OTS -:- Knowledge is NOT free -:- Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 12:30:59 (EST)

__ Steve Mueller -:- Re: Knowledge is NOT free -:- Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 16:40:33 (EST)

__ Silvia -:- *****BEST OF FORUM**** -:- Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 16:03:53 (EST)

__ OTS -:- Nice work 'Ots'... -:- Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 13:32:43 (EST)

__ __ OTS -:- Obviously posted by Nigel -:- Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 14:33:28 (EST)

__ __ __ Oops! -:- Can I call myself 'Oops!'? -:- Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 15:25:03 (EST)

__ __ __ __ Nigel -:- See my reply to Livia.. [nt] -:- Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 15:39:58 (EST)

__ __ __ Richard -:- Nigel, you missed some great posts -:- Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 14:50:50 (EST)

__ Joe -:- Other 'costs' -:- Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 13:30:35 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Cynthia -:- What is this CAC2? -:- Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 23:16:46 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Deborah -:- What is this about? -:- Fri, Feb 08, 2002 at 20:51:43 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ PatC -:- Precisely Cynthia and Joe -:- Fri, Feb 08, 2002 at 04:42:05 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ * -:- * -:- Fri, Feb 08, 2002 at 21:15:15 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Livia -:- Thinking before leaping -:- Sat, Feb 09, 2002 at 12:24:49 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Deborah -:- Thank you for getting my point -:- Sat, Feb 09, 2002 at 17:49:37 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Richard -:- Agree 100% Pat , Cynthia and Joe -:- Fri, Feb 08, 2002 at 13:22:29 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Deborah -:- Re: Agree 100% Pat , Cynthia and Joe -:- Fri, Feb 08, 2002 at 21:39:39 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Richard -:- Of course, Deborah -:- Fri, Feb 08, 2002 at 22:04:30 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Deborah -:- I agree -:- Sat, Feb 09, 2002 at 18:08:50 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ PatC -:- Which is why Deborah was deleted -:- Sat, Feb 09, 2002 at 04:14:29 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Deborah -:- NO! WRONG PatC -:- Sat, Feb 09, 2002 at 18:17:16 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ PatC -:- Group attack ??? -:- Sat, Feb 09, 2002 at 18:31:46 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Deborah -:- Apparently Livia & Richard understand -:- Sat, Feb 09, 2002 at 19:49:42 (EST)

__ Jean-Michel -:- Thanks definitely **** Best of Forum *** -:- Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 12:45:18 (EST)

__ Livia -:- Re: Knowledge is NOT free -:- Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 12:39:59 (EST)

__ __ Francesca -:- Please, he's just describing the guy -:- Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 19:56:44 (EST)

__ __ __ JHB -:- Francesca, but how would it look... -:- Fri, Feb 08, 2002 at 17:00:37 (EST)

__ __ Nigel -:- Agreed! 'OTS' please note... -:- Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 15:35:10 (EST)

__ __ Jethro -:- Re: Knowledge is NOT free -:- Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 14:58:24 (EST)

__ __ __ janet the half jew -:- if u knew sheldon, it fit. -:- Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 19:50:16 (EST)

__ __ __ __ Cynthia -:- So what, Janet? [nt] -:- Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 23:18:06 (EST)

__ __ __ __ Jethro -:- Re: if u knew sheldon, it fit. -:- Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 20:09:23 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ janet -:- Re: if u knew sheldon, it fit. -:- Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 20:20:25 (EST)

__ __ __ OTS -:- What's the matter now? -:- Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 15:11:37 (EST)

__ __ __ __ Jethro -:- Re: What's the matter now? -:- Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 17:09:20 (EST)

__ __ __ __ Cynthia -:- Everybody simmer down now! -:- Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 15:14:40 (EST)

__ __ OTS -:- Please lighten up -:- Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 12:57:35 (EST)

__ __ __ Kelly -:- Re: The scary robotic guy -:- Fri, Feb 08, 2002 at 12:00:35 (EST)

__ __ __ Livia -:- Re: Please lighten up -:- Fri, Feb 08, 2002 at 11:08:00 (EST)

__ __ __ Cynthia -:- OTS, Please lighten up:) -:- Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 15:07:16 (EST)

__ __ __ Joe -:- OTS, who is that? -:- Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 13:49:22 (EST)

__ __ __ JHB -:- I agree with Livia -:- Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 13:15:36 (EST)

__ __ __ __ Carl -:- Excuse me, but -:- Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 14:11:37 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ JHB -:- Let me explain -:- Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 15:51:32 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ janet the half jew -:- ya know? if anyone should apologize.. -:- Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 19:59:26 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- I sent him an email -:- Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 20:02:36 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ kamet -:- he's a lawyer now. I say -:- Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 20:11:20 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Janet -:- misspelled my own name. great. [nt] -:- Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 20:21:42 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- lawyers talk to lawyers -:- Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 20:13:25 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Marianne -:- Lawyers? -:- Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 20:39:00 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- Re: Lawyers? -:- Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 20:41:20 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jet -:- ()) ()) ()) ()) ()) hee hee -:- Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 20:24:33 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- Oh, come on -:- Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 15:58:43 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jethro -:- Re: Oh, come on -:- Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 17:22:35 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- Re: Oh, come on -:- Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 19:01:42 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ JHB -:- Exactly my point -:- Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 16:09:08 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- Still Ridiculous, IMO -:- Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 17:53:05 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JHB -:- Not just Jewish -:- Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 18:16:54 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- Still Ridiculous -:- Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 18:40:28 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JHB -:- NOT Ridiculous! -:- Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 19:04:21 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- Whoa -:- Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 19:12:58 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JHB -:- Joe, why is this not clear to you? -:- Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 19:39:32 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- Splitting minute hairs. -:- Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 19:57:47 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- This is definitely racist -:- Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 20:52:54 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- You don't sound so definite -:- Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 21:13:16 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- It's so PC to accuse me of not being PC -:- Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 21:20:31 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ PatC -:- Re: It's so PC to accuse me of not being PC -:- Fri, Feb 08, 2002 at 04:59:54 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Marshall -:- Re: Exactly my point -:- Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 16:48:50 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- Sometimes it is descriptive -:- Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 17:57:09 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ cq -:- would it be better like this? -:- Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 14:21:28 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Janet -:- Re: would it be better like this? -:- Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 20:34:32 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Livia -:- Hopefully, the last word -:- Fri, Feb 08, 2002 at 10:45:36 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Sulla -:- May I...? -:- Sat, Feb 09, 2002 at 11:44:17 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ PatC -:- Thank you, Livia -:- Fri, Feb 08, 2002 at 19:14:38 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JHB -:- With words like these, I hope... -:- Fri, Feb 08, 2002 at 16:50:07 (EST)

Date: Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 12:30:59 (EST) From: OTS Email: None To: All Subject: Knowledge is NOT free Message:

