Ex-Premie.Org |
Forum III Archive # 18 | |
From: Jul 14, 1998 |
To: Jul 24, 1998 |
Page: 3 Of: 5 |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 13:52:12 (EDT)
From: Paul Email: None To: Everyone Subject: 'Yuppie Guru Suicide' Message: Just back from vacation in the Big Apple, and must recommend that people buy the July 20th issue of New York magazine (NOT the New Yorker). The cover story is about the suicide of the 'Yuppie Guru'- a guy named Lenz. It is a chilling story of how this PhD educated follower of Sri Chimnoy branched out to become head of his own group, created a computer company, became Rama, wrote some books ('Surfing the Himalayas') and took in thousands of followers and even more money before self-destructing. A really chilling example of how perverse and destructive devotion can be. Let me know your reactions. Paul Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 13:57:56 (EDT)
From: Bobby Email: None To: Paul Subject: 'Yuppie Guru Suicide' Message: Wow. He committed suicide? Over the years I've followed stories about Frederick Lenz aka Rama. I remember his picture in some of old magazines I have in my archives somewhere. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 14:06:09 (EDT)
From: Bobby Email: None To: Paul Subject: sucide? + Lenz Links Message: Yahoo link ------------------------------------------------ April 13th 1998- Cult leader Frederick Lenz was found drowned yesterday in New York. Lenz's body was found in the Long Island Sound some 25 feet deep and 50 feet out from his pier by police divers. The railing was broken, and an incoherent female Lenz follower (apparently on drugs) was found by a security guard and taken to a Stoney Brook Medical Center. Earlier reports that Lenz committed suicide may have been premature. It is possible that Lenz was on drugs and simply fell in, or was possibly even pushed in. The Westchester Gazette and the New York Post seem to be the first ones writing about the story. No doubt more will follow. See Take Me For a Ride by former member Mark Laxer for more information about Rama and Frederick Lenz. New York Times March 24, 1998 Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 16:40:37 (EDT)
From: Paul Email: None To: Bobby Subject: sucide? + Lenz Links Message: Bobby: thanks for the links. According to the New York Magazine article, Lenz took about 150 valium before leaping in the ocean. His female companion survived. Paul Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 17:36:37 (EDT)
From: Katie Email: None To: Paul Subject: sucide? + Lenz Links Message: Thanks, Paul and Bobby for the links. I was interested but was wondering how I was going to get hold of a copy of 'New York' out here in the heartland. Not easily is my guess. P.S. to Paul: 'Forum Help' has stuff on HTML and making links, if you are interested. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 16:46:00 (EDT)
From: Paul Email: None To: everyone Subject: article on-line Message: The Lenz article can be found at www.newyorkmag.com/ Sorry, but I don't know anything about linking. Maybe someone else can do it. Thanks. Paul Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 16:54:18 (EDT)
From: Bobby Email: None To: Paul Subject: article on-line Message: Lenz' Last Days Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 18:18:59 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Paul Subject: One down..... Message: Wow, what a lot of hokum and chutzpah! Thanks for the tip, Paul. God, wouldn't it be terrible if that had happened to Maharaji? Just the thought of it makes me weep. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 18:58:17 (EDT)
From: x Email: None To: all Subject: Take Me For a Ride Message: There's a great book all about Lenz, written by a former insider. The title is Take Me For a Ride, it's by Mark Laxner and it's really funny, check it out. x Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jul 20, 1998 at 05:38:52 (EDT)
From: Scott T. Email: None To: Paul Subject: Like a Kite in the Wind. Message: Paul: Thanks for that tip. I made a comment above about the secret desire of every researcher to find an important topic upon which he is the sole expert. Thus guy apparently pulled a lot of stuff out of thin air, and made up a topic. I thought about attributing these sad details to the consequences of success, but think it's more like the consequences of undeserved success. He was like a high flying kite that has lost it's moorings. He deserved little if any credit for anything he achieved. He could sail into the stratosphere, but he eventually had to come down. Ultimately he just couldn't make a statement that made even the slightest sense. The trip just got to be complete gibberish. Chilling. -Scott Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jul 20, 1998 at 10:56:22 (EDT)
From: Paul Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: Like a Kite in the Wind. Message: Scott: What I find interesting is that his external world was still pretty much in place-followers, money, etc. but that it didn't keep him from self-destructing. Also, how strong the devotional pull is -the woman who was with him and willing to suicide was so gratefull to have been called by him after so long and to be chosen for his final adventure. Really sick. Paul Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 09:53:14 (EDT)
From: Katie Email: None To: Everyone Subject: Question for RT re cards Message: Hi RT - Now that I have your attention, I need to ask you to explain to everyone once again WHY the URL for the ex-premie site is upside-down on the cards. As I recall, it was done so that one could stick the card into a door or behind something (so as to be unobvious) and the site URL would still be readable. Correct? Thanks - a few people have asked me that question. Regards from Ms. K. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 15:13:25 (EDT)
From: RT Email: MMMMMMM To: Katie AND ?? Subject: Ex-Master Card: No expiration Message: To the Divine Ms. K-T Your statement is correct, stick in little areas to discover. Also, the longer the card is held-or flipped- the better for retention. Remember to read the EX-MASTER CARD: GOOD CHIT post to get the obverse side should you want to make your own! Totay is the Atlantic City Knowledge only Program. Just think, 3 months ago I would have gone...let's see: I saved 1/2 days' pay, gas, tolls, hotel, dinner, misc...$280.00. Proof: Ex-Premie .Org saves you money, and No heartaches! Thank you Brian, Jim, Sir David and K-T! RT Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Jul 19, 1998 at 15:29:24 (EDT)
From: Gail Email: None To: RT Subject: Ex-Master Card: No expiration Message: If this program were a month ago, I would have gone. We are the lucky ones. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 09:02:10 (EDT)
From: Katie Email: None To: Everyone Subject: Happy Birthday to Gail and RT! Message: I don't want to debunk, refute, inspect, or reject anything right now. This is a purely frivolous post wishing Gail and RT a VERY happy birthday. (First M-less birthday in a long time, right?) I hope it's a great day for both of you. Thanks for being on the forum - you've both given so much! Love from Katie P.S. Your birthday is the same as my ex, but I like you guys anyway (actually I even like him)! Have fun! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 09:06:29 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Katie Subject: Happy Birthday to Gail and RT! Message: Yeah, best to both of you. You guys have been great to correspond with. Thanks for being part of it all. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 09:23:11 (EDT)
From: RT Email: -- To: Jim Subject: Thanks! Message: Thaks Jim. I wrote this for you today..repeated below....thanks for all your comments! “This is National Public Radio, in Washington. I’m Carl Castle. Independent Counsel Kenneth Star has subpoenaed Prem Pal Singh Rawat, also known as Maharaji, in the ongoing investigation of Monica Lewinsky. Mr. Starr says there is probable cause that Ms. Lewinsky once attended a video event of the cult. In a prepared statement, a follower of the Ma-haraji from Elan Vital, a non-profit but inactive Californian charity, said: ‘Maharaji says that all Mr. Starrs questions will be answered in the videos. Later, Mr. Starr subpoenaed the video Library of Elan Vital. This is NPR. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 09:45:44 (EDT)
From: Richard Email: None To: RT Subject: Sentimental old me... Message: If only RT, if only. But hey! your birthday just reminded me of my favourite lyrics from my favourite album of all time... Born with the moon in Cancer Give her a name she can answer to Call her green.................. Sentimental or what!!! Richard Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 10:22:55 (EDT)
From: Robyn Email: sundogs@hotmail.com To: Richard Subject: Sentimental old me... Message: Dear Richar, For each of my girls, while I was pregnant I would sing a song to/for them throughout and even after they were born. This Joni Mitchell song was Jessicas. Jade's was by Dan Folgelburg but the name escapes me right now. Thank you also for the memory! Love, Robyn Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 10:29:11 (EDT)
From: Richard Email: None To: Robyn Subject: Sentimental old us... Message: Robyn, it was my pleasure, and my other favourite was/is Songs are like tattoos y'know I've been to sea before Crown and anchor me Or let me sail away Hey Blue Here is a song for you Ink on a pin Underneath the skin An empty space to fill in Richard Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 09:40:17 (EDT)
From: Richard Email: None To: Gail and RT Subject: Happy Birthday to Gail and RT! Message: Happy Birthday youse guys. I just KNEW you were both Cancers. Not that I believe in that bs of course. regards Richard Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 09:57:05 (EDT)
From: Gerry Email: None To: Richard Subject: Happy Birthday to Gail and RT! Message: Hey you guys! have a great day. You're both a lotta fun. Thanks! Gail I love your ''rants'' to BM. R,T I've had a sat-song based on Frank's ''That's Life'' on the tip of my tongue for days now...bet you could do a great job on it. How 'bout it? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 10:20:06 (EDT)
From: Robyn Email: sundogs@hotmail.com To: Katie Subject: Happy Birthday to Gail and RT! Message: Dear RT, I just tried to find where I posted your Happy Birthday wish and had a heck of a time finding it. I saw Judex's posted dog story to you first thing this mornig so didn't start you a thread and just piped in there but since I could hardly find it I wanted to join in here wishing you a great day and year. It has been great to read you here. Please find my origianl greeting for you below. Happy Birthday! Love, Robyn Katie, My goddess status in wavering, I feel my floral crown slipping off my head and my white goddes robes are all mussed up. I'll have a make over on 8/15 :). Gail, You'll have to wait for tomorrow for your birthday wish. One birthday rule I try to adhere to... Love, Robyn Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 10:28:02 (EDT)
From: VP Email: None To: RT Subject: Happy Birthday to Gail and RT! Message: RT, Katie gave me the cards-I really appreciate them. They would make good birthday gift inserts for my relatives. Open up the box and surprise--a tie with a special ex-premie calling card, too. Both of you, I hope that you both have a great day and that you get to do something special for yourselves. VP Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 12:11:40 (EDT)
From: Selena Email: None To: VP Subject: Me too. Happy Bday to both Message: Gail and RT. Glad you are here. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 12:32:16 (EDT)
From: RT Email: plenty today! To: All you wonderful folks Subject: real Premie Jokes to tell! Message: For the first time, a new tradition here on Ex-Premie.Org! Yuk it up with The Perfect Master and His Premies! What a joke! And We fell for it!! Here's a bunch of my best -rewritten last night- for you all; Yes, designed with your mind in mind! Thanks...and Happy Birthday Gail! JOKE 1. > The Perfect Master needs a drink. He goes into a bar, and strolls up to the Bartender. 'Sir, he asks, do you know who I am?' 'No-should I?' snorts the barkeep. 'Yes! I'm the Lord of the Universe!.... Here, have an introductory card.... I also REALLY know my scotch. I'd like a shot of 14-year-old scotch, please - not 3 years old, not 8 years, 14 years old.' Bartender looks long at Maharaji, who is dressed in his Full Krishna suit, and says 'Why me, Lord?---wait, don't answer that!' ...and goes to the shelf, muttering, 'Yeah, right. This guy'll never know the difference. He grabs a bottle of 2-year-old scotch, pours a shot. 'Here 'ye go' Perfect Master takes a sip: 'Pttth! This is 2-year-old scotch! I said 14 years old. 14 year is 14 years, as I once said.' Hands it back. 'OK OK', Barkeep goes to a higher shelf, grabs a bottle of 5 year old scotch.' That was a lucky guess,' he thinks, 'this'll keep him quiet'. 'Here ye go' Perfect Master takes a sip...'Ptui!! This is 5-year-old scotch! I want 14 years, please!' Barkeep is puzzled. Grabs a bottle under the counter of 9-year-old scotch. Same thing happens: 'Ptth!!!! This is 9-year-old scotch… What-are you an ex-premie?.. Gimme 14 YEAR-OLD scotch!' Bartender throws up his hands, yells 'OK, OK, I'll go get the good stuff in the backroom.' Watching all this, at the end of the bar, is a drunk. 'Hey buddy!', he yells, 'here, pal, try this!' -and slides over a shot glass. 'That's PremPal..' He takes a shot and yells ' Holi Shit! this is terrible...it tastes like urine?.. This is piss! 'Yesh, it is', the drunk says, 'So - how old am I?' +++ JOKE 2>A Premie couple was golfing one day on a very, very exclusive golf course, ined with million dollar houses. On the third tee the husband said, 'Honey-ji, bevery careful when you drive the ball doesn’t knock out any windows. It'll cost |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 12:46:09 (EDT)
From: Selena Email: None To: RT Subject: real Premie Jokes to tell! Message: Don't know what to say. That was hilarious but I am worried about you :) - just kidding. Thanks! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 16:31:41 (EDT)
From: Carol Email: None To: RT Subject: real Premie Jokes to tell! Message: Happy Birthday RT (and Gail)!!! I laughed the hardest at the one about spitting out the lifesavers! Thanks for the jokes. Carol Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 23:40:40 (EDT)
From: Mark Email: None To: RT Subject: real Premie Jokes to tell! Message: Rt thanks for hosting that party for your birthday Very Hobbit of you Head and Shoulders above Jim and Bobby spatting. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sat, Jul 18, 1998 at 14:55:01 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Mark Subject: Mark Message: Head and Shoulders above Jim and Bobby spatting. Let me guess. I bet you're nbot a wrestling fan either. Am I right? Huh? See our 'spats', as you call them, are staged for your enjoyment. Come on, you don't think Bobby actually believes all that stuff do you? Go on, Bobby, tell him. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 13:11:53 (EDT)
