- Marshall, this NOBODY/SC is a squid :) [nt] -:- Sat, Dec 15, 2001 at 03:23:22 (EST)
__ __ __ The solution to troll infestation -:- If you can't stop yourself from responding -:- Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 22:44:00 (EST)
__ __ __ __ Catonic Cat -:- Terminal Shock -:- Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 01:32:20 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ PatC -:- Freudian slip or queerbaiting? [nt] -:- Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 02:25:19 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Sigmund Cat -:- You're not in this for the hunting are you? -:- Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 04:56:41 (EST)
__ __ __ __ SC -:- WOW... Innovation! -:- Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 23:36:26 (EST)
__ PatD -:- Rawat's private life -:- Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 17:50:40 (EST)
__ __ Marianne -:- Hi PatD! ot -:- Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 23:19:02 (EST)
__ __ __ PatD -:- Hi Marianne Good Luck to You [nt] -:- Thurs, Dec 13, 2001 at 14:20:08 (EST)
__ Felix the Cat -:- Hey Joe, where you going with that Gun -:- Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 01:59:03 (EST)
__ __ Jerry -:- What if it was you? -:- Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 15:11:18 (EST)
__ __ __ Pauline Premie -:- Isn't this typical??? -:- Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 17:02:37 (EST)
__ __ __ __ Tami -:- Mi To -:- Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 17:08:31 (EST)
__ __ __ Felix the... -:- Re: What if it was you? -:- Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 16:30:57 (EST)
__ __ __ __ Jerry -:- What will look beautiful? -:- Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 16:59:08 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ The Cat -:- Attention Lurkers -:- Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 21:07:19 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Jerry -:- Re: Attention Lurkers -:- Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 07:28:40 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Callie Yuga -:- You tell 'em, Jerry -:- Thurs, Dec 13, 2001 at 11:24:49 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ Tami -:- I think is 'cum' not 'come' (nt) -:- Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 17:11:15 (EST)
__ __ Deputy Dog -:- Cat, this POV insults every other religion [nt] -:- Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 12:19:26 (EST)
__ __ __ PatC -:- Cat's POV insults simple human decency [nt] -:- Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 23:08:44 (EST)
__ __ __ cat -:- K is not a religion(nt) -:- Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 21:25:41 (EST)
__ __ __ __ Deputy Dog -:- Cat, rule book, Leviticus, Judeo/Christian? [nt] -:- Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 21:32:04 (EST)
__ __ __ __ DLM, Elan Vital...Registered.... -:- religion since 1972 (NT) -:- Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 21:30:01 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ Registrar of Cat Churches -:- Semantics!And watch that space. -:- Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 01:36:10 (EST)
__ __ __ Deborah -:- Spot on for saying so! [nt] -:- Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 18:10:20 (EST)
__ __ __ __ SC -:- OOHHH whoopeeee -:- Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 21:48:28 (EST)
__ __ Jim -:- I love it when Cat actually tries to be serious -:- Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 11:53:08 (EST)
__ __ __ Cat -:- Pure abuse -:- Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 16:34:32 (EST)
__ __ __ __ AJW -:- Hey Derek. -:- Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 20:04:28 (EST)
__ __ Joe -:- Check out the History -:- Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 09:20:19 (EST)
__ __ __ Felix the... -:- It's full of traitorous ambitious men. -:- Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 16:39:06 (EST)
__ __ __ __ Joe -:- It isn't just Dettmers -:- Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 17:16:10 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ Carlos -:- Linda Smith? Do u mean Linda Gross? -:- Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 17:42:01 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- No, not Linda Gross -:- Thurs, Dec 13, 2001 at 11:47:48 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Carlos -:- I wasn't chalenging your statement, Joe. -:- Thurs, Dec 13, 2001 at 23:29:24 (EST)
__ __ Sulla -:- values BOBO -:- Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 08:43:22 (EST)
__ __ __ Felix the... -:- Re: values BOBO -:- Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 08:59:14 (EST)
__ __ __ __ SULLA -:- Re: values BOBO -:- Thurs, Dec 13, 2001 at 15:36:49 (EST)
__ __ __ __ Nigel -:- You imply MD is lying.. -:- Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 19:12:28 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ Carlos -:- I don't think MD has anything -:- Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 17:54:39 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- That's just stupid, Carlos -:- Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 20:42:30 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Carlos -:- Name calling because someone's take -:- Thurs, Dec 13, 2001 at 23:42:51 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Name calling? Look who's talking! -:- Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 00:47:44 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Carlos -:- Jim, I know you know the difference -:- Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 13:40:09 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ PatC...sexual abuse of blondes by Rawat -:- corroborated by Donner. [nt] -:- Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 16:31:57 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Mike Donner's veracity -:- is a can -:- Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 16:45:04 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Oh no! I just leant Donner a ton of money! -:- Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 20:07:34 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pat:C)...Yes anonymous cultweasel, -:- of course we should never doubt... -:- Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 17:57:09 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Don't start playing games, Carlos -:- Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 15:45:06 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Carlos -:- Sorry you see it as a game. -:- Sat, Dec 15, 2001 at 07:04:45 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- 'A subtle difference?' -- that's absurd! -:- Sat, Dec 15, 2001 at 13:58:09 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Carlos -:- I don't trust MD. True. But different from saying -:- Sat, Dec 15, 2001 at 23:41:31 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- You're confused, Carlos -:- Sun, Dec 16, 2001 at 00:15:57 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ PatC -:- No need for apologies, Carlos -:- Sat, Dec 15, 2001 at 13:38:46 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Carlos -:- Thanks for the acceptance. -:- Sat, Dec 15, 2001 at 23:32:20 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ PatC -:- Acceptance, my foot... -:- Sun, Dec 16, 2001 at 04:11:33 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Carlos -:- Thanks for the acceptance. -:- Sat, Dec 15, 2001 at 23:28:57 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Carlos -:- Thanks for the acceptance. -:- Sat, Dec 15, 2001 at 23:28:57 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Deborah -:- I agree with Pat, Carlos -:- Sat, Dec 15, 2001 at 18:53:19 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Carlos -:- I hope whatever effect I'm having -:- Sat, Dec 15, 2001 at 23:36:44 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Nigel -:- The thing is, Carlos... -:- Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 15:40:22 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Carlos -:- I'll admit to the reluctance to be -:- Sat, Dec 15, 2001 at 07:12:34 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ Cat -:- Re: You imply MD is lying.. -:- Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 21:16:35 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ You know darn well -:- Not hearsay, MD pimped for him [nt] -:- Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 23:54:40 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ The JudgeCat -:- Dettmers is terminally deluded(nt) -:- Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 01:38:03 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Nigel -:- One more comfortable,safe belief? [nt] -:- Thurs, Dec 13, 2001 at 16:05:58 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Marianne -:- First hand experience is not hearsay -:- Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 23:22:10 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ QC Cat -:- Hearsay is Hearsay.He is bullshitting -:- Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 05:02:15 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Deborah -:- Boy are premie trolls freaking out or what??????? -:- Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 23:50:10 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Quoll -:- Re: Boy are premie trolls freaking out or what? -:- Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 01:41:52 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ SC -:- Boy are you ugly!!! -:- Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 00:44:56 (EST)
__ __ __ __ michael donner -:- Re: values BOBO -:- Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 11:01:29 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ Cat -:- Re: values BOBO -:- Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 16:52:28 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ SULLA -:- Re: values BOBO -:- Thurs, Dec 13, 2001 at 15:49:16 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ SC -:- The real question Cat is... -:- Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 21:53:42 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- Jesus you are an idiot -:- Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 19:33:12 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Cat -:- Oh ..Duuuuh -:- Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 21:20:39 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Cynthia -:- ^^^^^IGNORE THIS TROLL^^^^^And.... -:- Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 18:49:50 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Cat -:- You have no right to exclude my opinion. -:- Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 21:24:07 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Yes she does -:- Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 21:29:46 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Carlos -:- I partly agree with Jim. -:- Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 17:15:49 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Nigel -:- Interseting thought, Carlos.. -:- Thurs, Dec 13, 2001 at 15:57:31 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Carlos -:- Not sure I understand what you mean -:- Thurs, Dec 13, 2001 at 23:50:19 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Nigel -:- I wasn't talking about rudeness.. -:- Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 15:51:51 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Carlos -:- Bashing M on LG IS off topic there, -:- Sat, Dec 15, 2001 at 07:28:27 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Collins Boulevarde Cat -:- Fairy Land -:- Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 02:02:42 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Hey Don- over here -:- Correction-Collins Ave Cat!(nt) -:- Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 02:14:28 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ SC -:- No effect? ha ha -:- Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 22:04:11 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Sorry, SC, I didn't mean to leave you out -:- Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 22:28:34 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ SC -:- That's better! -:- Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 23:46:26 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Cynthia -:- I wasn't excluding your opinion... -:- Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 21:28:47 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Public Opinion Cat -:- You do and you did -:- Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 02:12:49 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scorpio-II -:- It's my job and I do it well... -:- Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 11:58:21 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ You do it well? -:- get your hand off it -:- Thurs, Dec 13, 2001 at 01:49:32 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scorpio-II -:- My what a filthy mind... -:- Thurs, Dec 13, 2001 at 10:29:17 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ CAC Patrol -:- More unnecessary queer-bashing [nt] -:- Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 02:29:04 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Simple, (Cat speaking) -:- Did you write it Pat? -:- Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 05:06:36 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ PatD -:- Re: values BOBO -:- Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 18:30:14 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ Cynthia -:- Jagdeo/Maharaji... -:- Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 15:12:24 (EST)
__ Marianne -:- It's tied to Jagdeo abuse -:- Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 01:41:47 (EST)
__ __ Deborah -:- Of course it is, Marianne -:- Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 17:30:07 (EST)
__ __ __ PatC -:- Yes, Marianne -:- Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 18:06:54 (EST)
__ __ Joe -:- Why do you say that? -:- Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 11:25:16 (EST)
__ __ __ Jean-Michel -:- Jagdeo and other abusers -:- Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 13:16:21 (EST)
__ __ Cynthia -:- Re: It's tied to Jagdeo abuse -:- Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 09:15:07 (EST)

Jim -:- And here's your birthday gift, Lord -:- Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 00:25:20 (EST)
__ CD -:- Re: And here's your birthday gift, Lord -:- Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 03:11:04 (EST)
__ __ Jim -:- I thought you were banned from here? -:- Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 11:38:46 (EST)
__ __ __ CD -:- Re: I thought you were bananas? -:- Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 15:21:49 (EST)
__ __ Voice of Conscience.. -:- Chris, in SD you said to Maharaji.. -:- Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 03:59:17 (EST)
__ __ __ CD -:- Re: Chris, in SD you said to Maharaji.. -:- Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 15:29:40 (EST)
__ __ __ __ PatC -:- CD, the hypocrite -:- Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 15:37:17 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ CD -:- Re: the hype -:- Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 16:18:21 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Voice of Conscience -:- Chris, You're Right... -:- Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 19:09:36 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ CD -:- Re: Differences ... -:- Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 21:02:45 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- ***HA HA HA -- CD DRAWS A DISTINCTION!*** -:- Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 22:34:47 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ CD -:- Re: ***HA HA HA -- CD DRAWS A DISTINCTION!*** -:- Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 03:04:26 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Is that a threat, CD? -:- Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 12:00:00 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ CD -:- Re: rules of engagement -:- Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 14:47:23 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Just ell me one thing, Chris -:- Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 20:44:39 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ CD -:- Re: Is that a sqeak -:- Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 14:24:06 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Re: ***HA HA HA -- CD DRAWS A DISTINCTION!*** -:- Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 01:37:39 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ CD -:- Re: ***HA HA HA -- CD DRAWS A DISTINCTION!*** -:- Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 03:53:38 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ PatC -:- Well, maybe I'm wrong ... -:- Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 17:52:48 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Deborah -:- You never lifted the ban -:- Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 17:48:18 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ SC -:- Please come back Deb... -:- Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 22:15:48 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ CD -:- Re: You never lifted the ban -:- Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 21:05:14 (EST)
__ Joe -:- I'm surprised... -:- Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 01:26:45 (EST)
__ __ michael donner -:- Re: I'm surprised... -:- Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 11:04:49 (EST)


Date: Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 01:14:47 (EST)
From: Joe
Email: Kevjo@mindspring.com
To: All
Subject: Maharaji's Sex With Premies
Message:
From my calculations, it's been over a year since Michael Dettmers confirmed that Maharaji has had sexual affairs with numerous premies (and sumarily 'dumped' most of them) and also that he has had a continuous sexual affair with another of his students, Monica Lewis, a premie not his wife for many years, which continues to this day.