The “Knowledge” or “Self-Knowledge,” as it is now referred to by Elan Vital (if the organization even still exits) and Maharaji, is marketed as a NO CHARGE thing. It’s yours, free, as a gift. Sort of like getting a new toaster when you open up a savings account down at the old Savings & Loan. It’s free, they say. HA!!!!!!!!!! What a joke that is. It cost me plenty. Most everything I had. For instance, whether you look at it today or 30 years ago, believe me, it costs big time. I believe Loaf below was recalling the complete psycho behavior of one Mahatma Fakiranand, the blissful beggar. And I agree to his taking the cake. During the selection process he asked people if they’d cut their head off for Maharaji, if they’d give the title to their boat/car to Maharaji. He would tell a few to bring the title to the Knowledge session the next morning and the keys to starting the engine. (After the session, I recall people asking the Mahatma for a dollar to take the subway home, as they had dedicated all of their tokens and cash. It was quite embarrassing to have to watch Dr. John reach into his pocket and give the guy a buck to get home. My brother-in-law, now 50, received Knowledge at the 1973 Millennium event at the Houston Astrodome. He, to this day, regrets having to give up his high school ring in order to receive Knowledge. He never had it replaced. He never practiced Knowledge or got into it at all and was never a premie, but is still bitter about this. My wife, and many other women during the early 70s in the ashrams and the communities, had their jewelry taken from them by this hunchback Jewish premie merchant on the East Coast who would just rip it off the girls and laugh and laugh and re-sell it for cash for the local coffers. He cared nothing for any sentimental value or family heirloom classifications. He is known by all to this day for his divine sales work back then. He sold off these gems for money for M’s mission to bring peace to the world through the dissemination of this free gift -- Knowledge. Thirty years later -- still no peace! Knowledge still free! Not selling like hotcakes, though. The merchant, no longer a merchant, still is in love with Maharaji, and would never come here to F7 and face the truth of the matter. Never. Too brainwashed. Or how about the cost of Knowledge today. If you are actually finally selected to receive it and get it, after having spent a lot of money and airfare and hotel and car rentals to go to Miami Beach, FL (maybe a few times over a few years) and try to get selected but see other people crying from being rejected as not being “ready to receive Knowledge,” well, you promise to keep in touch. So, I guess that means either (i) going to see M and hear him repeat the same speech over and over year after year, or (ii) watching the heavily edited broadcasts of his speeches, with all the jokes and four-letter words removed. As for the former (going to see M), for instance, last year, my premie friend spent his hard-earned after-tax money on the following trips: Portland, Ore.; Thousand Oaks, CA; Queensland, Australia; Miami Beach, FL; Nottingham, UK; Rome; Phoenix, AZ; Philadelphia, PA; Miami Beach, FL just to see Maharji and hear him speak. Fine for him, the rich successful fellow and his wife. Some trips were only for an hour’s speech. Other trips lasted a few days or weeks. Can you afford all these trips? How many? Which ones? How do you choose? Is it ever enough? Can you afford the time off from work/family; the spiraling costs of airfare, hotel, food, car, seat registration, darshan cash donation? Year after year after year. Charging and charging and charging on those cards? As to the latter (seeing the broadcasts), when satellite broadcasts first came out a few years ago, our community had to rent a hotel room and then hire a contractor to put up a Dishnet® satellite dish for that day’s event, then take it down. We didn’t have a permanent “hall.” For the next broadcast, we had to hire the same hotel room and satellite dish installation contractor to come out again to the hotel and install and take down the dish. This brought the per person price of entry to see the one-hour videotaped speech to $30 per person. That’s $60 for me and the mrs. per week, or $240 per month, for us to attend the weekly broadcasts. [For the prior 12 years, we’d always gone and watched the videotapes playing for free and our small monthly donation.] Only most people couldn’t afford the price, so more and more people bought their own dish and watched at home. But for those that couldn’t get transmission, or couldn’t afford the dish, they had to go to the hotel room and pay $30 a person. As more and more people watched from home, the expenses at the hotel were not being met and finally hotel broadcasts were cancelled. Everyone was on their own. The local EV would not allow premies to somehow get together at a local event and see who had the dish and who didn’t and who would invite whom over to watch. Not allowed. This was one of the final drips for me. I couldn’t get the dish at home and couldn’t afford to watch in a hotel room, which was now no longer an option, and couldn’t afford to buy all of the videos, so I bought a couple a year, and that was that. We used to drive 40 minutes to this family’s home to watch the broadcasts, but their kids and the dog would always be running around, and the heavily edited nature of the speeches made them more and more boring, and I’d just fall asleep, so we stopped going. Finally, I exited the cult. Knowledge is Free -- my ass! It cost me thirty years of hard work, dedication, and crushed hopes -- all because of the fraudulent nature of the entire trip presented by its leader The Maharaja of Malibu. Knowledge, as it was said here last week, is just the cheese on M’s mousetrap. Please mind the bait.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 16:40:33 (EST) From: Steve Mueller Email: None To: OTS Subject: Re: Knowledge is NOT free Message:

Great post, OTS! But you know what the real kicker is? Guess what? He gives you absolutely NOTHING! NOTHING at all! If someone shows you a better way to pick your nose or scratch your bum, do you really feel they GAVE you something? He gives you NOTHING! NOTHING! Pushing on eyeballs, big frickin deal. Following your breath. Hell, you can read about that in countless yoga and meditation books. But before he 'GIVES' you this NOTHING, he makes sure you are adequately brainwashed into 'staying in touch' (translation: is assured you will be a regular and significant contributor to his GulfStream jet and Malibu mansion payments). M is the world's all time most successful con artist, bar none. He is a greedy pig who doesn't care how many peoples' lives he fucks up so long as he can continue to live the life of luxury to which he has become addicted. He is not to be pitied. He is an evil sob who needs to be stopped by all legal and socially responsible means available. Mainly, thru education, thru getting the word out to anyone already infected by his evil social disease, as well as warning those who might be susceptible to becoming new victims of his sneaky brainwashing techniques. Thanks again for your great post, OTS. You accurately described the way it is for those folks who exed long ago who may not have been aware of just how expensive it has truly become to get N-O-T-H-I-N-G from M.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 16:03:53 (EST) From: Silvia Email: None To: OTS Subject: *****BEST OF FORUM**** Message:

Good post! Of course it is not free. Maharaji is such a con man that engraves in yoru brain much and that one is one. Free. My credit cards I'm still paying tells me the opposite. Have you posted here before with another name? I like yoru posts. :)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 13:32:43 (EST) From: OTS Email: nigel@redcrow.demon.co.uk To: OTS Subject: Nice work 'Ots'... Message:

(May I call you 'Ots'?) You write well. I haven't noticed you here before. If you are new, then welcome - I hope you enjoy your stay. How about thinking of doing a 'journeys' entry? (Also, in my experience, it is totally safe to use your own name, provided you tell only the truth as you see it - but I realise many new exes aren't ready for that straight away). Thanks, anyway, for the post. You hit the nail(s) on the head. 'Free' K? - same now as it ever was, and you spell that out clearly for premies who still insist ex-premie posters live in the past. Cheers, Nige