From: G's mom Email: None To: Gail and RT Subject: Happy Birthday to Gail and RT! Message: Happy birthday!!! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 13:50:34 (EDT)
From: Gail Email: freedom@gtn.net To: Everyone Subject: Aw Shucks! Thanks guys! Message: I'm smiling. I am about to go to the casino (would have gone in Atlantic City anyway). Here's looking at $2 000. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 14:36:54 (EDT)
From: Gail Email: None To: Everyone Subject: IN WINNINGS, OF COURSE! (nt) Message: TAH, TAH! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 17:07:09 (EDT)
From: Bobby Email: None To: Gail Subject: Happy Birthday! Message: Happy Birthday! greetings from Homer Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, Jul 17, 1998 at 16:21:56 (EDT)
From: Anne Email: None To: Gail Subject: Aw Shucks! Thanks guys! Message: Well we never made out for your Birthday Drink on time. Do hope you win lots and lots of money to buy me dinner with, of course to celebrate your birthday....I know how 'used' you are to paying and paying and paying. Now that that's all over I guess I might have to buy you dinner!!! After all I've been hoarding all my money all these years, you were so carefree. I love you Gail and may the whole year be a Birthday Celebration. Suprised you eh? Gotya. XXX Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 18:05:41 (EDT)
From: JW Email: None To: Katie Subject: Happy Birthday to Gail and RT! Message: Happy Birthday to both you guys! RT, have you noticed that Monica Lewis and Monica Lewinsky are pretty close, their names I mean? That might be enough of a connection for Ken Starr. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 19:30:39 (EDT)
From: Selene Email: None To: JW Subject: the Monicas' names Message: yes, in fact when I first noticed posts about her I thought people on forum were making a joke. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, Jul 17, 1998 at 00:51:46 (EDT)
From: Mark Email: None To: JW Subject: Lewinsky=Lewis Message: actually Mrs Lewinsky changed her name to Lewis after her divorce from the good doctor so if her daughter would try and go low profile both girls would have the same name Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 18:07:38 (EDT)
From: Mickey the Pharisee Email: None To: Gail and RT Subject: Happy Birthday to Gail and RT! Message: Happy Birthday to you both. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 19:12:50 (EDT)
From: eb to Gail and RT Email: None To: Gail and RT Subject: Happy Birthday Moon Children Message: Cancers are very cool! Happy Birthday(s). Love, eb Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, Jul 17, 1998 at 12:54:15 (EDT)
From: Robyn Email: sundogs@hotmail.com To: Gail Subject: Happy Birthday to Gail and RT! Message: Dear Gail, I know you are off at a casino and sorry I missed saying happy birthday to you a day early. I haven't been around so much since you came here but I know enough to know you are doing so well and getting stronger and you have the respect and support of all those who have followed your progress. I look forward to getting to know you better in the future. Love, Robyn Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 08:43:56 (EDT)
From: Richard Email: None To: Everyone Subject: The Manipulative Father Message: One of the frequently recurring tales heard by counsellors concerns the Manipulative Father. This is a man who so closely monitors and controls the lives of his children that they constantly, and quite without thought, refer every experience and thought back to him for approval. The approval is never forthcoming because that would be an endorsement of the child's independance, not what he wants. Therefore the child, who naturally craves approval, will bring more and more of their lives before the father hoping that THIS TIME they might have got it right. The father is frequently clever but rarely intelligent. Never happy and frequently morose but sees that as 'his cross to bear' for being so 'special'. He will frequently indulge himself, usually in private, but will only indulge the child on strict terms. i.e. here is a precious gift for which you must be grateful, repeatedly. Often the child[ren] will be required to accompany the parent[s] on holiday way beyond an age where that might be reasonable or fair. In between times family visits/gatherings become a 'duty' enforced by bribery/threats but more usually emotional blackmail. The family becomes a religion with its own rituals, pet names and 'special' occasions like fathers birthday. This man is mentally sick but, because he 'functions' successfully in the world, is rarely examined or diagnosed. He is obsessive and compulsive and will go to extreme lengths to rationalise his behaviour, often blaming weird behaviour on unknown crises or family members. When opposed he goes completely balistic. He usually gets his way! DOES ANY OF THIS SOUND FAMILIAR? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 08:51:59 (EDT)
From: Richard Email: None To: All Subject: PS Message: The children of such fathers usually repeat the pattern unless they have particularly strong partners. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 09:20:44 (EDT)
From: Robyn Email: sundogs@hotmail.com To: Richard Subject: PS Message: Dear Richard, WOW! And obviously Marolyn is not that strong a partner. Robyn Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 09:36:55 (EDT)
From: Richard Email: None To: Robyn Subject: PS Message: Robyn, Mata Ji once told me (at Edinburgh ashram 1972/3) that the reason Maharaji came to the West was to be like a father to all the lost souls. Conditioning begins early huh! regards Richard Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 13:17:33 (EDT)
From: Cheeseman Email: David.Studio57@btinternet.com To: Richard Subject: The Manipulative Father Message: That was a good post, Richard. Thanks. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, Jul 17, 1998 at 07:02:42 (EDT)
From: Richard Email: None To: Everyone Subject: Manipulative Father Figure II Message: It is usual for Manipulative Father Figures to, eventually, step over the line of socially acceptable behaviour. They are rarely stupid and will immediately seek to justify their actions by blaming the victim, the world or both. Try the following for size; The Dictator I had no choice, my Country needed a strong leader. The Teacher They need the discipline. The Father It's a dangerous world and they are so vulnerable. The Paedophile Children are quite capable of manipulative sexual provocation. The Husband I work so hard to provide for you it's no wonder I get stressed out sometimes. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 08:19:35 (EDT)
From: Bobby Email: None To: Everyone Subject: the other side of CSICOP Message: Here's the other side of Jim's 'skeptic' campaign taken from a USENET link. The information contained in these links points out the prejudicial, less-than-balanced 'skepticism' that goes on with CSICOP, 'Skeptical Inquirer' and the other 'free-thinkers' that Jim champions. The following all include information critical of 'skeptics': 'On Pseudo-Skepticism' -- Marcello Truzzi One of CSICOP's founders exposes his former compeers. http://www.cloud9.net/~patrick/anomalist/pseudo.html True Disbelievers: Mars Effect Drives Skeptics to Irrationality' -- Rich |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 08:38:02 (EDT)
From: Robyn Email: sundogs@hotmail.com To: Bobby Subject: the other side of CSICOP Message: Dear Bobby, Thanks for the links, looks like a days activity to me, I'll get back to it after 8/14! Love, Robyn Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 08:55:11 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Bobby Subject: So what's your point? Message: What's the point of all these random articles, eh Bobby? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 09:14:35 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Jim Subject: The Skeptic FAQ Message: Here's a link to an interesting and concise Skeptic FAQ: Bobby's desparate Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 09:19:12 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Jim Subject: But it won't go Message: Don't know why these don't work sometimes. Anyways, it won't. Big deal, the address is: http://www.skeptics.com.au/about/faq.htm Just cut and paste. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 09:40:48 (EDT)
From: Bobby Email: None To: Jim Subject: devious and desperate Jim Message: Why do you phrase that link 'Bobby's desparate' (sic)? You might first turn your spelling checker on. Secondly, what does your link have to do with me? What 'desperation'? You sure make a lot of unfounded attributions. Very unscientific of you Jim. You ask me what the point of posting the links I did. The majority of the links to the philosophical propaganda on this forum are pasted up by you. You use intimidation and abuse to shove your views into the faces of participants on this forum. I'm merely providing links that effectively counter your one-sided, opinionated diatribes. Sad that you characterize anyone who disagrees with you as stupid or a fool or new-age. You are the one that seems desperate. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 12:02:24 (EDT)
From: Selena Email: None To: Bobby Subject: devious and desperate Jim Message: I am horrible embarrassed to admit this but what the heck does (sic) stand for? I mean I know how to use it, when one is quoting someone and the orginal speaker/writer had a type of grammatical error, but what does it stand for? Selene - living in redneck country too long Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 12:21:03 (EDT)
From: Bobby Email: None To: Selena Subject: devious and desperate Jim Message: sic - literal meaning is from the latin 'thus'; used to indicate that a particular word or phrase is not a mistake and is to be read as it stands. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 12:24:13 (EDT)
From: Katie Email: None To: Selena Subject: sic, i.e., e.g., and et al. Message: I don't know what it mean either, Selene/a. I also have a hard time with e.g. (I THINK that means 'for example') and i.e. (I think that DOES not mean 'for example', but I can never remember what it does mean.) The only one that is burned in my brain is 'et al.' for 'and others' because I have typed it about 50 million times. Katie I grew up in DC so no excuse there. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 13:50:37 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Katie Subject: sic, i.e., e.g., and et al. Message: sic - used to show other peoples' mistakes e.g. - for example i.e. - in other words cf. - compare with Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 14:47:10 (EDT)
From: Katie Email: None To: Jim Subject: sic, i.e., e.g., and et al. Message: Thanks Jim! I've been dying to use i.e. for so long (I thought it meant 'in other words'), but didn't want to be ignorant. I used i.e. when I should have used e.g. for years, and just found out recently that I was using it incorrectly. (Also, thanks for explaining cf.) P.S. I just mailed your envelope. The guy at the post office said he didn't know WHAT the Canadian PO did with the mail after it went over the Canadian border, but that it did get slowed down. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 09:28:50 (EDT)
From: Bobby Email: None To: Jim Subject: So what's your point? Message: These links show that the sources that you post as 'scientific' and 'objective' are quite flawed and should not be taken as gospel. My point is that there are many perspectives on just about anything. Why do you deride anyone who disagrees with you? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 09:35:30 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Bobby Subject: So what's your point? Message: These links show that the sources that you post as 'scientific' and 'objective' are quite flawed and should not be taken as gospel. My point is that there are many perspectives on just about anything. Why do you deride anyone who disagrees with you? OF COURSE I'm not suggesting for a second that anyone be 'taken as gospel'! That's the whole point. Don't you get it? And yes, there may be many perspectives on various topics. Some of them are a lot better than others. I mean, if that's all there was to it, just acknowledging that many of us see things differently, there sure wouldn't be much to discuss here, would there? I'd ask you if you didn't really want to know the truth about various beliefs you have but you've already told me, about as emphatically as you could, I'd imagine, that you don't think there is such a thing as 'truth'. Hard to talk with you, isn't it? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 10:10:47 (EDT)
From: Bobby Email: None To: Jim Subject: So what's your point? Message: >>>I mean, if that's all there was to it, just acknowledging that many of us see things differently, there sure wouldn't be much to discuss here, would there? IMO there's plenty to to discuss without getting into diatribes and personal vendettas. I haven't seen any acknowledgment from you of the validity of diverse points of view. Can you acknowledge the validity of diverse points of view now? >>>>I'd ask you if you didn't really want to know the truth about various beliefs you have but you've already told me, about as emphatically as you could, I'd imagine, that you don't think there is such a thing as 'truth'. Show me where I say I 'don't think there is such a thing as 'truth'.' Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 10:20:09 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Bobby Subject: So what's your point? Message: Can you acknowledge the validity of diverse points of view now? Too vague. Depends on the subject matter. What did you hve in mind? Show me where I say I 'don't think there is such a thing as 'truth'.' Well, we clashed over this very point several times. You refused to acknowledge that there is 'truth' or 'reality'. Don't you recall? But look, that was then. I'm more than willing to accept your word that that's not how you see things now. DO you believe that there's such a thing as 'truth'? You know, the kind that if you happen to believe it you're RIGHT and, if you don't, you're WRONG? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 10:54:08 (EDT)