Specifically, here is what Michael Dettmers said in 2000:

Beginning in 1985, Maharaji began a series of affairs with women who were premies. His move in this direction was prompted by his marriage difficulties in 1984. Although he and Marolyn came to some understanding and resolution over their problems, I do not know if part of that resolution included an agreement that he would be free to engage in extramarital affairs. I know that, from Maharaji’s perspective, Marolyn was certainly not free to engage in extramarital affairs.

At that time, Maharaji and I were particularly close and he told me of his desire to experience other women. I was not shocked by his desire nor did I have a negative assessment about it. In fact, I thought that it might put him more in touch with his humanity which could only be a positive development as far as I was concerned. However, I strongly advised him not to get involved with premies. To me, this could potentially bring trouble for him and create difficulties for the women as well. Instead, I suggested that he engage the services of a professional escort, and I offered to make the arrangements for him. At first he seemed open to the idea but soon thereafter he decided against it.

He told me that there was a particular premie woman he had in mind, and he asked me to arrange that they meet, which I did. Soon, thereafter, he asked me to arrange a meeting with another woman. In the meantime, the first person was left high and dry wondering what was going on. He cut off communication with her and her only recourse was to contact me. I now found myself in the unpleasant circumstance of dealing with situations he created by his lust and careless disregard for the hurt and confusion it inflicted on his victims.

After three such incidents, I told him that his reckless behavior was backfiring, and that I did not have the time to take care of the negative consequences it produced. He responded by agreeing that I had more important things to handle for him than procuring women and that he would now take care of that task himself, meaning that he simply delegated the task to someone who was more amenable to it. He continued to have numerous affairs of which I am aware and it was not too long thereafter that he began a more serious affair with Monica Lewis that, according to my sources, continues to this day.

Has any information been added to this since Michael reported it?

I also wanted to mention one other point about this. I have heard John MacGregor refer to these things as part of Mahraji's 'personal life' and potentially not relevent to our discussions here. I'm not exactly sure if John meant that was his opinion, or whether premies have suggested that to him.

I want to say very clearly that Maharaji having sexual affairs with his devotees/followers/students is an extremely serious abuse of his position as master against people who trusted him to be his students, and an outrageous abuse of his power situation.

This is important for us to talk about here because it's something both premies and non-premies should know about.

There have been many notorious abuses by other Gurus, masters and spiritual leaders have also exploited and abused their followers. In my opinion, the potential for this abuse is an inherent problem in the master/devotee relationship, and one of the reasons such relationships must be looked at under the highest scrutiny and the "master" must be held to an extremely high standard of propriety.

I doubt many people would be interested in having Maharaji as their 'master' if they knew he engaged in that kind of illicit behavior. The fact that it occurred, and apparently continues to occur, is a direct reflection of how Maharaji views his students and how he conducts himself as a master, and obviously very relevent to how people evaluate him.

Anything to add on this subject?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 22:30:22 (EST)
From: BT
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Re: Krishna & Gopis
Message:
The Krishna and Gopis story may be a way that Indian gurus justify (feel entitled?) sex with their female devotees. The relationship of Krishna with the Gopis is depicted as sacred. Maybe it was. But it just occurred to me today (before I read Joe's post) that maybe Krishna was really a dirty old man, abusing this position and power to have sex with the milkmaids. It's entirely possible that that's what was happening, but the story got passed down as a sacred relationship...paving the way for future gurus to follow suit.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 21:44:11 (EST)
From: SC
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Joe the Southern Baptist
Message:
You pompous ass making such ludicirous staemments about the rules of master/student engagements.

Your mindset is identical to the scourge that enslaved the Southern States of the USA, and still do. Go join them, you'll do real well and head a provincial church within a decade.

Sanctimonious, narrow little mindset bro, smoke a few more doobies and chill out.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 01:05:18 (EST)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: SC
Subject: Oh David thanks for that
Message:
It's bad enough that your master is such a jerk and uses his followers for sex. That's important for people to know. The fact that you, one of his followers, thinks it's perfectly okay is another important thing for people to know, so thanks for adding that to the discussion.

And thanks for the very ignorant rant on the Southern Baptists. You don't know what you are talking about, but we already knew that.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 01:01:59 (EST)
From: Suzanne
Email: None
To: SC
Subject: You can never be around my kids
Message:
You screwed up deviant. What kind of an excuse for a human being are you? I sure hope you don't have access to children.

To suggest that it's somehow okay for Maharaji to sexually exploit his women devotees is just sick, and so are you.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 13, 2001 at 01:30:42 (EST)
From: SC
Email: None
To: Suzanne
Subject: Shut the fuck up
Message:
you stupid excuse for an anonimouse

and quit twisting other people's words to suit your sick purpose

are you too far over the hill like the others?

Ah, that's life babe,

we gotta grow old and ugly!!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 13, 2001 at 11:44:26 (EST)
From: Suzanne
Email: None
To: SC
Subject: Now it's an angry deviant
Message:
Undoubtedly the worst kind. Keep away from my kids. You know what they say about a Lion protecting her cubs. Very dangerous.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 13, 2001 at 22:23:10 (EST)
From: SC
Email: None
To: Suzanne
Subject: Not at all Mother Mary
Message:
You know what they say about bitter, resentful, aging women?

Na, you wouldn't want that one...but I'm real hip to the anger and resentment that old past it hags like you feel towards males they'll never get a look in on.

There's half a dozen more of you lonely coots on this forum.

Forget your cubs woman...it's lack of love syndrome at work here.

To men you're about as dangerous as a camel in a snowstorm.

But the greatest danger your kids will ever face? Yea, it's you.

I feel really sorry for them, if you actually have any.

Using your own children as emotional weapons (like all fanatical zealots do) is as low as a mother ever gets.

Of course, the delicious irony is that one day they'll stick a finger right back in your face.

And you Patsy The Great Protector - you condone this worn out welcome mat for taking a conversation straight down into the gutter?

Yea of course you do, it's where you're the most comfortable.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 13, 2001 at 03:30:00 (EST)
From: CAC Patrol
Email: None
To: SC
Subject: Don't step in this doodoo [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 03:56:55 (EST)
From: Jethro
Email: None
To: Suzanne
Subject: Re: You can never be around my kids
Message:
I think many people follow m, BECAUSE of his behaviour. They are perverts and HIS behaviour tells them it's ok.

SC doesn't like you challenging 'the rule between himself and his master'. Well SC now look into a real mirror of life. Sickos like you who continually support prempal are just as answerable as is prempal.

I recently asked a (former) premie friend for some money she has owed me for over 20 years.
She totaly freaked when I reminded her saying that at THAT time all was devotional acts and anyway 'so what if I DO have athing about money, maharaji doesn't care'.

The Jagdeo stuff and all the revisionism she would not even address.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 04:53:59 (EST)
From: The Very Rev Cat
Email: None
To: Jethro
Subject: Re: You can never be around my kids
Message:
Jethro , that is total shite.There is a natural law we all know well. We dont hurt one another.Of course we all manage to fuck up on that one at some stage , that is part of our rites of passage . Rational people learn from these times. Only mental gimps and fakers need Christian morality. They have yet to think for themselves or they are covering their real agenda.Bush goes to Church. Sharon is a practicing Jew. Both are murdering dogs.Look through history. It has all been sham. You telling me you believe that stupid fairytale? Dont bullshit me on this Jethro. I know you are no Gerry Falwell.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 23:24:36 (EST)
From: Pullaver
Email: None
To: The Very Rev Cat
Subject: Re: You can never be around my kids
Message:
It is not 'Judeo/Christian' morality that points a finger at marji's indiscretions. It is the knowledge he is just another fakir abusing his exalted status amongst his flock to indulge his lust; the psycho/emotional dependence and master/devotee paradoggy be damned.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 08:11:40 (EST)
From: Jethro & Hamzen
Email: None
To: The Very Rev Cat
Subject: Re: You can never be around my kids
Message:
I'm not sure what you are talking about. FYI from the press that I have seen, I don't like either Bush or Sharon, although I am personally grateful to Sharon for saving my life in 1973.

My post to Suzanne was addresssing the fact that prempal has been totally silent about the abuse that has gone on in his cult all these years. He has had plenty of time to address these allegations.

Premies have killed their humanness and THAT is anti-life.

and Hamzen says:
That is very true about rights of passage, but Maharaji has shown no inclination to learn from his own mistakes re:his sexual abuse of power re:female premie Gopis,

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 22:10:39 (EST)
From: Marshall
Email: None
To: SC
Subject: Re: SC The Idiot
Message:
Are you serious?
You and your brain dead compatriot catweasel, if either one of you are even real, not creations of a creative ex trying to make rawatts followers look as stupid and heartless as possible.
I hope you aren't real people, because if you are, you are two of the most pathetic fools I've ever encountered.
Unbelievable, absolutely incredible how twisted and sick this cult has made some of these people.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Dec 15, 2001 at 00:31:15 (EST)
From: SC
Email: None
To: Marshall
Subject: Marshall the NOBODY
Message:
But a little rock spider who rushes out, takes a piss and then rushes back....

Hey, you're a real player pal!

'Unbelievable, absolutely incredible how twisted and sick some people are' - yea 'marshall' even when they're wearing a mask to hide their ugly moosh...eh?

Oh and Marshy.... you HAVEN'T 'encountered' cat or I yet.