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 14:33:28 (EST) From: OTS Email: None To: OTS Subject: Obviously posted by Nigel Message:

Nigel: You may call me Ots, but you may not call your self OTS.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 15:25:03 (EST) From: Oops! Email: nigel@redcrow.demon.co.uk To: OTS Subject: Can I call myself 'Oops!'? Message:

I wondered where my reply vanished to.. ;)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 15:39:58 (EST) From: Nigel Email: None To: Oops! Subject: See my reply to Livia.. [nt] Message:

[nt]

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 14:50:50 (EST) From: Richard Email: None To: OTS Subject: Nigel, you missed some great posts Message:

The first couple of OTS posts caused quite a stir. They can probably be retrieved from the F7 archives. I tried to find them but get broken links from the search page. Maybe a temporary problem. First post TO: Your Readers FROM: OTS SUBJECT: Shades of Gray DATE: July 21, 2001 Second post TO: EPO Readers FROM: OTS DATE: August 27, 2001 RE: Update

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 13:30:35 (EST) From: Joe Email: None To: OTS Subject: Other 'costs' Message:

If you go over to the 'Visions' website you find for sale a myriad of publications, videos, tapes, 'cloud books' and the like specifically for those interested in receiving knowledge, and they all COST, from about $15 to about $30. Now, no one is FORCED to buy this stuff if they want to receive knowledge, but given that nobody knows when you are ever 'ready' to receive knowledge, and the selection process is almost entirely arbitrary and subjective, one would feel somewhat pressured to get all the 'stuff' the cult recommends for the purpose of receiving Knowledge, if you think that's what you want. And what better way to demonstrate your proper "understanding" and that you are "ready" than to make donations, buy cult trinkets, and travel to "events," paying whatever exhorbitant "registration" fees are charged, like paying $100 to watch M speak and react to professions of "love" for a couple of hours in a hotel ballroom, like happened a couple of months ago.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 23:16:46 (EST) From: Cynthia Email: None To: Joe Subject: What is this CAC2? Message:

Delete that fucking picture. It has no place here or reason to be placed here whoever placed it here.! This is rotten shit here.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 08, 2002 at 20:51:43 (EST) From: Deborah Email: None To: * Subject: What is this about? Message:

[nt]

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 08, 2002 at 04:42:05 (EST) From: PatC Email: None To: Cynthia Subject: Precisely Cynthia and Joe Message:

We are not here to attack premies. I know Sheldon and wish him only well even if I do not agree with his attachment to Rev Rawat. I have made my fair share of digs at premies and regret it. Gossip and unkind words about premies was the only part of the attack on me by CAC which I conceded was a mistake on my part. The rest of the CAC attack on me was despicable and I will never stoop to that level. I am here to help premies see the other side of the story not to attack them.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 08, 2002 at 21:15:15 (EST) From: * Email: None To: PatC Subject: * Message:

[nt]

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 09, 2002 at 12:24:49 (EST) From: Livia Email: None To: Deborah Subject: Thinking before leaping Message:

Dear Deborah In light of everything that's been said, and having just reread my angry post to OTS, I now think I could have found a gentler, kinder way to express the feelings I had at the time. I have a tendency to get (inappropriately?) aggressive at times. I think I've learned a lesson. Thank you, Deborah With love, Livia

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 09, 2002 at 17:49:37 (EST) From: Deborah Email: None To: Livia Subject: Thank you for getting my point Message:

Hi Livia, This was not about WHY a post should or should not get edited or deleted, it is how we communicate. I agree with all the points. Their is no need to have a group of people explode before a point is made. That does not make a good impression on lurking posters. And it is not fair to the person participating. Thank you for seeing the point in the intention it was made. It's nice of you to come forward to say what you did. Take care, deborah

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 08, 2002 at 13:22:29 (EST) From: Richard Email: None To: PatC Subject: Agree 100% Pat , Cynthia and Joe Message:

100% agreement. I will not participate in a forum that trashes innocent people. I feel a huge responsibility to tell my story as I experienced it, support others in doing the same and let everyone decide for themselves what path they will take. FA: Please remove the photo and any personal info.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 08, 2002 at 21:39:39 (EST) From: Deborah Email: None To: Richard Subject: Re: Agree 100% Pat , Cynthia and Joe Message:

Richard, Will you participate on a forum that politely discusses its point of view or objection without trashing an un-intentionally trashing poster? Would others?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 08, 2002 at 22:04:30 (EST) From: Richard Email: None To: Deborah Subject: Of course, Deborah Message:

I'm not sure what your comment has to do with what I said though. My point was that we shouldn't have a lynch mob mentality here. It serves nothing to do that. If someone wronged someone else years ago, then they have every reason to say so. It's just not right to publish that person's personal information here. If it's done, that's no better than the Cacroaches.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 09, 2002 at 18:08:50 (EST) From: Deborah Email: None To: Richard Subject: I agree Message:

But everyone attacking a post that may be unfair is attacking as well. That could have been said without turning the poster into a CAC attacker. Do you really think that was my intent? My name showed up on one of those CAC attacks as well. Now if I insisted and argued etc. that would be different. Than I could see a group chiming in, but that wasn't the case at all. I had deleted the posts myself. I have told PatC that he is welcome to delete any and all posts he feel fits at his discretion. Thankfully, Livia got the point. Be well, deborah who thanks you for a considerate response

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 09, 2002 at 04:14:29 (EST) From: PatC Email: None To: Richard Subject: Which is why Deborah was deleted Message:

You said: ''I'm not sure what your comment has to do with what I said though.'' Deborah is upset that some of her posts were deleted. This happened because she first deleted her really bad mistake of posting wrong info about another person whom she thought........oh never mind. Her mistake has been fixed but she has not realized that yet. I'm sorry but I really did not follow this thread much. Other people who were involved in this thread requested that I delete their posts since Deborah had deleted the offending post of hers to which they were responding. Their responses referring to a serious blunder by Deborah ceased to have relevance and were deleted as requested. If people give me a good reason to delete posts, I will. I have done the same favor for Deborah in the past when she was attacked by premies. I was given the password to the forum so that I get help in it's admin. I seldom delete anything except anonymous spam attacking exes and now, for the first time, posts which no longer had relevance since the topic that elicited them had been removed by it's author. PS I am hoping, Deborah, that you will drop this subject in light of the fact that you have been spared the necessity of making a public apology to the person you defamed by the posting of inaccurate information. Deleting all references to your blunder was the only solution.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 09, 2002 at 18:17:16 (EST) From: Deborah Email: None To: PatC Subject: NO! WRONG PatC Message:

Jesus! How far off the point can you possibly be. I am delighted that the posts were deleted. Delighted. I can not drop the topic and watch you paint such a pathetic representation of what happened. I was saying that the above posters engaged in a group attack over a post, which, happened to be already removed without YOUR help. You have the right to remove and I encourage you to do that, but that does not mean that people should leave a wake of complaints against the poster in it's wake. I was not debating with anybody on the merits of posting or deleting. It was about decent courtesy to the fellow posters. Is this clearer to you now?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 09, 2002 at 18:31:46 (EST) From: PatC Email: None To: Deborah Subject: Group attack ??? Message:

You've already mentioned this to me by email (where it belongs BTW not here) and I have already responded. However, as you have raised the subject in public, I shall respond in public. As I said to you by email - I really can't be bothered to even ask for an explanation if what you mean by a group attack. The very idea makes me wonder if you are becoming paranoid. Now please drop this subject immediately. It is highly personal to you and probably of no interest to anyone else. Please contact the people in the ''group'' that you imagine are attacking you and do it privately by email but not on this forum. That's my final word on the subject.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 09, 2002 at 19:49:42 (EST) From: Deborah Email: None To: PatC Subject: Apparently Livia & Richard understand Message:

This is not paranoia, dear. I am talking about the cluster of posts that I responded to. It is not an imagingary 'group' in my head. They have names. Why would I need the email to observe the bulletin board. I also referred to the 'group attack' on OTS over his comment. If one person complained, it didn't need to be accompanied by ten others. And people slung complaints and cried 'foul' before giving OTS a chance to respond. A dearth of courtesy is and has been my complaint in all posts and email exchanges. Please do not re-write my posts and emails according to the 'story' in your head. I am talking about tangable and obviousl behaviours here. No conspiracy theory in my head. Got it!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 12:45:18 (EST) From: Jean-Michel Email: None To: OTS Subject: Thanks definitely **** Best of Forum *** Message:

I know I have to update that page, and I'LL DO IT !!! [ Best Of Forum Page ]

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 12:39:59 (EST) From: Livia Email: None To: OTS Subject: Re: Knowledge is NOT free Message:

'My wife, and many other women during the early 70s in the ashrams and the communities, had their jewelry taken from them by this hunchback Jewish premie merchant on the East Coast who would just rip it off the girls and laugh and laugh and re-sell it for cash for the local coffers.' I'm sorry, while I agree with the spirit of what you say in this post, I just can't let the above go without comment. If 'hunchback Jewish premie merchant' doesn't have anti-Semitic connotations, then I'm a fried egg! Please, what does Jewish have to do with it? Hunchback Jewish - sounds like some horrible Dickensian sterotype. Please apologise. With regards, Livia

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 19:56:44 (EST) From: Francesca Email: None To: Livia Subject: Please, he's just describing the guy Message:

And I have a Jewish ex-premie friend who laughed their ass off reading it and knew Sheldon back then. I don't think he was putting down Jews!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 08, 2002 at 17:00:37 (EST) From: JHB Email: None To: Francesca Subject: Francesca, but how would it look... Message:

... if you didn't know Sheldon? I didn't and still don't, and there are hundreds reading here, many of whom I'm sure also don't. OTS needs to understand his readership better. John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 15:35:10 (EST) From: Nigel Email: nigel@redcrow.demon.co.uk To: Livia Subject: Agreed! 'OTS' please note... Message:

I was skim reading 'OTS's' post in places - and missed that bit. Yuk! Well out of order - and I retract my above praise until its writer does the decent thing. Thanks Livia - it sometimes gets wearying speaking up for common sense and decency at the risk of being seen as some sort of PC-policeperson. But it needed saying. Nineteenth century is more-or-less right - or perhaps 17th? (I am thinking 'Shylock' now..) Cheers, Nige

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 14:58:24 (EST) From: Jethro Email: None To: Livia Subject: Re: Knowledge is NOT free Message:

Yes it did sound anti-Semitic but I don't think it was intended. Believe me some of my best friends are gentiles. When I read the post, I assumed that this premie was either a Hasidic premie(there were some) or looked like Ron Moody playing Shylok. Maybe OTS can tell us why he use the word Jewish? Jethro

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 19:50:16 (EST) From: janet the half jew Email: None To: Jethro Subject: if u knew sheldon, it fit. Message:

it sounded pretty nasty, true--but the sad reality is that sheldon fit the description all too well.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 23:18:06 (EST) From: Cynthia Email: None To: janet the half jew Subject: So what, Janet? [nt] Message:

[nt]

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 20:09:23 (EST) From: Jethro Email: None To: janet the half jew Subject: Re: if u knew sheldon, it fit. Message:

'it sounded pretty nasty, true--but the sad reality is that sheldon fit the description all too well' seems like we all have the same stereotype in our heads. Thank you Shakespeare

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 20:20:25 (EST) From: janet Email: None To: Jethro Subject: Re: if u knew sheldon, it fit. Message:

i didn't have any stereotype in my head! I was living in NYC at the time and so was he! All my paternal relatives are full blooded and fully habituated new york jews! it's a lifestyle,a mindset, a way of coping! 'stereotype' ..!? hell no, babe. I was just recognizing a classic way of behaving, that Sheldon demonstrated with glee and forethought. He was just being the way he had seen everyone else around him be, all his natural born, New York, Jewish life. Same way you and I and everyone you've ever known learned how to be--by watching, imitating and gaining approval from the people who were raising us from the cradle. and in this particular case, Shakespeare never entered into it. I guarantee you that.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 15:11:37 (EST) From: OTS Email: None To: Jethro Subject: What's the matter now? Message:

Jetrho/Livia/Pope John Paul II: In my post of February 1st, I wrote: 'Having studied Judaism in my youth for many years, when Guru Maharaji came along, simultaneous with the fading out of the radical left and anti-war movement in America in the early 70s and the rise of heavy metal music, I was just so ripe that part of my faith which promised Jews that their savior will come seemed to be answered for me by his arrival in the West.' Does this sound anti-semetic? Kinda sounds like perhaps I might be myself Jewish, no? I used the word Jewish because of facts. And yes, he looked like Ron Moody playing Shylock. Except our premie friend is a nice boy. 'Just doing his service.' Just like the SS troops in WWII?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 17:09:20 (EST) From: Jethro Email: None To: OTS Subject: Re: What's the matter now? Message:

'Having studied Judaism in my youth for many years, when Guru Maharaji came along, simultaneous with the fading out of the radical left and anti-war movement in America in the early 70s and the rise of heavy metal music, I was just so ripe that part of my faith which promised Jews that their savior will come seemed to be answered for me by his arrival in the West.' Although I had given up Judaism by the time I came to m(I was a Chabadnik for a short time), I also like you saw m as a fufilment of the messiah. My own studies of the Talmud as a book of Jewish discussion led me to believe that the messiah performed the function of lifting the consciousness of the world and could be just about anybody(Jewish or not). A bit like when m used to say that the Perfect Master could be any person(eeerr it's just a coincidence that he happened to be the son of a PM AND the PM appoints the next PM). 'Does this sound anti-semetic? Kinda sounds like perhaps I might be myself Jewish, no? ' That you may be a Jew does not stop you being an anti-Semite or sound like one. (Big fucking deal, everyone sounds like something!)If you are a Jew then you already know this. All I meant in my post was that I knew someone would be offended by your statement. 'I used the word Jewish because of facts. And yes, he looked like Ron Moody playing Shylock. ' Exactly my first image. Seems like we both bought into the Jewsih stereotype of Shylock. By the way 'what facts'? 'Except our premie friend is a nice boy. 'Just doing his service.' Just like the SS troops in WWII? ' Sounds like a typical premie doing things because 'Maharaji said'. It also sounds like a parking warden defending himself when giving out a ticket. It also sounds like a lawyer saying 'I am only following the law' in a case where it is obvious that his client is guilty......and yes it also sounds like the Nazis. Jethro

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 15:14:40 (EST) From: Cynthia Email: None To: OTS Subject: Everybody simmer down now! Message:

Don't let this good thread erupt into an argument just because of one sentence. OTS explained him/herself. Let it go please. Cynth

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 12:57:35 (EST) From: OTS Email: None To: Livia Subject: Please lighten up Message:

Livia, even though I am happy to read your posts, no, political correctness does not rule the day here, I'm sorry. Cannot one be described by their religion ever? If you knew this guy, you'd say about my description: 'Exactly.' I have nothing against any religion or against anyone who practices any religion and I'm certainly not an anti-semite or anti-semetic. How boring this place can become with numerous attempts to correct others' expression and demand apologies of this one and that one. And my need to respond to your outrage. [P.S. I know Jewish premies who are actually pissed at Maharaji because he still cracks Jewish jokes constantly in large and small groups.] Some people can't take being made fun of. But, here, I am not blanketly demeaning people of a certain race or religion. Just pointing out this particular guy's obvious characteristics. Love, OTS By the way below in a post of yours you ask: 'What I'd like to know is: who is the guy who appears quite often [in the Passages video], sitting to the right with a very straight back and something slightly scary and robotic about him? Because that person had a steel rod inserted in his spine some years ago and had a slight stroke and therefore isn't able to emote with his facial expressions like he used to -- shouldn't YOU apologzie to all people who've had back operations and strokes? Ridiculous.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 08, 2002 at 12:00:35 (EST) From: Kelly Email: None To: OTS Subject: Re: The scary robotic guy Message:

Hi OTS (What does that stand for by the way?) I've walked in on the middle of an argument, never a good idea, but I'm wondering if you were serious about that guy in the Passages video? if so, can you tell us who he is? I suspect you were scoring a (tongue in cheek) point, but it's so hard to tell sometimes on this invisible forum. By the way, I'm tall dark and handsome! Kelly

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 08, 2002 at 11:08:00 (EST) From: Livia Email: None To: OTS Subject: Re: Please lighten up Message:

'But, here, I am not blanketly demeaning people of a certain race or religion. Just pointing out this particular guy's obvious characteristics' Dear OTS I'm sorry but I still think you're missing something here, and if you read my post at the hopefully final end of all this, you may understand why. As for your explanation about the premie in the Passages video, if this is true that he has a metal rod in his spine and has had a stroke, then, aargh I'm guilty of an insensitive remark too. I really had no idea and I should have thought. I'll be more careful next time before I rush to condemn.... With love, Livia

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 15:07:16 (EST) From: Cynthia Email: None To: OTS Subject: OTS, Please lighten up:) Message:

Hi OTS, I didn't even notice the Jewish reference. But when Jews are mentioned in connection with jewelry, it can be misconstrued as anti-semetic, that's all. Btw, are you Jewish? I sure wish you would come out already. If you have serious saftey or confidentiality reasons I do understand, however; take some time to consider revealing your real name. It's hard at first, but once you do it, it takes a huge weight off your shoulders and does give you much more credibility when posting here. No pressure, just think about it. Best, Cynthia J. Gracie Vermont, USA, fearlessness inspires truth

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 13:49:22 (EST) From: Joe Email: None To: OTS Subject: OTS, who is that? Message:

Is that Ron Geaves, who has a rod in his spine? I can't think of who else it might be. Is it John Hampton? John did look not in the greatest health in the video, and come to think of it, he did sit to the right. What happened with him? By the way OTS, I am probably the most PC person here, or at least I have that reputation, which isn't really true, but there you have it, and I didn't think what you said was offensive, and further, if people knew who you were, they would feel even less that way.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 13:15:36 (EST) From: JHB Email: None To: OTS Subject: I agree with Livia Message:

Your description of this premie did come across to me as anti-semitic, whether you intended it to or not. John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 14:11:37 (EST) From: Carl Email: None To: JHB Subject: Excuse me, but Message:

why is the mere mention of a characteristic or description considered 'anti'? There was no derogatory slang term or disrespect within the language used that I could see. E.g., 'So-and-so is an arthritic black Catholic gay man premie bowler. . . ' Do we 'apologize' to all men because he was identifed as a man? To all Catholics? All gays? All blacks? All bowlers? What is so horrible about description and setting the scene? Screenwriters and novelists pay close attention to the colorful distinctions among us, otherwise all stories would only distinguish between 'Human A' and 'Human B' and so on. Or perhaps we should apologize to the alphabet. Am I missing something? Help me out. Regards, Carl

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 15:51:32 (EST) From: JHB Email: None To: Carl Subject: Let me explain Message:

I hesitate in doing so as the issue has been pretty much put to bed, and in no way do I think OTS is anti-semitic, but I think it's worthwhile explaining why, in my opinion, it comes over that way. To me, it's for two reasons - firstly, quite a few specific people are mentioned in OTS's excellent debunking of the 'Knowedge is Free' myth, and OTS doesn't refer to anyone else's ethnic background or religion. Unfortunately, the one person about whom he does add this extra information, is painted in a poor light. The information that this premie was Jewish did not add any essential colour to the story. Secondly, mentioning that the premie was Jewish could be interpreted as that he was taking the jewellery because he was Jewish. John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 19:59:26 (EST) From: janet the half jew Email: None To: JHB Subject: ya know? if anyone should apologize.. Message:

it ought to be Sheldon, for taking all our jewelry like that, the way he did. I he left the kind of impression he did, then he is the one guilty for giving jews and premies, both, a bad name! and sheldon, if you read this, come on out and take me on! we knew each other, back in the day. you know what you did. it's on YOU to make good, not on us.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 20:02:36 (EST) From: Joe Email: None To: janet the half jew Subject: I sent him an email Message:

And I was really nice and polite, just asking if he remembered me from Miami and saying hello. No response. Sheldon didn't want to talk to me. Do you think he hates gays who are one quarter Danish? :)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 20:11:20 (EST) From: kamet Email: None To: Joe Subject: he's a lawyer now. I say Message:

we let Jim and Marianne be our emisarries. They have the inside polish. uh... i mean panache, not people of poland! oh christ. here we go again. let lawyers talk to lawyers. they speak the lanuage, they move in the culture.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 20:21:42 (EST) From: Janet Email: None To: kamet Subject: misspelled my own name. great. [nt] Message:

[nt]

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 20:13:25 (EST) From: Joe Email: None To: kamet Subject: lawyers talk to lawyers Message:

let lawyers talk to lawyers. I think that's like saying 'let the blind lead the blind.' :) And they would be there for DAYS and it would cost a FORTUNE :) (Okay, no more lawyer jokes!) Joe, Who works with, and fights with lawyers every day.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 20:39:00 (EST) From: Marianne Email: None To: Joe Subject: Lawyers? Message:

Haven't I mentioned that we are superior to everyone else on the planet? If I neglected to say so before, I am now. That premise is what I base my legal practice upon. Anyone who has met me knows I am insufferable class snob. Marianne

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 20:41:20 (EST) From: Joe Email: None To: Marianne Subject: Re: Lawyers? Message:

Of course present company excepted! Of course and always, for sure, yes, absolutely......:)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 20:24:33 (EST) From: Jet Email: None To: Joe Subject: ()) ()) ()) ()) ()) hee hee Message:

it's a secret society, doncha know

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 15:58:43 (EST) From: Joe Email: None To: JHB Subject: Oh, come on Message:

Secondly, mentioning that the premie was Jewish could be interpreted as that he was taking the jewellery because he was Jewish Sorry John, but that's kind of ridiculous, and really reaching. Why would a Jewish person steal other people's jewelry, more than a Christian would, maybe, because: 1. He killed Jesus?:) 2. He thinks he's so smart?;:) 3. He's trying to make a fast buck?:) Come on. Plus, since OTS is Jewish himself, he is innoculated from being called anti-semitic for making Jewish jokes, even though this wasn't a joke, or at least only partly was.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 17:22:35 (EST) From: Jethro Email: None To: Joe Subject: Re: Oh, come on Message:

'To me, it's for two reasons - firstly, quite a few specific people are mentioned in OTS's excellent debunking of the 'Knowedge is Free' myth, and OTS doesn't refer to anyone else's ethnic background or religion. ' I think John means that the statement is pandering to peoples' prejudice against Jews. Try loooking up 'Jew' in a good dictionary, here's part of Chamber's 20th century Dictionary: Jew: a person of Hebrew descent or religion; an Israelite: (offensively)a userer, a miser, etc:- fem Jewess v.t.(offensively)to overeach or to cheat..... Have you never heard anyone say 'I've been Jewed' meaning I have been cheated.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 19:01:42 (EST) From: Joe Email: None To: Jethro Subject: Re: Oh, come on Message:

Have you never heard anyone say 'I've been Jewed' meaning I have been cheated. Yes, but not since I was a kid, but that doesn't mean that 'Jewish' is a racist or anti-semitic term just to describe someone. As I said to John, OTS described Sheldon Jaffe as being 'Jewish', among other things, because he knew a bunch of us would then know who he was talking about. In that sense, it was purely descriptive. The other people in OTS's piece (Fakiranand, his wife, and his friend who travels everywhere to see M), were NOT described at all. There were no descriptions, racial, religious or otherwise. Jerry Seinfeld, Judd Hirsch, Seymour Hirsch, Ed Koch -- saying they look 'Jewish' is not a negative or anti-semitic thing to say, anymore than to say somebody looks Irish or is black is a negative thing to say.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 16:09:08 (EST) From: JHB Email: None To: Joe Subject: Exactly my point Message:

Therefore mentioning he was Jewish was completely unnecessary, just as OTS didn't mention the religions, colour or ethnicity of himself or anyone else in the post. John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 17:53:05 (EST) From: Joe Email: None To: JHB Subject: Still Ridiculous, IMO Message:

Therefore mentioning he was Jewish was completely unnecessary, If he had said the guy was 'black' or 'white' or 'Irish' or 'Scottish' would you say the same thing, or is it only the word 'Jewish' that gets that reaction? None of those things might be 'necessary' either, it's just a description, although it's pretty subjective for you, who didn't write the piece, to say it wasn't 'necessary.' Or what if he said he was "gay"? Same thing? You guys, are way, way way, overreacting. By the way, David Goldberg has a great editorial in the Guardian about how the label 'anti-semitism' is sometimes used to label every liberal critic of the Isreali policy in Palestine.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 18:16:54 (EST) From: JHB Email: None To: Joe Subject: Not just Jewish Message:

In the UK, newspapers were (maybe still are) renowned for only mentioning a defendant's skin colour if it happens to be black. If it's white, it doesn't get mentioned. If a newspaper was reporting on the trial of a burglar, and mentioned that the burglar was gay, would that be OK, if they never say the straight burglars are straight? If we use the descriptions 'white', 'black', 'gay', 'straight', 'Latvian', 'Russian', 'Jewish', 'Moslem', we have to be careful to use them even-handedly. As I said two times already, OTS never mentioned any ethnic or religious details of anyone else in his story. If I, as a reader, need or want to know that this premie is Jewish, why don't I need or want to know similar information about all the other people mentioned? And as I said before, I don't believe OTS was being racist in his post - just that it comes over that way. Already five exes have expressed the same view, so it is established that it does come over that way to some of us. But no big deal:-) John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 18:40:28 (EST) From: Joe Email: None To: JHB Subject: Still Ridiculous Message:

. If I, as a reader, need or want to know that this premie is Jewish, why don't I need or want to know similar information about all the other people mentioned? Well, obviously, because Sheldon Jaffe was the ONLY person in his story that was described. And, believe it or not, some peole LOOK Jewish, and it's completely legitimate, and not anti-semitic to point that out. The only other people mentioned were OTS's wife, Mahatama Fakiranand, and a 'friend' who traveled to see M a lot. But Sheldon (not named) was described, because OTS knew that a whole bunch of us would know who he was talking about by his description. And, if the guy was known to be gay, then that would have been legitimate to say as well. There is just a huge difference between being descriptive and being racist.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 19:04:21 (EST) From: JHB Email: None To: Joe Subject: NOT Ridiculous! Message:

Joe, I didn't know who OTS was talking about. I still don't - the name means nothing to me. The one person in the account who has his religious/ethnic/physical characteristics described, is also the person who is cast in the worst light. OTS's account, taken on its own merits without the background information we now have, comes across as racist, and others agree with me. You didn't respond to my other examples which I used for comparison. Do you agree that mentioning defendants' colour only if they are black is racist? John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 19:12:58 (EST) From: Joe Email: None To: JHB Subject: Whoa Message:

You didn't respond to my other examples which I used for comparison. Do you agree that mentioning defendants' colour only if they are black is racist With all due respect I did respond. But your other statement has no relevence to what we are talking about. OTS isn't writing crime stories for the newspaper. He is writing to a bunch of people who would know who was being described. Maybe not everybody, but still a limited group nonetheless, and the description was relevent. Do you disagree that some people look 'Jewish,' and do you think it's racist or anti-semitic to point that out? I don't.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 19:39:32 (EST) From: JHB Email: None To: Joe Subject: Joe, why is this not clear to you? Message:

Joe, OTS was writing for the readers of this forum, in the same way that a newspaper reporter writes for the paper's readers. I had no idea who he was refering to, and still don't. Using the description 'Jewish' is absolutely fine as a description, but here it was used to describe someone whose main attribute, that of taking jewellery, was derogative. Why can't you see that for those who have no inside knowledge, picking this guy out to add extra descriptive detail, came across as racist. Joe, it is an indisputable fact that it came across as racist to me, Livia, Marshall, Nigel, and Jethro; although I'm sure we all now understand it wasn't meant that way. Are you arguing that it shouldn't have? If so, that's irrelevant - it did come across that way. John the likes a good argument before bed:-)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 19:57:47 (EST) From: Joe Email: None To: JHB Subject: Splitting minute hairs. Message:

OTS was writing for the readers of this forum, in the same way that a newspaper reporter writes for the paper's readers I completely disagree; it isn't anywhere near the same. Miles apart. but here it was used to describe someone whose main attribute, that of taking jewellery, was derogative How far do you take that, John? It's okay to describe someone who's Jewish and attractive, but not to describe someone who's Jewish and fat? No, don't buy it. That's taking PC to extremes that just limit what people can say when there isn't anything racist about it. Why can't you see that for those who have no inside knowledge, picking this guy out to add extra descriptive detail, came across as racist. Dunno. Maybe because I'm a bigot? :) What you don't get, maybe because I haven't said it six times yet, is that this guy was the ONLY, the ONLY person in the story who WAS described. The others were NOT, so your whole argument that he was treated differently for some racist reason makes no sense.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 20:52:54 (EST) From: Jim Email: None To: Joe Subject: This is definitely racist Message:

My wife, and many other women during the early 70s in the ashrams and the communities, had their jewelry taken from them by this hunchback Jewish premie merchant on the East Coast who would just rip it off the girls and laugh and laugh and re-sell it for cash for the local coffers. How can you even argue that this isn't at least a BIT racist, Joe? Of course it is! Why? Because, in a few deft strokes, OTS paints a brief but undeniable sketch of the ugly, odious jew, repugnant in his disregard for sentimental values and other noble concerns but driven by a crass preoccupation with money, even if the money in this case was Maharaji's, not his. Shylock redux, no doubt about it. I don't think it matters that he was the only guy described, that the stereotype was negative, not positive, or who OTS' audience is. It's a bit of a dig against a certain trait OTS perceives in some jews as surely as if he'd said something about some 'prissy fag'. The problem I have is that, just when you think you've overcome all tendencies to employ or believe in these stereotypes you meet someone somewhere, somehow, who seems to have been sent by Central Casting itself. I mean, my mother's jewish and, for all her 'jewish princess' traits -- which she has -- she's still far from the classic 'jewish mama'. But then some of my friend's mothers are. In spades! So what do you do? Deny the truth inherent in the stereotype at the risk of disregarding some fair and useful generalizations? Or ... or what? I think the real problem with these stereotypes is that they're so powerful and thus so unforgiving. They don't allow much breathing room for qualifying the person in and around the margins of the template. Once we know that the hunchbacked premie jeweller is a money-grubbing jew, well, we think we know him. Maybe too well. Maybe unfairly in the extreme. I don't know. Life's a bit messy in this area.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 21:13:16 (EST) From: Joe Email: None To: Jim Subject: You don't sound so definite Message:

This is so unlike you and your usual diatribes against all that is PC. I'm usually the one who's arguing the other side here, but I am getting tired of all the restrictions on speech that seem to go too far, like being unable to describe people by attributes they actually have, for fear of being labeled racist. So, if he had said that the guy was black, or Christian, or gay, it wouldn't be a problem because there isn's a stereotype with them like there is about Jews and money? Maybe I'm not as sensitive to that, but it just seems so tenuous to me because I don't even see that in the description. I don't think the singling out thing is an issue either, but it was to John, and I don't think he was singled out anyway. I just think 'theft' of jewelry from ashram women, or being a rabid cult member who abuses other people for the cult he's in, is unrelated to race or religion and it was something lots of people did of all kinds of backgrounds, although probably primarly Catholic and Jewish, because those are the groups the ashrams were full of. And as you said, even the stereotype of Jews making money is a bit removed because Sheldon wasn't doing it for himself, nor was he 'making' money, he was 'stealing' it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 21:20:31 (EST) From: Jim Email: None To: Joe Subject: It's so PC to accuse me of not being PC Message:

Hi Joe (I breathed a sigh of relief once I typed my first letter and was NOT told that my subject line was too long) I'd wished you picked up on my one, subtle and original thought in that post which, as you know, I'd hit you over the head with if I could remember it. But anyway, my bottom line is that it's messy. Perhaps a little bit of racism never really hurt anyone. Kind of like jokes. Or stepping out of line. If you step out too much, then you aren't in line and won't get a cookie. If you step out a bit, and then get back in, it's okay. Well, okay for everyone but the teacher.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 08, 2002 at 04:59:54 (EST) From: PatC Email: None To: Jim Subject: Re: It's so PC to accuse me of not being PC Message:

Jim: ''I'd wished you picked up on my one, subtle and original thought in that post which, as you know, I'd hit you over the head with if I could remember it.'' My choice: ''Deny the truth inherent in the stereotype at the risk of disregarding some fair and useful generalizations? Or ... or what?'' PC talk, like New Age rubber language, premie cult-think or even - god forfend - ex-premie argot stifles free speech. PatC, the ''prissy fag.'' PS: I took no offense at OTS's Shylock reduxness. He was simply painting in broad strokes. We all do that - and take the consequences.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 16:48:50 (EST) From: Marshall Email: None To: JHB Subject: Re: Exactly my point Message:

JHB is right in my opinion. Mentioning Sheldon was jewish didn't help describe him the way black or asian would have(for instance), since jews are white, and so many premies were jewish anyway. The fact that OTS is jewish doent make it right, or the statement any less anti-semitic.There is racism within races(light vs. dark skinned blacks). So aryan looking jews might look down on semitic (hairy, big nosed)looking jews. Part of the problem with the hunchbacked part of the description is that a lot of nazi propaganda in the 30's depicted a hunchbacked, old, big hooked nose person as a 'jew'. I thought it sounded mean towards jewish people, that's my last word on that subject(for now).

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 17:57:09 (EST) From: Joe Email: None To: Marshall Subject: Sometimes it is descriptive Message:

And sometimes that's all that's meant by it, which I think is the case here. BTW, OTS is Jewish himself. I doubt he's anti-semitic.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 14:21:28 (EST) From: cq Email: None To: Carl Subject: would it be better like this? Message:

for 'hunchback Jewish premie merchant' read 'disabled Jewish PWK business person'? I tried to think of another word that describes someone of the Jewish faith, but drew a blank. Is it the association with the other words (hunchback, premie, merchant) that causes offence?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 07, 2002 at 20:34:32 (EST) From: Janet Email: None To: cq Subject: Re: would it be better like this? Message:

if you really want to go the distance. for 'hunchback Jewish premie merchant' how about 'was approached by an overeager, excited reseller of secondhand merchandise, whose ancestry traced back to Moses, and whose posture was unfortunately compromised by years of bending over desks for long hours, while tallying accounting figures, and from prolonged lack of opportunity to exercise in the open and fresh air' THERE. DOES THAT SATISFY EVERYONE'S SENSIBILITIES OF GRACIOUS MANNERS AND LITERATE DESCRIPTION?????

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 08, 2002 at 10:45:36 (EST) From: Livia Email: None To: Janet Subject: Hopefully, the last word Message:

PLEASE, everybody! I never thought my words about what seemed to me to be a racist remark would lead to a lengthy OT debate. Obviously, wrangles of this type belong on other forums, but the original remark was made on this forum so when I felt compelled to respond to it, I had to do it here. BTW, I think/hope I would have responded in exactly the same way if the remark had negatively stereotyped any other ethnic group. I can see that some of you agreed with me and some of you didn't, and this probably all depends on what perspective you bring with you. In my own case, my family were refugees from Nazi Vienna. Many of them lost their lives in concentration camps and some were shot in their village in Hungary. As a child I was periodically the subject of anti-Semitic remarks such as 'dirty Yid' or 'money-grabbing Jew' (this when politely reminding someone to repay a long overdue loan). Oh, and 'I hate the Jews because the Jews killed Jesus'. And because i was a child at the time, it all affected me deeply. I have also had anti-Semitic remarks directed at me as an adult on occasion by people who I'm sure meant no real harm. Only recently a visiting acquaintance made one of these remarks in my own home. She doesn't know I'm Jewish, otherwise I'm sure she would never have said it. But it even made my (non-Jewish)partner feel queasy and he's made of strong stuff! So maybe you can understand why OTS' remark gave me a somewhat unpleasant chill. And as for someone's comment that 'Sheldon Jaffe gave Jews a bad name' - well, how many times have I heard that one..... It reminded me of my mother and I groaning whenever a Jew was convicted of a crime: do members of ethnic minorities have to behave impeccably at all times lest they reinforce their negative stereotyping? And if so, why must this rule apply only to ethnic minorities? One rule for us, another for everyone else? So please, no negative racial stereotyping - it's just not really on in a civillised forum/world. And I'll promise to try hard not to go OT again! Wearily, but with love to all of you, Livia

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 09, 2002 at 11:44:17 (EST) From: Sulla Email: None To: Livia Subject: May I...? Message:

Dear Livia, you asked: do members of ethnic minorities have to behave impeccably at all times lest they reinforce their negative stereotyping? And if so, why must this rule apply only to ethnic minorities? One rule for us, another for everyone else? I think, yes, and more so because it is the right thing to do rather than because we are under the gun. Since anything you could do to change the concept would never be enough, at least the people who you are in contact with will recognize the fine person that you are. Here in Fl. Jews are white, they are not seen as minorities. I think everybody has had and will have, their turn to be or to feel like the victims in the story of this humanity. Jews got a lot of sympathy and good things in return after the tragedy they went through. Blacks weren't as lucky, and even now there is a lot of discrimination against them as there is with Latinos or Hispanics here in the USA and in Europe. I'm of white color and I was born here in the USA, but my parents are from S. A. and Spanish is my first language, so my race is not white, but Hispanic. In the USA, 'Hispanic' became a race that includes all the races where Spanish happens to be the first language, be you Indian, Chinese, black, white, Japanese. To register your children in the school or to fill any official or employment paper you always have these choices: white-non Hispanic or black-non Hispanic, (the clarification of non Hispanic being new because some people marked both the white or black and the Hispanic square) and then Hispanic, which is not even a race but a language or cultural background. In the schools if you are Hispanic Jewish or a white with some Hispanic background you can choose to be called Hispanic, rather than white American, for the privileges you can get as minority when the balance favors it, depending on the circumstances. Though in the case of whites you have to fight for it since it looks suspicious. I also think, that it is illogical more than racist to call a person Jewish because of his Jewish appearance, Jews being able to look as American, Latin American, or European as some Latin American people, being as mixed as they are. I'm not Jewish and I have been asked by Jewish people if I'm from Israel, and the people from Israel that I know are darker skinned than I am. My husband can also look Italian or Jewish. On some occasions I have been asked if I'm French or from Spain, from Argentina or Italy. My son came from school one day scared because a person insulted him thinking he was Jewish, he told him he was not Jewish and the guy walked away, looking for his next target. That wasn't the first time something like that happened, so my son asked me for a cross to wear. In the public Elementary school my children assisted, Catholic or Christian children had no concepts about these religious differences, but some Jewish children were kind of greedy about it, always competitive and trying to demonstrate that Jews were better, as their mothers did. There were also a group of people always trying to find a way to separate their children from the rest of the mostly minority groups. Children aren't born with these kind of concepts, they learn them. The fact that a certain group of people have been discriminated against, be it Latino, Jewish, black, etc., doesn't make it right for that group to commit the same mistakes against another group. There is no excuse to discriminate, take advantage of, or to have extra privileges over any other person or group. Being Latin American, and having had a place of privilege in a country full of poverty, injustice and discrimination and being taught to be concerned and sensible about it, I don't mind being called Hispanic as a whole, but I don't think it's right to be labeled as something so specifically incorrect, that it constitutes a form of discrimination. While a system remains identifying people not for purposes of physical identification but for purposes of discrimination I would rather be Hispanic and colorless. Love. Sulla, who also has Jewish blood in the mix. PS: English is not my first language so I got a little help from my children.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 08, 2002 at 19:14:38 (EST) From: PatC Email: None To: Livia Subject: Thank you, Livia Message:

You said: ''So maybe you can understand why OTS' remark gave me a somewhat unpleasant chill.'' I sure do now. Thanks.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 08, 2002 at 16:50:07 (EST) From: JHB Email: None To: Livia Subject: With words like these, I hope... Message:

...it won't be your last word on any subject. As Clint Eastwood said in 'The Outlaw Josey Wales', 'I guess we all died a little in that damned war'. Love, John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index