From: Bobby Email: None To: Jim Subject: So what's your point? Message: Can you acknowledge the validity of diverse points of view now? Too vague. Depends on the subject matter. What did you hve in mind? There is nothing vague in what I asked. What is called for is your acknowledgment of the validity of diverse points of view; ie, are diverse points of view acceptable or not? ------------------------------------------------ >>>Show me where I say I 'don't think there is such a thing as 'truth'.' The point is Jim, you are indicting me with this statement. I never said such a thing. Once again, you make a false attribution. >>>>You refused to acknowledge that there is 'truth' or 'reality'. That's a lie Jim. I disagree with your version of truth or reality. You refuse to acknowledge my version of 'truth' or 'reality' and insinuate that your version of truth or reality is the only version that exists. Can you apologize for making a false accusation? I've never seen you apologize for anything on this forum. You insult others freely, but don't apologize. ------------------------------------------------ >>>>>DO you believe that there's such a thing as 'truth'? You know, the kind that if you happen to believe it you're RIGHT and, if you don't, you're WRONG? Truth is relative, not absolute. Sure I believe in truth, but truth and reality are contexts, not absolutes. Truth is dependent on relationship. Everything is interconnected. You seem to believe in absolute RIGHT or absolute WRONG. You think you are 'right' on so much, and as far as I can see, refuse to acknowledge the validity of other views or context. I don't see truth or reality in your terms. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 10:59:33 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Bobby Subject: So what's your point? Message: Truth is relative, not absolute. That's bullshit. It completely fucks with the word. And reality as a 'context, not absolute'? What the hell does that mean? Bobby, we did this before, let's not do it again. You've got your new-age way of speaking. I prefer English. Whatever. Hey, there's diversity for you. Are you satisified? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 11:07:39 (EDT)
From: Bobby Email: None To: Jim Subject: So what's your point? Message: >>Truth is relative, not absolute. >>>That's bullshit. It completely fucks with the word. And reality as a 'context, not absolute'? What the hell does that mean? Means just what it says Jim. I'm done arguing with you, at least for now. I could pull out dozens of cites and references to support my statements. I don't have time. You want to pay me to do it? You've got your new-age way of speaking. I prefer English. Whatever. Hey, fuck you too. Hey, there's diversity for you. Are you satisified? Whatever. As usual you've evaded the issues. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 10:03:07 (EDT)
From: Bobby Email: None To: Jim Subject: So what's your point? Message: Some salient quotes from the links posted above: ------------------------------------------------ It seems to me that some 'skeptics' are more interested in ridicule than in exploring and challenging pseudoscientific beliefs. ------------------------------------------------ A few have even suggested that some debunkers project an insecure and macho attitude. Commenting on the 1985 CSICOP convention in California, Auerbach (1985) wrote: Pg. 29 I felt an air of insecurity in the audience, and some of the presenters. It was very strange to be in an audience that laughed at the mere mention of the names of a few of the better-known parapsychologists, listening to presenters who seemed to enjoy that reaction, and even encourage it. (p. 10) Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 10:07:45 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Bobby Subject: Big deal Message: Bobby, If THAT'S the thrust of your complaint, that some skeptics are a little nerdy or worse, are actually weenies, big fucking deal. I mean, who cares? Doesn't really change anything, now does it? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 10:27:12 (EDT)
From: Bobby Email: None To: Jim Subject: Big deal Jim Message: What I posted is more than some 'skeptics' being 'weenies' or 'nerds'; what I posted is more about ridicule and abuse, attitudes that I strongly object to. These are traits that you supply in abundance here Jim. ------------------------------------------------ Finally, months later, Elissa Pratt-Lowe (1985) responded: I think another aspect of organized skepticism that may deter women is the aggressive, 'macho' attitudes held by some of the (male) participants. It seems to me that some 'skeptics' are more interested in ridicule than in exploring and challenging pseudoscientific beliefs. [This was followed by 'Very true. I think. -- MC']. (p. 7) ------------------------------------------------ 'For all of the author's [Lawrence's] scientific, academic and intellectual credentials, he displays a level of disrespect for others that, in my opinion, is completely inappropriate...The author succeeded only in subjecting a group of sincere...people to outright ridicule' (p. 8). ------------------------------------------------ You just don't get it. I feel like I'm talking to the wall. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 10:42:16 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Bobby Subject: Ridicule, huh? Message: Bobby, ridiculous ideas and people often -- not always, but often -- deserve ridicule, don't they? I mean there are actually people who post here who think some pretty weird things. Some believe that Maharaji's the Lord of the Universe. Don't you think that's ridiculous? Some believe that he's not only NOT the Lord of the Universe but he also never did anything to make people believe he was. That's ridiculous too, isn't it? What would you say to those people? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 11:01:53 (EDT)
From: Bobby Email: None To: Jim Subject: Ridicule, huh? Message: >>>>Bobby, ridiculous ideas and people often -- not always, but often -- deserve ridicule, don't they? No. IMO people never deserve ridicule. You may disagree with ideas. Great. Show where you disagree. Don't ridicule. IMO ridicule is abusive, hurtful, and never appropriate. ------------------------------------------------ From The American Heritage Dictionary: Ridicule - words or action intended to evoke contemptuous laughter or feelings toward a person or thing. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 11:08:41 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Bobby Subject: Don't be ridiculous Message: No. IMO people never deserve ridicule. You may disagree with ideas. Great. Show where you disagree. Don't ridicule. IMO ridicule is abusive, hurtful, and never appropriate. Bobby, Why are you saying this? You can't possibly mean it. You yourself ridicule me -- or at least you try to -- all the time. God, you're funny! Besides, are you really saying that someone who posts like Red Heart saying that Maharaji's the Lord, etc. doesn't deserve a little contemptuous laughter? Obviously, this anti-ridicule and, of I almost forgot, 'abuse', thing is a silly attempt by new-agers to protect ideas that are otherwise indefenisble. I mean, OBVIOUSLY. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 11:44:08 (EDT)
From: Bobby Email: None To: Jim Subject: Don't be ridiculous Message: Jim I have never ridiculed you as a person. I have slammed you and your arrogant beliefs, but never have treated you with contempt. Furthermore, I have told you on numerous occasions that my intent was never really to hurt you. I mean that. Have I ever hurt you Jim? If so I apologize. On the other hand, I perceive many of your remarks as contemptuous barbed, and designed to hurt. Am I wrong? I know that part of my perspective is due to prior emotional colorations - I've been severely abused and hurt in my life. These are wounds that are not easily healed. You may not be conscious of the abusive effect of your statements. However, on the occasions where I have tried to plumb the meaning of your statements, I have only encountered reification of your statements of contempt and ridicule. You are supporting contempt and ridicule. These behaviors are abusive. >>>Besides, are you really saying that someone who posts like Red Heart saying that Maharaji's the Lord, etc. doesn't deserve a little contemptuous laughter? Yes I am saying that and I'll say it again. No one deserves contemptuous laughter. No one deserves ridicule. >>>Obviously, this anti-ridicule and, of I almost forgot, 'abuse', thing is a silly attempt by new-agers to protect ideas that are otherwise indefenisble. I mean, OBVIOUSLY. In my work I deal with abuse all the time Jim. I often represent people who have been abused by the mental health system. People who are labeled mentally ill are often abused, ridiculed and treated with contempt. I find this state of affairs abhorrent and morally indefensible. Abuse is abuse. Ridicule is ridicule. Contempt is contempt. I consider these behaviors morally distasteful and repugnant. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 11:57:00 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Bobby Subject: Don't be ridiculous Message: Bobby, You resort to ridicule just like anyone does when the mood hits. No, you've never hurt me but you sure as hell have tried! Hey, don't worry about it. But don't deny it either. I can't believe that you think Red Heart et al. don't deserve a little ridicule. I doubt that you'll find anyone else who thinks that way, even among other people here who have more respect for some of your ideas than I do. Does that mean anything to you? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 12:09:23 (EDT)
From: Selena Email: None To: Jim Subject: anyone know how to... Message: Mark an entire thread as 'read' geez. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 13:25:14 (EDT)
From: Selene (the nice one) Email: None To: Jim and Bobby Subject: now I feel stupid Message: This split personality thing is getting difficult. Sorry for my last post. I guess I'm just not a morning person. It's tru, my husband doesn't talk to me in the morning, he learned the hard way. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 13:57:20 (EDT)
From: John Email: None To: Selena Subject: anyone know how to... Message: Yeah, Selen*, I've learned to ignore the posts that are from Bobby to Jim and from Jim to Bobby. Hey does anyone other than Jim and Bobby read these? Must be some ancient karmic ritualistic dance they are playing out here. Maybe Bobby was a lion and Jim a Christian or Bobby was Joseph and Jim one of his brothers who sold him as a slave to the passing Egyptian traders, I'm sure it was something like that, right Jim? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 14:02:09 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: John Subject: anyone know how to... Message: Hey, I'd like to get out of this loop myself sometimes. And yes, past lives or parallel universes are definitely a consideration. Always. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 14:17:16 (EDT)
From: Bobby Email: None To: Jim Subject: anyone know how to... Message: Hey, I'd like to get out of this loop myself sometimes. And yes, past lives or parallel universes are definitely a consideration. Always. Funny to hear you say that Jim. Have you read Fred Alan Wolf? How about Roger Woolger? Brian Weiss? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 14:23:22 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Bobby Subject: Selena, don't read Message: Have you read Fred Alan Wolf? How about Roger Woolger? Brian Weiss? No. Should I know them? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 14:46:21 (EDT)
From: Bobby Email: None To: Jim Subject: Selena, don't read Jim Message: Fred Alan Wolf is an award winning physicist/writer who wrote 'Parallel Universes'. Roger Woolger is a Jungian who writes about different contexts on past lives. Brian Weiss is a psychiatrist who writes about past lives. The following is taken from a review I did some years back of Wolger's book Other Lives, Other Selves ------------------------------------------------ Other Lives, Other Selves Maybe we have lived past lives and maybe we haven't. No one can prove either way. As a practicing Jungian therapist, the author of this book, Roger Woolger, cites numerous cases of clients who have healed great emotional difficulty through re-experience of past life situations. Using 'what works best for the client' as the measure of treatment effectiveness, Woolger shows past life therapy to be extremely valuable in the resolution and integration of the dramas and crises of our contemporary lives. Implicit in Woolger's work is the idea that each of us has unfinished business. Each of us brings with us unhealed hurts, old wounds, karmic scars waiting to be brought to conscious awareness and resolution in proper timing. Through attention to particular existential life dilemmas such as feelings of unworthiness, depression, low-energy, chronic back pain, or successions of unsuccessful relationships, Woolger evokes past-life images which, when experienced in the here and now, can bring healing and resolution. Woolger asserts that behind all difficulties lie older, fuller stories suggestive of past life experiences. Much of this book contains actual case histories from Woolger's practice. Additionally, Woolger includes discussion of various models of consciousness he has found useful. One of these that I found particularly interesting was Woolger's model of the multidimensional psyche. This model support the Jungian concept of synchronicity - the incredible interconnectedness of various levels of being. Woolger posits six dimensions of expression - three personal and three transpersonal. The three personal expressions include the existential aspect (what is happening now in life), the somatic (bodily symptoms including pains or discomforts) and the biographical (events or traumas which have occurred in this life). The three transpersonal levels include the perinatal (experiences in the mother's womb), the past life (images from other, previous existences) and the archetypal (mythological patterns or dream images). Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 14:52:58 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Bobby Subject: That guy's dangerous! Message: Bobby, You mena you go to this guy and starts telling you about your past life dramas. Sounds like a recipe for disaster. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 15:06:14 (EDT)
From: Bobby Email: None To: Jim Subject: That guy's dangerous! Message: >>>>You mena (sic) you go to this guy and starts telling you about your past life dramas. Sounds like a recipe for disaster. You mena you go-a to this-a guy and starts-a telling you about-a your-a pasta life dramas. I dreamed I was Italian. >>>>Sounds like a recipe for disaster. There's always a bit of heaven in a disaster area -- Wavy Gravy at Woodstock. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 15:24:35 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Bobby Subject: That guy's dangerous! Message: Now don't go punny on me now, Bobby. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 12:38:48 (EDT)