Believe me, you'll know when you do.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Dec 15, 2001 at 16:53:40 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: SC
Subject: Ha ha ha, another cowardly ghost threat
Message:
Oh and Marshy.... you HAVEN'T 'encountered' cat or I yet.

Believe me, you'll know when you do.

First, Roupell, it's 'me', not 'I'.

Second, what a fool you are, thinking that yet another of your toothless threats could do anything but make you look ridiculous. What's Cat going to do? Sneer? What are you going to do? Um, uh, sneer?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Dec 15, 2001 at 03:23:22 (EST)
From: PatC...Don't feed the trolls,
Email: None
To: SC
Subject: Marshall, this NOBODY/SC is a squid :) [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 22:44:00 (EST)
From: The solution to troll infestation
Email: None
To: Marshall
Subject: If you can't stop yourself from responding
Message:
Run circles around them using their own device - anonymity. Give them a dose of their own medicine. Say whatever you want to say to them anonymously.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 01:32:20 (EST)
From: Catonic Cat
Email: None
To: The solution to troll infestation
Subject: Terminal Shock
Message:
Fuck that is REALLY scary. Tell me shit for brains what would be the fucking difference??? Do you think any of you cyberfools actually conjure up the image of some-one I know? You are the most narrow minded decietful fools on the whole web barr the John Birch society. As a matter of fact I was watching 'The Great Race' on the Box last night and you guys really reminded me of team 3+4. Pat and Joe-Life partners rock climbing- like the coupla spiders you really are.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 02:25:19 (EST)
From: PatC
Email: None
To: Catonic Cat
Subject: Freudian slip or queerbaiting? [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 04:56:41 (EST)
From: Sigmund Cat
Email: None
To: PatC
Subject: You're not in this for the hunting are you?
Message:
Is that like bear hunting?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 23:36:26 (EST)
From: SC
Email: None
To: The solution to troll infestation
Subject: WOW... Innovation!
Message:
You idiot Patwick Dragonwick....

More than half the ex-premie troll posters (on both sites) are anonyrats already!!!

Oh yes...

can you provide some evidence that the so called car victim was a 'hindu premie'? Haven't heard that choice little spin before.
Interesting to see a little creative fabrication coming in to help this tired old nag - but gee, it still just ain't seem to be going no place!

But somehow, I think you guys are beginning to edge back towards your already documented, highly questionable and libellously malicious claims.

It wouldn't surprise me if another clobbering is on it's way -

after all

...it is ATTENTION you poor 'saved' cult victims so desperately seek eh?

just a hunch....

Keep blustering Joe up, he's on a roll and I reckon is about ready to drop a real clanger!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 17:50:40 (EST)
From: PatD
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Rawat's private life
Message:
I have heard John MacGregor refer to these things as part of Mahraji's 'personal life' and potentially not relevent to our discussions here. I'm not exactly sure if John meant that was his opinion, or whether premies have suggested that to him.

Of course the man is entitled to go home after a hard day out propagating, & not have to put up with people gawking through his windows as he unwinds over his glass of mint tea.
If he's who he says he is, that is ;the teacher,the master, the perfect master, the satguru, & going back to his roots which he seems to have forgotten about, the Lord of the Universe.

If he isn't who he said he was then the difference between the behaviour he expected of his followers & his own is highly relevant.
Actually, even if he is the incarnation it's even more relevant,suggesting as it does a Universe created by a buffoon with a nasty streak.

That was where the elastic band snapped for me. Finding out about his private life, & that was before the M.Dettmers posts,did it.

I think our discussions here are far from over.I for one would like those who were prepared to pimp for god,turn a blind eye,run with the divine hypocrite, to spill more of the beans so the peons can know.

There is a back door to this Alamo you guys.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 23:19:02 (EST)
From: Marianne
Email: MarianneDB@aol.com
To: PatD
Subject: Hi PatD! ot
Message:
Hey there Pat. How are you? You never mince words, lad, and that is why I always read your posts. I also saw you pipe up to defend me here and there with the trolls and about CAC. Thanks!

Love, Marianne

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 13, 2001 at 14:20:08 (EST)
From: PatD
Email: None
To: Marianne
Subject: Hi Marianne Good Luck to You [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 01:59:03 (EST)
From: Felix the Cat
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Hey Joe, where you going with that Gun
Message:
Where is the rule book Mr DicKhead
> Article 3.45: A master shall not have sex with?...What do you think this is? Leviticus? You are making a value judgement based on your judaic/christian childhood.Pity you cant free yourself of the blinkers imposed on you as a child.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 15:11:18 (EST)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Felix the Cat
Subject: What if it was you?
Message:
Hey, Felix, if Maharaji asked you to blow him, would you? After all, it's only sex, right? Or does article 3.46 say 'a master may have sex, except with other men?' Where do you draw the line, you dumb fuck? And remember this is a married man that's screwin' around behind his wife's back. But he's still a master, right? You're jsut so fucking easy. I bet after he came in your mouth, you'd say 'thank you master', wouldn't you? You'd treat it like it was holy nectar.

Asshole.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 17:02:37 (EST)
From: Pauline Premie
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: Isn't this typical???
Message:
You ex-premies are just so irreverent and mean. What a rotten thing to say and what language.

And to answer your questions, he did and I did.

It was pure nectar, and I was so overwhelmed I wet my pants.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 17:08:31 (EST)
From: Tami
Email: None
To: Pauline Premie
Subject: Mi To
Message:
Ifter I had mi brests inlarjed Miragi let me do it, u no, wat yu sed. Ifterwirds i sed thank yu mastir. Butt hee nevir caled mi agin. It wuz mi wun big chance. I em so greatful.

Du yu think enjoinglife.cum wil exsept this stori frum mi as my 'day?' So far they wunt post it. Wy?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 16:30:57 (EST)
From: Felix the...
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: Re: What if it was you?
Message:
Thanks.That will look beautiful.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 16:59:08 (EST)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Felix the...
Subject: What will look beautiful?
Message:
What, are you crazy? I think so. What will look beautiful, his come all over your face? What are you talking about?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 21:07:19 (EST)
From: The Cat
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: Attention Lurkers
Message:
And again. I love it when you profess to be reasonable,above board and sanguine. Then you show us all who you really are. You think maybe the Press will be impressed. You dickhead.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 07:28:40 (EST)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: The Cat
Subject: Re: Attention Lurkers
Message:
Hey, Felix, as coarse and vulgar you think I am, that's how coarse and vulgar Maharaji is by abusing his privileges as 'master' to solicit sex from his disciples. Fuck him, he's MORE vulgar, and you live in a dream. 'Attention Lurkers', indeed. Look at how gullible Maharaji's premies are to think that the master maintains his dignity by abusing his devotees. They didn't go to Maharaji to get laid, shithead. They went to find an answer in their lives. Instead they found another horny bastard's dick in their mouth.

Wake up, man.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 13, 2001 at 11:24:49 (EST)
From: Callie Yuga
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: You tell 'em, Jerry
Message:
Gotta love these SC/CW ratfucks... They puke all over the carpet, but if someone dares puke back, they're all offended. Poor babies...guess they're just jealous that M never picked them out of a darshan line to fuck.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 17:11:15 (EST)
From: Tami
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: I think is 'cum' not 'come' (nt)
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 12:19:26 (EST)
From: Deputy Dog
Email: None
To: Felix the Cat
Subject: Cat, this POV insults every other religion [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 23:08:44 (EST)
From: PatC
Email: None
To: Deputy Dog
Subject: Cat's POV insults simple human decency [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 21:25:41 (EST)
From: cat
Email: None
To: Deputy Dog
Subject: K is not a religion(nt)
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 21:32:04 (EST)
From: Deputy Dog
Email: None
To: cat
Subject: Cat, rule book, Leviticus, Judeo/Christian? [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 21:30:01 (EST)
From: DLM, Elan Vital...Registered....
Email: None
To: cat
Subject: religion since 1972 (NT)
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 01:36:10 (EST)
From: Registrar of Cat Churches
Email: None
To: DLM, Elan Vital...Registered....
Subject: Semantics!And watch that space.
Message:
You just lucked out.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 18:10:20 (EST)
From: Deborah
Email: None
To: Deputy Dog
Subject: Spot on for saying so! [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 21:48:28 (EST)
From: SC
Email: None
To: Deborah
Subject: OOHHH whoopeeee
Message:
we won! we won! we won!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 11:53:08 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Felix the Cat
Subject: I love it when Cat actually tries to be serious
Message:
There's nothing as funny as Cat trying to actually say something. Because when he does, he says some real doozies. Only a very, very stupid cult member would say that it matters not if a so-called spiritual Master, one whose devotees literally worship him and who demnads that they 'NEVER QUESTION THE PURITY OF THE MASTER', has sex with them. Your'e hilariously stupid, Derek.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 16:34:32 (EST)
From: Cat
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Pure abuse
Message:
You can't read. I said there is no manual of operation. OK Clive?You are barking to the audience ugly man not me.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 20:04:28 (EST)
From: AJW
Email: None
To: Cat
Subject: Hey Derek.
Message:
Hey Derek,

Where are you going with your head up your arse?

Hope you're still enjoying the view.

Anth the realised soul.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 09:20:19 (EST)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Felix the Cat
Subject: Check out the History
Message:
The history of holy con men sexually abusing their devotees is there for anyone to read. I think most normal people would find it significant that Maharaji does the same thing. Plus, people should be warned about it, since Maharaji has done his darndest to hide his sins against the trust people have put in him.

But you don't care and that's up to you, but then since I don't think Maharaji has been sexually into men (or cats) you personally have nothing to worry about, and who gives a shit about anyone else, right? I'm sure it's those values that attracted you to Maharaji in the first place.

BTW Felix, just for fun, think about how many of those women would look twice at a 5-foot, obese Indian guy with a squeaky voice if they didn't think he was God? Interesting question, don't you think?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 16:39:06 (EST)
From: Felix the...
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: It's full of traitorous ambitious men.
Message:
You are accepting Dettmers completely, no questions.I think he is full of shit. He was full of shit back then and still is.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 17:16:10 (EST)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Felix the...
Subject: It isn't just Dettmers
Message:
Linda Smith, one of M's personal lawyers told me the same thing in the 80s. Ask her, I think she's still a premie.

BTW- Has Maharaji ever denied any of this? If it isn't true, why hasn't he?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 17:42:01 (EST)
From: Carlos
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Linda Smith? Do u mean Linda Gross?
Message:
Linda Smith, one of M's personal lawyers told me the same thing in the 80s. Ask her, I think she's still a premie.

BTW- Has Maharaji ever denied any of this? If it isn't true, why hasn't he?


---

I find it hard to believe any lawyer for M would disclose personal stuff about his/her client. Unless you are saying she was 1 of the premie lasses M supposedly dallied with?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 13, 2001 at 11:47:48 (EST)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Carlos
Subject: No, not Linda Gross
Message:
Linda Smith is another lawyer, someone I always liked and admired. I think the reason she talked about it was because of her integrity, not due to any lack of it.