From: Bobby Email: None To: Jim Subject: Don't be ridiculous Message: >>> No, you've never hurt me but you sure as hell have tried! That's not true. I've ridiculed your statements, but never you as a person. I've said fuck you to you, most often after being insulted and ridiculed by you. I've challenged you, but unlike you, have not shown contempt for who you are as a person as you have for me. You have said that what I've said to you was not hurtful or didn't affect you at all, so what does it matter what I've said to you? IMO you have been deliberately hurtful with your statements of ridicule and contempt to many people on this forum. Me included. >>> I can't believe that you think Red Heart et al. don't deserve a little ridicule. No one deserves ridicule. I stand by my statement that ridicule and contempt are never appropriate. For those who challenge the beliefs of others, I think it is incumbent to make a clear distinction between the person and the belief. Even so, ridicule and contempt are usually too strong IMO. >>>>I doubt that you'll find anyone else who thinks that way, even among other people here who have more respect for some of your ideas than I do. I think there are some here who would agree with me. Some of these folks may be reluctant to speak. Some folks are sensitive to abuse. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 13:41:42 (EDT)
From: cut the bullshit Email: None To: Bobby Subject: Bobby, your NDE is no excuse Message: I don't know what's with you, Bobby, but your lying is disgusting, your self-deception is pathetic, and you are one of the nastiest, most thoroughly unpleasant people who have ever posted here. Furthermore, if you are an example of a 'spiritual' person, well, excuse me while I go burn every new-age, mystical, religious book I ever had. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 13:52:52 (EDT)
From: Bobby Email: None To: cut the bullshit Subject: Bobby, your NDE is no excuse Message: Yeah! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 14:00:54 (EDT)
From: Gerry Email: glyng@techline.com To: cut the bullshit Subject: Bobby, your NDE is no excuse Message: All I can say is that no matter where you stand on issues, anonymous, viscious personal attacks suck and are cowardly also. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 14:33:33 (EDT)
From: Gail Email: None To: Jim and Bobby Subject: Boys, Boys, Boys. Message: Right about now, if I'd like to tweak your ears. If you don't behave, I'll send you to the principal's office. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 14:48:28 (EDT)
From: Bobby Email: None To: Gail Subject: Boys, Boys, Boys. Message: Oh no! Three days in-school suspension! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 16:55:06 (EDT)
From: Carol Email: None To: Bobby Subject: I'm one! Message: You know from my earliest posts that I don't like the meaness! Your point will be better recieved if it is ridicule-less in my humble/honest opinion! I respect your right to feel what you feel and believe what you believe, no contempt necesaary...if we disagree...just agree to disagree and let be. Hope you are both/all having a good day! Love, Carol Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 17:41:06 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Carol Subject: One what? Message: Your point will be better recieved if it is ridicule-less in my humble/honest opinion! Really, Carol? It must really bother you, then, to see pretty well everyone else here take line up at time to take their shots at PT, Mel or Red Heels. Does it? What would you say to them that's so different than the scathing blasts your fellow forumies dish out? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 18:39:13 (EDT)
From: Carol Email: None To: Jim Subject: One what? Message: Jim, Like I've said before, I don't feel any need to 'take shots' at any one. I express what I want, when I want to, just like you (but not necessarily like you) and you and others are free to express as you choose...and you do. It is a personal difference to *prefer* not to engage in 'fighting words' and put-downs. I'm sorry if you think I'm supposed to be a warrior in your battle, fighting ignorance in the way you think it has to be fought, but I am a free entity! Make love, not war! Really...by loving thoughts for the peace and freedom for all! It may be idealistic but I think that is my choice! Carol Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 19:39:45 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Carol Subject: Bullshit Message: Carol, You didn't answer my question. Do you mind when all your other ex's here line up to take shots at Red Heart, etc? Does it make you cringe inside? Do you ever get physically sick the way someone like Gail, Judex or Selena rips into them? How about when JW calls PT a liar? Or when Rick says Mel stinks? Or Gerry? ANYTHING Gerry says to these guys? Do you just shake with fear and humiliation? Why don't you ever complain then, Carol? Why don't you ever tell all these guys to 'Make love, not war'? I'm sorry if you think I'm supposed to be a warrior in your battle, fighting ignorance in the way you think it has to be fought, but I am a free entity! Make love, not war! Really...by loving thoughts for the peace and freedom for all! Carol, you never complain because you LOVE it! Don't scapegoat me for fighting YOUR battles. And don't be such a sanctamonious new-age bubble head. Hypocrite? Did I say that yet? Yeah, don't be such a hypocrite. It pisses me off. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 19:58:29 (EDT)
From: Katie Email: None To: Jim Subject: Please stop! Message: Dear Jim, I long ago learned not to get in between you or Rick or Gerry or whoever and the person you were tearing to shreds. I DID used to complain about tactics all the time, but it didn't help, and sometimes it meant I'd have to fight the darn battle. I was sticking up for the person as a person, NOT as a premie, so that was an uphill fight. I try and stay out of it now. This DOES NOT mean that I am a hypocrite, and it doesn't mean that Carol is either. By the way, I don't know how Carol feels, but sometimes I think the attack is warranted, but many times I don't. For instance, I think PT is distorting the truth - thus JW is warranted in calling him a liar. However I didn't agree with the ferocity of the attack on Mel Bourne OR Red Heart - sometimes it DID make me sick. So be it. The only thing I do now is to try to communicate with these people in my own way. Furthermore, if we are talking about ridicule, which I believe was the original topic, I don't think I've seen ANY examples of ridicule by Gail, Selena, and Judex. If they have lost it with someone and made fun of them, they've apologized. I don't know why you mind Carol saying what she said. She is not OPPOSING you. She is just saying that she will pursue things in her own way. She is an EX-premie who feels differently than you. I have come to believe that your approach is valuable on the site, but I think we need both you AND Carol (and Rick and Gerry and JW and Judex and Gail and Selena and all.) Just my opinion, Katie Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 20:19:25 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Katie Subject: Please stop! Message: I don't think I've seen ANY examples of ridicule by Gail, Selena, and Judex. If they have lost it with someone and made fun of them, they've apologized. I don't think that's true but whatever. What pisses me off is smug hypocrisy. I'm sorry, I cannot picture Carol, you or any other ex really cringing when ex's ridicule premies. Maybe I just don't understand but that's what I think. And simply saying I'm wrong doesn't cut it. So.... so I think that people who like to be 'nice' get a vicarious thrill out of others fighting their battles for them. That's okay. We ARE all different, obviously. What pissed me off was Carol's la-dee-dah 'make love, not war' hippie bullshit. Different tastes, I guess. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 20:29:32 (EDT)
From: Katie Email: None To: Jim Subject: Please stop! Message: Dear Jim, I think some people deserve what you dish out to them and some people do not. The stuff you dish out to people who I don't think deserve it makes me cringe. I've defended these people often enough that you ought to know that I feel that way. I don't defend them any more because, as I said, I often end up defending M, who I DO NOT want to defend. (It's also possible people get a vicarious thrill out of me fighting with you. I don't like that either!) I read Carol's original post and I don't think she said you were wrong. I certainly didn't mean to imply that you were 'wrong' - what I meant to say is that I did not always agree with you. As I said, you are necessary to the forum and so is Carol. I hope you can understand this. Regards from Katie Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 21:37:49 (EDT)
From: Nigel Email: ljgfhgf To: all protagonists Subject: Please carry on! Message: ...right or wrong, it sure beats TV. ;-) Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 22:38:08 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Katie Subject: Police! Stop! Message: The stuff you dish out to people who I don't think deserve it makes me cringe. I've defended these people often enough that you ought to know that I feel that way. I don't defend them any more because, as I said, I often end up defending M, who I DO NOT want to defend. Now why do you think defending these people -- oh, you mean CD? -- leads to you defending M? Think about it. Katie, it's funny watching you defend Chris. If you were his lawyer you'd have one hell of a time as does any lawyer who's client tells them to mind their own business when they try to interview them. The fact is, you don't know that Chris isn't actually enjoying inculcating frustration everytime he pops up here. He might be, you don't know. Indeed, he spurned your own effort to find out. Now, if Chris WAS intentionally pulling peoples' beards here, would you still say he deserves more respect? I mean if he was INTENTIONALLY trying peoples' patience? I don't think so. I don't think you WOULD be able to keep a straight face and deliver that same message. So what you're doing is giving Chris your generous benefit of the doubt, against all odds, against even your own experience in trying to communicate with him. I say that Chris has proven in spades that he INTENTIONALLY pisses people off here. I don't see the signs of serious mental illness that could be the only alternative explanation I can think of. Ask yourself, do you think Chris likes or dislikes THIS conversation? I say he loves it. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 23:38:29 (EDT)
From: Katie Email: None To: Jim Subject: Who is CD? Message: I didn't even mention that name! Come on, Jim, gimme a break. I let you and Chris fight uninterrupted for at least the last three weeks! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sat, Jul 18, 1998 at 02:00:04 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Katie Subject: Who is CD? Message: Katie, EVERYTHING's about Chris. Don't you get that yet? No, I referred to Chris because he's the one guy I can think of who you've really defended like that. Oh, you defended Bobby and Mili a bit too. But mainly Chris. Why? Do you no longer feel that way? What ABOUT the things I said in the post above? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 21:30:46 (EDT)
From: Selene not Selena Email: None To: Jim Subject: Please stop! Message: Selena has in the past been very mean. To Carol one time I recall. And others. Selena sometimes has something valid to say and other times is just acting out. On the acting our I do try and think i have apologized. One thing I don't get is why you can't let whatever thread it is GO at some point - say maybe a 5 post each limit or something? I don't mean that we should have rules like that, I would be the first to rebel! But enuf is enuf. Just my opinion which is not humble but also not all that important to this thread, thank god. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 22:44:29 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Selene not Selena Subject: Please stop! Message: Seleno, I thought you weren't going to read this thread? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 22:49:01 (EDT)
From: Selenae Email: None To: Jim Subject: Please stop! Message: It was one of the others. She was in 'her' mind. So is this one. I am not responsible. It's M's fault. No wait, it's the mind's fault. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 22:51:51 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Selenae Subject: By the way Message: Do you know 'Celine' the author? Wrote 'Journey into the Night' a better forerunner of Henry Miller in the tradition of Knut Hamsen. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 23:00:42 (EDT)
From: Celine Email: None To: Jim Subject: By the way Message: ooooh, I like that spelling! Another me to be. Katie will it still mean 'moon' if it's spelled that way? Gotta keep the wiccan thing in there. grin. No I haven't read her, but I loved Henry Miller although it's been years since I read him. I'll check it out after I finish at least one of the other 2 books I have started. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 23:40:19 (EDT)
From: Katie Email: None To: Celine Subject: Celine Dion? (nt) Message: sorry, no text!! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, Jul 17, 1998 at 08:04:42 (EDT)
From: Richard Email: None To: Katie Subject: Can't stop! Message: I don't think I've seen ANY examples of ridicule by Gail, Selena, and Judex. Well y'know Katie ridicule is not everybodies' bag. Some people just can't do it. It takes perseverance, practice and just damned hard work. I don't think any the less of Gail, Selena and Judex for NOT ridiculing folks, maybe it's a genetic thing y'know an' they can't help it. I'm sure that with a little bit of time...... Oops! Richard Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, Jul 17, 1998 at 04:47:46 (EDT)
From: Carol Email: None To: Jim Subject: Bullshit back! Message: >Carol, you never complain because you LOVE it! Don't scapegoat me for fighting YOUR battles. And don't be such a sanctamonious new-age bubble head.< Jim, I don't know why I even try to communicate with you. This is a prime example of unwarranted ridicule and your presumption about how I think. Don't scapegoat me! Piss yourself off! I didn't do it! I'm not even really talking about how you talk to premies here. It's how you talk to Bobby, Katie, Judex, and me and others at times. Your words are sometimes rude and judgmental and you are apparently proud of it! I've also already told you that I value many of your offerings here. 'Make love not war' was an anti-war chant during protests of the Vietnam War. I took part in demonstrations, and serious and sincere convictions were behind my actions. Serious and sincere convictions are also behind my protest of your type of contemptuous ridicule. Carol Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 20:49:16 (EDT)
From: VP Email: None To: Bobby Subject: Don't be ridiculous, Bobby Message: 'In my work I deal with abuse all the time Jim. I often represent people who have been abused by the mental health system. People who are labeled mentally ill are often abused, ridiculed and treated with contempt. I find this state of affairs abhorrent and morally indefensible. Abuse is abuse. Ridicule is ridicule. Contempt is contempt. I consider these behaviors morally distasteful and repugnant.' Bobby, I agree with you that abusing people who are mentally ill is morally reprehensible. (I guess that could apply to some premies, too-snicker). You are missing one point. No one invited them to spout that sappy sickening satsang here. This is an ex-premie site. There is bound to be anger, loss, bitterness here. Premies do not HAVE to read here, stay here or participate. They can turn off the computer and walk away. Take in a movie that evening instead. That seperates the abuse you are speaking of from any anger, harsh words, arguments etc. that happen from time to time here. A mentally ill person may not be able to get out of the situation of abuse that he/she is placed in. But a premie can sure as hell walk away from this. They have freedom of choice. They can ignore Jim's posts, they can refuse not to speak to him or anyone else here they don't like. I don't like abusive language, but some people do have a choice about whether or not they get abused. Premies who post here do, but the persons in the example you were citing above do not. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 17:00:07 (EDT)
From: nigel Email: nigel@redcrow.demon.co.uk To: Bobby Subject: OBSCURANTIST HUCKSTERS Message: Hi gang! A quick word. (My modem has been locked in a drawer these last few weeks, but I needed to check an email, and one thing leads to another, and here I am. Looks like I picked my moment...) Given some of the intellectual flyweights penning these criticisms of CSICOP (Jenny Randles, indeed), I am only surprised they aren't more savage. Y'see, CSICOP (The Committee for Scientific Investigation into Claims Of the Paranormal) destroy reputations; they don't set out to, but it comes with the territory. The truth is psychic claimants inevitably destroy their own reputations whenever they submit to independent scientific testing. After a century of searching, psychic investigators have yet to uncover a single instance of a replicable paranormal phenomenon (in spite of the $100,000 prize on offer from CSICOP). Ok, NDE's and OBE's may be difficult territory to study objectively (though alternative rational explanations abound), but all of the following so-called 'powers' are comparatively easy to test under scientific conditions, and have been tested to death: - Receiving remote information (clairvoyance) - Foreseeing the future (prediction/precognition) - Contacting spirits of the dead (spiritualism/channeling) - Sending psychic messages (telepathy) - Moving objects with your mind (psychokinesis) - Curing illness with your mind (psychic healing) - Reading the future in the stars/tealeaves/tarot (divinatory systems) - Fixing up people's teeth with your mind (psychic dentistry) - Stitching people up with your mind (psychic hokum) Paranormal believers should be very grateful for the existence of CSICOP, for two very important reasons: (1) If the psychics are genuine, the last thing they need is fake psychics destroying their own credibility with dubious practices. CSICOP has exposed dozens, maybe hundreds of fakes. They have even planted a few fake psychics of their own among parapsychologists just to show how easily even scientifically-oriented believers canbe fooled. (2) Independent verification is surely their ONE BIG CHANCE in life to convince a sceptical world that things are not quite what they seem. Unfortunately, it appears things are very much what they seem. I, for one, sometimes wish it were otherwise, but have yet to find any good evidence (not for the want of searching for it.) As to CSICOP's bending the rules, there is just one (well-known and oft-repeated) example of this having happened. This was the investigation into Gauquelin's 'Mars Effect'. I don't believe the error was deliberate, and was really no more than technicality. CSCICOP subsequently admitted they had failed to abide by their own rules. They are, after all, only human beings and prone to error, but at least they aim to be honest (unlike Uri Geller - the well-known litigious charlatan who recently lost a libel case against James Randi. Geller didn't stand a hope of winning, but hoped to bankrupt Randi and his organisation through protracted legal action). For those not familiar with any of this area the following is what happened in the case of the Mars Effect: Michel Gauqelin, a French statistician trained himself up in astrological methods and began years of investigation into the claims of astrologers. After years of getting nothing but null results, he found one statistical anomaly where great sportsmen seemed to be born when the planet Mars was between the ascendent and the midheaven. he called it the 'Mars Efect' and astrologers jumped for joy. Ok, there was nothing in astrology that suggested that this was what should happen, but never mind, here was evidence at last of a correlation between events in the sky and the doings of humans down below. CSICOP carried out their own replication, studying birth records of American rather than European athletes, and came up with nothing. Unfortunately Gauquelin had specified that articially induced births should not be included, but CSICOP's sample included both natural and induced births. No subsequent research has confirmed the Mars Effect. If CSICOP misrepresented Gauquelin's work, it wasn't half as bad as the way the astrologers have since misrepresented him. Gauqelin at no point declared he had found support for astrology, yet if you go into the nearest library and pick up any book on astrology and look up 'Gauquelin' in the index, you will find the author claiming words to the effect that science has finally proved astrology right. In fact, this is what Gauquelin did conclude in respect of the star-gazing community: ' Every effort made by astrologers to defend their basic postulate, that movement of the stars can predict destiny has failed. Statistics have disposed of old arguments once and for all: the numbers speak without bias, and they leave no room for doubt. Whoever claims to predict the future by consulting the stars is fooling either himself or someone else'. (Gauquelin committed suicide in 1992, leaving instructions for all of his data to be destroyed). In a few weeks time I am planning to set up a web-based large-scale experiment into astrological prediction. I'll post about it here, and you will all have a chance to take part if you're interested. Speak to you soon. Nigel Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 04:43:40 (EDT)
From: TD Email: None To: Everyone Subject: How to Prove a Perfect Liar Message: In this post I just want to bring the whole issue of M's claim to divinity right up to present time, and also give an example of 'How to Catch Maharaji Out as a Liar No. 203'. In a way I've been spurred on to do it by Sharron who indicates in her letter that M has changed since the earlier days and is 'just a simple man'. Apparently his office concurs and if you were to ring up and ask 'Is M a Messiah or a Holy Man?' they would respond in the negative, telling you he is just a teacher. Now in the past he made big grandiose statements about his divinity, which would have been very hard to hear as ambiguous as they were so straight forward. The 'Guru is Greater than God' type stuff. Simple. Easy. No misinterpretation problems there (unless you were tripping or consuming other illicit goodies at the time). In his present day satsangs, he often states the following: 1. There can be only one Master. 2. Go to the Perfect Master of the day and he will give you the key. Now I think it's fair to say that the majority of the world would categorise previous Perfect Masters as one/more of the following: JC, Buddha, Krishna, Mohammed - just to name a few. Now whether you believe that these previous Perfect Dudes had some sort of 'Son of God' status or just that they were simple men with prominent teachings, you'd still have to agree that they held some sort of high office amongst mankind, even if it is only historical/religious. So what M is saying, TODAY, is that he shares the same office space. That is fairly impressive company to keep for such 'a simple man'. So, if you want instant proof of Maharaji's lies, phone through to the EV Head Office and ask them this question (pretend to be the media if you can't get through the first time and that you'll roast M in an article, if somebody doesn't answer your questions): You: 'Is Maharaji on a par with Krishna, Buddha, JC or Mohammed?' EV: 'No, he's just a teacher.' You: 'Well, tell him to stop calling himself the fucking Perfect Master then'. [Hang up and giggle] Right there and then, in less than 10 seconds, you have proof that Maharaji is a liar. Either he's a Perfect Master or he's a teacher. Which one's it going to be Mr Rawat? Regards, TD PS. It hasn't escaped my attention that due to EV perusal of this forum, my control experiment may be foiled, but with a little creativity and play on words, you can still ensure a 100% lying success rate! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 08:22:09 (EDT)
From: Passing thru Email: None To: TD Subject: Read a perfect quote TD Message: Dear TD, I don't imagine you had ever heard the phrase 'perfect master' until Maharaji started using it.And to quote an Australian TV interview from 1972: TV Reporter: 'How would you describe yourself, as a prophet, a son of god or what?' Maharaji: 'A perfect master.' TVR:'That's an ambiguous reply.' M:'One who teaches you physics, you call him a physics master, right.One who teaches you mathematics, you call him a maths master.One who teaches you perfectness, you call him a perfect master. I can teach people perfectness.' So Maharaji's clear description of a 'perfect master' is someone you TEACHES perfectness, not your description of someone who IS perfect. Think of another reason to be pissed off TD, this excuse doesn't make it. PT Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 08:43:28 (EDT)
From: Scott T. Email: None To: Passing thru Subject: flawed quote on 'perfectness' Message: PT: So, if he's not perfect what makes you think he knows more about 'perfectness' than you or I, and has done since the age of 13 or so? Spinoza wrote a great deal on perfection based upon his observations of imperfection. That might be a better place to start, IMHO. If you don't settle on what 'perfectness' means then how can it be a subject matter? For some, dogs congregating in a park can be perfection. BTW, in spite of M's evasive answer the term 'perfect master' in the Rhadasaomi tradition (from which M derived the term) means 'god man,' or something very close to it. In other wards perfect masters are considered, themselves, to be perfect. This has been the case since Shiv Dayal began the tradtion in the 1870s. Dream on. -Scott Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 08:52:04 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Passing thru Subject: Are you afraid, PT? Message: PT, What's going on? I've asked you the same question a number of times and you've failed to respond. I mean, you're apparently trying to present yourself as a thoughtful, sincere and intelligent human being looking for some honest discussion, right? Then why are you ignoring me? Here's my question -- again!: What do you make of holocaust deniers and how they justify their revisionism? (Well, I guess I should ask you first if you think the holocaust happened. Do you? Okay, assuming you say 'yes', let's continue.) Have you seen the weird and pathetic ways that these guys deal with the evidence? For example, here are some excerpts from infamous Ernst Zundel's 'apology' for revisionists: '1 - Revisionists object to the terminology 'THE Holocaust,' which by implication suggests it was unique, monumental, over-arching, perhaps even the central historical event of our century if not epoch. In fact there have been many holocausts over the centuries, a good portion of them in our own Twentieth century. The Jewish Holocaust is merely one of them. *** 3 - Revisionists do not deny that there was much Jewish suffering during WW II, that there were many Jews who had property confiscated wrongfully, that many Jews died of disease or starvation in terrible conditions or were killed, that there were terrible brutalities and atrocities committed against Jews by Germans and others. None of this do Revisionists deny. Revisionists do diminish the impact of these facts by pointing out that WWII was the bloodiest, deadliest, most atrocity-ridden conflict in the history of man and that there was criminal behavior on all sides. |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 11:20:56 (EDT)
From: Sir David Email: David.Studio57@btinternet.com To: Jim Subject: Incidentally Message: More Ukrainian peasants died from starvation under the Stalin regime. About ten million. A similar number of Chinese died during the cultural revolution, I believe, again mainly from starvation. Of course the holacaust never happened. That's why there's nobody telling us about Nazi SS oficers playing football with babies. That's why Doctor Mengeli was a nice family doctor and of course, the gas chambers were just shower rooms and they didn't throw lethal gas cannisters into the shower rooms and bolt the doors and wait 30 minutes for the screams to subside and they didn't have mountains of spectacles, gold teeth, shoes, false legs and human hair. No, all those 'mountains' of human's parts which the Allies found were donated by the German civillian population to help the war effort. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 12:41:31 (EDT)
From: bftb Email: None To: Jim Subject: Are you afraid, PT? Message: Very well done Jim.If your position as chair of the cdcp affords you any free time;maybe they could use you as a fellow at The Institute for Historical Review. Just kidding of course. I think I know what you're getting at and I'm pretty sure that it has nothing to do with equating in any way shape or form being an EV/DLM survivor to being a holocaust survivor. However just in case PT is not up to the challenge of answering your questions;for the many readers/lurkers who may(and I would be surprised if they miss your point but you just never know-plus english is not the first language of many readers on the net)wrongly assume,perhaps it might be an idea to clarify that you are not equating the two experiences in any way. I realise the chances are slim but you just never know and if anyone walks away with that perception then they're not only wrong,but they also will think that ex's are taking things too far Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 13:32:55 (EDT)