She didn't mention whom Maharaji 'dallied' with, just that they were 'blondes.' Also, she told me this in the presence of others, so it can be corroborated.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 13, 2001 at 23:29:24 (EST)
From: Carlos
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: I wasn't chalenging your statement, Joe.
Message:
Linda Smith is another lawyer, someone I always liked and admired. I think the reason she talked about it was because of her integrity, not due to any lack of it.

She didn't mention whom Maharaji 'dallied' with, just that they were 'blondes.' Also, she told me this in the presence of others, so it can be corroborated.


---

I don't know you, so I would neither reject nor accept something because of your staing it. But I didn't know he had 2 attorneys named Linda; hence I thought you might have been referring to Ms. G, whom I know well enough to know wouldn't have gossiped like that about M (cause true or not, sharing it with you like that WAS gossip, not an act that can arise from 'integrity', IMO.)

I've got no agenda here. You don't need to confirm anything to me. You cleared up what I wanted to know. Thanx.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 08:43:22 (EST)
From: Sulla
Email: None
To: Felix the Cat
Subject: values BOBO
Message:
We are talking about values you dummy, bobo. You don't have to be religious or belong to any religion to have them. That's inherited to the human race. Did you hear about the voice of your conscience. Maharaji shut up his, and now he wants to shut up yours.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 08:59:14 (EST)
From: Felix the...
Email: None
To: Sulla
Subject: Re: values BOBO
Message:
I see. And I suppose you have been celibate all your life. Congratulations.I think you should re-read Dettmers so-called allegations. He assumes.
My point is there are no rules.You are applying your own values.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 13, 2001 at 15:36:49 (EST)
From: SULLA
Email: None
To: Felix the...
Subject: Re: values BOBO
Message:
DON'T YOU SEE THAT RULES ARE BASED ON VALUES? YOU NEED VALUES TO RULE BUT YOU DON'T NEED RULES TO HAVE VALUES.

AMORAL PEOPLE DON'T HAVE RULES BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE VALUES, INMORAL PEOPLE HAVE VALUES BUT IGNORE THEM AND MAKE THEIR OWN RULES AT THEIR CONVENIENCE.

SULLA,ONE OF THE FEW PREMIES, I GUESS, WHO STILL MARRIED AFTER SEVENTEEN YEARS.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 19:12:28 (EST)
From: Nigel
Email: nigel@redcrow.demon.co.uk
To: Felix the...
Subject: You imply MD is lying..
Message:
You persistently repeat your implication that Dettmers is lying about the procuring of women for the express purpose of M's sexual gratification. (As if you were there and he wasn't...)

Don't you think MD would have one hell of a lot to lose perpetuating a libel on that scale if there were no substance in his claims? And to gain what? Mike's active role in events is hardly one that anybody would be proud of.

And if the allegations are false, M's lawyers could and SHOULD have issued writs by now That would be by far the easiest way to silence god-bod's most damaging critic, don't you think?

Or, no, perhaps you really don't think.

(BTW: these are not 'so-called' allegations. They are allegations.)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 17:54:39 (EST)
From: Carlos
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: I don't think MD has anything
Message:
You persistently repeat your implication that Dettmers is lying about the procuring of women for the express purpose of M's sexual gratification. (As if you were there and he wasn't...)

Don't you think MD would have one hell of a lot to lose perpetuating a libel on that scale if there were no substance in his claims? And to gain what? Mike's active role in events is hardly one that anybody would be proud of.

And if the allegations are false, M's lawyers could and SHOULD have issued writs by now That would be by far the easiest way to silence god-bod's most damaging critic, don't you think?

Or, no, perhaps you really don't think.

(BTW: these are not 'so-called' allegations. They are allegations.)


---

to lose saying anything he wants, true or false, since M has clearly shown he is NOT going to seek civil relief nor restraining orders.

And his reasons for not doing so are unknown. Personally I feel he realizes that to respond would give the allegations a much wider airing than his ignoring them does, and that even disproving the ones he can disprove would not be as widely geard as the allegations would.

I notice that several of the people whom Jagdeo alledgedly abused came forward and told their story. They told it in a credible fasion, so I regretfully came to the conclusion that Jagdeo did it. There were supposedly even more 'sexual victims' of M than of J, yet not 1 has come forward. Hence I conclude MD's clatms in this area are probably false, which calls into question his other uncorroberated claims.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 20:42:30 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Carlos
Subject: That's just stupid, Carlos
Message:
I don't think MD has anything to lose saying anything he wants, true or false, since M has clearly shown he is NOT going to seek civil relief nor restraining orders.

Did it ever occur to you that the only reason M hasn't sued us is because he doesn't have a case? MD went way out on a limb with his allegations about procuring girls for M IF he was lying. The combination of MD's former high placement in the cult and the extremely defamatory nature of the allegations would have left M with no alternative to, at the very minimum, threaten MD and also EPO with a lawsuit if there was no removal and retraction of MD's disclosure. But, as we all know, there was nothing.

Quit being such an ostrich, Carlos.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 13, 2001 at 23:42:51 (EST)
From: Carlos
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Name calling because someone's take
Message:
I don't think MD has anything to lose saying anything he wants, true or false, since M has clearly shown he is NOT going to seek civil relief nor restraining orders.

Did it ever occur to you that the only reason M hasn't sued us is because he doesn't have a case? MD went way out on a limb with his allegations about procuring girls for M IF he was lying. The combination of MD's former high placement in the cult and the extremely defamatory nature of the allegations would have left M with no alternative to, at the very minimum, threaten MD and also EPO with a lawsuit if there was no removal and retraction of MD's disclosure. But, as we all know, there was nothing.

Quit being such an ostrich, Carlos.


---

on something is different than yours doesn't make your case seem stronger, Jim. When I 1st found EPO I considered the various allegations. I decided some of them were actionable and provably false, some of them were actionable but not provably false and some of them might even have a grin or 2 of truth to them. So I thought about what I would do, with that kind of a mish mash of allegations, and came to the conclusion I have expressed.

I could be wrong about M's reasons for not suing or seeking injunctive relief; I've never been telepathic with him and we haven't discussed it. But it is NOT 'being an ostrich' on my part. Why stir up shit when it won't even stop what you are trying to stop with 6he shit stirring? That's a fools game.

I know you'd prefer his not responding to validate your charges, Jim, as well as that of the other exes. But wishing doesn't make it so. When are you going to give up such dependance on 'magical thinking', Jim?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 00:47:44 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Carlos
Subject: Name calling? Look who's talking!
Message:
You started this by suggesting that Dettmers was lying. What do you call that, Carlos? Being polite?

Look, I'm not into being Politenessman just so cult members like you can pretend that you're the least bit respectable in your views. You're not. Not when it comes to Maharaji.

And no, you're completely wrong that I don't want Maharaji to respond. I'd absolutely love it. Starting with Monica and working from there, I'd love to hear the guy really try to defend himself. You and I both know that he'd fall apart like the snivelling baby we saw at the last press conference he dared to give, at Millenium, the stupid flop he heralded as the 'Most Significant Event in the History of Mankind'. If you haven't seen LOTU yet, you should. Maharaji was almost crying like a scared little baby in that press conference and Carlos, that ain't nothing compared to the gauntlet he'd have to face now. The Ghost of Hans Jayanti Past, Carlos. Scary, huh?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 13:40:09 (EST)
From: Carlos
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Jim, I know you know the difference
Message:
You started this by suggesting that Dettmers was lying. What do you call that, Carlos? Being polite?

Look, I'm not into being Politenessman just so cult members like you can pretend that you're the least bit respectable in your views. You're not. Not when it comes to Maharaji.

And no, you're completely wrong that I don't want Maharaji to respond. I'd absolutely love it. Starting with Monica and working from there, I'd love to hear the guy really try to defend himself. You and I both know that he'd fall apart like the snivelling baby we saw at the last press conference he dared to give, at Millenium, the stupid flop he heralded as the 'Most Significant Event in the History of Mankind'. If you haven't seen LOTU yet, you should. Maharaji was almost crying like a scared little baby in that press conference and Carlos, that ain't nothing compared to the gauntlet he'd have to face now. The Ghost of Hans Jayanti Past, Carlos. Scary, huh?


---

between sugesting someone us lying and doubting uncorroborated information. I don't know the facts when I wasn't there.

On the Jagdeo issue, Susan corroborates Abbi and vice versa, + others have come forward. Corroboration. As an attorney knows, the more corroboration the more like;y something is true; the less corroboration thee less likely something is true.

And I know you would love to have M be a fool and give allegations he can't disprove even tho falwse credence by attacking those he can. But he's shown he isn't going to respond.

I wish he'd adknowledge whichever of the allegations that are true, too. That'd clear the air, perhaps. And I don't think anything else will. And I concede some of the EPO allegations may be true, in addition to the 1 about Jagdeo's heinous acts. But J's perversion is the only 1 I am convinced of.

And I'm not tryting to gain anyone here's approval or respect. I find I get all the approval and respect I need without seeking it; just behaving as apropriately as I can gets me that as a side benefit.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 16:31:57 (EST)
From: PatC...sexual abuse of blondes by Rawat
Email: None
To: Carlos
Subject: corroborated by Donner. [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 16:45:04 (EST)
From: Mike Donner's veracity
Email: None
To: PatC...sexual abuse of blondes by Rawat
Subject: is a can
Message:
of worms you don't want to open up. Too many people are aware of how freely and prolifically he has lied in the past. A nice guy? Yes. Whose word is trustworthy? You have no idea what you're opening up here.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 20:07:34 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Mike Donner's veracity
Subject: Oh no! I just leant Donner a ton of money!
Message:
God, if only I'd have known this earlier! I just leant Donner thousands of dollars. But, of coruse, I had no idea about this. What you're saying is amazing! A can of worms, eh? Wow! Like, is that a FULL can of worms? A BIG one? Oh my god, could you please give us just a few more details. What kind of worms, for instance? And what about my money??
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 17:57:09 (EST)
From: Pat:C)...Yes anonymous cultweasel,
Email: None
To: Mike Donner's veracity
Subject: of course we should never doubt...
Message:
...veracity of an anonymous cultweasel like you. Thanks. May I call you Can 'o Worms?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 15:45:06 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Carlos
Subject: Don't start playing games, Carlos
Message:
[Jim, I know you know the difference ]between sugesting someone us lying and doubting uncorroborated information. I don't know the facts when I wasn't there.

What kind of games are you playing, Carlos? This is what you said:

'I notice that several of the people whom Jagdeo alledgedly abused came forward and told their story. They told it in a credible fasion, so I regretfully came to the conclusion that Jagdeo did it. There were supposedly even more 'sexual victims' of M than of J, yet not 1 has come forward. Hence I conclude MD's clatms in this area are probably false, which calls into question his other uncorroberated claims.'

You went a lot further than doubting Dettmer's uncorroborated claims. You 'concluded' they were probably false. Deal with it straight, Carlos. No one has time here for these games.

On the Jagdeo issue, Susan corroborates Abbi and vice versa, + others have come forward. Corroboration. As an attorney knows, the more corroboration the more like;y something is true; the less corroboration thee less likely something is true.

Yes, indeed. It's always preferable to have more proof. However, uncorroborated evidence is enough to prove facts all the time in court. Lots and lots of people get convicted of assault, for instance, especially sexual assault, with uncorroborated evidence. The quality of the evidence which, in this case, is a function of how much the witness saw, what role he played and thus what vantage point he'd have to know what he was talking about, the details, the witness' demeanour, is what matters.

By the way, do you now accept the fact that Maharaji lied to Chris Bray, Abi's father, about when he first heard of Jagdeo sexually assaulting children? Talk about evidence, the case against him is overwhelming. First, there are three distinct and separate trails of evidence, Abi, Susan and now John MacGregor. Abi says that her father told Gurucharanand way back when and that Gurucharanand assured him somehow that Maharaji knew or would find out. Susan, on a different continent at a different time, was promised by her good friend and cult 'big brother', Randy Prouty, that he'd told Maharaji. A couple of years later, Judy Osborn assured her that Maharaji already knew. Now John MacGregor tells us that there was at least one high-up EV meeting about Jagdeo years ago. Unless you think John's lying, I put it to you that there's no way that would have happened without Maharaji's knowledge.

So what do you think, Carlos? Was Maharaji telling Abi's dad the truth that he'd just learned about Jagdeo for the first time last year or not?

And I know you would love to have M be a fool and give allegations he can't disprove even tho falwse credence by attacking those he can. But he's shown he isn't going to respond.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. If, for example, Maharaji did not really kill the bicyclist and let others take the rap for him, he could most certainly sue Dettmers for libel. But Maharaji knows that he could never trust that everyone involved, including that pesky Prouty again, could safely lie for him.

I wish he'd adknowledge whichever of the allegations that are true, too. That'd clear the air, perhaps. And I don't think anything else will. And I concede some of the EPO allegations may be true, in addition to the 1 about Jagdeo's heinous acts. But J's perversion is the only 1 I am convinced of.

Well, you're right. He should answer the allegations. Why don't you tell him that?

And I'm not tryting to gain anyone here's approval or respect. I find I get all the approval and respect I need without seeking it; just behaving as apropriately as I can gets me that as a side benefit.

Does behaving appropriately include the little game you're doing about calling Dettmers a liar?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Dec 15, 2001 at 07:04:45 (EST)
From: Carlos
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Sorry you see it as a game.
Message:
[Jim, I know you know the difference ]between sugesting someone us lying and doubting uncorroborated information. I don't know the facts when I wasn't there.

What kind of games are you playing, Carlos? This is what you said:

'I notice that several of the people whom Jagdeo alledgedly abused came forward and told their story. They told it in a credible fasion, so I regretfully came to the conclusion that Jagdeo did it. There were supposedly even more 'sexual victims' of M than of J, yet not 1 has come forward. Hence I conclude MD's clatms in this area are probably false, which calls into question his other uncorroberated claims.'

You went a lot further than doubting Dettmer's uncorroborated claims. You 'concluded' they were probably false. Deal with it straight, Carlos. No one has time here for these games.

On the Jagdeo issue, Susan corroborates Abbi and vice versa, + others have come forward. Corroboration. As an attorney knows, the more corroboration the more like;y something is true; the less corroboration thee less likely something is true.

Yes, indeed. It's always preferable to have more proof. However, uncorroborated evidence is enough to prove facts all the time in court. Lots and lots of people get convicted of assault, for instance, especially sexual assault, with uncorroborated evidence. The quality of the evidence which, in this case, is a function of how much the witness saw, what role he played and thus what vantage point he'd have to know what he was talking about, the details, the witness' demeanour, is what matters.

By the way, do you now accept the fact that Maharaji lied to Chris Bray, Abi's father, about when he first heard of Jagdeo sexually assaulting children? Talk about evidence, the case against him is overwhelming. First, there are three distinct and separate trails of evidence, Abi, Susan and now John MacGregor. Abi says that her father told Gurucharanand way back when and that Gurucharanand assured him somehow that Maharaji knew or would find out. Susan, on a different continent at a different time, was promised by her good friend and cult 'big brother', Randy Prouty, that he'd told Maharaji. A couple of years later, Judy Osborn assured her that Maharaji already knew. Now John MacGregor tells us that there was at least one high-up EV meeting about Jagdeo years ago. Unless you think John's lying, I put it to you that there's no way that would have happened without Maharaji's knowledge.

So what do you think, Carlos? Was Maharaji telling Abi's dad the truth that he'd just learned about Jagdeo for the first time last year or not?

And I know you would love to have M be a fool and give allegations he can't disprove even tho falwse credence by attacking those he can. But he's shown he isn't going to respond.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. If, for example, Maharaji did not really kill the bicyclist and let others take the rap for him, he could most certainly sue Dettmers for libel. But Maharaji knows that he could never trust that everyone involved, including that pesky Prouty again, could safely lie for him.

I wish he'd adknowledge whichever of the allegations that are true, too. That'd clear the air, perhaps. And I don't think anything else will. And I concede some of the EPO allegations may be true, in addition to the 1 about Jagdeo's heinous acts. But J's perversion is the only 1 I am convinced of.

Well, you're right. He should answer the allegations. Why don't you tell him that?

And I'm not tryting to gain anyone here's approval or respect. I find I get all the approval and respect I need without seeking it; just behaving as apropriately as I can gets me that as a side benefit.

Does behaving appropriately include the little game you're doing about calling Dettmers a liar?


---

I am not calling MD a liar. I don't give trust easily; I never have. Many alcoholics share this trait. If I knew what the facts are I would either corroberate MD's version or call him a lier, as the case might be. But since I disbelieve him thru the process of reason, not by the possesion of facts proving him forsworn, I honestly state that I disbelieve him, and why. It is a subtle difference, Jim, but I'll bet you can handle it.

And on these issues I'll tell M what I think and believe if he asks me, but I'm not likely to volenteer my opinion. My agenda if and when I get to choose the topic in a conversation with him has always been, and likely always will be, to seek his guidence on any areas of the practice of K I'm having trouble with, or to express my gratitude or love, or to play with him. (we've had a paint fight, and I'd love to play him a game of chess. I understand he's quite good.)

To exes other than Jim, my apologies for the above. I know that isn't the kind of stuff you want on your forum. I woudn't have volenteered it except that it feels like the right way to respond to Jim.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Dec 15, 2001 at 13:58:09 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Carlos
Subject: 'A subtle difference?' -- that's absurd!
Message:
I am not calling MD a liar. I don't give trust easily; I never have. Many alcoholics share this trait. If I knew what the facts are I would either corroberate MD's version or call him a lier, as the case might be. But since I disbelieve him thru the process of reason, not by the possesion of facts proving him forsworn, I honestly state that I disbelieve him, and why. It is a subtle difference, Jim, but I'll bet you can handle it.

Carlos, if you think someone's not telling the truth then you think they're what? Come on, Carlos, you can answer this. What's it called when someone says something they know not to be true (and they're not merely joking around)? What's it called?

I'll give you ahint, Carlos. It starts with 'L' and ends with 'e'. Three letters altogether.

No, I'm not going to give you any more clues because if I did it might make it too easy and then we'd have to play a different game. Yours.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Dec 15, 2001 at 23:41:31 (EST)
From: Carlos
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: I don't trust MD. True. But different from saying
Message:
I am not calling MD a liar. I don't give trust easily; I never have. Many alcoholics share this trait. If I knew what the facts are I would either corroberate MD's version or call him a lier, as the case might be. But since I disbelieve him thru the process of reason, not by the possesion of facts proving him forsworn, I honestly state that I disbelieve him, and why. It is a subtle difference, Jim, but I'll bet you can handle it.

Carlos, if you think someone's not telling the truth then you think they're what? Come on, Carlos, you can answer this. What's it called when someone says something they know not to be true (and they're not merely joking around)? What's it called?

I'll give you ahint, Carlos. It starts with 'L' and ends with 'e'. Three letters altogether.

No, I'm not going to give you any more clues because if I did it might make it too easy and then we'd have to play a different game. Yours.


---

I know for a fact he is lying. I know you are smart enough to see the diference, so I guess it is either your bias or your agenda that stops you from admitting it. By the wat, I think this is the longest back-and-forth you and I have ever had without your sinking down to cursing me. Congartulations on your new found maturity.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Dec 16, 2001 at 00:15:57 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Carlos
Subject: You're confused, Carlos
Message:
I am not calling MD a liar. I don't give trust easily; I never have. Many alcoholics share this trait. If I knew what the facts are I would either corroberate MD's version or call him a lier, as the case might be. But since I disbelieve him thru the process of reason, not by the possesion of facts proving him forsworn, I honestly state that I disbelieve him, and why. It is a subtle difference, Jim, but I'll bet you can handle it.

Carlos, if you think someone's not telling the truth then you think they're what? Come on, Carlos, you can answer this. What's it called when someone says something they know not to be true (and they're not merely joking around)? What's it called?

I'll give you ahint, Carlos. It starts with 'L' and ends with 'e'. Three letters altogether.

No, I'm not going to give you any more clues because if I did it might make it too easy and then we'd have to play a different game. Yours.


---

I know for a fact he is lying. I know you are smart enough to see the diference, so I guess it is either your bias or your agenda that stops you from admitting it. By the wat, I think this is the longest back-and-forth you and I have ever had without your sinking down to cursing me. Congartulations on your new found maturity.


---

First you say that you've 'concluded' that Dettmer's is 'probably' lying because no one's corroborated his story. Then you say, you're not accusing him of lying, you just don't trust him. Fine. It's a bit equivocal, sure, but I can live with that. Your point is, you don't know. Like I say, fine.

But what I don't understand is what you mean when you say you 'disbelieve him thru the process of reason', what are you talking about? Aren't you simply saying that, since no one's corroborated his pimping stories (which is not true in any event), you don't know if they're true or not? How could that then become a basis for not trusting Dettmers? See the circularity of your thinking? You can't use Dettmers' unproven allegation as bad character evidence him so that you are then entitled to dismiss that same allegation. You gloat, quite bizarrely, about 'poking holes' in my argument and not letting me 'get away with shit'. I'd plug up your own arguments first, Carlos, before you help me with mine.

Face it, Carlos, you just wouldn't know how to deal with it if you had to accept Dettmer's story as true. You're just like all those pathetic arabs who can't accept the UBL video when it couldn't BE more authentic.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Dec 15, 2001 at 13:38:46 (EST)
From: PatC
Email: None
To: Carlos
Subject: No need for apologies, Carlos
Message:
I know you are a stickler for netiquette and a very polite guy but what's wrong with defending your position passionately? Nothing. I'm sure most of us here would prefer you to just be as honest and blunt as you wish. It's refreshing to read your straightforward opinions rather than all the insincere pap that we have gotten from the likes of SC and CW.

As far as I'm concerned you're welcome to say whatever you wish here and, though I may not agree with it, I will still defend your right to say it. I think by now you know that those of us who know you a bit also know that you're honest unlike the weasels who lie constantly. Telling the truth is never disrespectful.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Dec 15, 2001 at 23:32:20 (EST)
From: Carlos
Email: None
To: PatC
Subject: Thanks for the acceptance.
Message:
I know you are a stickler for netiquette and a very polite guy but what's wrong with defending your position passionately? Nothing. I'm sure most of us here would prefer you to just be as honest and blunt as you wish. It's refreshing to read your straightforward opinions rather than all the insincere pap that we have gotten from the likes of SC and CW.

As far as I'm concerned you're welcome to say whatever you wish here and, though I may not agree with it, I will still defend your right to say it. I think by now you know that those of us who know you a bit also know that you're honest unlike the weasels who lie constantly. Telling the truth is never disrespectful.


---

But I felt I wandered into satsang a bit, and even in the name of passionate rebuttal of someone that would be a wrong thing to do here,IMO.

That's all I was apologizing for. I don't feel guilty about poking holes in Jim's arguments. IMO people let him get away with too much shit.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Dec 16, 2001 at 04:11:33 (EST)
From: PatC
Email: None
To: Carlos
Subject: Acceptance, my foot...
Message:
Carlos, to me your are pretty special. Like our mutual friend Cos, you are at least honestly and passionately defending the fact that you are (in your own words) an unrepentant bhakti. That's cool with me. I live in SF and here no one criticizes anyone else for their hobbies and fetishes.

I don't know you very well. I do know that you would not lie but, like Jim, I think that you are a bit confused. He and I just go about saying that differently. He doesn't mince words. I'm not saying that I do mince words (oh okay I do try to be tactful, mostly because I am usually not) but I would dearly love to see you free of the limitations that you so obviously labor under.

You are much stronger, more playful and free than you currently think you are. You are the person who is carrying the guru on YOUR back not the other way around. He is not good enough for you.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Dec 15, 2001 at 23:28:57 (EST)
From: Carlos
Email: None
To: PatC
Subject: Thanks for the acceptance.
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Dec 15, 2001 at 23:28:57 (EST)
From: Carlos
Email: None
To: PatC
Subject: Thanks for the acceptance.
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Dec 15, 2001 at 18:53:19 (EST)
From: Deborah
Email: None
To: PatC
Subject: I agree with Pat, Carlos
Message:
Your comment was very appropriate. It is one thing to say something purposefully and another to substitute it for a rational conversation.

BTW, I wouldn't even have noticed that you gave us the satsang slip if you didn't bring it to my attention.

Gee! What kind of effect are you having on me. ;)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Dec 15, 2001 at 23:36:44 (EST)
From: Carlos
Email: None
To: Deborah
Subject: I hope whatever effect I'm having
Message:
Your comment was very appropriate. It is one thing to say something purposefully and another to substitute it for a rational conversation.

BTW, I wouldn't even have noticed that you gave us the satsang slip if you didn't bring it to my attention.

Gee! What kind of effect are you having on me. ;)


---

on you is 1 you would approve of! And I hope no one accuses me of brainwashing you! HA HA

Glad you didn't feel preached at. Not my yob, man. Nor my agenda.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 15:40:22 (EST)
From: Nigel
Email: nigel@redcrow.demon.co.uk
To: Carlos
Subject: The thing is, Carlos...
Message:
..earlier this year EV wrote to our webmaster requesting the statement be rmoved from the site to the effect that M had knowingly sheltered a paedophile. To avoid any potential legal action, John assented (in part) to the request.

So why - out of so many serious allegations - did EV mention this one allegation and no others?

Possibly because the corroboration that would apparently persuade you is abundant in each case - with the possible exception of the hit-and-run case. Yet you seem reluctant to be persuaded.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Dec 15, 2001 at 07:12:34 (EST)
From: Carlos
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: I'll admit to the reluctance to be
Message:
..earlier this year EV wrote to our webmaster requesting the statement be rmoved from the site to the effect that M had knowingly sheltered a paedophile. To avoid any potential legal action, John assented (in part) to the request.

So why - out of so many serious allegations - did EV mention this one allegation and no others?

Possibly because the corroboration that would apparently persuade you is abundant in each case - with the possible exception of the hit-and-run case. Yet you seem reluctant to be persuaded.


---

persuaded you asign to me, Nigel. I don't want my Master's current 'car', Prem Pal (that's the metaphor I like best for how I see the phenomenon of Sat Guru) to be a clunker. I want it to be the finest of machines!

Yet your logic seems circular to me. If the corroboration on the other issues is so readily available, why is none of it on EPO or discussed on F5 (after I started reading it), 6 or 7? I've seen none, NONE, except about J's perversion.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 21:16:35 (EST)
From: Cat
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Re: You imply MD is lying..
Message:
Hullo Nigel. The Law? The simple fact is that this is 'He says-You say'. It is a litigation process that would be ruled primarily on hearsay. Expensive . Risky and not usually pursued.Documentation is the basis of Libel. Original documentation. Not documentation of hearsay. So it is unlikely to happen.
Frankly I dont think you guys here are rated any higher than annoying little flies.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 23:54:40 (EST)
From: You know darn well
Email: None
To: Cat
Subject: Not hearsay, MD pimped for him [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 01:38:03 (EST)
From: The JudgeCat
Email: None
To: You know darn well
Subject: Dettmers is terminally deluded(nt)
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 13, 2001 at 16:05:58 (EST)
From: Nigel
Email: None
To: The JudgeCat
Subject: One more comfortable,safe belief? [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 23:22:10 (EST)
From: Marianne
Email: None
To: Cat
Subject: First hand experience is not hearsay
Message:
First hand experience by the person providing the evidence is not hearsay.

Like John Macgregor said, these premie posts are only made to derail the discussion.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 05:02:15 (EST)
From: QC Cat
Email: None
To: Marianne
Subject: Hearsay is Hearsay.He is bullshitting
Message:
By a dubious biased witness?Goaded by a piss poor ambitious one hit wonder like you? Try a read on Ralph Nader and Slater and Gordon banging up BHP over OK-Tedi. Now there was a case. Pick me out dipshit.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 23:50:10 (EST)
From: Deborah
Email: None
To: Marianne
Subject: Boy are premie trolls freaking out or what???????
Message:
marianne,

It's not like this is the first time it's been mentioned. Hmmmm, just got an incoming clue! Is it because it's on the front page of the EPO news rather than posted somewhere Premsters have to read, like in the archives?

So, when it hits the front page, Boom! Out come the premie troll police. What a bunch of maroons? John McGregor was spot on about their purpose here. This is not about balanced point of view. It is about disrupting the forum so premies won't want to read. Apparently sucking your snot and poking your eyeballs and ears is not what it's cut out to be.

PREMIES! THESE GUYS DO THIS FOR A LIVING. PRETTY UGLY ISN'T IT!

Watch, David Roupell (SC) or Derek Harper (CW) will probably come back at me with an "your so ugly post" because that's his tactic.

Watch, you'll see. It's a debunking and confusing game he's playing so you won't want to read the forum. But Gerry is going to get another forum and have them blocked. He's working on it. Don't worry, they'll be gone.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 01:41:52 (EST)
From: Quoll
Email: None
To: Deborah
Subject: Re: Boy are premie trolls freaking out or what?
Message:
Get this staight. My name is Schmee Agin.I'll be there. I will not desert you.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 00:44:56 (EST)
From: SC
Email: None
To: Deborah
Subject: Boy are you ugly!!!
Message:
your mind is a real dirt dude classic of frightening blackness!

man, I'd pay $1000 to be a fly on the wall watching a day in your life.

forget horror flicks!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 11:01:29 (EST)
From: michael donner
Email: None
To: Felix the...
Subject: Re: values BOBO
Message:
so, there are no rules, only a matter of values...is that your point cat? generally accepted codes of behaviour for public people should be considered here. most sexual harrasment is based upon a power differential...the boss, the lord or someone in power, using that position, or because of that position...taking some advantage of it for personal gratifiction...that is the point here. and having talked to two of the victims, both felt abused and used by m. that if it were not for his position of power in their lives it would not have been an issue. but it was not simple concentual sex...there were many layers of emotional and psychological factors that played into the abusive nature of the situation for them.

perhaps others in the field of counselling and other forms of privileged relationships can comment from this point of view better than i can.

come off it cat, its more then a matter of my values and your values.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 16:52:28 (EST)
From: Cat
Email: None
To: michael donner
Subject: Re: values BOBO
Message:
It's one persons word. A very unhappy disgruntled person.The whole premise is based on assumption. It is assumption that I am not prepared to make. Dettmers has an axe to grind. So far his has been a lone voice. No-one has substantiated his claims. Many have repeated them(e.g J McG) but no one has substantiated them.
Be that as it may there is something fundamental here.Codes of behavior are Moral codes. What is the code you speak of based on? Judaic / Christian values.OK for Politicians. They have to appease the electorate. All of it.
I'm not commenting on whether it's right or wrong, merely on the fact that the values expressed here would sit well with right wing Christian groups. Do we still live in that world? I dont.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 13, 2001 at 15:49:16 (EST)
From: SULLA
Email: None
To: Cat
Subject: Re: values BOBO
Message:
You are going to excuse me, Felix, but don't keep pointing all the religions as responsible for your sufferings. Nobody told me when I received K that I had to leave my Judeo-Christian-Catholic values, and M. said that you didn't have to leave your religions. So shut up and LET IT BE!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 21:53:42 (EST)
From: SC
Email: None
To: Cat
Subject: The real question Cat is...
Message:
Are these people getting enough????

CLEARLY NOT!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 19:33:12 (EST)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Cat
Subject: Jesus you are an idiot
Message:
Did you bother to read Donner's post? He said he talked to two of the women M fucked and they felt abused. That is direct corroboration of Dettmers' testimony. Okay, so tell us why you don't want to believe Donner as well.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 21:20:39 (EST)
From: Cat
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Oh ..Duuuuh
Message:
I read that. I have former lovers who feel that way. So do you. That doesn't make a case.I addressed Dettmers more specific clains.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 18:49:50 (EST)
From: Cynthia
Email: None
To: Cat
Subject: ^^^^^IGNORE THIS TROLL^^^^^And....
Message:
This troll has diverted the conversation once again. The issue was brought up about the dynamics of abuse of power using sex. So I shall ignore what it said.

It's not only a cult dynamic or characteristic, it is also a symptom of the inability to empathize. He expresses his need for power and control on all levels. That's m's MO.

Yet outside of the cult, it happens similarly, as Mike Donner said above, abuse of power using sex happens in corporate America today.

The clinker here is that maharaji is the LORD in the eyes of his victims. That abuse is much greater IMO.

It indicates a character flaw which prevents him from doing anything about Jagdeo. There is the fear of exposure, too.

Later...
Cynthia

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 21:24:07 (EST)
From: Cat
Email: None
To: Cynthia
Subject: You have no right to exclude my opinion.
Message:
There is no reason for you to expect to control the issues here.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 21:29:46 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Cat
Subject: Yes she does
Message:
Your 'opinion' is worthless. You're an anoymous troll (named Derek Harper) who does not engage in honest discourse. You've proven that time and again. In fact, I understand that you're actually quite screwed up. Your opinion's of no effect. None.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 17:15:49 (EST)
From: Carlos
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: I partly agree with Jim.
Message:
Your 'opinion' is worthless. You're an anoymous troll (named Derek Harper) who does not engage in honest discourse. You've proven that time and again. In fact, I understand that you're actually quite screwed up. Your opinion's of no effect. None.


---

Certainly Cynthia has the right to ignore Cat's posts (or anyone else she regards as 'trolls'), and to advocate that others do the same. I also agree with her that diverting topics intentionally to further an agenda is bad form, whether done by a PWK or by an ex over on LG.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 13, 2001 at 15:57:31 (EST)
From: Nigel
Email: None
To: Carlos
Subject: Interseting thought, Carlos..
Message:
But can you give me a single example of an ex-prmie hi-jacking a lively ongoing discussion on LG for subversive and nasty ex-premie reasons? I doubt it.

I don't look in on the dead zones (LG and AG) very often, but it seems to me that nothing ever gets discussed in meaningful terms until an ex-premie joins in. How come?

Unless, of course, you are all communicating psychically via the inarticulate speech of the heart, or something.

(Which reminds me, I need to listen to some Van Morrison, right now...)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 13, 2001 at 23:50:19 (EST)
From: Carlos
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Not sure I understand what you mean
Message:
But can you give me a single example of an ex-prmie hi-jacking a lively ongoing discussion on LG for subversive and nasty ex-premie reasons? I doubt it.

I don't look in on the dead zones (LG and AG) very often, but it seems to me that nothing ever gets discussed in meaningful terms until an ex-premie joins in. How come?

Unless, of course, you are all communicating psychically via the inarticulate speech of the heart, or something.

(Which reminds me, I need to listen to some Van Morrison, right now...)


---

by 'hijacking', but everything I've seen that was rude netiqette I've seen done on all 3 BBs, both by premies and exes. John (EPO webmaster) is usually polite but tries to turn discussions to match his agenda on LG, which to me feels about as cool as my satsanging here would be. Sallam, Jim Catweasel, SC and others are verbaly abusive.

My point is - you guys aren't going to get very far withus, we aren't going to get very far with you, by rude behavior. But we might ocasionally be of benefit to each other with civility. And I find it a lot more fun.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 15:51:51 (EST)
From: Nigel
Email: nige@redcrow.demon.co.uk
To: Carlos
Subject: I wasn't talking about rudeness..
Message:
If I can remind you, Carlos, you wrote: I also agree with her that diverting topics intentionally to further an agenda is bad form, whether done by a PWK or by an ex over on LG.

Unless you would argue that discussion of M and K on LG is 'off-topic', I can't recall a single case of a thread being hi-jacked. Expressing an alternative opinion is not in itself, rude, nor furthering an agenda - unless you consider your own defenses of M here are similarly subversive hijacks...? I don't, provided don't shy away from the issues, or become abusive when in a tight corner.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Dec 15, 2001 at 07:28:27 (EST)
From: Carlos
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Bashing M on LG IS off topic there,
Message:
If I can remind you, Carlos, you wrote: I also agree with her that diverting topics intentionally to further an agenda is bad form, whether done by a PWK or by an ex over on LG.

Unless you would argue that discussion of M and K on LG is 'off-topic', I can't recall a single case of a thread being hi-jacked. Expressing an alternative opinion is not in itself, rude, nor furthering an agenda - unless you consider your own defenses of M here are similarly subversive hijacks...? I don't, provided don't shy away from the issues, or become abusive when in a tight corner.


---

and seeking to change the direction of a thread (NOT merely responding to something, as I have done here) so as to get in some bashes has been done by a number of exes there. John is a frequent user of this tactic. Starting a thread there for the purpose of chalenging 'poor deluded PWKs' is as bad as a premie coming here and hurling satsang at you guys. Jim loves to do that. Saying nothing in posts there except insults and sarcasm is not exactly dialouge, either. Sallam and what's her name? who coyuldn't understand why CD removed a post of hers and I talked to her about her going to LG to vent?, anyway they are 2 examples of exes who love to do that.

Shall I refresh your memory any further? I just wish that all of us would grow up a little bit, and that the serious violators of nettiquette, whether premies or exes, would both grow up and heal... as, IMO, the ones who are seriously bashers are probably traumitized. And, yes, I mean the premie ones, too, not just you guys' head cases.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 02:02:42 (EST)
From: Collins Boulevarde Cat
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Fairy Land
Message:
I love being Derek Harper. After you work out that I am NOT Derek Harper(Nice spin though shithead!), can I be say the guy out of Miami Vice? Love fast cars... You are such a dropkick Jimbo..
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 02:14:28 (EST)
From: Hey Don- over here
Email: None
To: Collins Boulevarde Cat
Subject: Correction-Collins Ave Cat!(nt)
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 22:04:11 (EST)
From: SC
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: No effect? ha ha
Message:
No effect Jimbo?

Na, of course not,

only the effect of poking your ass you until you make such lowlife statements as this...

'In fact, I understand that you're actually quite screwed up.'

You smarmy prick

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 22:28:34 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: SC
Subject: Sorry, SC, I didn't mean to leave you out
Message:
I acutally understand you're BOTH screwed up and that people don't respect your opinion even within the cult. Sorry, Dave, I didn't mean to leave you out.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 23:46:26 (EST)
From: SC
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: That's better!
Message:
Thanks Jimbob, but golly,

now I'm an unwanted outsider of both cults?

OOOh noo...the loneliness..... the loneliness!!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 21:28:47 (EST)
From: Cynthia
Email: None
To: Cat
Subject: I wasn't excluding your opinion...
Message:
I merely pointed out how crafty you were in changing the focus of the conversation to you instead of the issues presented.

That's all she wrote, to you, anyway

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 02:12:49 (EST)
From: Public Opinion Cat
Email: None
To: Cynthia
Subject: You do and you did
Message:
She?Do you always refer to yourself in the third person? Or have you been around Pat for too long. Everyone is 'she ' to Pat.Pat?
PS: By calling me a troll, denigrating me and agreeing with dis-allowing my participation here?
OH YES YOU WERE!!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 11:58:21 (EST)
From: Scorpio-II
Email: None
To: Public Opinion Cat
Subject: It's my job and I do it well...
Message:
You've been warned by the owner of this board to beat it. Beat feet.

Scram, turn in your keys...you're busted. Hit the road Jack.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 13, 2001 at 01:49:32 (EST)
From: You do it well?
Email: None
To: Scorpio-II
Subject: get your hand off it
Message:
and clean up the mess with some tissues loser
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 13, 2001 at 10:29:17 (EST)
From: Scorpio-II
Email: None
To: You do it well?
Subject: My what a filthy mind...
Message:
Now beat feet, creep.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 02:29:04 (EST)
From: CAC Patrol
Email: None
To: Public Opinion Cat
Subject: More unnecessary queer-bashing [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 05:06:36 (EST)
From: Simple, (Cat speaking)
Email: None
To: CAC Patrol
Subject: Did you write it Pat?
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 18:30:14 (EST)
From: PatD
Email: None
To: Cat
Subject: Re: values BOBO
Message:
You live in a world where lies are truth, where if what I say contradicts what I do , do what I say anyway. Where I am number 1 & you should appreciate the fact. Where making judgements about shitty behaviour is 'judgemental'. Where muddying the waters is a legitimate tactic.

If you've moved beyond the world of moral codes into that of dog eat dog then I hope you have a strong set of teeth.

FUCK OFF FOREVER

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 15:12:24 (EST)
From: Cynthia
Email: None
To: michael donner
Subject: Jagdeo/Maharaji...
Message:
Thanks Mike, that was a concise description of the abuse of power. I do think that because m has abused/assaulted? women who are/were under his spell of power he doesn't have the ability to empathize with victims of Jagdeo's abuse.

Jagdeo used his position of power to sexually assault children, Maharaji used his greater position of power in the cult to sexually abuse women who looked at him as lord. I cannot imagine that and fully believe he is clueless about his lack of values, etc., not to mention how inappropriate the behavior is. It isn't consentual sex.

This also tells me that there is no feeling of empathy by m toward those women, and similarily he has no empathy toward the children assaulted by Jagdeo. Same dynamic. Anyone who uses power to exploit someone sexually has a character flaw. It's criminal behavior, IMO. Definitely a huge character flaw.

Good to hear from you Mike,
Best,
Cynthia

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 01:41:47 (EST)
From: Marianne
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: It's tied to Jagdeo abuse
Message:
Maharaji's willingness to engage in sexual escapades with women followers is one reason why he is unable to deal properly with Jagdeo's sexual abuse.

Marianne

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 17:30:07 (EST)
From: Deborah
Email: None
To: Marianne
Subject: Of course it is, Marianne
Message:
Maha knows darn well that if he prosecutes his holy men, the dope will come out on him. Maha also doesn't want to awaken the memories of the premies he spiriutally and sexually coerced because there's a loaded trial waiting for him.

I hope the premie women come forward ASAP.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 18:06:54 (EST)
From: PatC
Email: None
To: Deborah
Subject: Yes, Marianne
Message:
It's all part of the cult craziness, selfishness and antisocial mores. And we all know who creates those mores.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 11:25:16 (EST)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Marianne
Subject: Why do you say that?
Message:
Interesting. How do you think the two things are connected?

BTW - voted for Herrera this morning; I think it's going to be very close (East side v. West side).

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 13:16:21 (EST)
From: Jean-Michel
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Jagdeo and other abusers
Message:
The link is that because of his obvious lack of ethics, Mr Rawat failed to react appropriately when abuse reports arrived on his desk.

That's why anybody with enough sense will understand that Mr Rawat is not the right person to have as a 'master' (in case you need one ....)

This issue is of utmost importance.

Who would want to work or have anything to do with a company, when some of its head executives are known abusers, and when it's also known that NOTHING is done about the situation ?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 09:15:07 (EST)
From: Cynthia
Email: None
To: Marianne
Subject: Re: It's tied to Jagdeo abuse
Message:
Yes, Marianne...

I would call it more than sexual escapades with women followers though, I would call it an abuse of power.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 00:25:20 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: All
Subject: And here's your birthday gift, Lord
Message:
This just in from a reputable source (hint, it's not Valerio):

Amaroo is down to 3 paid staff now......

Key volunteers are resigning too.......

There has just been a liquidation sale to get rid of the divine lawnmowers, tractors and other equipment. People are asking 'What will be
next?'