From: JW Email: None To: Jim Subject: Are you afraid, PT? Message: Jim, I guess I'm dense. What is your point? Are you saying that PT is just being revisionist, which PT is, and comparing that to holocaust rivisionism? If so, I don't think you even need to go that far. We have quotes of M saying he's god. We have his actions, (crowns, titles like lord of the universe, feet kissing, arti, thrones, krishna outfits, and all the rest, plus we have his LACK of action or statements to state he WASN'T god, if he wasn't). It's very very clear he claimed to be god, and took that all the way to the bank. It's also very clear that many many premies believed he was god and he did zippo to disuade us. If he said he wasn't god 15 years later, or if he sometimes made coy statements like PT quoted, that doesn't prove PT's revisionist bullshit. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 13:59:59 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: JW Subject: Are you afraid, PT? Message: Joe, You ARE dense! And you call yourself an un-lawyer? Of course there's tons of proof that Mahraraji claimed to be God. There's also tons of proof that the holocaust happened but, as we see, that's not enough for some people. My point is just that. Thank you, biff, for pointing out the slimy way some premies might misconstrue the analogy. In fact that's exactly what Chris and Mili did last year. I'd faceitously said that if you asked Chris what he thought about the nazi death camps, he'd say that he liked German beer gardens ot something. Mili later accused me of suggesting a) that all premies should be gassed; and b) that Maharaji's as bad as Hitler. Chris later supported him. So, how 'bout it, PT? Why are you so quiet now? I'd like to know what you make of these holocaust revisionist people? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 14:08:22 (EDT)
From: JW Email: None To: Jim Subject: Are you afraid, PT? Message: Okay, maybe I'm dense. Wouldn't be the first time. So, I guess you are saying what I thought you were, but does it really go anywhere? I'm being pragmatic here. Any premie reading that, who has a brain but is still programed would say what you fear. 'Look at this angry ex-premie, comparing Maharaji's mission to the holacaust. Of course the holacaust happened and of course the revisionists are nuts. But that's quite different than saying BM overtly claimed to be god. etc., etc.', I'm just saying it's easier to answer your analogy, or at least confuse the issue, than to respond to the facts as we know them and which PT never denies. I think you are being too generous with PT, if you ask me. But I know you are a generous guy, Jim, so that's okay. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 14:21:23 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: JW Subject: Are you afraid, PT? Message: Generous nothing. Is your point that there's more direct evidence of Maharaji claiming to be God than the fact of the holocaust? I think that, for argument's sake, we can likely agree that there's overwhelming evidence of both. Still, as we know, people write and believe shit like Zundel's. I want to hear PT comment on this kind of bizarre maneouvring in the face of solid evidence. I want to hear him say that he acknowledges that the deniers have talked themselves into a state where they can't think straight although they still talk as if they're functioning with healthy, operating minds. I don't expect PT to say, 'Oh, I see! That's what I'm doing.' It'll be enough to see how he distinguishes himself from those crazy fools. You know, it could work the other way. Next time you have lunch with a holocaust denier, show them your binder of PT' correspondence and the quotes he tries to dismiss. They'll quickly agree that this PT guy's pathetic. Then you can ask them what they think of people so dedicated to an idea, like PT, that they can't think straight and eal with evidence squarely. Same thing. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 19:22:08 (EDT)
From: Passing thru Email: None To: JW Subject: Show me the quote, JW Message: Dear JW, The only people who seem to think Maharaji is God are the people who post on this site. He's never said it, I've never heard it and the dozens of people who I've told about the comments on this site, think you're a fringe cult of fundementalists.The 1971 Newsweek article is absolutely clear and he's said it hundreds of times since 'I am human'. No wonder you guys are so angry and confused, you didn't listen then and you don't listen now. Traditional Indian costumes, crowns, songs and behaviour do not constitute a claim of 'I am God' or otherwise every Indian bridegroom with a crown and a white horse and a wife who washes his feet is God. PT Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 19:28:30 (EDT)
From: JW Email: None To: Passing thru Subject: Show me the quote, JW Message: You are such a liar I don't think I want to discuss this with you. The quote said 'Who is Guru? The highest incarnation of god is guru.' This was said by GURU Mahararj Ji. It couldn't be clearer and more direct. The quote is available on the website JM put together, which is available on the site. His crowns, Krishna outfits, arti, having thousands kiss his feet, having us do pranam to him, sitting on thrones, being called Lord of the Universe, Perfect Master, Satguru, the Superior Power in Person, all supported his image as god and he said zippo, nada, nothing to disuade most of us premies who believed he was god, for many years. As I said I did and every premie I knew did. Your comparison of what Maharaji did to weddings is ludicrous. You are very full of shit. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 20:15:23 (EDT)
From: Passing thru Email: None To: JW Subject: No prize JW Message: Dear JW, The quote 'Who is Guru? The highest incarnation of god is guru', does in no way mean 'I am God'. There are billions of incarnations of god, including you and me and the guru. Whether the guru (any true guru, not just Prem Pal Rawat) is the highest incarnation of god is a matter of opinion. The idea of the true guru being 'the highest incarnation' is the same concept as 'god is great but greater is the guru because he reveals god'. Whilst it is the water that saves the dying man, more important for the dying man than the abstract knowledge of water is the person who brings it to the dying man'. That man saved my life, that man nourished me. Being such a protector of the truth, you will surely post an apology saying 'PT is right, the quote 'the highest incarnation of god' is completely different from saying 'I am God'. PT Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 21:01:47 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Passing thru Subject: Stupider all the time Message: God, PT, I'm amazed. There are billions of incarnations of god, including you and me and the guru. Is that what you think an 'incarnation of God' is? Just part of creation? Show me any support for that particular use of the word in this entire world, if you don't mind. You might as well call yourself a 'piece of shit'. After all, you create shit, just like a putative God creates you. If you can't distingusih between the creator and the creation, you're in a field of your own. You're certainly not talking enlgish. The idea of the true guru being 'the highest incarnation' is the same concept as 'god is great but greater is the guru because he reveals god'. This is really sick, bucko. It's not at all true that saying that something IS something is the same as saying something is GREATER than something. Saying Spot is a dog, it's a lot different than saying Spot is greater than a dog. In the latter case, Spot could be a cat. Maharaji said 'Guru is greater than God' and I agree, THAT statement is not proof taht he claimed to be God. It's the other ones. Being such a protector of the truth, you will surely post an apology saying 'PT is right, the quote 'the highest incarnation of god' is completely different from saying 'I am God'. Now that you realize how extremely confused you were, I'd think the onus is clearly on YOU to apologize saying, 'JW is right, I'm a liar' Another point: You said -- You, because you deny that tens of thousands of people practice knowledge and enjoy it. I never denied that, as we already discussed below. You, on the other hand, have said a few times that we, few vocal ex's here on the page are the ONLY people who think Maharaji said he was God. What do you base that on? Wishful thinking? Just being an asshole? Come on, tell me. See, I'd wager that there are LOTS of premies and ex's who, regardless of what they believe now, think that Maharaji claimed he was God. Further, there is a whole world out there who remebers him as the fat, greasy little Indian kid who called himself the Lord of the Universe. Do you deny that? And perhaps even better, do you actually argue that any Joe off the street, if shown the various quotes you've been given, would hesitate for a second before saying that this guy is obviously claiming he's God? Now, I'm not for a moment saying they'd be right, of course. That's a different point. I'm just saying that, right or wrong, they'd interpret those words just like we all do. What proof do yopu have otherwise? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 22:42:34 (EDT)
From: G's mom Email: None To: Jim and JW Subject: this is what you need... Message: I am sending Guenther to spend some time with each of you. It will cure you of this peculiar desire to spend your time arguing with premies. Try arguing with a teenager. Actually, Guenther is 18 and is gaining a logical mind after many years of pointless arguements. PT sounds just like Guenther at 16 or like the patients I met locked up in the booby hatch in that rotation. A lot of words go round and round and they sound a lot like they might have a point. Until you try to follow the logic and there is none. PT likes the sounds of his own voice ( the clicking of his keyboard) he is going to insist that simply because he has a unique interpetation of events any logical person would interpet as we do that his interpetation is valid. His interpetation is bullshit as we know. Teenagers grow up. Mental patients take Haldol. PT I think is beyond hope. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, Jul 17, 1998 at 01:13:42 (EDT)
From: bb Email: None To: Jim Subject: Stupider all the time Message: The satsang by rawat titled 'who is satguru' will fix these guys. There he very clearly declares himself over and over. I guess I should fetch it. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, Jul 17, 1998 at 09:09:55 (EDT)
From: Passing thru Email: None To: Jim Subject: Veni,vidi,vici Jim Message: Dear Jim, Incarnate comes from the Latin 'carnis' meaning flesh. Since the generally accepted definition of God, the creator is eternal, infinite and omnipresent then evrything is god. Therefore every human or animal is god made flesh. As every carrot is god made vegetable. As for this site being the sole source of the concept that Maharaji is god, the only way to explain how you manage to blame him for some of the incidents that you do,is you must attribute Maharaji with the supernatural power of omniscience (knowing eveything that happened in your lives) and omnipotence (not doing anything about it). If he isn't omniscient or omnipresent then you have only yourselves to blame. PT Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 21:11:41 (EDT)
From: nigel Email: None To: Passing thru Subject: No prize JW Message: Ever heard of sophistry, PT? I was about to accuse you of it, but the term actually refers to 'a clever but fallacious argument.' Incarnation = 'embodiment' in every religion. God in person. There was never any amibiguity about this in all my premie years. You are so full of bullshit, I am wondering whether you might be 'A Premie', 'Student', or 'Red Heels' in disguise. It looks to me like a case of Converged Personality Syndrome. Nigel Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, Jul 17, 1998 at 09:15:36 (EDT)
From: Passing thru Email: None To: nigel Subject: No prize Nigel Message: Dear Nigel, An embodiment of god is not god Nigel. We are all embodiments of god. PT Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, Jul 17, 1998 at 13:28:28 (EDT)
From: Mike Email: None To: Passing thru Subject: No prize Nigel Message: PT, you are obviously too new to premie-dom to remember that all songs published and all materials printed had M's personal approval on them. That being the case how do you explain an old song whose lyrics went like this: 'guru is the father of all, the creator of love, the LORD OF THE UNIVERSE....' M approved it and had it published. Don't believe this song existed? Would you like the wav file for evidence. I have music from way back (god knows why I kept it... Maybe for arguments like these!) Thanks JW (and I don't blame you for giving up on this guy) Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, Jul 17, 1998 at 17:45:42 (EDT)
From: nigel Email: None To: Passing thru Subject: Speak for yourself... Message: We are all embodiments of god How dare you! I am the living embodiment of me, and nobody else. Brain, flesh, bone and nervous system. But supposing you were right, what the hell in that case is a guru for? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 23:02:40 (EDT)
From: JW Email: None To: Passing thru Subject: I Give UP Message: I give up. But, please you should keep going. Your statements are so stupid, illogical and require such mental gymnastics that you are an excellent example of what a premie has to do to avoid the contradictions implicit in Maharaji. It's obvious to everyone but you. Thanks once again for reminding me how grateful I am for dumping that fraud when I did. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sat, Jul 18, 1998 at 21:38:04 (EDT)
From: Scott T. Email: None To: Passing thru Subject: It's really not a contest, PT Message: PT: You clearly don't have a position of authority anywhere, since that would require some ability use common sense to determine when people are dissembling. With that incapacity you have probably done more damage to yourself than anyone else. It is possible to argue almost anything, but it is not wise to read innocence into statements that are clearly as self-serving as those of Maharaji. It is probably more important at this stage to make the point that Maharaji is not a very good teacher, and not even a very good human. Very probably not, I might add, even as good as you. What you lack are standards, my good man. -Scott Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 21:23:35 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: JW Subject: PYMWYMI - PT Message: PT, Obviously we're locking horns on language, right? I don't think you cna quibble with that. This could be as simple as a disagreement over the meaning of the word 'tennis'. Now, seeing that we don't agree, how do you think we could resolve our little dispute? Apparently we can't do it without a referee. So how about us getting one? What do you say? I suggest that it wouldn't be that hard. Let's see if we can find an EXPERT in english -- like an english prof, maybe -- and ask them if the quotes say what we say they say or what you say they say. Well? In fact, I'd like to make it a little more interesting. How about putting some money on it? Hm? Well, either way, I think this is clearly the next step. Don't you? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, Jul 17, 1998 at 09:35:21 (EDT)
From: John Email: None To: Jim Subject: a tuppence worth Message: Jim, The premie would have a very valid objection to your wanting to use an English professor, someone who has had years and years of education. Aren't you forgetting M's opinion of school, education, learning, books, etc.? When I followed M he used to brag that he had never read a book. Followers of M all know how limited THAT kind of knowledge is and would not respect the professor's judgement in the case. So, the question is who would make a fair referee? I have no idea, though I have another question. Aren't we all in agreement here? Passing Thru claims that M has no special divine powers. We agree! We are all in agreement that M is not divine. So whatever M claimed or claims does not matter. What matters is that we all agree on that most important point - M IS NOT DIVINE! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sat, Jul 18, 1998 at 01:56:01 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: John Subject: keep your change! Message: The premie would have a very valid objection to your wanting to use an English professor, someone who has had years and years of education. Aren't you forgetting M's opinion of school, education, learning, books, etc.? When I followed M he used to brag that he had never read a book. Followers of M all know how limited THAT kind of knowledge is and would not respect the professor's judgement in the case. Ah, John, on behalf of PT, thanks very much. No, I accept your comment in the spirit intended but I can't agree. Maharaji might not be no fan of ejumacation but that's not the issue. The issue is whether ANYONE would/should/could interpret THOSE WORDS to mean Maharaji claimed he was God. It's not a matter of what Maharaji might have meant by those words. He could have meant nothing. He could have been drugged, drunk, ignorant of the language or kidding. The point is that those words IMPLY that meaning. If a professor determined that Maharaji saying, for example, 'The highest manifestation of God is Guru. So when Guru is here, God is here' or 'Guru Maharaji is the Supremest Lord in person before us.' said words that could only mean that he was claiming to be God, plain and simple (i.e. that they lend themselves to no alternative explanation), then I'll be satisfied. PT, will then have to argue that Maharaji wasn't speaking English. Now that'll be fun too. So, what of it, PT? Can we get this ball rolling? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, Jul 17, 1998 at 13:50:51 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Jim Subject: Why won't you answer, PT? Message: PT, I check today and find that you kept posting after I split but still not answer to my post above. Why's that? Come on, I think my proposal's eminently reasonable. We're fighting over semantic interpretations and taht's the kind of stuff we should just get a referee for. If you're the SLIGHTEST bit sincere in saying whatever you say, you should welcome the opportunity to make your case, prove your point and do your little 'veni, vidi, vici' dance. Look, forget the bet. That part's not necessary -- I mena for money. But I honestly think we should get ourselves an expert in the English language -- and see who's interpretation flies. You must agree that if you're the ONLY person who reads these quotes the way you do, then it might be time for you to reconsider your interpretation. Otherwise, you're saying that Maharaji isn't speaking english, he's talking PT's special language. You're not saying that, are you? Come on, don't ignore me here. Let's resovle this, once and for all. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 23:46:46 (EDT)
From: VP Email: None To: Passing thru Subject: Christian Perfect Masters 101 Message: Let's pretend for just a brief moment that M never claimed to be God, that his family never mentioned it and that all of the old premies from the 70's never claimed it either. Just for fun, ok? Now, did M claim to be a perfect master? Of course he did. Did he say that Jesus taught this knowledge? Of course he did. Did he lead people to believe that he was the living perfect master just like Jesus had been? Yes. Okay. In most of the Christian religions, Jesus is considered to be part of a triple god head. Father, son (Jesus) and holy spirit are all three considered to be God. M said that people did NOT have to give up their primary religions in order to practice his philosophy. So, if they are still embracing their Christian religion, they are going to consider the living perfect master to be a new incarnation of the son-- I.E. God. Does this make sense to you? I think asking for a particular quote is a red herring. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, Jul 17, 1998 at 09:28:02 (EDT)
From: Passing thru Email: None To: VP Subject: Christianity VP Message: Dear VP, God knows what Jesus said. What Maharaji said was that 'a perfect master is someone who teaches perfection'. If, as you say, people that are still embracing Christianity can practice Knowledge then they cannot possibly imagine Maharaji as god since that position is already taken by Jesus (father, son and holy ghost). So that leaves Maharaji as a simple human teacher of perfection. PT Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, Jul 17, 1998 at 14:20:53 (EDT)
From: Mike Email: None To: Passing thru Subject: Christianity VP Message: The thing you seem to forget (continuously) is that M ALWAYS approves/approved everything published by, for or about DLM/EV. The definition of 'personally' means he did it himself. This means he is responsible for the content, PERSONALLY! That brings me to my point: Music of the 70's CLEARLY stated that M was the LORD OF THE UNIVERSE. Videos of the time CLEARLY stated that M was LORD OF THE UNIVERSE. Satsang of the time CLEARLY stated that M was LORD OF THE UNIVERSE. How CLEAR does it have to be before YOU see it PT. Do you have to be hit in the face with a shaving-cream pie or hit over the head with a hammer to get it? M was and is PERSONALLY responsible for the publications and videos and music created/published by HIS organization. HE was and is PERSONALLY responsible for the acts of his mahatmas. Stop blaming everyone/everything else. It's RESPONSIBILITY time and it's all HIS! You're great Jim! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sat, Jul 18, 1998 at 17:20:13 (EDT)
From: VP Email: None To: Passing thru Subject: Christianity PT Message: 'If, as you say, people that are still embracing Christianity can practice Knowledge then they cannot possibly imagine Maharaji as god since that position is already taken by Jesus (father, son and holy ghost). So that leaves Maharaji as a simple human teacher of perfection.'-PT Tell that to the Christian premies who post here- ha ha! Okay you get two points for being clever. But only two points, because M said that perfect masters are sent in many ages. So Jesus came in one age and Maharaji came in another. That was the message he gave. This approach was very appealing to people who felt that worshipping a dead master was somehow incomplete. I agree with your argument above that M is a MERE human. I AGREE! But I disagree that this was how HE HAS PRESENTED himself. Maharaji and his DLM organization clearly presented him as a LIVING perfect master who was teaching the same thing that Christ was. (Why would mere mortals give darshan?) He was purported to be the SAME thing as Jesus was. Just watch the Lord of the Universe video if you have forgotten. If M is a perfect master just like Jesus, THAT WOULD MAKE HIM PART OF GOD. My friend, you know that this is true if you have been around for any length of time. Otherwise you have a funny case of denial. Interesting debating with you anyway. Have a good one! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 19:07:15 (EDT)
From: Passing thru Email: None To: Jim Subject: Revision Message: Dear Jim, Yes, I have no doubt the holocaust happened. No, I don't know why you think it is relevant. If you're suggesting that anyone denying an event occured is a revisionist, then which one are we? You, because you deny that tens of thousands of people practice knowledge and enjoy it. Or me, because I deny your claim that Maharaji ever said he was perfect. PT Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 19:54:50 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Passing thru Subject: Evasion Message: If you're suggesting that anyone denying an event occured is a revisionist, then which one are we? You, because you deny that tens of thousands of people practice knowledge and enjoy it. Or me, because I deny your claim that Maharaji ever said he was perfect. .... almost. Actually, PT, I'm sorry to say, it's a bad question. I don't deny that a lot of people, maybe even 'tens of thousands' --I have no way of knowing for sure. Do you? -- practice knowledge and enjoy it. I don't deny that. I also don't deny that all the followers of Lenz (see story above, 'Yuppie Guru Suicide') enjoy themsleves too. So, thanks for the red herring but, as you see, it's a non-starter. Now, why won't you answer mine? Saying that you agree that the holocaust happened just addresses a preliminary assumption for what I was really asking you. Here, I'll repeat it: What do you make of holocaust deniers and how they justify their revisionism? (Well, I guess I should ask you first if you think the holocaust happened. Do you? Okay, assuming you say 'yes', let's continue.) Have you seen the weird and pathetic ways that these guys deal with the evidence? I even emboldened the main question for your assistance. (Don't forget, I was a premie too once). Now, would you please answer my question? (No not THIS one, THAT one, unless you won't in which case would you please explain why you won't answer it?) Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 20:24:34 (EDT)
From: Passing thru Email: None To: Jim Subject: Precision Message: Dear Jim, I think holocaust deniers fit into the same category as fundamentalist Christians who think fossils were created by the devil to confuse mankind. But what has that got to do with my objection to your unsubstanted claim that Maharaji told you he was perfect. PT Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 20:04:54 (EDT)
From: TD Email: None To: Passing thru Subject: For PT, the Imperfect Student Message: So Maharaji's clear description of a 'perfect master' is someone you TEACHES perfectness, not your description of someone who IS perfect. OK then PT, Maharaji teaches 'perfectness'. Well he has now been teaching for over 30 years and has had many students learning from him. So surely, after all this time he must have had some students who reached 'perfection' in some way - otherwise he is not a very good teacher, and hence not a Master of that Domain. (Apologies to Seinfeld). Please give me the name of one premie who you feel is unequivocally perfect. I will happily phone them up and talk to them about what it must be like to have achieved perfection in themselves. Or better still, like other Masters (be it in Physics, Mathematics) let's put that student through a series of tests in perfection. Because anybody can say that they are the best in the world in physics, but until they pass some external test or reference point, who's going to believe them? It seems premies definition of perfection is very different to other peoples. Do you think lurkers who have read these forums and have read about all the immoral and deceitful things M has done, will still think he is the one to teach 'perfectness'?. Maybe the two don't need to be congruent, that it's a case of 'Do as I say, not as I do.' Is that how it is PT? I think you should explain to the lurkers, not to me, how an 'imperfect' man can teach 'perfection'. Or will you tell them that 'perfection' cannot be described. It is about a state of being, a place inside, a sense of self blah blah blah. I know all that. I was a premie once too you know. Perfection is a misnomer for what Maharaji teaches, and he's done an injustice to that word by association, just as he has done with the word Knowledge. He should be stopped, fined and given a good lashing by the Word Police. Regards, TD PS Do you still attend video events? I never saw that 1972 interview and that was not where I took those quotes from. How can you have missed all the many recent references he has made to Perfect Master, in particular those ones that I quoted? I stopped going to videos in April of this year and I have heard those quotes ad nauseum - I still hear them in my nightmares. I hope you don't miss them because you've nodded off up the back PT...very disrespectful. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 20:31:56 (EDT)
From: Passing thru Email: None To: TD Subject: From PT, the Imperfect Student Message: Dear TD, I think practicing Knowledge puts me in touch with something that is perfect. But being human I don't expect to become perfect anytime soon.And no,I don't know anyone who is perfect including Maharaji. PT Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 21:20:24 (EDT)
From: TD Email: None To: Passing thru Subject: For PT, the Imperfect Student Message: ...puts me in touch... So he 'puts you in touch' with perfection, rather than teaches it - is that correct? If that is the case he should call himself (even if he does it in the 3rd person) 'The Man who Puts You in Touch with Your Version of Perfection', not The Perfect Master. Using perfect as an adjective in this context is erroneous and very misleading. Regards, TD Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, Jul 17, 1998 at 09:48:11 (EDT)
From: Passing thru Email: None To: TD Subject: Grammar TD Message: Dear TD, The word 'perfect' in 'perfect master' is not an adjective describing the master, it is a noun indicating the subject taught by As 'maths' is the colloquial of the noun 'mathematics', Maharaji describes a 'perfect master 'as one who teaches perfection'. Likewise in 'singing master' where the 'singing' refers to the subject taught and not that the master is singing. Anyone caught out by the ambiguity need only look at the 'master' to see whether the 'master' is singing or not. In Maharaji's case he has made it abundantly clear that he is teaching 'perfection'. not just puting us in touch with it but encouraging and teaching us how to better experience it. PT Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, Jul 17, 1998 at 14:43:04 (EDT)
From: Mike Email: None To: Passing thru Subject: Grammar TD Message: PT: If he isn't perfect yet, then how can he possibly teach me how to do it? In fact, how dare he assume that he can? A MATH MASTER KNOWS (has mastered) math. He can do anything with math, can explain everything about math because he has EXPERIENCED MATH AS FULLY AS IT CAN BE EXPERIENCED. Thus the term MASTER. All I can say is that I see NOTHING that looks even remotely 'perfect' about M and I do mean NOTHING! If he hasn't succeeded, in over 30 years, to make one person (just one dammit) perfect and/or enlightened (since everything happens by guru's grace, right?) then I call him a dismal failure. I venture to say that in much less time most math masters have successfully built a few math masters themselves. Why is this concept so hard for you to understand PT? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sat, Jul 18, 1998 at 21:56:32 (EDT)