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 03:11:04 (EST)
From: CD
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: And here's your birthday gift, Lord
Message:
Have you done anything worthwhile in your life dude?

X

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 11:38:46 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: CD
Subject: I thought you were banned from here?
Message:
I thought you were banned seeing as you banned me and Deb from your cult forum?

But yes, CD, I've done lots of worthwhile things. For one, I joined a cult, following a young, fat Indian kid we all thought was God. Then, years later, I became a Certified Microsoft Something-or-other which allowed me to buy a ridiculous number of guitars and show them off to my friends.

How about you?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 15:21:49 (EST)
From: CD
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: I thought you were bananas?
Message:
>How about you?

Sounds a bit like me.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 03:59:17 (EST)
From: Voice of Conscience..
Email: None
To: CD
Subject: Chris, in SD you said to Maharaji..
Message:
something to the effect of 'your message has always been consistent'. How do you explain the fact that M once claimed to be the 'Superior Power in Person' and now claims that it was just those darn confused Mahatmas that thrust that title on him??? or that he once talked about 'surrender' to Guru Maharaji and 'only following Guru Maharaji's agya' as the key to 'realizing knowledge' and now just talks about 'gratitude' and 'the preciousness' of breath while accepting money and devotion from people who still stand up and call him 'My Lord' in the audience(a title he somehow neglects to correct at the time).

Chris Dickey, Were you being honest when you stood up at the program and told Maharaji that his message 'had always been consistent'???? Or were you succumbing to the incredibly strong peer pressure in the room to only say the 'politically correct' things that Maharaji allowed to be spoken?? Didnt you ignor the 10,000 pound elephant in the room??? That being the fact the Maharaji has TOTALLY denied much of what he once Claimed and Demanded??? and further that there is much evidence that he is Not a Master of the Experience of Knowledge but an Alcoholic who has often Sexually Abused those who were under his sway..and taken Great Pains to hide his real behavior from the very people in the room in San Diego, who, if they had been aware of his Real Behavior, would NOT have being calling him 'Lord' and paying him $100 to swoon at his staged display of Divinity...

Chris arent you succumbing to a bit of denial and hypocricy when you criticize Jim while you refuse yourself to look at the REAL Truth about Maharaji??? Its ok if you are. Just Admit it. People in glass houses arent advised to throw stones.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 15:29:40 (EST)
From: CD
Email: None
To: Voice of Conscience..
Subject: Re: Chris, in SD you said to Maharaji..
Message:
>People in glass houses arent advised to throw stones.

First off, your name 'Voice of Conscience' is certainly without merit and misleading.
Second, since you seem to know me personally, why the use of a fake name? What are you hiding? You call that honesty?

>Were you being honest when you stood up at the program and told Maharaji that his message 'had always been consistent'????

Yes, I certainly was being honest!
Post with your real name and I might state my reasons.

CD

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 15:37:17 (EST)
From: PatC
Email: None
To: CD
Subject: CD, the hypocrite
Message:
Two strikes, CD:

1) You ban Jim, Deb and Silvia from your forum but continue to post here.

2) I don't hear you telling SC, CW, WH, Ferd and all the many other cowardly anonymous premies who post on your forum to use their real names before you respond to them.

You're such a total fake and phoney - not an ounce of reality, sincerity or honesty in your body.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 16:18:21 (EST)
From: CD
Email: None
To: PatC
Subject: Re: the hype
Message:
>Two strikes, CD:

You know Pat, maybe you are a bit whacked.

There hasn't been any ban on Jim and Deb for a long time. At one point they were spamming LG and I blocked them temporarily after they became a huge nuisance.

Regarding names, when somebody posts my full name and makes personal references to me I expect them to use their name in the post. Pretty simple huh? Hypocritical? I don't thing so!

>You're such a total fake and phoney - not an ounce of reality, sincerity or honesty in your body.

How would you know? You don't know me. But you are prone to say things and then have to retract them later. I don't even think 'Voice of Conscience' would call me a fake since that person has known me for many years.

CD

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 19:09:36 (EST)
From: Voice of Conscience
Email: None
To: CD
Subject: Chris, You're Right...
Message:
I Actually have always liked you alot. Youre a charming guy in your own inimatably disfunctional way. But, Most unfortunately you are , as I was for so many years, Deluded and in Major Denial... Maharaji is a complete Fraud and does not deserve ANY of the Credit for any Bliss that we have experienced nor any of the Attention, Adulation and Devotion that he has milked from us for many years. I Wish you would just admit that, Chris...Everything else is just shuffling deck chairs here...I Hope you are Well and Happy. Earl G.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 21:02:45 (EST)
From: CD
Email: None
To: Voice of Conscience
Subject: Re: Differences ...
Message:
>I Hope you are Well and Happy. Earl G.

Always good to hear from you!

>Deluded and in Major Denial... Maharaji is a complete Fraud and does not deserve ANY of the Credit for any Bliss that we have experienced nor any of the Attention, Adulation and Devotion that he has milked from us for many years

I don't see it your way in that I don't think the whole topic is so simple or black and white. Did you see our other very old friend speak in San Diego? I was suprised by her clear words expressing thanks for a life she appears to truely enjoy.
There has been misplaced attention and adulation directed at M. There should only be praise if people really feel the inspiration for praise. Anything else is fake or worse, misguided and even potentially destructive. Many people have been inspired by things M has said and the meditation in a positive way. Many have not. I don't have an explanation for the different perceptions.
I have come out of the many years with a positive respect for life, people and hope for the future. There is plenty of evil in the world. Yet I still believe and feel that there is something fundamentally good in people. I do not believe that our society pays enough explicit tribute to that potential inside people. We are easily distracted by our daily tribulations, chores and material quests. I must admit I am distracted because I am off right now to go play some guitar at the local bar.

Cheers,
CD

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 22:34:47 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: CD
Subject: ***HA HA HA -- CD DRAWS A DISTINCTION!***
Message:
>I Hope you are Well and Happy. Earl G.

Always good to hear from you!

>Deluded and in Major Denial... Maharaji is a complete Fraud and does not deserve ANY of the Credit for any Bliss that we have experienced nor any of the Attention, Adulation and Devotion that he has milked from us for many years

I don't see it your way in that I don't think the whole topic is so simple or black and white. Did you see our other very old friend speak in San Diego? I was suprised by her clear words expressing thanks for a life she appears to truely enjoy.
There has been misplaced attention and adulation directed at M. There should only be praise if people really feel the inspiration for praise. Anything else is fake or worse, misguided and even potentially destructive. Many people have been inspired by things M has said and the meditation in a positive way. Many have not. I don't have an explanation for the different perceptions.
I have come out of the many years with a positive respect for life, people and hope for the future. There is plenty of evil in the world. Yet I still believe and feel that there is something fundamentally good in people. I do not believe that our society pays enough explicit tribute to that potential inside people. We are easily distracted by our daily tribulations, chores and material quests. I must admit I am distracted because I am off right now to go play some guitar at the local bar.

Cheers,
CD


---

It's a bit painful watching you try to think, Chris, but this part here is hilarious:

There has been misplaced attention and adulation directed at M. There should only be praise if people really feel the inspiration for praise. Anything else is fake or worse, misguided and even potentially destructive.

I take it, then, that if you're a truly lost cult lifer, worshipping the false Lord of the Universe is okay, huh?

You're a total idiot. Worse, you're offensively smug. What have YOU done so great for the world recently?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 03:04:26 (EST)
From: CD
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: ***HA HA HA -- CD DRAWS A DISTINCTION!***
Message:
>You're a total idiot. Worse, you're offensively smug.

Jim,

Maybe my old friend could fill you in that you are a punk that I would have no trouble with. That includes both mental and physical realms.

Good day.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 12:00:00 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: CD
Subject: Is that a threat, CD?
Message:
Mentally, we all know that you'r either suffering from some sort of clinical disorder or are a very screwed up cultmemeber who's not able to have a normal discussion like a normal human being. Take your pick.

Physically, what are you donig, Chris? Threatening me?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 14:47:23 (EST)
From: CD
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: rules of engagement
Message:
You want to strongly and even viciously attack my viewpoints?
Fine, thats your right and this is your place for doing that.

You cross the line when you hurl personal insults and get into your name calling mode. The other transgression is your veiled intimidation mode inspired by your legal credentials.

CD

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 20:44:39 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: CD
Subject: Just ell me one thing, Chris
Message:
What have you done that's so 'positive' recently? And yes, Chris, you really do come across a little disfunctional. Surely you know that, don't you?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 14:24:06 (EST)
From: CD
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: Is that a sqeak
Message:
>Physically, what are you donig, Chris? Threatening me?

Just pushing your buttons. How many years has it been now?
Your name calling irks me at times. I need to call you on it.
You fit the profile. A typical on-line puffed up crybaby snitch.

Anyways, as nasty as you are, have a good holiday season anyways!

Cheers,
CD

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 01:37:39 (EST)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: ***HA HA HA -- CD DRAWS A DISTINCTION!***
Message:
I hear Chris can't even dodge a stream of milk from a well-aimed mammary.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 03:53:38 (EST)
From: CD
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Re: ***HA HA HA -- CD DRAWS A DISTINCTION!***
Message:
>I hear Chris can't even dodge a stream of milk from a well-aimed mammary.

I just don't try to.
But who told you, the ex-premie that used to post that new me from the old days?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 17:52:48 (EST)
From: PatC
Email: None
To: CD
Subject: Well, maybe I'm wrong ...
Message:
...but at least I know when I've made a mistake and admit it.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 17:48:18 (EST)
From: Deborah
Email: None
To: CD
Subject: You never lifted the ban
Message:
Why are you saying that? Where was the announcement? I would click on the LG forum every once in a while and it was blocked. I questioned you often about the fairness of the ban.

And CD, I could have gone into LG on a number of occasions in a number of ways with you knowing or not knowing. But I didn't because I respected the ban, as unfair as it was. We were never nameless trolls. And nobody at LG ever had any respect for discussion. Do you wonder why posts got inflamatory. NObody was real.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 22:15:48 (EST)
From: SC
Email: None
To: Deborah
Subject: Please come back Deb...
Message:
I want a day's 'disgustion' with you

just a few of your glorious utterings tp ponder over.......

come on....

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 21:05:14 (EST)
From: CD
Email: None
To: Deborah
Subject: Re: You never lifted the ban
Message:
You have been able to post on LG for quite a long time. Fine as long as you don't spam the place. Good to read you have nice words for Carlos. Hope school has worked out for you.

CD

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 01:26:45 (EST)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: I'm surprised...
Message:
Maharaji didn't have a liquidation sale of the staff and held onto the lawnmowers, tractors and equipment. There is always a line of 'students' who want to be 'staff.' Lawnmowers are a lot more trouble to replace.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 11, 2001 at 11:04:49 (EST)
From: michael donner
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Re: I'm surprised...
Message:
i wonder what some of the lavish gifts given to m on the occasion of dec 1 0 this year are/were? anyone?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index