From: Scott T. Email: None To: Mike Subject: It is more than grammar. Message: Dear Mike (Am I correct in thinking I know you?): RE: Why is this concept so hard for you to understand PT? This concept is difficult for PT because every concept is difficult for him. You must have noticed? -Scott Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 12:19:33 (EDT)
From: Selene Email: None To: TD Subject: How to Prove a Perfect Liar Message: What bugs me is that he always refers to the PM in the third person. That way you can't really pin him on it. It's like he is saying ever so humbly that the PM resides within him and he doesn't consider the person, PP , to be the master. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 13:53:28 (EDT)
From: Gail Email: None To: Passing Thru Subject: You are dense! Message: Why have you been following MJ all these years? I know--he's the Lord. If he's only the perfect master (can show perfectness) didn't you get his message already. He's the master of corruption, that's who! Glad to see you're not in Atlantic City spending your hard cash. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 19:34:21 (EDT)
From: Passing thru Email: None To: Gail Subject: Gail Message: Dear Gail, I practice Knowledge because I like the experience I have when I turn my attention inwards, instead of outwards. I like what it does for me and I appreciate Maharaji for ng me. I don't have any complaints with what M has said and done and I know dozens of people who practice Knowledge with the same happiness. I also know a few who have stopped practicing but they don't have any complaints either, they can stop or start as they like. Since you didn't practice Knowledge, how can you possibly complain. PT Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 19:56:43 (EDT)
From: Selena Email: None To: Passing thru Subject: Gail? Message: Did you say somewhere that you DIDN'T practice knowledge before? I dont' remember that. Why is this PT person saying that? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 20:05:54 (EDT)
From: Katie Email: None To: Selena Subject: Gail? Message: Gail confessed (?) somewhere that she didn't meditate for 2 hours a day, 7 days a week. I forget the exact number, but she did do A LOT of meditation. PT immediately seized on this as the reason she didn't experience anything. I guess this was my problem too (I fell asleep at the baragon a lot.) Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 20:10:52 (EDT)
From: Selena Email: None To: Katie Subject: Gail? Message: Premies always use that excuse. They make this assumption that someone somewhere IS practising the RIGHT way. As if there were a hidden camera trained on every single premie and you could know for a fact this guy was doing it right, then follow him around all day every day to see how the experience showed through him vs. another one who wan't doing it the right way. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 20:38:06 (EDT)
From: Passing thru Email: None To: Selena Subject: Gail's practice Message: Gail made it clear she practiced three or four times a week. Maharaji makes it clear you need to practice for at least an hour everyday. And there is no doubt that a lot of people sit on their bums for an hour but spend the time day dreaming. Knowledge works, but you have to do it as instructed. PT Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 23:09:54 (EDT)
From: Selena Email: None To: Passing thru Subject: Gail's practice Message: Yes that makes sense. A few more hours of eyeball pressing and all would make a difference. Oh no that isn't it. I know. It's following M's directions. But why would that matter if he is just a teacher of meditation? Does he explain why 7 hours makes a huge difference over 3 or 4? Or are you supposed to just accept that he knows? What happens in those extra hours? Since you are posting these things you must obviously practice the RIGJT way so can you help me? I am slow I guess. I haven't seen any examples of anyone who claimed they practiced being any better than anyone else. Well, maybe there is one thing. They do kind of remind me of my Boston Irish Catholic relatives a bit in the attachment to ritual and their superior attitude. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, Jul 17, 1998 at 10:10:41 (EDT)
From: Passing thru Email: None To: Selena Subject: Selena's Nobel prize Message: Dear Selena, Could you give us more details on your breakthrough. Since time immemorial athletes, musicians, knitters, house painters etc have all foolishly believed that, all other things being equal, seven hours application produces more results than four. Your new understanding will turn the physical world on it's head. Now cakes that require 70 minutes at 300 degress can be baked in 30 minutes. Musicians will only need to practice for half the time. PT Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, Jul 17, 1998 at 11:39:46 (EDT)
From: Selena Email: None To: Passing thru Subject: Selena's Nobel prize Message: I don't have to prove my intelligence. I left M. You didn't. Enough said. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, Jul 17, 1998 at 16:19:42 (EDT)
From: Mike Email: None To: Passing thru Subject: Selena's Nobel prize Message: PT: Have you become enlightened yet? In fact, are you any closer to perfection yet? Do you consider youself to be any closer to either of the above? Tell me, how can someone that hasn't mastered perfection teach someone else how to master it? If M isn't perfect, then how can he presume to teach ANYONE ELSE how to do it? Do the much maligned public schools allow uncertified teachers to teach ANYTHING within their walls? (There may be exceptions, but the answer is a resounding NO!) Let him become perfect fisrt, then he's worth listening to. Until that time, he's as full of crap as anyone else who tries to pass themselves off as an expert on a subject with which they have no experience. (Like the mail carrier, Cliff Claven, on CHEERS). M stated early in his career that he 'received K and realized it in one month.' So that means he's perfect now. Yet, YOU state that he isn't perfect, he's just a teacher of perfection. Are you calling YOUR MASTER a liar? Sounds like it to me PT. BOY ARE YOU IN TROUBLE! (Don't worry, though. M hasn't mastered anything except how to relieve you of your cash. He doesn't have the ability to 'say grace' much less manipulate your receipt of it). Before you ask me anything, I want you to answer the questions above with REAL answers, not your typical bull. The illogic of your position and apologies for M's behavior and those he leads defies reason. The Captain of a ship at sea is TOTALLY responsible for ALL ACTS committed by every member of the crew. The Captain is court martialed prior to anyone else. If M were a captain he would be in prison today for the actions of his subordinates (Fakiranand) for whom he is absolutely and totally PERSONALLY responsible. If he doesn't OFFICIALLY deny that he is god (lord of the universe, whatever) and then make premies stop saying/thinking it, then he is approving by 'silent assent' and thus totally responsible for the outcome. Therefore, I make the proposition that he himself has stated the he is 'LORD OF THE UNIVERSE' by 'silent assent.' Anyone care to argue this point? I thought not. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 23:19:47 (EDT)
From: Victoria Email: None To: Passing thru Subject: Victoria's practice Message: Hey! Back when I was practicing k, the prescription was meditate 4 hours each day, 2 in the a.m. and 2 in the p.m. Attend satsang every night (2 hours). If you don't have time to do service, the best service you can do is give satsang (proseletyze). So, I did quite a lot of this, but also found time on the weekends to volunteer for service at IHQ in Denver. And of course, DARSHAN... the most important factor in the perfection equation. I did it all, PT, faithfully to the letter...and when my life started to fall apart, I made the leap of faith...in my heart of hearts. Maharaji didn't hear me. My teacher was not teaching me. The one thing I didn't do, and this is probably the reason why my life fell apart...I never joined DLM and I never gave 10% of my income. I remember that satsang about it being the FIRST 10% and then the rest after that could be mine. On the other hand, I remember the collection basket at the door on the way out of the satsang hall. Lots of times, I just emptied my pockets into the basket. Didn't even count it. How could such an experience be measured monetarily? Victoria Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, Jul 17, 1998 at 12:12:03 (EDT)
From: Selena the dunce Email: None To: Victoria Subject: Victoria's practice Message: So.. If back then you had to meditate 4 hours each day, and now it's one hour, duh, hows a come he is telling me that 7 hours vs. 4 is better? If 7 is better than 4 then why isn't 28 better than 4???? Premie logic has always been over my head. That's why I couldn't cut it I guess.... 7:4 is less than 28:4 = less hours of meditation per week but it's better because it is REALLY practicing knowledge. Although different from painters putting in more hourrs on layers of paint, etc. .... hmmmm.... Good thing I do something mindless like programming and development for a living and there's no logic required. I would be truly screwed. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, Jul 17, 1998 at 02:42:03 (EDT)
From: Mark Email: Apple4256@aol.com To: Passing thru Subject: Gail's practice- PT listen up! Message: M doesn't practice at all. according to his personal physicians. 'the meditation follows him'(1995) he said back in the 70's after a month he realized meditation was his duty at age 7 or 8 and quickly realized knowledge ( his words). Now PT you said M is not perfect. if he doesn't meditate in your opinion should he meditate ? or if he's just a guy who keeps telling people to go inside without going inside himself isn't this a bit screwy ? how come he gets the $50MM and No Accountability from people you know and you ? there are other people who tell you to go inside too and don't fuck and fuckup their disciples and do healing and true humanitarian work And meditate as well on PERFECTION why not support them? they actually Teach and Empower . Are there other states of Perfection( inside)? how about the meditation on the heart? Or just invoking your own higher self? are they less equal or more than knowledge? Or Is Knowledge an 'innernet'server like aol or mindspring a thing that gets you ONLINE with self ? I'd genuinely like your answers to as many of these specific questions as possible. Please! (I think your real answer to this is that you think M is the highest thing on the planet or this particular meditation is Unique to him and as high as one can go.Tho I may be way off base. I personally know neither is true. . ). Why is he qualified to teach this thing you and he call PERFECTION? What makes him in 1998 demand a lifelong master/student commitment from someone looking for a way to practice yoga? (by the way Knowledge techniques are the first stage only of the 3 stages of the original Kriya- do you have to live 2 more to finish with the Master?) How come every cult leader on this planet CO-OPs Jesus saying they're teaching the same thing! talk about namedropping! ( an aside ) Lets say I wanted to learn about sex should I learn from a guy who drinks and talks a good game but when noones around can't or wont get it up? or someone who's been there? or is this just a religion, Maharajiism, that you and your buds get off on. ( you know, more personality and better songs than Bahai)? What I'm suggesting is beyond the words and vibration of your current 'Master' You're higher than your teacher ! unless you don't think you are. then you're certainly not. (while he says hes not this and not that, the slide shows are clicking, and One Foundation is playing. . . and damn it feels good, and Whammo !. He's your personal God again! on a very profound emotional level !) Thank Gail and TD for telling you the way it is/ this post pale before their clarity with you. I've meditated for 10000 hours and it has become very real and is a basis of my internal practice But its not perfection, per se.. However, attunement to knowledge and its vibration gave me the sober clarity to see M was full of shit. The problem was that this is an emotion based movement. and that's where all the hooks take place. and I for one had to separate HEART from Emotion when exiting which wasn't easy for me ! nor will it be easy for you when you're PASSING THRU M - hopefully before you PASS AWAY ! one thing i can promise you from experience if you do seriously meditate you will be AMAZED at how powerful it becomes for you and you'll find out who to really surrender to ! and see the box students are 'detained' in . . . Look foward to your responses ! You'll find me quite non-abrasive . . . Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, Jul 17, 1998 at 09:57:01 (EDT)
From: Passing thru Email: None To: Mark Subject: PT listening Message: Dear Mark, Who said Maharaji doesn't pracice? He certainly never said it because he always saying how much he enjoys I like it also, so that's why I do it. PT Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, Jul 17, 1998 at 12:30:58 (EDT)
From: Mark Email: None To: Passing thru Subject: PT listening Message: i like it too-in fact i love it ! but could you try (if its not too much of a stretch, which it shouldn't be) to respond to the other questions assume he does meditate. could you try to respond to the other 15 questions? Thanks in advance , , , Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 23:54:47 (EDT)
From: VP Email: None To: Katie Subject: Asleep at the baragon Message: Katie, I can actually picture this which makes it even funnier :) Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, Jul 17, 1998 at 00:04:27 (EDT)
From: Katie Email: None To: VP Subject: Asleep at the baragon Message: I did fall asleep at the baragon a lot (sort of like sleeping on your desk in high school?), but the easiest way to sleep was in a pranam. We all kept blankets over our heads, even if we were meditating with other people in a premie house or ashram. Thus you could pranam, sleep, and no one would notice unless you started snoring. Seriously, no one got enough sleep back then! We were always falling asleep during meditation. It is really hard to extend your normal day by an hour at each end, especially when you have to drive home from satsang at night and THEN meditate. (I used to envy the people in the ashram who didn't have to drive anywhere. But they had to deal with all the people who wouldn't leave after satsang.) Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, Jul 17, 1998 at 07:54:55 (EDT)
From: Cheeseman Email: David.Studio57@btinternet.com To: Katie Subject: Falling beragons Message: Hark, I hear the crash of falling beragons as yet another dozing premie falls off their perch. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |