Ex-Premie.Org

Forum III Archive # 19

From: Jul 19, 1998

To: Aug 1, 1998

Page: 1 Of: 5



jim -:- New age thinking -:- Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 16:53:11 (EDT)
__Mike -:- New age thinking -:- Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 17:36:17 (EDT)
____Jim -:- New age thinking -:- Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 18:08:37 (EDT)
______Carol -:- New age thinking -:- Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 03:30:38 (EDT)
________Jim -:- Pretty much, yeah -:- Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 11:43:28 (EDT)
__________Gerry -:- More pre-packaged wisdom -:- Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 12:08:49 (EDT)
____________Carol -:- More pre-packaged wisdom -:- Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 15:58:03 (EDT)
__________Carol -:- Pretty much, yeah -:- Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 15:47:36 (EDT)
________G's mom -:- New age thinking -:- Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 16:24:24 (EDT)
__________Carol -:- New age thinking -:- Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 16:44:13 (EDT)
____________Jim -:- New age thinking -:- Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 17:02:53 (EDT)
____________Mike -:- New age thinking -:- Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 17:31:03 (EDT)
______________Carol -:- New age thinking -:- Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 17:58:07 (EDT)
________________g's mom -:- New age thinking -:- Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 18:22:30 (EDT)
________________Carol -:- Don't ask why me/ask what now -:- Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 18:24:45 (EDT)
________________Mike -:- New age thinking -:- Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 18:27:53 (EDT)
____eb -:- New age thinking -:- Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 18:08:49 (EDT)
______Jim -:- New age thinking -:- Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 18:12:29 (EDT)
______Mike -:- New age thinking -:- Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 18:30:16 (EDT)
________Bobby -:- Fundamentalist thinking -:- Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 18:47:42 (EDT)
__________Mike -:- Fundamentalist thinking -:- Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 19:18:59 (EDT)
__Mike -:- New age thinking -:- Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 17:58:57 (EDT)
__Bobby -:- New age thinking -:- Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 18:34:18 (EDT)
____Mike -:- New age thinking -:- Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 18:51:42 (EDT)
______Bobby -:- New age thinking -:- Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 19:06:23 (EDT)
________Jim -:- New age thinking -:- Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 19:12:41 (EDT)
____Jim -:- New age thinking -:- Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 18:52:04 (EDT)
__Mickey the Pharisee -:- New age thinking -:- Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 18:50:08 (EDT)
____Gerry -:- New age drinking -:- Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 19:25:15 (EDT)
______Mickey the Pharisee -:- New age drinking -:- Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 19:48:20 (EDT)
______Jim -:- New age drinking -:- Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 19:52:02 (EDT)
________Mickey the Pharisee -:- New age drinking -:- Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 19:55:55 (EDT)
__________Gerry -:- New age drinking -:- Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 23:00:13 (EDT)
________Carol -:- New age drinking -:- Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 03:33:22 (EDT)
______Robyn -:- New age drinking -:- Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 21:15:49 (EDT)
________Robyn -:- New age drinking -:- Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 21:23:06 (EDT)
____Selena -:- New age thinking -:- Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 13:26:10 (EDT)
__Bobby -:- New age thinking -:- Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 18:54:10 (EDT)
____Jim -:- New age thinking -:- Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 19:02:10 (EDT)
______Bobby -:- New age thinking -:- Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 19:11:00 (EDT)
________Jim -:- New age thinking -:- Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 19:22:23 (EDT)
__________Bobby -:- New age thinking -:- Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 20:08:09 (EDT)
____Mike -:- New age thinking -:- Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 19:02:15 (EDT)
______Bobby -:- New age thinking -:- Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 19:18:35 (EDT)
________Jim -:- New age thinking -:- Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 19:31:14 (EDT)
________Mike -:- New age thinking -:- Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 19:50:32 (EDT)
__________Bobby -:- Responses to abuse -:- Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 20:47:03 (EDT)
____________Jim -:- Responses to abuse -:- Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 20:58:11 (EDT)
____Carol -:- New age thinking -:- Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 03:37:34 (EDT)
______Carol -:- New age thinking -:- Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 03:47:39 (EDT)
______Jim -:- That's a little much, Carol -:- Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 11:37:17 (EDT)
________Carol -:- No, there is no other Jim! -:- Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 16:04:05 (EDT)
__________Jim -:- Yeah but snow's snow -:- Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 16:52:48 (EDT)
____________Carol -:- Yeah but snow's snow -:- Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 18:15:05 (EDT)
______________Jim -:- No stalemate, yet -:- Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 19:09:03 (EDT)
________________Carol -:- No stalemate yet/OK More... -:- Fri, Jul 31, 1998 at 02:10:10 (EDT)
__________________Carol -:- Jim,Here's a link to your camp -:- Fri, Jul 31, 1998 at 03:03:22 (EDT)
____________________Carol -:- On Chomsky, the linguist -:- Fri, Jul 31, 1998 at 13:56:12 (EDT)
______________________Runamok -:- Chomsky, the Movie -:- Sat, Aug 01, 1998 at 01:58:39 (EDT)
__________________Jim -:- No stalemate yet/OK More... -:- Fri, Jul 31, 1998 at 14:32:08 (EDT)
__Jerry -:- New age thinking -:- Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 19:32:20 (EDT)
____Jim -:- New age thinking -:- Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 19:45:26 (EDT)
__Bobby -:- New age thinking -:- Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 19:34:59 (EDT)
____Carol -:- New age thinking -:- Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 04:20:46 (EDT)
__Sir David -:- Excuse me for being dumb -:- Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 19:47:41 (EDT)
____Jim -:- Excuse me for being dumb -:- Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 19:56:57 (EDT)
______david m -:- new age think!!!!!!!! -:- Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 20:19:08 (EDT)
________Robyn -:- new age think!!!!!!!! -:- Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 21:52:14 (EDT)
__________david m -:- new age think!!!!!!!! -:- Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 06:06:27 (EDT)
____Sir David -:- And what's more -:- Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 20:14:31 (EDT)
______Sir David -:- Mind you -:- Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 20:50:29 (EDT)
____Rick -:- Excuse me for being dumb -:- Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 01:14:53 (EDT)
______g's mom -:- thanks Rick.. -:- Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 01:21:03 (EDT)
__Jerry -:- New age thinking -:- Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 20:44:29 (EDT)
____Bobby -:- New age thinking -:- Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 21:37:39 (EDT)
______Jim -:- What's YOUR kind of logic? -:- Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 21:46:01 (EDT)
________Bobby -:- What's YOUR kind of logic? -:- Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 21:58:10 (EDT)
__________Jim -:- What's YOUR kind of logic? -:- Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 22:31:40 (EDT)
____________Bobby -:- What's YOUR kind of logic? -:- Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 22:54:24 (EDT)
______________Jim -:- You don't own English -:- Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 23:00:09 (EDT)
________________Bobby -:- You don't own logic -:- Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 23:23:57 (EDT)
__Bobby -:- on speaking out -:- Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 21:20:43 (EDT)
____Runamok -:- new age finking -:- Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 21:36:07 (EDT)
______Bobby -:- new age finking -:- Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 21:40:40 (EDT)
____Jim -:- You're just too good -:- Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 21:44:31 (EDT)
______Bobby -:- You're just too good -:- Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 22:02:16 (EDT)
________G's mom -:- my very naive thoughts...? -:- Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 01:00:12 (EDT)
__________Bobby -:- my very naive thoughts...? -:- Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 09:03:26 (EDT)
____________Mike -:- my very naive thoughts...? -:- Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 11:18:57 (EDT)
______________g's mom -:- well said! -:- Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 11:43:53 (EDT)
________________G's mom -:- take back the compliment? -:- Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 11:48:59 (EDT)
____M -:- on speaking out -:- Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 07:36:30 (EDT)
______ME -:- So go ahead and -:- Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 11:22:53 (EDT)
____Brian -:- White Hats and Black Marks -:- Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 08:37:16 (EDT)
______G's mom -:- he didn't report it!!! -:- Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 11:46:25 (EDT)
________Katie -:- Defending Bobby. -:- Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 13:25:22 (EDT)
__________g's mom -:- I think I should apologize too -:- Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 14:40:32 (EDT)
__Jerry -:- New age thinking -:- Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 19:57:25 (EDT)

Rick -:- Jim Dissembles -:- Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 12:22:30 (EDT)
__RT -:- Jim Dissembles, Moses Invests -:- Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 12:38:41 (EDT)
____Mike -:- Jim Dissembles, Moses Invests -:- Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 13:02:01 (EDT)
__Jim -:- Alright, already -:- Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 15:04:33 (EDT)
____Rick -:- What a schnoodle -:- Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 16:51:40 (EDT)
______Jim -:- You kreplach! -:- Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 16:56:57 (EDT)
________Rick -:- You Infoscmendrick -:- Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 17:14:53 (EDT)
__________Jim -:- You Infoscmendrick -:- Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 17:33:26 (EDT)
____________G's mom -:- confidences -:- Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 00:24:02 (EDT)
______________Rick -:- confidences -:- Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 01:24:50 (EDT)
________________g's mom -:- confidences -:- Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 01:35:52 (EDT)
__________________Richard -:- consequences... -:- Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 10:05:50 (EDT)
____________________Rick -:- consequences... -:- Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 11:44:54 (EDT)
______________________Jim -:- consequences... -:- Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 13:14:03 (EDT)

Jean-Michel -:- Les origines indiennes... -:- Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 09:53:36 (EDT)

Keith -:- bye -:- Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 02:30:21 (EDT)
__Brian -:- bye -:- Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 09:03:06 (EDT)
____Jim -:- bye -:- Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 11:09:16 (EDT)
____Richard -:- Goodbye Keith.. -:- Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 11:51:30 (EDT)
__Sir David -:- bye -:- Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 09:57:38 (EDT)
__Mike -:- bye -:- Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 13:03:53 (EDT)
__Selena -:- bye -:- Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 21:21:17 (EDT)
____Gail -:- Hello -:- Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 21:50:26 (EDT)
______Selena -:- Hello -:- Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 12:04:11 (EDT)
________Jerry -:- Hello -:- Fri, Jul 31, 1998 at 07:58:12 (EDT)
__________Selena -:- Hello -:- Fri, Jul 31, 1998 at 13:07:29 (EDT)
____________Jerry -:- Hello -:- Fri, Jul 31, 1998 at 14:52:07 (EDT)

Jim -:- Saving Patrick Ryan -:- Tues, Jul 28, 1998 at 20:06:10 (EDT)
__Jim -:- I meant 'Private' -:- Tues, Jul 28, 1998 at 20:27:49 (EDT)
____Mickey the Pharisee -:- I meant 'Private' -:- Tues, Jul 28, 1998 at 23:59:41 (EDT)
__Jerry -:- Saving Patrick Ryan -:- Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 12:05:55 (EDT)
____Jim -:- Do I look that old??! -:- Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 17:49:27 (EDT)

Jim -:- Keith's apology -:- Tues, Jul 28, 1998 at 18:30:27 (EDT)
__VP -:- Say what you mean, Keith -:- Tues, Jul 28, 1998 at 19:09:36 (EDT)
____Jim -:- Say what you mean, Keith -:- Tues, Jul 28, 1998 at 19:19:05 (EDT)
______VP -:- Babies can't walk -:- Tues, Jul 28, 1998 at 19:32:00 (EDT)
________Jim -:- Babies can't walk -:- Tues, Jul 28, 1998 at 19:53:55 (EDT)
__________Nigel -:- Babies can't walk -:- Tues, Jul 28, 1998 at 20:09:17 (EDT)
__________VP -:- Beyond help? -:- Tues, Jul 28, 1998 at 20:22:25 (EDT)
__Rick -:- Keith's apology -:- Tues, Jul 28, 1998 at 20:04:11 (EDT)
____Jim -:- Keith's apology -:- Tues, Jul 28, 1998 at 20:23:19 (EDT)
______VP the detective -:- Sneaking peeks -:- Tues, Jul 28, 1998 at 20:33:01 (EDT)
______Rick -:- Keith's apology -:- Tues, Jul 28, 1998 at 20:59:51 (EDT)
________Jim -:- Keith's apology -:- Tues, Jul 28, 1998 at 21:16:39 (EDT)
__________Rick -:- Keith's apology -:- Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 00:09:27 (EDT)
____Katie -:- Keith's apology -:- Tues, Jul 28, 1998 at 20:29:15 (EDT)
______Bobby -:- Keith's apology -:- Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 22:26:37 (EDT)
________Katie -:- if not MMT, then what -:- Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 10:49:08 (EDT)
__Mickey the Pharisee -:- Keith's apology -:- Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 00:14:02 (EDT)
____VP -:- Hi, Mickey! -:- Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 00:43:03 (EDT)
______Mickey the Pharisee -:- Hi, Mickey! -:- Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 11:28:17 (EDT)
________Robyn -:- Hi, Mickey! -:- Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 21:45:47 (EDT)
__________Mickey the Pharisee -:- Hi, Mickey! -:- Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 22:21:06 (EDT)
____________Robyn -:- Hi, Mickey! -:- Fri, Jul 31, 1998 at 19:59:28 (EDT)
____G's mom -:- Mickey's post -:- Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 01:00:53 (EDT)

Bill Cooper -:- Elvis+ the Preslyterians -:- Tues, Jul 28, 1998 at 16:09:18 (EDT)
__Peter -:- perfect elvis light -:- Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 00:10:12 (EDT)
____Gerry -:- perfect elvis light -:- Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 09:30:07 (EDT)

Mark -:- Get Over It -:- Tues, Jul 28, 1998 at 11:14:35 (EDT)
__Keith -:- Get Over It -:- Tues, Jul 28, 1998 at 18:31:00 (EDT)
____Mike -:- Get Over It -:- Tues, Jul 28, 1998 at 18:40:40 (EDT)
____Gerry -:- Shit or get off the pot -:- Tues, Jul 28, 1998 at 18:54:22 (EDT)
______Keith -:- Shit or get off the pot -:- Tues, Jul 28, 1998 at 19:43:54 (EDT)
________Gerry -:- Really Keith? -:- Tues, Jul 28, 1998 at 20:27:42 (EDT)
____Jerry -:- Get Over It -:- Tues, Jul 28, 1998 at 19:50:31 (EDT)
____Nigel -:- What's next...? THE POINT! -:- Tues, Jul 28, 1998 at 20:02:06 (EDT)


Date: Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 16:53:11 (EDT)
From: jim
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: New age thinking
Message:
You know, one wonders how people form strong opinions. I never really had that big a deal with new agers having been one myself to varying degrees over the years. Now, though, I'm beginning to really believe that there's an amazingly deleterious effect brought on by long-term new age thinking. You know, kind of like Pete Townsend's hearing loss or Dean Martin's liver.

One thing that's got to be destructive is maintainting a belief system that 'frees' one from ever having to take responsibility for anything. Did you see Bob's splenetic post below? I expect that will be his last. It should be if Brian and Katie abide by the 'no threats' policy. I expect that Bobby actually wants to be blocked. He's already 'blocked' here in terms of selling his new age foolishness. Why not have some fun and get the bum's rush, eh?

Anyway, what was Bobby so incensed about? Under 'dysfunctional premies', Gail had described some pretty miserable lives. No need to go over it again, these are sad puppies. Bobby wrote back that these people are 'funny and fascinating' and that really bugged me. Here's a guy who draws a whole lot of kind words from this crew -- yes, including me -- when he announces his own misfortune. No one else called his cancer 'funny and fascinating' and he didn't either. So then to read him dismiss Gail's point so smugly.... well, there you go. So I told him that. I told him he should be ashamed of himself for being such a callous hypocrite.

Now, a regualr adult might consider that complaint. Instead, Bobby does the typical new age thing and foces on just the process of crticism itself as being negative. That's like voluntary autism, if you ask me. Cutting yourself off from the world around you. Yecch! I'm still pissed at Judex for not being able to deal with her words either, saying instead, 'I said what I said' or something equally inane. Judex, if you're reading this, the quicker you snap out of your new age nonsense the sooner you'll be on the road to real sanity.

No, I think new age thinking, with its forced irresponsiblity and gilded faux innocence is sick. People who indulge in it are slumming. I'm sure we'll see more examples over time.

Oh well.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 17:36:17 (EDT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: jim
Subject: New age thinking
Message:
Jim: My only question is, 'What is the definition of new age thinking?'

New Age thinking seems to be mostly prehistoric/pre-scientific method in origin (e.g. druids, astrology, etc), kinda ironic, eh?

But seriously, what are you referring to when you write about New Age thinking? This might assist those, like myself, that might be a little confused on the given definition (if there is one). For example: some might consider rabid environmentalism to be new age, while others might be thinking 'magik' (sic).
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 18:08:37 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Mike
Subject: New age thinking
Message:
Mike,

I think new age thinking is best characterized by its undermining of reason and accountability. It's not the substantive beliefs so much as the perverse philosophy that obscures simple notions like 'truth' and 'honesty'. You know, in many ways, it's just the sabotage of language and rationality.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 03:30:38 (EDT)
From: Carol
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: New age thinking
Message:
Jim do you think it is New Age Thinking to believe this, as I have come to believe:

1) You are not always in control of, or responsible for what happens to you, but you are responsible for your reaction to it?

2)You can change your perception of things that happen by changing your thinking patterns?

3)Life is proceeding from you, not happening to you?

I'll leave off the ones about God and who we are in relation to God, except to say that it is a personal experience, for the sake of focusing the topic and avoiding argument.

To me, these ideas which are present in my 'New Thought' Church (which is similar but different to Unity Church) are ones which empower me to be responsible for my experiences and actions. I have not equated New Age thinking to any message that we aren't responsible. (Perhaps my church is really not New Age!)

It has done me enormous good to hear this type of message and to set goals for doing the things I most want to do, with the understanding that, ultimately, I control my own experience. I understand that among people who believe this way, there are also many other beliefs present that may be considered more New Age, and there are regular visitors who hold retreats there. for example:Ray Moody who wrote 'Life After Life' will be there soon.

This happens because there is a basic acceptance of many beliefs there (and because workshops and retreats generate income and allow more people to make their own income doing things they believe in and make a living from.) I have to admit to getting sucked into a few 'free' workshops and then ended up buying some tapes and a book, I didn't really like that well later. There are many ideas that I don't embrace, nor am I forced to, but I take what I like and leave the rest. But I have to say to you...it is not all the same or all bad!

I have experienced my share of zaelots and fundamentalists and people whose egos are very attached to their perceived spiritual superiority, or intellectual superiority, and I have been one of those at times. The thing that pushes my buttons is when people make blanket generalizations about people of any so-called type.
We humans are all unique and have diverse talents and experiences. I think (notice the qualifier)it is ignorant and disrespectful to lump people together on the basis of a few shared ideas or associations and then to judge them as bad or good. But you get to do that, because *you* get to choose what you think and that forms what you experience (once recovered from brainwashing of cults, and possibly excluding people with certain brain disorders or illnesses.) I think you could be more specific when an idea or issue offends you then to simply call it 'New Age' if you want to engage in meaningful dialogue.
Respectfully,
The so-called New Age Bubblehead,Carol
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 11:43:28 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Carol
Subject: Pretty much, yeah
Message:
1) You are not always in control of, or responsible for what happens to you, but you are responsible for your reaction to it?

What does that mean? Onb the level I think it's true, it's so obvious I can't believe anyone would bother to say it let alone share it as a profound truth. On any other level, it's bullshit.

2)You can change your perception of things that happen by changing your thinking patterns?

Again, what's that supposed to mean?

3)Life is proceeding from you, not happening to you?

Whitewash. Tell that to the victims of a simple little plane crash.

I'm not sure what these vague statements are really supposed to mean, Carol. My suspicion is that, when it comes right down to it, they don't mean anything. Just fluffy little words without any real meaning.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 12:08:49 (EDT)
From: Gerry
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: More pre-packaged wisdom
Message:
1) You are not always in control of, or responsible for what happens to you, but you are responsible for your reaction to it?

What does that mean? Onb the level I think it's true, it's so obvious I can't believe anyone would bother to say it let alone share it as a profound truth. On any other level, it's bullshit.


NLP teaches that between action and reaction, there is a window of opportunity, a split second, where we have the choice as to how we are going to respond, (think, feel) about a given situation or statement. I think that's what Carol and others mean when they say we can't control external circumstances, but we can control how we respond to them.

Personally, I'm still looking for that ''window.'' And I want my course money back.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 15:58:03 (EDT)
From: Carol
Email: None
To: Gerry
Subject: More pre-packaged wisdom
Message:
I don't know about NLP, haven't studied it. But you are right about that window. Our reaction is mostly dependent on how we habitually think for most of the rest of the time, and we are able to change that if we are able to see a new perspective and try to increase our consciousness or awareness of the way we think all the time.

We can nurse and rehearse old frames of reference of our 'natural' pain/blame/anger/revenge frame of reference that gets the most support in the world. Or we have the choice to stop giving our energy to maintain the status quo and reach for a higher ground which brings both yourself and others to greater harmony and freedom. This is not 'pre-packaged' wisdom because you have to make it for yourself!
Carol
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 15:47:36 (EDT)
From: Carol
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Pretty much, yeah
Message:
No, they have profound meaning to me. Maybe because I was for many years so outwardly influenced that I didn't know or believe I had any control. I was sexually abused as a child and I was a classic co-dependent parent to at least one very manipulative and troubled son. It is really essential to get out of the blame/guilt loop to proceed with life that is meaningful to me as an individual.

It may simply be too far outside of your experience for you to relate to. But can't you see that your own perspective and experience is one of multitudes, and some of the people who can relate to it support eachother by sharing experience and the ideas that helped them! Your attacks on all New age ideas are ignorant and lack understanding and compassion.
Carol
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 16:24:24 (EDT)
From: G's mom
Email: None
To: Carol
Subject: New age thinking
Message:
) You are not always in control of, or responsible for what happens to you, but you are responsible
for your reaction to it?

2)You can change your perception of things that happen by changing your thinking patterns?

3)Life is proceeding from you, not happening to you?

Dear Carol,
I think there are real pitfalls in this belief system.
I am in a position where I see some really awful things happen to some very undeserving people. The other side of the coin in this is that people 'choose' their reactions.

For example, from time to time I work with women who have experienced the death of a baby. Many people will tell them they a re grieving too long, that they should buck up so to speak. I do not think these people are 'choosing' to feel how they do. And for someone to imply that they are 'choosing' to be debilitated by grief would just add to the tragedy they have endured. I think we do most of the time have a choice about our actions, but our feelings are often I believe out of our control.

#2. Yes, you can. The Guru did us in with that one. And I think logical thought with a bright light on the facts is the best way out.

# 3 is really hard. What does that mean? that we create our destinies? That when you lose a child that it proceeding from you?
I really think that bad things, tragic things, can happen to people who have done nothing to deserve them.

I think we can choose when handed tragedy in life to make something meaningful come from it. It is a positvie way of coping. When a survivor starts a support group or an educational program to help others that is a healthy response and many find comfort in that in that their own pain or loss can result in good for another. But I do not think that tragedy and life's painful experiences strike only those that deserve them or are somehow spiritually unevolved.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index


Date: Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 16:44:13 (EDT)
From: Carol
Email: None
To: G's mom
Subject: New age thinking
Message:
I did not mean what you said. This isn't about what other people think about you or what you should or shouldn't do or that you draw things to happen to you or deserve them. It's about recognizing that things happen....no judgement or blame, and then shaping our lives out of whatever experience by the choices we make next.

There is a natural progression for recovery from tragedy and each stage is important to get to the other side of it where we again have freedom of choice. It is a very gradual thing to change how we think, if we want to do that. We are often presented with opportunities to relate in more loving ways. I believe that the effort of replacing our knee-jerk reactions to life's challenges in terms of 'life is happening to me' is extremely empowering to the individual, especially the one's who have been the most disempowered by authoritarian abuse of many kinds!

I hope this explains better. I think it is very relevant to this site and unfortunate if others here judge it negatively without trying to really understand what I'm talking about simply because it is judged too new-age. I have powerful personal experience of the difference it can make in a life to aim for this perspective!
Carol
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 17:02:53 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Carol
Subject: New age thinking
Message:
It's about recognizing that things happen....no judgement or blame, and then shaping our lives out of whatever experience by the choices we make next.

Whenever I see someone say what something's 'about' I start to wonder. Is this use of the word 'about' a way of fuzzing up the lens? Here, I think that's what you're doing. 'About'... what does that mean? Are we talking free association? No, I didn't think so.

Also, this 'no judgement or blame' concept is misguided to the max. Not to mention dangerous. The fact is, Carol, you are judging everything and everybody that has more than a fleeting role in your life. Constantly. Only new age thinking has made such a silly point of sanctifying an unworkable fantasy like this. Sets people up for hypocrisy and posturing galore.

Again, why does new age thinking do this? To avoid scrutiny of course.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 17:31:03 (EDT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: Carol
Subject: New age thinking
Message:
Carol:
On this one I've got to disgree (just a little). The 'stuff happens' philosophy flies in the face of reality. Even 'spontaneous combustion' has a cause. Everything in this universe is bound by that principle. Life in the universe didn't 'just happen,' it happened because of a 'minor' (a couple of degrees kelvin, if I remember correctly) temperature fluctuation during/after the big-bang. Fluctuation was the 'cause,' life and everything else physical was the result. If someone gets angry with you, there is a cause, it didn't just happen. If you die, it didn't just happen, there is a definitive cause (even if it's just worn out body parts). Now, as to what the cause was may require some investigation; it may not be the obvious answer(s). In my opinion, the 'stuff happens' type thinking is a bit of a cop-out. It permits the person who is doing it to become lazy about searching for the cause, discovering the cause and learning how to avoid/use the cause (whichever is appropriate). That type of thinking is somewhat defeatest as well. It's like saying, 'there's no hope of discovering, so why try?'

So whatdaya think?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 17:58:07 (EDT)
From: Carol
Email: None
To: Mike and Jim
Subject: New age thinking
Message:
Did either of you read the post I was responding to??

Jim,MY ANSWERS ARE IN THAT CONTEXT, NOT TO BE TAKEN OUT! What it's 'about' is about the previous comments and how I'm trying to clarify the meaning of the words I posted!

And Mike, Gail said,'I am in a position where I see some really awful things happen to some very undeserving people.'

This is why I said 'stuff happens' which you are also taking out of context and changing the meaning. I was trying to turn around idea she thought I meant: that we should blame the victim for the things that happen or their emotional response to them, like rape or the death of a child, or a hurricane, this kind of stuff often just happens for no intelligent reason!Does one person deserve to die in a storm and another not?
I did not mean that in all circumstances a person could or should control their emotions or some of the many things that happen!!!Are you saying there is an intelligent reason/cause for everything that happens? That is a particular New Age idea that I don't agree with. I'm not talking about the fact that there or logical consequences or physical laws. Are you talking karma or what? I'm not. Good grief!
And I know that in this life it is not so much a question 'if' a difficult situation will happen to anyone, as 'when'. How we deal with the challenges and tragedies in our life is dependent on how we think and react from day to day. I would rather be in charge of that much at the least!
Carol
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 18:22:30 (EDT)
From: g's mom
Email: None
To: Carol
Subject: New age thinking
Message:
Dear Carol,
If it helps I do think you understood my point very well. I was simply trying to convey the negative side of some of those belief systems. I could tell from your posts you are not the sort that would blame the victim of a tragedy by saying he or she could have avoided it if they were more spritually evolved. But believe it or not there are such people. I agree that we do have choices in how we cope with what life deals us. I think we all know people who had terrible parents beconme great parents partly from what they have learned from their bad experiences, and we all know those who spend their lives blaming mom and dad for their own failings and repeating the pattern.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 18:24:45 (EDT)
From: Carol
Email: None
To: Mike and all
Subject: Don't ask why me/ask what now
Message:
Just another way to put it!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 18:27:53 (EDT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: Carol
Subject: New age thinking
Message:
Carol: No I didn't mean there is an 'intelligent' reason for anything. Just cause and effect. A person dying in a storm, died because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Being in a house in the middle of a tornado, rather than going to the storm cellar is the cause of death. NO intelligence involved. Lee Travino can tell you 'why' he was struck by lightning. He had a metallic object over his head when lightning was striking on the field. It WASN'T an act-of-god. Dinosaurs didn't just decide to disappear, they were likely killed by a comet/meteor strike. 'Why' did the meteor have to strike earth in the first place? Nothing mystical here, it happened because the natural (physical) law of gravitation pulled it into our atmosphere. No intelligence involved or necessary. No, I don't believe in any higher intelligence directing things; just simple cause and effect. Not a 'new-age' idea; it's the basis upon which all of our science is predicated. I see no evidence of a higher power that is 'intelligently' directing things. It's up to us to determine, from an effect, what the cause may be so that we can use or avoid it in the future. To summarize my point of view on this particular subject: FOR EVERY EFFECT, THERE IS A SCIENTIFICALLY PROVABLE CAUSE (usually physical in nature).

- YOU ARE RIGHT, however, that I didn't read the previous post, I am sorry for taking those words out-of-context.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 18:08:49 (EDT)
From: eb
Email: None
To: Mike
Subject: New age thinking
Message:
Mike,

You bring up a very good point--how to define new age thinking when such a diversity of groups exist. I'm not quite sure about Jim's description of the New Agers' lack of taking responsibility. Some of the hooey hooeys I hang with take full responsiblity for everything from deciding who would be their parents to what lessons they wished to teach themselves in this lifetime. Jim, I'm sure you've explained yourself on this before, but could you refresh my memory. (The short-term is missing).

Here's something I hear almost everytime I gather with my hooey hooey friends: 'Whatever it is I see in you that I resist, detest, or love must be in me too, otherwise I couldn't recognize it.' Now, is that a New Age Truth, a psychobabble excerpt, or what? (Everytime I hear it said, the speaker sounds as though it's such a new, profound concept!)

I'm going on vacation, but in my spare moments when I'm not frolicking in the desert sand (sarcastic snicker), I'm going to make a list of all the new age truisms I've heard over the past several years. Maybe I'll dig out my old journals from when I used to channel and see what Babaji was telling me. He was probably saying: Run, Running Bear, as fast as you can!

Treading water in the River of Maya,
eb
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 18:12:29 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: eb
Subject: New age thinking
Message:
eb,

That's really funny, the running bear thing. Yes, you're right about the silly 'responsibility' thing. But doesn't ta all fall under the umbrella of language-fucking? They don't really mean 'responsibility', they're just using a word becuase of some ancillary buzz they get from it.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 18:30:16 (EDT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: eb
Subject: New age thinking
Message:
Jim & eb: Thanks! It's pretty much what I thought you meant. I like to be on the same track as those I'm speaking with; this helped.

- Using eb's hooey quote: I guess that means that because I have major disdain for murderers, then that MUST mean I'm a murderer, too or I wouldn't have recognized a murderer for what he/she is. Hmmmmmmmmm...... What a bunch of crap! And people think this way? (That was rhetorical, I know they do).

- As to the responsibility thing: Well, you know how I feel about that, if you've read any of my posts. Not taking personal responsibility for your actions (or lack of actions) is a pretty damning thing in my book. It's too easy to take your 'hits' and accept responsibility. There just isn't any excuse for not doing it. What the heck is wrong with truth and responsibility? It feels pretty darned good when you do it, too. I just don't get it!

- Now that I have your ear Jim, I wanted to say something publicly: Some folks here have called you a uncaring, heartless brute. All I can say is take a closer look folks. This guy cares so much about your well-being that he chooses the tough-love approach and won't, to the best of his ability, allow anyone with whom he makes contact to make that same cult-joining mistake again. It OBVIOUSLY affected him greatly and he doesn't want the same to happen to you (and he gets down-right nasty about it, too). What more could you ask of a friend???? (Sorry Jim, I just had to blow your cover.... ;-)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 18:47:42 (EDT)
From: Bobby
Email: None
To: Mike
Subject: Fundamentalist thinking
Message:
>>>>- Now that I have your ear Jim, I wanted to say something publicly: Some folks here have called you a uncaring, heartless brute. All I can say is take a closer look folks. This guy cares so much about your well-being that he chooses the tough-love approach and won't, to the best of his ability, allow anyone with whom he makes contact to make that same cult-joining mistake again.

That's utter bullshit Mike. I wouldn't wish Jim's type of 'caring' on anyone. I don't want anyone forcing their beliefs down my throat. Jim does that with his materialist fundamentalist dogma, just like Ted Patrick did with his Christian fundamentalist dogma. Do I need to provide quotes?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 19:18:59 (EDT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: Bobby
Subject: Fundamentalist thinking
Message:
Bobby: you are free to disagree with me, but those are my sentiments. One thing I ask is that when you quote me, don't take the quote out of context (some words are missing). The last couple of sentences are germaine to what I was conveying. Here is the quote in full (please read it carefully, don't just knee-jerk):

- Now that I have your ear Jim, I wanted to say something publicly: Some folks here have called you a uncaring, heartless brute. All I can say is take a closer look folks. This guy cares so much about your well-being that he chooses the tough-love approach and won't, to the best of his ability, allow anyone with whom he makes contact to make that same cult-joining mistake again. It OBVIOUSLY affected him greatly and he doesn't want the same to happen to you (and he gets down-right nasty about it, too). What more could you ask of a friend???? (Sorry Jim, I just had to blow your cover.... ;-)

How Jim expresses himself is his business, but I've NEVER seen him threaten anyone with physical violence (real or perceived). He doesn't believe in god(?), so what, that's his RIGHT and he has the RIGHT to tell me I'm nuts if I do believe in god. I, by the way, can say the same to him. SO WHAT??? He can characterize me as an asshole, SO WHAT??? We are all trying to recover from premie-think in the best way we can. There are all kinds of help available here. If YOU don't like the way some folks characterize you, then don't read their posts. Isn't this obvious? If you think for one moment that what Jim says about you affects me in the slightest, then you don't know ME very well, do you? I'm a VERY independent thinker that happens to agree with alot of what he says, but I make personal judgements all by myself, thank you.

Please take this in the spirit in which it is sent and 'cool down,' OK? Don't worry so much about what other people think of you... What do YOU think of YOU? That's the important question after releasing yourself from M and premie-dom.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 17:58:57 (EDT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: jim
Subject: New age thinking
Message:
BTW, I wholeheartedly agree with you that Bobby's response to Gail was heartless in the extreme! If that is what you refer to as New Age thinking, then I have to agree with you there, too!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 18:34:18 (EDT)
From: Bobby
Email: None
To: jim
Subject: New age thinking
Message:
I never threatened you asshole.
I said you deserved to get your ass kicked and that I'd like to do it. I didn't say I would, did I? There's a difference. I object to having this post censored.
And I told you to go fuck yourself. You've done just the same. And I say it again go fuck yourself maggot.

The response you attribute to me when I said 'funny and fascinating' is not at all what I meant. I think this whole culture is dysfunctional. Especially you. You are one helluva lowlife, treating humans like dirt. I work with people who have been hurt by people like you all the time. How dare you continue to misrepresent me!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 18:51:42 (EDT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: Bobby
Subject: New age thinking
Message:
Well, 'funny and fascinating' is what YOU wrote, not Jim. Take responsibility, at the very least. If it isn't what you meant, then what did you mean? Be explicit... with or without expletives is fine by me.

Additionally, YES YOU DID make a threat (legally). Again, take responsibility for your own words and 'cool your jets.' (Before you ask, yes I was a cop for a few years in the U.S., so I do know what I'm talking about!)

I would like to know who these people are that you work with that have been hurt by people like Jim. Somehow, you are not representing yourself like a professional, so I doubt that you are one. So in what way do YOU help these people, by calling them names? Novel treatment regimen!!!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 19:06:23 (EDT)
From: Bobby
Email: None
To: Mike
Subject: New age thinking
Message:
What I meant by that post was that I see people living like what Gail characterized all the time. In my view, we live in a fraudulent, dysfunctional society, a society that pushes values of sex and money and violence. Kinda what Jim seems to live and profit by. His idea of success.

Sensitive people often have problems fitting in with the values of contemporary society. Sensitive people often have breakdowns.

I took objection to Gail's post attributing people's dysfunctional behavior to Maharaji and I responded with 'funny and fascinating'. I am sorry if I offended anyone, that was not my intention. As I've said before I believe that most people are dysfunctional. My views of dysfunctionality are more like what John Bradshaw and others have said: the vast majority of people in our society are dysfunctional. Most are not overt about it, that's all. Still the dysfunctionality runs deep. In my opinion, that's why drugs like Prozac are so popular.

Jim's response to me infuriated me. How dare he make attributions about my life! He knows nothing about it. Such a response is typical from one such as Jim. I don't respond to much of his tripe because I find it extremely distorting and shallow.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 19:12:41 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Bobby
Subject: New age thinking
Message:
In my view, we live in a fraudulent, dysfunctional society, a society that pushes values of sex and money and violence.

Maybe another hallmark of new age thinking is an inability to self-reflect. I mean, isn't this kind of funny? Bobby talks about how much he'd like to kick my ass then bemoans the emphasis on violence in our society.

Really, what's happening to the forum? I hope no one new's been reading this thing for the past few days. I'm starting to feel embarrassed that I ever followed Maharaji, believe it or not. :)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 18:52:04 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Bobby
Subject: New age thinking
Message:
Bobby,

We'll let Brian be the judge of that, okay? I'm sorry your post was censored but what you did say was:

You continue to insult, misrepresent and aggravate me and I'm tired of it.
Your words are fighting words to me. I believe you are too much of a coward
to back them up in person. You deserve to get your ass kicked and I would
love to do it.


A threat is a 'declaration of an intention to injure' (Oxford). You didn't come right out and say you would do it BUT you definitely tried to make me think about it. Hey, maybe Judge Judy would think that's not enough for a conviction, maybe Judge Jake would. Who's to say about Judge Brian?

I know what I would do. I would look to see if the speaker was intending to instill fear in the other. I'd say that you were. Whether you could kick my ass or I yours isn't the issue. The point is, you're definitely trying to physically intimidate someone here, namely me.

Of course you could step back and get a grip on yourself and admit that your entire existence is just kinda funny and fascinating. Hey, Bobby, let's say, just for argument's sake, that you get kicked off. Come on, man, funny and fascinating, right?

I really feel for the people you 'work with'. Why not tell the good folks on this forum how they too can arrange for a little counselling?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 18:50:08 (EDT)
From: Mickey the Pharisee
Email: mgdbach@ziplink.net
To: jim
Subject: New age thinking
Message:
Hey you know what I hate even more than bubble-headed New Age thinking? New Age drinking!! I go into the liquor store and there are all kinds of fruit-flavoured beers! It's as bad as the wine-cooler scare of the 1980's, or those terrible umbrella-topped, fruit-laden hooey hooey tropical drinks people try to pour down your throat at some horrible Barbeque! Gimme a single-malt scotch and keep 'em coming.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 19:25:15 (EDT)
From: Gerry
Email: None
To: Mickey the Pharisee
Subject: New age drinking
Message:
Very funny, Mickey. Maybe I shouldn't say this but Jim drinks cranberry flavored beer. Honest, I saw him. Artificially flavored cranberry beer.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 19:48:20 (EDT)
From: Mickey the Pharisee
Email: mgdbach@ziplink.net
To: Gerry
Subject: New age drinking
Message:
I am crushed! CRUSHED I tell you! Well, this certainly proves that he isn't god or the guru of the Forum.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 19:52:02 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Gerry
Subject: New age drinking
Message:
Bullshit, Gerry. I drink hard liquor, boy. It was the girlfriend who was drinking that pink shit.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 19:55:55 (EDT)
From: Mickey the Pharisee
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: New age drinking
Message:
Thank God (whoops, sorry Jim)! My faith is restored! As you were.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 23:00:13 (EDT)
From: Gerry
Email: None
To: Mickey the Pharisee
Subject: New age drinking
Message:
Mickey, it's not a special sin lying to a priest, is it?

I once punched a Catholic priest in the shoulder at age ten or so and he told me I was excommunicated. Turned out he was grooming kids for ''special'' weekend trips. Thank god we moved...Glad you're Anglican.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 03:33:22 (EDT)
From: Carol
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: New age drinking
Message:
I used to favor Scotch or Irish Whiskey on the rocks, but now I have a sort of allergy to it which is unpleasant: I turn real red and my skin feel tight and prickly! Wonder if it will go away!
Carol
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 21:15:49 (EDT)
From: Robyn
Email: sundogs@hotmail.com
To: Gerry
Subject: New age drinking
Message:
Dear Gerry, Mickey and Jim,
I use to drink Yukon Jack and apple juice (highly recommended in a frosted glass), Youkon and water, also tasty and then absolute vodka and water with a water on the side. I wonder if that suprises you?
Robyn
Now I am prestine. :) damn diabetes
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 21:23:06 (EDT)
From: Robyn
Email: None
To: Robyn
Subject: New age drinking
Message:
Just a clarification, I didn't drink all the time but when I did... We knew the bar owners and would get to know the good bands they'd get mid week on their way through to the next bigger gig. We'd stay there and have parties until 7am at the bar after the doors were locked. It was a fun couple of years.
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 13:26:10 (EDT)
From: Selena
Email: None
To: Mickey the Pharisee
Subject: New age thinking
Message:
That is so funny. I know people like that. rasberry beer!
I think it's cause they feel guilty drinking alcohol so they
'disguise' it. Not a problem for me and my Irish genetic makeup. I like Absolut too Robyn and have to be very careful lest I end up addicted and broke and drinking that Pavov stuff or whatever it's called.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 18:54:10 (EDT)
From: Bobby
Email: None
To: jim
Subject: New age thinking
Message:
I've asked Jim at least twice before to refrain from casting what I have to say as 'new age'. Of course, he totally ignored me and of course he continues to misrepresent what I say.

I take great exception to much of what passes as 'new age'. I really haven't taken the time to say as much here. For instance, most 'channellers' make me cringe. On the other hand, I'm quite widely read of the spiritual literature of the world and continue to honor some basic spiritual teachings. Plus I've had major extraordinary experiences of my own. In Jim's eyes this makes me new age. I resent this continued characterization and know that Jim deceitfully continues to purposely characterize me as such.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 19:02:10 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Bobby
Subject: New age thinking
Message:
Bobby,

I'm enjoying what I hope will be the last bits of conversation I ever have with you. You, fella, are as new age as they come. You don't believe in 'reality' or 'truth' only some weird, gutted, oxymoronic versions of same. You've said as much here. Don't deny it.

That, to me, is the greatest sign of new age thinking.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 19:11:00 (EDT)
From: Bobby
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: New age thinking
Message:
I know that you are the one really who would love to see me blocked from this forum. So be it. Now you will probably be able to continue to strut your scurrilous ego largely unchallenged. I've asked you to back off many times and you've consistently refused. At heart, we both know who is lying.

You have continually crossed the line of propriety with me and revel in your taunts. I know you are quite experienced with the levels of what you can get away with in your law practice. You and Judge Judy. Really.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 19:22:23 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Bobby
Subject: New age thinking
Message:
Bobby,

You won't reason.

That's the problem here. You just won't reason. All the heat, the friction, the sparks, all of it, stem from that. And let's face it, Bobby, you've proudly announced your disavowal of reason and rationality. So how in the world can anyone talk to you?

You might not believe this but I honestly feel sorry for you. You must be scared shitless at times... naw, maybe not. Maybe I'm just projecting. Actually, what am I thinking? Maybe you're better off just believing what you want uncritically. Maybe that's a better ride for you now, all things considered. But it sure makes you hard to talk with.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 20:08:09 (EDT)
From: Bobby
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: New age thinking
Message:
>>>>That's the problem here. You just won't reason. All the heat, the friction, the sparks, all of it, stem from that. And let's face it, Bobby, you've proudly announced your disavowal of reason and rationality. So how in the world can anyone talk to you?

That's a lie and a distortion. I've never said that as such. What I have said is that there are other modes than 'reason', and that I wasn't interested in endless 'proof' discussions, meaning your modalites. You equivocate your reason with the only reason. I'm not interested in that.

A week or two ago I argued with you at length about Casteneda. Many of the issues I raised you wouldn't address. I reasoned perfectly well. I fundamentally disagreed with many of your positions. Know what axioms are? as in unprovable assumptions? We hold fundamentally different axioms.

So if I get kicked off here, (and probably you will do your best to see that this happens), I'm sure you will continue to rant your distortions and characterizations of me just as you have consistently since the beginning of this forum.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 19:02:15 (EDT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: Bobby
Subject: New age thinking
Message:
Bobby: why does this characterization bother you so much? Jeez, I've characterized MYSELF as an asshole on this forum (in those words). Who cares about characterizations? The point is this, we all have a RIGHT to characterize/express/say what we want on this forum without FEAR of physical threat. Once you make that threat (real or perceived), you are going to get hit for it (it's wrong and you know it's wrong). So how about this, tell us what you REALLY felt (e.g. were you in a violent rage when you wrote to Jim?) and take PERSONAL responsibility for your words. You have a choice here....
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 19:18:35 (EDT)
From: Bobby
Email: None
To: Mike
Subject: New age thinking
Message:
I take personal responsibility for my words here. I thought I was skirting the line of actual threat. Maybe I did step over it.

The point is that I do feel that angry with Jim. I feel words have the power of attack and Jim attacks quite well.

Ever hear the words 'walk your talk'? Well, I try to do that in my life. Jim obviously doesn't and he has stepped over the line with me repeatedly. He hides behind his words. I've said this kind of thing to Jim before. A lot of this has personal precedent with me. I've not ever hurt anyone physically, but I feel like fighting Jim. The experience to me is genuine. Surely in your experience as a cop you know what I'm talking about?

By the way, I work with survivors of the mental health system. I'm an advocate and do projects where people have the opportunity to tell the stories of what they have gone through. I represent alternatives to psychiatry. So I've personally seen a lot of stigma and a lot of damage.

I speak out publically against ridicule and contempt and stigma, the kinds of values that Jim champions.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 19:31:14 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Bobby
Subject: New age thinking
Message:
I take personal responsibility for my words here. I thought I was skirting the line of actual threat. Maybe I did step over it.

and,

Ever hear the words 'walk your talk'? Well, I try to do that in my life.

Bobby,

Put those two lines together and it seems like you're making Brian's decision for him. After all, you walked over the line, now maybe it's time for you to walk your talk right out of here. Just a thought.

See, I wouldn't miss you because this is a discussion group and frankly, you suck at that. Discussion is a rational enterprise and, as I said, you disdain the confinement of rationality. Am I wrong? Tell me I'm wrong and put a smile on my face. Go on, Bobby, make me happy!

So your work is to get together with people with mental difficulties and give them some room to express themselves or something? That's not discussion, dude. This is a discussion group.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 19:50:32 (EDT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: Bobby
Subject: New age thinking
Message:
Bobby: I've been jumping around answering your posts to my post so forgive me if there is any repetition here (I have to try to remember what I said where...)

- Now this is dialog... thank you for answering my questions. The real point of my questions was to get you to sit down and give me a logical, rational and (hopefully) calm response.

- Now I understand where you are coming from (and so will Jim, I think). If you are regularly dealing with people that have been 'mentally battered' on a day-in-day-out basis, you might think this forum to be a little rough. But what you have to understand is that, for some, the direct approach is the right approach. How Jim feels and expresses those feelings are just as valid as mine or yours. Again, if you don't like the delivery, don't read those posts. That goes for anyone on the forum. It's that easy...

- You KNOW the athiests are going to respond rather negatively to 'god' talk, right? You KNOW the god-types are going to diss the athiests, right? What's so difficult here? We can choose to enjoy the diversity (in whatever manner we choose, like diss'ing) or we can outright fight. It's our choice. I kinda like the diversity, because we all have at least ONE THING in common and that's our escape, or in some cases attempted escape, from the clutches of M. That's the way I view it... Simple as that!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 20:47:03 (EDT)
From: Bobby
Email: None
To: Mike
Subject: Responses to abuse
Message:
- Now I understand where you are coming from (and so will Jim, I think).

Well I'm glad you understand a little of where I'm coming from. You appear to be a relative newcomer, and missed the posts where I patiently attempted to explain more of where I am coming from. You also seem to have missed the posts where Jim routinely insulted and ridiculed what I had to say, including the posts where I spoke of the value of kindness.

No, Jim will not understand (or care to understand) where I am coming from, or indeed where anyone else who disagrees with his 'rationality'. I've never sought to disrespect or insult Jim initially. I've only replied in kind after repeated verbal insults from him.

>>>If you are regularly dealing with people that have been 'mentally battered' on a day-in-day-out basis, you might think this forum to be a little rough. But what you have to understand is that, for some, the direct approach is the right approach.

The 'direct approach' is not the only approach nor is it always right. In the world of psychiatry, a world where I have much experience, the 'direct approach' is drugs and/or seclusion and/or restraints. I have seen much, much abuse with these methods. And you know what? The psychiatrist is always seen as the 'scientific', authoritarian approach. I have been the victim of this approach and have seen directly countless victims of this approach.

>>How Jim feels and expresses those feelings are just as valid as mine or yours.

I've never disagreed with the validity of expression, whatever that may be. I've disagreed with the validity of directing ridicule, contempt and scorn at others. Jim is the direct perpetrator of this kind of action. This kind of action hurts people.

>>>Again, if you don't like the delivery, don't read those posts. That goes for anyone on the forum. It's that easy...

Well, I've often done that. But then I've often seen gross distortions and misrepresentations and have felt obliged to speak out. I didn't ask for insults and verbal abuse. They were delivered to me. On occasion I've responded. Hence this most recent tussle.

The diversity here on this forum has continually been whittled away by the likes of Jim. Lots of people have left because of his abuse. He talks like one mean motherfucker. Of course he can't back up what he says, but the effect of his words have hurt many.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 20:58:11 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Bobby
Subject: Responses to abuse
Message:
I've never disagreed with the validity of expression, whatever that may be. I've disagreed with the validity of directing ridicule, contempt and scorn at others. Jim is the direct perpetrator of this kind of action. This kind of action hurts people.

Bobby,

Do you ever encounter people who believe stuff that you find absoltuely ridiclous? If so, do you spare them your ridicule? How about people who's views you find contempuous? What do you say to them?

And why DID you choose to jump in and describe the broken people Gail mentioned as 'funny and fascinating'? Does that have something to do with the 'value of kindness'?

And these various people you champion against the big, bad scientific establishment, are they just 'funny and fascinating' too?

You're a funny duck, man.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 03:37:34 (EDT)
From: Carol
Email: None
To: Bobby
Subject: New age thinking
Message:
Me too. You are an incredibly complex and unique human being and so am I and so is him! No one has experienced the exact same things so who can challenge your experience. What we make of our experience is also unique. Wishing you well!
Carol
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 03:47:39 (EDT)
From: Carol
Email: None
To: Bobby
Subject: New age thinking
Message:
The last entry was an agreement about the dislike of labeling. The post is out of place.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 11:37:17 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Carol
Subject: That's a little much, Carol
Message:
You are an incredibly complex and unique human being and so am I and so is him! No one has experienced the exact same things so who can challenge your experience. What we make of our experience is also unique.

Carol,

We're not THAT unique nor are our experiences. You're just parrotting a common new age idea -- sorry to say -- that's designed to protect one from scrutiny. I don't buy it for a second. If you say you were abducted by a UFO you're damned right I can challenge your experience. And on and on and ON!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 16:04:05 (EDT)
From: Carol
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: No, there is no other Jim!
Message:
sorry to say -- that's designed to protect one from scrutiny.>

You are as individual as a snowflake. Do you really believe you understand and know the total experience of even one other human on the whole earth?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 16:52:48 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Carol
Subject: Yeah but snow's snow
Message:
Carol,

Honestly, if you had to balance the aspects of people that are alike with the differences, don't you think that the similarites outnumber the differences by far, by far? Sure they do. That's the only reason we can communicate like this, never having met, and assume, as we do, that we know the slightest bit what the other's talking about.

Really, that 'individuality' thing is just another concept gone wild in new age circles. And why? Just to pump people up.

Hey, Carol, here's another one: 'You're special!'

Yeah, right. You're special, I'm special, Gerry's special. Even Katie's special. Is that what you think? Well that's fine if you want to retire the word 'special' and give it no meaning. Know what I mean?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 18:15:05 (EDT)
From: Carol
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Yeah but snow's snow
Message:
I'm afraid we do 'only know the slightest(emphasis here)bit what the other's talking about'!

You just don't have the same frame of reference as I do! Some people, including me, really need to hear that they are special. All children need to hear that and if they didn't as children, they need it later!

Special, by my definition means that you have individual talents and experiences and that your potential goodness or value is equal to others. Special Education refers to kids who have different needs and abilities who may need accomodations to learn.

I also have good radar to detect insincerity of meaningless compliments or affirmations. It has to be real to me (from my personal biased perspective, which is of course, all we have, as you have needlessly pointed out to me and others.) Your perspective is just as personal and biased and valid for you (the word valid to me does not refer to ultimate truth! But I don't keep the dictionary next to me!) Isn't it obvious? Don't answer that unless you must, I call a stalemate.
Carol
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 19:09:03 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Carol
Subject: No stalemate, yet
Message:
Special, by my definition means that you have individual talents and experiences and that your potential goodness or value is equal to others.

Funny, Oxford says 'special' mean 'particularly good, exceptional, out of the ordinary'. If everyone's special then Oxford doesn't know what they're talking about. Time to throw out the dictionaries, I guess. And you wonder why people have a hard time understanding each other! Maybe if people just spoke properly and didn't try to fuck with language like all these new ager philosophies encourage, we wouldn't have to fret over 'communication' and 'understanding' so much. Can't you see how this is all so related?

Carol, that's why we HAVE dictionaries. There are universal meanings to words. You know, Bobby get's all twisted out of shape when I discuss logic with him. He starts complaining about 'Jim Heller's logic'. Well, sorry, it doesn't work that way. I don't own the language. Neither does Oxford. They just try, in good faith, to describe the universally-accepted meanings of words. If you're really interested in communicating effectively with people --and I actually don't doubt your sincerity in that regard -- I'd suggest you adhere to those meanings. Otherwise you're just talking code. People who use words any which way they want lack self-discpline and are ultimately being less than courteous to those they're talking with. They're just using words to feel good rather than communicate.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jul 31, 1998 at 02:10:10 (EDT)
From: Carol
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: No stalemate yet/OK More...
Message:
I see your point. However when I studied linguistics about 11 years ago,I learned that there are at least two schools of thought about language. I'm afraid I don't remember any names involved with the views, but I'll make an effort to explain. One camp believes in the Oxford dictionary version and whatever proper grammar book is the reference of the time for determining the correctness of language use. They would call the common useage of slang or a style of speaking which is common to many black neighborhoods in America to be improper. They would say that there is only one right way to pronounce a word. Most of our English teachers were of this camp. (Hope you don't mind my use of 'camp'.)They get very frustrated with our misuse of language.

The other camp believes that language is in continual change over time. Formal language should still be learned and used in writing college papers or communicating in business. Proper grammar and pronunciation needs to be used, or you may not pass a class or get or keep a job.

But for talking or writing in an informal context, the rules are not very important. Only the communication between people is important. Black English, for example, is considered by them to be a proper dialect for those who speak it which has it's own rules of grammar. Also, new words and new meanings of words are constantly being added or revised so no dictionary can keep up! There are variations of pronunciation from one part of the country to the next and they both/all get to be right. The language here is considered 'correct' within its context. This camp delights in the fluid complexity and creativity inherent in language.

I think it is OK to define terms that might otherwise be misunderstood by doing it in the context of the discussion. (I must be in the second camp!) If I say 'Special' means something different than your dictionary says, then all I should have to do, in my opinion, is tell you what it means to me. We can create new words if we want to and have enough other people understand them so that they become common. I like this, I'm sorry you don't because I can understand it causes you frustration! This is just one of the areas we see things differently.
Carol
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jul 31, 1998 at 03:03:22 (EDT)
From: Carol
Email: None
To: Carol
Subject: Jim,Here's a link to your camp
Message:
I looked up Linguistics on the net. There are many sites. Is Noam Chomsky the one you were discussing earlier. He's a Linguist! I thought I remembered the name!
This link is to what I think may be you camp:The Society for the Preservation of the Enlish Language
Http//www.maloy.com/~tmaloy/spell.html
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jul 31, 1998 at 13:56:12 (EDT)
From: Carol
Email: None
To: Carol
Subject: On Chomsky, the linguist
Message:
Jim, If you find something about him which explains his basic ideas about language, I'd like to read it. (English not Enlish)
carol
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 01, 1998 at 01:58:39 (EDT)
From: Runamok
Email: lotuspower@aol.com
To: Carol
Subject: Chomsky, the Movie
Message:
Carol,
Chomsky advocated the theory of a universal grammar. All grammar, according to Chomp, essentially comes from one (changable) template rather than each different grammar having its own template. When we translate some languages into English they might sound funny without being adjusted, like when foreigners try to speak and the grammar is screwy. Nevertheless, the mighty Chomp proposed the universality of grammar and as I understand it this was borderline organic- a part of the brain being responsible for this universal grammar possibly. Around '65 or so, the opposing camp advocated several different templates for grammar as being possible (again as I understand it).
Chomp has dominated linguistics since the '50's, altho my sense is his hold is finally waning. While I do not disagree with his theories per se, my personal, non-expert opinion is that other areas of language are not investigated as thoroughly as they might be due to Chomp's longstanding dominance and supposed importance.
At the time of his rise to power, he was given an Einsteinian status. The theory itself is called Transformational Grammar. One book with an overview would be by Justin Lieber and I forget the exact title. Otherwise you should try an encyclopedia or reference text. But I'm not going to lie awake tonite worrying about what will happen if you try to read Chomp's books. If you do I would like to hear about it. Remember, grammar is separate from vocabulary as well as from semantics and syntax.
Aren't we going to talk about primal therapy too?
Ruanmok
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jul 31, 1998 at 14:32:08 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Carol
Subject: No stalemate yet/OK More...
Message:
I think it is OK to define terms that might otherwise be misunderstood by doing it in the context of the discussion. (I must be in the second camp!) If I say 'Special' means something different than your dictionary says, then all I should have to do, in my opinion, is tell you what it means to me. We can create new words if we want to and have enough other people understand them so that they become common. I like this, I'm sorry you don't because I can understand it causes you frustration!

Carol,

No one knows better than the lexicographers that put dictionaries together how dynamic language is. Sure, words change. Up to twenty years ago one could describe themselves as 'gay' and not have to explain that they meant 'light-hearted' or 'happy'. Now, however, the word has changed so much that a person would be remiss if they DIDN'T say that's what they meant if they called themselves gay with that in mind.

Actually that's an interesting example. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I always thought that homosexuals commandeered that word because a) they needed a tag that wasn't so clinical and historically charged as 'homosexual' and b) they wanted one that expressed happiness and pride, flipping the bird, as it were, at the establishment. I'm sure that's how that happened, isn't it?

It's a little unfortunate, though. I mean, for what it's worth, we 'lost' a perfectly good word, 'gay' and gave a whole world full of schoolchildren something to giggle about when they read old poetry. Hey, no big loss. I think I'll get over it (these things just take a little time, you know?).

But when people try to take a wrod like 'special' or 'truth' and make it say something markedly at odds with its actual meaning, I immediatley get suspect. 'Special' certainly can't apply to everyone. That's the whole point. So isn't it obviously an attempt to squeeze some of the meaning and connotation out of a the word and spread it where it doesn't belong, to use it as you intend? If you actually want people to think of 'special' as meaning that you have individual talents and experiences and that your potential goodness or value is equal to others' you're actually asking them to attribute the word's connotations of 'uniqueness' to everyone. That's sublimely ridiculous and obviously misleading.

Why would anyone do that? Isn't the answer obvious? 'Special' sounds good! So why not just call everything -- or everyone -- special? Well the answer is that it's patently misleading. Any one playing this game can be expected to have long, drawn-out arguments about the fair meaning of words. Drive the wrong way down a one-way street, you're going to hear a lot of horns.

Same, of course, with the word 'truth'. How dare people take a perfectly clear word and try to subvert its meaning by qualifying it senslessly as 'MY truth' or 'YOUR truth'? Once again, people do it because the word itself sounds good. And well it should, it stands for something we respect, reality. Anyone trying to glom some of that good connotation onto what is really just plain, old belief is cheating.

Get the picture?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 19:32:20 (EDT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: New age thinking
Message:
In an earlier post I stated that I had a strong disdain for new-age thinking and it might be wiser if it was taken somewhere else outside of this forum. That was in the heat of anger at the arrival of the forum's new-age savior, Keith. Upon reflection, in a cooler frame of mind, I think that this was pretty arrogant of me. Who am I to say what should and shouldn't be posted here? If I don't care for the thread, I can just move on to the next one until I find the one that's most helpful to me. And believe me, there are a LOT of those. Sometimes it just takes a while to find them and that can be frustrating. I know I enjoy getting off track with subjects that have nothing to do with M & K and I guess I should be tolerant of others who do too, even if I think the subject smells slightly insane or just too boringly intellectual for my tastes. To each his own as they say.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 19:45:26 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: New age thinking
Message:
Jerry, I agree. I'm not for censoring new age drivel. That would be bizarre. But I AM for trying to chase it away at every opportunity.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 19:34:59 (EDT)
From: Bobby
Email: None
To: jim
Subject: New age thinking
Message:
I'm sure that if Jim gets me kicked off this forum he will continue to misrepresent and distort my words, feelings and thoughts as he does those of others. King Rat in his own little kingdom.

Interesting how he gloats already, evidenced in his lead-off post here and attributes all kinds of motives to me. Once again, I find this deceitful and scurrilous.

The truth is, that I've never threatened anyone in my life, except possibly in childhood. Jim is the first, if you can call what I have said as a threat.

The truth is, I do feel like kicking Jim's ass. So what? I really think he deserves it. As I have said before, I wouldn't want to hurt him per se. I've never hurt anyone physically like that. Actually I've lost a job publically protesting staff members beating up patients. I've never done that.

But I feel I need to strongly letting him know that Jim's words are spiteful and hurtful and I do not appreciate or tolerate his insults. The only way I can do that is to challenge him physically.

So Jim finally has the opportunity to have me booted from speaking here. If so, he once again will have his deceitful way. Congratulations.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 04:20:46 (EDT)
From: Carol
Email: None
To: Bobby
Subject: New age thinking
Message:
You said, 'The only way I can do that is to challenge him physically.'

I know you know, that is not true. There are many other choices. Strong feelings create an illusion of no other choice. Another thing that my 'New Thought' minister teaches is that we learn the most from our interchanges in relationship with the difficult people in our lives. They point us to places in ourselves that need to heal or change, where love needs to be put in action. They are gifts, however we may cringe and squirm. (Is that New Age? I don't care!!!It works for me.)

It helps me to live by another truism, the golden rule I was taught from childhood: Do Unto Others as You Would Have Others Do Unto You (or to paraphrase) treat others as you, yourself would like to be treated. That is walking your talk (if you believe the value of this). Have integrity with your beliefs. But also forgive yourself and try again if you slip. Take a break or ask for support when you need it!

That is not saying 'treat others the way they treat you or fuck them!' although that attitude can get lots of support in our society. Being responsible means 'being able to respond', not just react. My minister also says, and I am still considering this, that every human act is either a call for love or an expression of it, however ineffective we may be at it! I have also had my belief in the power and need of the practice of forgiveness reinforced by this association. That practice has brought tremendous change for the better in my life.

It may be cyber-space, but the chance to learn is equal here because there are real people behind the computer terminals. Flaming is much easier for us to do in this format than directly, face to face.
Carol
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 19:47:41 (EDT)
From: Sir David
Email: David.Studio57@btinternet.com
To: jim
Subject: Excuse me for being dumb
Message:
But I still don't know what this 'new age' stuff is. I see the term bandied about everywhere and to me, it seems like just a buzz word for what used to be the sort of hippie way of being, back in the sixties. Am I right. Actually, I quite liked the hippie way of being back then, for a while anyway.

But Jim, would you call anything which is off the normal beaten track, New Age? I think the term is being overused. And how can Haharaji be new age, considering that he started his trip way back when in the 'old age'.

Myself, I have an interest in thoroughly investigating certain kinds of paranormal phenomena but in a sceptical way. I am open minded but not ready to just accept anything. I think a healthy curiosity is useful. And I certainly wouldn't deride that or call it new age.

At first glance, it would seem entirely plausable that there is no God, no life after death and only what we see before us is reality. Yet when people make certain fantastic claims which put that reasoning in doubt, I feel a compulsion to investigate further and find out for myself whether there is anything in some of these fantastic claims. I am still looking and investigating, with keen interest and an open but carefully sceptical mind. I am not ready to believe anything just on hearsay but I am ready to be convinced by proof.

Today I saw great compassion and understanding by a group of people. These people were not premies or new agers but were the racing cyclists currently riding in the Tour de France. Because some amongst them had been badly treated by the French police, the whole 130 strong field of riders decided to go on strike and abandon the day's race. I saw more camaraderie and togetherness there than I ever did in Maharaji's world. And a few days ago the whole race stopped in mid flow, in the Pyrannese mountains while the riders got off their bikes and payed their respects to the Italian rider who died there in the tour a few years ago. Yes, I'm proud to say I am an ex-cyclist but certainly not proud to say I'm an ex-premie.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 19:56:57 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Sir David
Subject: Excuse me for being dumb
Message:
David,

Like I said earlier, the hallmark of newageism is, I think, the abandonment of, or at least casual disregard for, rationality combined with disrespect for the fair meaning or words.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 20:19:08 (EDT)
From: david m
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: new age think!!!!!!!!
Message:
Jim..... i videotape tv shows for al living a couple of the shows are new age.....the hosts big guy in the krishna movement..... from the start in england.... the names of the shows out of the ordinary into the extrodinary....and the other ...positivly positive they both have all kinds of different guests from doctors to massage people ...meditators.... faith healers ...astroligers ..a couple of gurus..... musicans....[there the most normal] but anyway. it seems to boil down to all the other folks are on the wrong path and there all on the right one ...but theres always money involved , a fee ,donation gift,it sure seems to me there not just doing it out of the love of god or the kindness of their heart...somehow it all seems so contrived and not real to me ........so i just thought id throw that in the ring.....dave
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 21:52:14 (EDT)
From: Robyn
Email: sundogs
To: david m
Subject: new age think!!!!!!!!
Message:
Dear David M,
I have just had a sense of that myself from seeing them but when hear individuals give accounts of unexplainable experiences that I also had I can connect to that and draw the conclusion that each and every one of them and my self included are crazy or maybe there is more to life than the surface. There usually is more to anything than just the surface, I have found.
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 06:06:27 (EDT)
From: david m
Email: whaler32@aol.com
To: Robyn
Subject: new age think!!!!!!!!
Message:
Robyn...
there is so much more to life than just the surface ...its funny i see myself 27 years ago but going thru this whole bussines i see another side also..the end justifies the mean..they still have there little fights and squables over how they look...is there hair just right... makeup...then the lights and cameras come onand the other side clicks in...strange....i saw some of that at ashrams too...
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 20:14:31 (EDT)
From: Sir David
Email: David.Studio57@btinternet.com
To: Sir David
Subject: And what's more
Message:
I think this forum has been invaluable in showing up Maharaji for what he is. It has been most revealing and helpful. However, I find this whole endless debate about the two polarising beliefs mentioned above, to be a totally pointless, futile and utterly boring debate which for me, doesn't even interest me.

Nobody is going to change their beliefs one iota so why argue the point? Some people are athiests and some people are not. So what? What's the big deal? What does it matter?

Some people will say they have experienced leaving their body and some people will never say such a thing. WHy all the fuss about it? It's got precious little to do with exposing Maharaji.

I never read these endless debates or arguments between the two opposing camps. Just a thought, why not start a mailing list where this argument can rage on 'behind closed doors' so to speak. But then perhaps other people here are interested in this kind of futile argument. But I'm certainly not.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 20:50:29 (EDT)
From: Sir David
Email: David.Studio57@btinternet.com
To: Sir David
Subject: Mind you
Message:
Since I haven't even read this thread I could be completely wrong and it might not be an argument between two opposing philosophies. In which case I would be a reactionary banana, wouldn't I.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 01:14:53 (EDT)
From: Rick
Email: None
To: Sir David
Subject: Excuse me for being dumb
Message:
Here are some landmarks of new-age thinking:
The universe will take care of you.
The universe is teaching you esoteric lessons.
Be open (usually means to agree with someone)
Communicate (usually means to say what someone wants to hear)
Share yourself with others (diminish your discrimination)
Let Go and Surrender to the Flow (sound familiar?)
Disease comes from spiritual imbalance
Focus on the positive
Doing all this stuff means you're 'healing'

I heard someone describe the New Age as a combination of Eastern Sprituality, Humanistic Psychology, and Holistic Medicine
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 01:21:03 (EDT)
From: g's mom
Email: None
To: Rick
Subject: thanks Rick..
Message:
That was the most helpful post in this thread....

I personally find those ideas nauseating...
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 20:44:29 (EDT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Mike
Subject: New age thinking
Message:
Hi Mike

You asked Jim earlier what new age thinking was. Please let me explain as well, compliments of eb:

Some of the hooey hooeys I hang with take full responsiblity for everything from deciding who would be their parents to what lessons they wished to teach themselves in this lifetime.

THAT'S new age thinking. Doesn't it make all the sense in the world?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 21:37:39 (EDT)
From: Bobby
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: New age thinking
Message:
Just for the record, I'm never comfortable with that kind of 'hooey-hooey' crap either. But neither do I support the reductionist logic of Jim Heller. (note I did not disavow 'logic' per se, I object to Jim Heller's brand of logic, his fundamentalist position)

I've never promoted this sort of 'new-age' on this forum, or anywhere else for that matter. Of course I'm still characterized as 'new-age' versus the 'free-thinking' of Jim Heller. What utter rubbish!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 21:46:01 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Bobby
Subject: What's YOUR kind of logic?
Message:
Really, Bobby, this should be interesting.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 21:58:10 (EDT)
From: Bobby
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: What's YOUR kind of logic?
Message:
I've already responded to this.
It's not really going to get anywhere anyway but I will say a few words.

I disagree that things are always 'black-and-white'. That's the aristotolean 'either-or'. There are other valid frames of reference. I had hoped that you would get my point through the Castaneda discussion. I brought out examples. You apparently weren't interested in what I had to say and refused to respond to several salient points.

Some of these other perspectives are construed as 'anomalies' in the reductionist logic you present as the one right way. Anomalies are ignored as statistically irrelevant. My cancer healing process, for instance, is a statistical anomaly and the reasons I profer, such as emotional and spiritual frames of reference are considered by my doctors as irrelevant. You verbally ridicule my interests in healing. I consider that as insult and attack.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 22:31:40 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Bobby
Subject: What's YOUR kind of logic?
Message:
I disagree that things are always 'black-and-white'. That's the aristotolean 'either-or'. There are other valid frames of reference.

Sorry, this does not compute. Please, tell me about your other form of logic.

I had hoped that you would get my point through the Castaneda discussion. I brought out examples. You apparently weren't interested in what I had to say and refused to respond to several salient points.

Castenada was a liar who cheated people into believing him and buying his books. Now, tell me something, do you think it's a bad thing that there are people who spend their time getting to the bottom of various peoples' claims? You've gone off about the evil skeptics in the world. Are there any skeptics you respect? If so, who?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 22:54:24 (EDT)
From: Bobby
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: What's YOUR kind of logic?
Message:
Buddhist logic. 'yes' 'no' 'not yes' 'not no'.
Means somethings can't be rightly considered by the rational mind. Like notions of God. God is neither provable, nor disprovable. God is 'not yes' and 'not no'. Many valid points 'do not compute'

'yes' 'no' 'both-and'.
The perspective of 'sitting with something' as in the process of sitting with contrary evidence. I don't feel the rush to jump to conclusions and I resent others, such as your self, attempting to force a black and white answer.

Light acts as a particle and a wave. Is it a particle. Yes. And no. It acts as a wave. Particles and waves have discreet properties.

Castenada was a liar who cheated people into believing him and buying his books.

Once again, your very biased frame of reference which you propound to be the only answer despite some very learned alternative perspectives.

Sure. There are plenty of skeptics I respect. I myself am a skeptic. Unlike you, I don't close down to some alternative modalities and disrespect them and any who chose to consider their validity.

This is tiresome Jim. I've said most of this before. Yet you will probably continue to affirm that I'm not interested in 'reasoning'. What nonsense on your part. Lies and distortions really.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 23:00:09 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Bobby
Subject: You don't own English
Message:
Bobby,

Logic is logic. If you don't like it, say so. But don't give me this crap about 'Buddhist logic'. We'll argue and argue and in the end, if you're honest, you'll end up admitting that whatever you're talking about, it's not logic. Be honest. Isn't that one of your goals? Honesty?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 23:23:57 (EDT)
From: Bobby
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: You don't own logic
Message:
Once again, you missed it.
If I hadn't responded, you would have said I was refusing rational discussion.

Talking with you is a lose-lose situation.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 21:20:43 (EDT)
From: Bobby
Email: None
To: anyone
Subject: on speaking out
Message:
The fact that I might get kicked off this forum for 'violence' is extremely ironic.

For ten years I worked as a psychiatric aide in the state mental hospital system. I witnessed a lot of violence on the part of the staff (and some on the part of the patients). What hurt me the most was the 'sucker punches' and covert violence inflicted on the patients. I never, ever participated in such attacks. Such violence hurt me deeply.

In 1974 I spoke out about this violence in the form of a direct memo to the hospital supervisor. I had witnessed an event where a staff member punched a patient who was slow in getting out of bed. A week after delivering the memo I was called in to the supervisor's office. The supervisor calmly explained that the sort of violence I described 'just didn't happen' at the hospital where I worked. After my memo I was shunned by most of the other staff. One staff confided that they considered me as 'crazy as those on the other side of the fence'. After another month or two I left employment.

I've always felt very strongly about speaking out on what I believe to be true. And I've always felt strongly about examining my own statements as well. I've not always been right. I've sought to learn from my mistakes, and I've apologized for being wrong. I've done so on this forum. I've never seen Jim do this. Of course he continues to see his behavior as 'right'.

I still feel strongly about the degree of harm stemming from Jim's verbal abuse. It's not just him, but it is he who clearly champions such abuse unabashedly. Out of my frustration I've 'threatened' him.

In the last few years of my employment with the state mental hospital system, I worked with several people who used deceit and verbal abuse to punish the patients. One young woman used to calmly state that all the patients should be gunned down. They were unproductive burdens on our society. As a matter of course, patients were authoritatively controlled and verbally abused. Most of this was of course off the written record. I attempted to speak out as best I could. Of course, most didn't see my point. I felt obliged to speak out anyway.

Why didn't I just ignore the verbal abuse, the ridicule and contempt? Because I deeply felt it was wrong and felt obliged to speak out. Why didn't I just leave? Because I thought I could do some good. Perhaps I did perform even just a little 'good'. A few others have attested to that. I really did my best.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 21:36:07 (EDT)
From: Runamok
Email: lotuspower@aol.com
To: the gang
Subject: new age finking
Message:
It seems like Sir David is on the money. This is about leaving Gooma and about finding unity with others who have done this. I want to support others to leave BM and to never join him. Personally I find Jim enthusiastic, perhaps occasionally over-enthusiastic. I don't always agree with him but I would rather someone err on the side of materialism in this forum. It is so disheartening to experience the kind of wanton greed that M appears to represent. I would prefer Jim's ranting and ravings to M's any day.
I think representing victims of psych abuse is an important thing. It's not the underlying topic of the forum- but I do support it. 'New Age thinking' IS directly related to the topic of the forum. Now, how people are abused by different types of authority is relevant to what we are trying discuss as I see it. I dunno... maybe we need a chat room for all of this dissing
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 21:40:40 (EDT)
From: Bobby
Email: None
To: Runamok
Subject: new age finking
Message:
It seems to me that some are replacing the authority of what M represents by another authority - that which JH (Jim Heller) represents. I don't buy either!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 21:44:31 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Bobby
Subject: You're just too good
Message:
Bobby,

Ever heard the word 'sanctimonious'? Oxford succintly defines it as 'making a show of sanctity or piety'.

How about 'self-righteous'? 'Excessivle conscious of or insistent of one's rectitude, correctness, etc.'

The reason you're bleating on and on here is because you made a mud pie -- YOU MADE IT, CHARLIE, NO ONE ELSE -- and now you're trying to talk your way around the natural consequences. Must be something about that 'walking your talk' stuff. (I've really got to learn that one!)

You write:

I've always felt very strongly about speaking out on what I believe to be true. And I've always felt strongly about examining my own statements as well. I've not always been right. I've sought to learn from my mistakes, and I've apologized for being wrong.

So? What's your point, big guy? Is this your kind of way of saying you're SORRY and PLEASE, FORGIVE ME, IT WON'T HAPPEN AGAIN? No, of course not. It's just your way of telling us, once again, that you're a VERY special kind of guy.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 22:02:16 (EDT)
From: Bobby
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: You're just too good
Message:
No I'm not sorry what I said to you.
Fuck you.

Is that what you want? I'll never suck up to you.
You are obviously a control freak. Things are going your way. For now.

I'm expressing context motherfucker. Context. Most of what I say is obviously beyond you.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 01:00:12 (EDT)
From: G's mom
Email: None
To: Bobby
Subject: my very naive thoughts...?
Message:
Dear Bobby,
I was reading your argument with Jim and I have no idea where this fits in but I wonder what your response to this would be...

I very much respect your fighting for the rights of the mentally ill. But I do think that we must post here with the assumption that we are fighting with an 'armed' enemy.

The verbal abuse of the mentally ill is very different than posting on an internet BB. I do not find the two comparable.

I think Jim or others who make these 'take no prisoners' posts actually respect the intelligence of those they address more than one who is trying to subvert logic to the value of not hurting anothers feelings.

I have not followed this drama between the so called 'fundamentalists' vs the 'new agers' very long. But I do think to follow the argument we really need to define 'new age' and 'fundamentalist'.

To me, thus far, it seems to be an argument between, from my short time here, a sort of political correctness and logic. Or from situational values vs absolutist values.

In any case, my point is I think if you are arguing with someone who is mentally healthy and playing with a full deck and posts here inviting criticism...than it really is okay to say what you think and even be insulting. From what I see you are just as insulting to those you disagree with. If it is REALLY wrong than 'he started it' is just no excuse. Back to absolutism..if it is WRONG than it is wrong....and if it's good for the goose..

In any case, my initial point is you may be making an error by comparing your psych. hosp. experiences to the forum. ( Although at times it must be hard not to see it as a little pscych hosp.) Because these tactics used on a person who has lost the capacity for logical thought or lost touch with reality truly could be cruel or harmful. Fighting with an unarmed enemy...but even though clearly some of us have sharper tongues and minds than others I think to argue here we must assume we all do have a functional weapon with which to do battle.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 09:03:26 (EDT)
From: Bobby
Email: None
To: G's mom
Subject: my very naive thoughts...?
Message:
>>>>I think Jim or others who make these 'take no prisoners' posts actually respect the intelligence of those they address more than one who is trying to subvert logic to the value of not hurting anothers feelings.

I disagree.
I think the idea of hurtful behavior is germaine to the discussion here.

It is never right to hurt another even 'for their own good'. This is another issue that is central to the psychiatric survivor movement. The issue of forced treatment.

Is it ever appropriate to lock someone up 'for their own good'? I say 'NO'. Is it ever right to try to convert someone 'for their own good'. NO!

Forcing one's personal beliefs on another human being is never appropriate. Why? Because any belief system presupposes axioms that one thinks or feels is appropriate. These axioms may not be appropriate for another. 'Logic' can be and often is used to prove personal agendas. For instance, 'scientific evidence' and logic is being used today to 'prove' the genetic inferiority of blacks and their predisposition to crime. There is a book called 'The Bell Curve' that purports to prove the inferiority of intelligence of black people. Numerous 'studies' show blacks are inherently criminal.

Notice I am not saying that everyone should be free to do whatever one wants. I am not condoning criminal behavior! If one hurts another human, or somehow breaks the law, they should answer for the law. But one individual or group has no right to impose their belief system or assumptions about reality on another group.

>>Or from situational values vs absolutist values.

There are no 'absolutist' (absolute?) values. Everything is relative in terms of a particular belief system. Aristolean Logic is not absolute! This is an assumption many people make that is false.

>>>In any case, my point is I think if you are arguing with someone who is mentally healthy and playing with a full deck and posts here inviting criticism...

I don't think that anyone is playing with a full deck. You are presupposing judgment of 'mental healthiness' versus insanity. I seriously think everyone is crazy. Everyone is wounded in some way or another. Some people are better at coping. Some people have been wounded to unimaginable degrees.

In my opinion we live in a sick society with twisted values and distorted ideas of 'success'. There are many in mental hospitals who are ill. Many of those who are ill are suffering from deep woundings. I personally know many of these people and know their stories. Know the personal stories! Then you might understand how people become the way they are.

>>>>but even though clearly some of us have sharper tongues and minds than others I think to argue here we must assume we all do have a functional weapon with which to do battle.

Again I disagree. Again I reiterate. Ridicule and abuse are never appropriate. I think it is wrong to assume what you assume here. People are hurt in different ways. It is wrong to assume that you have been hurt in the same ways that others have. Maharaji has affected many people in many different ways. He has affected me differently than he has affected you. Please be tolerant of the differences.

The very metaphor you use here is a battle metaphor. I'm not into it.

Then why do I engage in the battle? I feel I have been pushed to an extraordinary degree by Jim. My strong feelings of anger may not be appropriate. I agree. I'm not sure what to do with my very strong feelings. They are very personal and I have good indication of where they are coming from.

Some Tibetans seek revenge on the Chinese. The Chinese have tortured and killed family and friends. The Chinese seek to destroy the Tibetan homeland. Some Tibetans are very angry and seek revenge. Others hold the Chinese as beneficial teachers. They say the Chinese are their because of the Tibetan karma, and that the Chinese are teaching them patience.

Who is right?

To me torturing and killing are never right, just as ridicule and abuse towards humans are never right. The Tibetans will never agree with the Chinese perspective of the fundamental superiority of the Chinese culture and the necessity of wiping out all trace of the Tibetan culture, just as I will never with Jim's fundamentalistic values. The question is, given our experience of the perpetuation of these qualities, how do we best address them?

I recognize my duplicity with Jim. And I admit my unhealed anger. To me Jim embodies great wrong and great harm. Of course the personal situation with Jim may not be as strong as the Chinese/Tibetan situation, but Jim's behavior remains very wrong in my perception. I have personally seen and experienced the deleterious effects of Jim's kind of 'logic', the logic that puts 'correct thinking' before human value. Perhaps, like the more 'spiritually inclined' Tibetans, I can learn patience with Jim.

Of course, Jim would, as he has in the past, condemn this sort of thinking and feeling as 'new-age'. To him, any sort of spirituality is 'new-age'. You may feel the same. I ask you not to ridicule or condemn me as a person.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 11:18:57 (EDT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: Bobby
Subject: my very naive thoughts...?
Message:
Bobby: I see there has been ALOT more discussion after I left last night. Some interesting points have been made, too. For what it's worth, I think you are missing 'G's Mom' point. WE are mentally healthy (for the most part) and WE are armed with minds that work (may need some tweaking from time-to-time, but working). WE don't necessarily need an ADVOCATE for politically correct speech. In fact, I think political correctness is a major problem because it subverts the truth and plays nothing more than a semantic game, WITH NO REWARD! Words are words, thoughts are thoughts. They CANNOT hurt anyone who is armed with a working mind. NO ONE is forcing any idea down anyone's throat here, because that ISN'T POSSIBLE. I have yet to see a spoon that holds a thought. Thoughts are intangible, ideas are intangible, beliefs are intangible. Nobody can FORCE a thought into an unwilling (read that healthy) mind. Again, I say take a moment and THINK about it. Now, that having been said, a thought that is transformed into an ACTION (particularly a violent action) can be dealt with. Actions are visible, they are 'real.' THAT is where we need to hold the line. THAT is where we need to show some restraint. I don't, for a single moment, believe that anyone on this forum wants to physically hurt anyone else. It just isn't in our nature; consider why you wanted to be a premie in the first place. Most of us wanted REAL PEACE. Doesn't sound like a violent idea to me. WE, that means all of us, made one hell-of-a BIG MISTAKE in thinking that M could provide us with that which we sought. To draw on G's Mom comments: There is a HUGE difference between mentally abusing a 'sick' person and straightforward non-polically-correct discussions/arguements between people who are relatively healthy. To say it another way, a 'sick' person cannot 'change the channel,' we CAN and DO.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 11:43:53 (EDT)
From: g's mom
Email: None
To: Mike
Subject: well said!
Message:
Dear Mike,
Thank you. That is exactly the sentiment I was trying to express.

Dear Bobby,
We obviously have fundamental differences in the way we look at the world. I certainly do think there are times locking up a mentally ill person is appropriate. I would consider the failure to do so resulting in a death of that person or someone else to be a travesty. Although we all may be varying degrees of neurotic I think there is a big difference between the sanity of a person who has a biochemical imbalance in his brain which causes him to hear voices and the rest of us who are less than perfect but our senses do not betray us.
I do appreciate your answer to my question though as obviously we see the world very differently. I may not respect your opinions on most of this but I still respect that you fought the system for the rights of those who cannot fight for themselves.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 11:48:59 (EDT)
From: G's mom
Email: None
To: bobby
Subject: take back the compliment?
Message:
Bobby,
I guess I remember your post wrong..there were a lot of them. I just read Brian's. You did NOT report the abuse? That would be a hard thing to have on your conscience.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 07:36:30 (EDT)
From: M
Email: None
To: Bobby
Subject: on speaking out
Message:
Keep strong Bobby ;
Jim is a disgusting imitation of intelligence.
He makes me puke!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 11:22:53 (EDT)
From: ME
Email: None
To: M
Subject: So go ahead and
Message:
puke. Get it over with or take some pepto, either one works M.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 08:37:16 (EDT)
From: Brian
Email: brian@ex-premie.org
To: Bobby
Subject: White Hats and Black Marks
Message:
This is not the State Mental Hospital, Bobby. When I get email 'memos' reporting abuse, I deal with them. The offense 'just doesn't happen' here too. It un-happens at the click of a mouse. Whether that offends the person who posted it or not.

I still feel strongly about the degree of harm stemming from Jim's verbal abuse. It's not just him, but it is he who clearly champions such abuse unabashedly. Out of my frustration I've 'threatened' him.

This is pure manure, pardner. I haven't gotten any 'memos' from you on those 'other people' who you perceive as abusive, and am not interested in enforcing your personal standards here. You might think you're charging in here wearing the White Hat and ready to protect the innocent, but I don't see it.

It was your post that I had to deal with, not Jim's. 'Words' are what you accuse Jim of hiding behind, but whether you feel strongly or not doesn't exempt you from responsibility for yours.

That you've picked someone here to be the target of your own personal anger is your problem. Until it splashes over into threats. In which case it's MY problem to deal with.

I'm sorry that you didn't report the hospital abuse to someone who had real authority - police, press, family. Perhaps you are too. But that was then. You're not re-living it here, and nobody that you perceive as 'needing' your protection is so powerless in life that they can't answer for themselves here. Get over it.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 11:46:25 (EDT)
From: G's mom
Email: None
To: Brian
Subject: he didn't report it!!!
Message:
eesh. I misread his post. I take what I said back!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 13:25:22 (EDT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: G's mom
Subject: Defending Bobby.
Message:
In defense of Bobby - I am not sure whether he reported the original abuse or not, or even if there was anyone safe enough to report it to. Subsequently, though, he has done a lot of work with mental patient's rights, including seminars for the 'caregivers' on how to treat people, and making a videotape with the same information. (I hope I am getting this right, Bobby - although maybe I have gotten some of the details wrong).
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 14:40:32 (EDT)
From: g's mom
Email: None
To: Katie and Bobby
Subject: I think I should apologize too
Message:
Bobby,
Sorry I got mixed up with all the posts. And I didn't go back and read them. I did get the impression from what I read that you have done good work for the mentally ill. I am sorry about the mean spirited post about the non reporting. I found myself being a little hypocritical too....as I just weeks ago felt really bad about not reporting abuse to the proper authorities way back when ...at the time I thought Rawat was the ultimate authority. So I am sorry.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 19:57:25 (EDT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: New age thinking
Message:
I think what bothers me most about new age thinking is just that, there's too much thinking. When somebody starts bombarding me with fashionable ideas I feel as if I am no longer a person being spoken to. I am transformed into a witness of somebody else's highbrow wisdom which more often than not sails right passed my neanderthal brain. And that's not kind. New age thinkers are unkind to neanderthals. And that's not nice. I don't want to play this game anymore. I'm outta here!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 12:22:30 (EDT)
From: Rick
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Jim Dissembles
Message:
I propose that we give Jim the 'Buglucha Award' for 1998. In rare form, Jim has offered up a plate of fine food covered with one of those special sterling silver domes to keep it warm. The waiter usually sets it in front of you and then lifts the dome off to reveal a gourmet dinner. If the waiter is remiss in bringing your food in a timely manner, he or she will usually inform you about the delay and give you some reason.

But at Jim's little diner, the waiter takes your order but never returns. 'All I can tell you is that the food's great. That's all I can say.' Okay, you say, 'How about #4, the linguini with clam sauce?' The waiter makes a notation on his order pad and disappears into the kitchen. Time passes but your place mat is still empty. When you peer into the kitchen through the little window, the cook ducks to the side.

Jim's Diner - 'All You Can Eat... If You're Not Hungry'

Why do I go on like this on the 'Jim Forum'? Well, it seems the Wondrous One posted a tempting info-bite down the page...

1) I have no doubt now whatsoever about Monica Lewis' long-standing affair with Maharaji. None.

2) Maharaji definitely was involved with getting Fakiranand out of the country.


Not bad fare for a diner menu. With a guy like Jim, toasty tortilla chips usually come as soon as you sit down. No need to make a fuss. But after twenty minutes you start wondering, 'Where are the chips? Oh well, this is Jim's Diner, the Wondrous One's; they'll be here soon.'

But then, yesterday Jim posted another piece of bait:

Furthermore, like I said, I now am personally quite satisfied that Maharaji's affair with Monica Lewis is old hat and that he was directly involved in planning and assisting Fakiranand's escape to India.

I asked Jim why he's now personally satisfied about these things and then he responded:

I'm deciding to withhold a bit of information on this. All I can say is that I'm personally satisfied on both those points. That's not meant to be any more persuasive than it is. I'm just letting you know how things are for moi. Sorry, that's all I can offer for now.

Well, la-dee-dah, the Meister has spoken. So I then asked Jim what the fuck gives, why no details. At least he could say, 'I can't break a confidence' or 'There's more to the story that'll be available to me in a week, and I want to reveal it all at that time.' Anything! But Jim, the righteous one, didn't answer my post. I'm looking through the little window into the kitchen but the cook is ducking to the side. I'm not seeing any smoke rising off the grill and I'm wondering if they actually have anything that's on the menu!

Now, where I come from, any Jewish guy who says 'Moi' doesn't get served matzah balls. For this reason, I offer up Jim as a candidate for the 1998 'Buglucha Award'.

By the way, buglucha means throw-up in Yiddish.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 12:38:41 (EDT)
From: RT
Email: sssh!
To: Rick
Subject: Jim Dissembles, Moses Invests
Message:
Who-will-cover a lie like a big Pizza Pie?
Ats-a-lawyer. Ats-a Lawyer!
Who will type until 10 and make it all Zen?
Ats-a-lawyer! At's a lawyer!

Remember this is the For-um.

um, I mean, it's for, um, I think it means..that is..what ..um..what for?

RT who says: be detached and enjoy! Just as your mouse in not in your pocket, neither is the Living Satguru!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 13:02:01 (EDT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: RT
Subject: Jim Dissembles, Moses Invests
Message:
RT: remember what Thomas Jefferson said about lawyers? ...snicker... snicker...
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 15:04:33 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Rick
Subject: Alright, already
Message:
to fuck you up, boychick. You are SO predictable. No wonder Keith took off.

Okay, here's what I'm prepared to say for now. It's all you get unless and until I change my mind. Donner told me that Maharaji's affair with Ms. Lewis was old hat even then before he split in 86. Donner also told me that he was aware of Maharaji's involvement in assisting Fakiranand after he tried to kill Hailley. In particular, he knows that Maharaji made arrangements to get Fakiranand first to Chicago and then out of the country. For what it's worth, Donner's also seen Maharaji smoke a joint or two. Well what the hell. We're all human, right?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 16:51:40 (EDT)
From: Rick
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: What a schnoodle
Message:
Okay, here's what I'm prepared to say for now.

Who are you anyway, CD? What is this 'prepared to say' stuff? Why not completely forthcoming? Is there a reason? Do you really have more info you're not divulging?

Okay, so basically Donner told you those things. And he saw BM smoke pot - this I find most credible because he actually saw the BM do it. What a turd... smoking reefer when he's got the knowledge of all knowledges. That's what he gets for not meditating.

What I want to know is did he see the BM making out with Monica, or any answers to those kind of questions they're asking the Secret Service agents about Clinton (you know, something one can sink their teeth into)?

And any more evidence of the BM spiriting Fakiranand to Chicago and then out of the country? I mean, just for the skeptics out there. Like maybe Donner knows someone who was there when BM was pulling the strings?

Boy, I'll tell you Jim, if BM really had any Grace, he'd be using it to fry your ass; what a turncoat and a Judas.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 16:56:57 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Rick
Subject: You kreplach!
Message:
Rick,

You're an ingrate. Go do your own research, will ya? Donner didn't tell me specifically that he ever saw Maharaji smooch with the lassie, only that it was common knowledge even then. As for Fakiranand, Donner was there when Maharaji discussed the good mahatma's itinerary.

Now, if you want more, call him yourself. He's listed, I think. Mike Donner, Nelson, British Columbia.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 17:14:53 (EDT)
From: Rick
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: You Infoscmendrick
Message:
I don't get it Jim. You share your BM quotes and everything else you know about the BM; things that would be reasonable for others to find out on their own and stuff that you put an extraordinary amount of work into. Now all of a sudden, you're stingy with a short conversation that yields oodles of juicy stuff. What's up? It isn't reasonable for everyone to bug Donner for the same info you got, when you can easily share it with a few pokes of the keyboard. What's gotten into you? Really.

You want gratitude from me? Are you serious? Look, weaselhead, I'm out... free!... no more BM for me. It's just gossip and brainfodder for me. I thought you were sincerely interested in throwing a stick in the Guru's gears, and helping people who are all tied in knots over this thing. I guess I was wrong.

Say, what sort of penance do you want?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 17:33:26 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Rick
Subject: You Infoscmendrick
Message:
email me, Rick.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 00:24:02 (EDT)
From: G's mom
Email: None
To: to all
Subject: confidences
Message:
Personally,
I may sound like the Pollyanna that I truly am here...but if Jim tells us something someone told him in confidence not to be repeated on the Forum than I would lose respect for Jim ( not to mention not tell him anything I did not want repeated). This is one of those simple things...when someone says no, they really cannot tell you something....well I respect that because I see that as evidence that person is possibly trustworthy.
I have on occaision broken a confidence. I don't do it much anymore. Because you get a sick feeling about yourself when you do. A persons word is still can still be worth something...even in the 90's.
Hayley Mills
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 01:24:50 (EDT)
From: Rick
Email: None
To: G's mom
Subject: confidences
Message:
You don't sound like a Pollyanna, G-Mom. I'd agree with you about the honor of keeping confidences. But my objection was to Jim revealing partial information without explaining why he was witholding.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 01:35:52 (EDT)
From: g's mom
Email: None
To: Rick
Subject: confidences
Message:
good point...he could have said, 'without betraying a confidence, I can only say this much', if indeed that was the problem at all.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 10:05:50 (EDT)
From: Richard
Email: None
To: g's mom
Subject: consequences...
Message:
Dear G's mom, Rick an' all,

some of the stuff we did 'back then' was truly borderline activity and, whilst it may be valid to recall it for posterity, it will have consequences for ourselves and others who were involved. Once you start to unravel some of the strands, you cannot stop until you reach the end.

One of the reasons, previously stated, that I have not yet posted my 'journey' is that I would like to tell the story fully, but this would necessitate calculating the consequences for others whose current position is not clear.

Sometimes we need to balance the value of a revelation against the damage it will cause to innocent parties. None of us lives in isolation.

I don't know if this is the case here but I can understand if it is.

regards

Richard
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 11:44:54 (EDT)
From: Rick
Email: None
To: Richard
Subject: consequences...
Message:
I hadn't thought of any of that before, but they are good points, Richard. People are likely, though, to ask what exactly happened when they hear a strong allegation against maharaji. As in many other cases, life can be complicated.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 13:14:03 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Rick
Subject: consequences...
Message:
Nothing Mike Donner or Gary Ockenden told me was in confidence. Mike made a joke about it once ('this is off the record, right?') but that was just a joke (I think my response was along the lines of 'yeah, right!') and, more importantly, it was NOT about the two points we've been discussing: Maharaji's involvement with Monica Lewis and Maharaji's involvement with Mahatma Fakiranand, one of whom -- I can't recall which right now -- tried to kill a guy who threw a cream pie at Maharaji, the other a long-time paramour.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 09:53:36 (EDT)
From: Jean-Michel
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Les origines indiennes...
Message:
Hi folks, Hé les amis!

DLM/EV's Indian Background now online in French too!!!

at:

Les origines indiennes de la DLM/EV sur mon site internet:

Les origines cachées de la DLM/EV

tout ce que dont Maharaji n'a jamais osé vous parler!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 02:30:21 (EDT)
From: Keith
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: bye
Message:
bye
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 09:03:06 (EDT)
From: Brian
Email: brian@ex-premie.org
To: Keith
Subject: bye
Message:
Good luck to you, Keith. I've watched you battle with yourself here for a while. One side always seemed to have the upper hand, and then the other side did. You seem to be striving to attain some 'inner balance' that allows two completely differing viewpoints to co-exist inside of yourself. I believe that you're going to have to choose one eventually, or tear yourself apart in the process.

You wrote:
There is no way that Maharaji could have spoken as he has, and be perceived as a total fraud. And I've also perceived expressions in silence that informed me that he is at least authentic on one level.

There are many people who post here (or don't) who have come to a completely different conclusion based on the same 'evidence'. They don't experience the same intense inner-waffling that you do, and they don't agree with you on this forum - and so you've slammed it and them here.

If you never take responsibility for having made a mistake, you'll only set yourself up to repeat it. Many of us here have chosen to face head-on that we were foolish to believe Maharaji at all. Better to see a fraud for what he is than to never see ourselves for the fools that we can be. It only leads to more foolishness. You yourself don't agree with the conclusions that you've drawn in the past regarding what your experiences have taught you, and so your personal battle rages on.

If he is living proof of incompatabilities between the best and worst and whatever may be in between, then so be it; but to highlight the worst and ignore the rest is to me a projection of ones own multiplicity that like an uncomfortable shadow, follows one around, and leads to extreme exaggerations and over hostile projections onto whoever wears the projected images.

Viewing Maharaji as 'living proof' - offered to the undeserving by a benevolent Universe - is setting yourself up, Keith. Your non-decision regarding Maharaji and insistence on a false balance have been the causes of your OWN extreme exaggerations and over hostile projections here. They'll continue until you allow yourself freedom from having to achieve some imaginary balance.

Walk by any empty playground and notice that teeter-totters. They don't sit there balanced. One end is up, and the other is down. It isn't 'fair', but it's reality. Decide, or spend the rest of your life wavering. It's your choice. And your personal pain.

As much as it would be nice to wander through life with the awareness of Everyman, we have to choose to view life through the eyes we were born with - or defer to the eyes of others like Maharaji who will 'help' us to see what's in their best interest. I call those people Frauds, and those who defer to them Fools. Doing so frees me from having to spend my life see-sawing over my own past by re-learning what the people around me saw as being obvious with their own eyes.

Good luck to you, Keith.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 11:09:16 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Brian
Subject: bye
Message:
Well said, Brian. There's little to add but I do wonder where the little lady is on all this. What happened to Mirabai anyway?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 11:51:30 (EDT)
From: Richard
Email: None
To: Keith
Subject: Goodbye Keith..
Message:
Dear Keith,

If you really have nothing more to gain from the forum then goodbye and good luck.

regards

Richard
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 09:57:38 (EDT)
From: Sir David
Email: David.Studio57@btinternet.com
To: Keith
Subject: bye
Message:
And goodnight children everywhere. My, this is a strange thing, this internet lark.

Virtual communication to virtual people. We cannot really say goodbye to someone we've never met. A virtual goodbye from a virtual person. But what does it amount to. Not even a hill of beans. Why, whenever I disconnect from my brief internet connections, you are all just figments of my imagination. Perhaps you never were, just words on a screen. I'm sorry but I cannot take any internet relationship(s) seriously. It just isn't real enough for me. If I cannot see and'or hear the person, they might as well be on Mars for all the realness of it.

So the names on the screen come and go and change over time and now we can even have magical complaint generators which have the appearence of real people but are just more zeros and ones. Keith wherever and whoever you are, we can't say goodbye since we never really met and knew each other. This net thing can only do so much. It is limited. Interesting but limited. I think the real people in your life that you can see, touch and hear will give you so much more. Here we are just zeros and ones. Too far away down the cables to be real enough. But it is fascinating...
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 13:03:53 (EDT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: Keith
Subject: bye
Message:
Oh good grief... milk-toast, just milk-toast. If you want to dish it, you have to be able to take it (with a smile, dammit!)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 21:21:17 (EDT)
From: Selena
Email: None
To: Keith
Subject: bye
Message:
Keith
Why not take a break instead of just signing off? I have found that this works well for me. I get very emotional and involved in forum sometimes, and mis-interpret what is said or goint on. Or I think I know the person posting. Truth is I don't have a clue about any of you.
It's uncharted territory and prone to many mishaps.
Believe me I know. Not just from forum but also my day to day business dealings via emial can get strange.
It's one of the reasons I hate my major area of support, the company I have to deal with only has web and email support. Even a telephone gives you the chance to explain misinterpretations, plus voice can convey a lot.
Do what you have to, but 'bye' isn't your only option, OK?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 21:50:26 (EDT)
From: Gail
Email: None
To: Keith
Subject: Hello
Message:
I know there has been bitching the last few days. SO WHAT! You have just as much right to post here as anyone else. It doesn't matter if people don't always agree. This isn't a mind-numbing cult anymore and we don't have to be of one mind.

You are a valuable individual. What other group will understand what you're going through as well as this one. The Forum is my only place for reciprocity at the moment--I receive help and perhaps, help others in the process. Don't bite off your nose to spite your face. You will probably still read the Forum. How will resist not posting? This whole affair reminds me of my childhood days--I'm not playing with Keith or Jim anymore. Nah Nah Nah Nah Nah.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 12:04:11 (EDT)
From: Selena
Email: None
To: Gail
Subject: Hello
Message:
This whole affair reminds me of my childhood days--I'm not playing with Keith or Jim anymore. Nah Nah Nah Nah Nah.
Yes but sometimes we ARE little kids Gail. I can relate to what happened to Keith, and have had it happen to me and seen it happen to others. It's easy to get really emotional and the natural response is to back away.
I have learned a new method, and that is to just let a topic go or ignore the tread or the individual if they bother me. This may be immature also but I figure I've used up all my goodbyes so I had to find another way : )
The one time I 'quit' I did exactly what you said. I didn't read for about a week (maybe less) and then when I did I couldn't resist posting!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jul 31, 1998 at 07:58:12 (EDT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Selena
Subject: Hello
Message:
I have learned a new method, and that is to just let a topic go or ignore the tread or the individual if they bother me.

Thank you, Selena. I think in the furure I'm going to do just that. I really feel lousy about my encounter with Keith. People who are on their own high horse have a tendency to get me up on my own, and the air can get a little thin up there. It's not a comfortable place to be.

Also, before Keith's latest posts, he had been posting some pretty thought provoking ideas about where M was coming from. I was interested in what he had to say. He made me think about interesting and relevant matters. And then he snapped!

When I reflect back on it, I'm wondering if Keith isn't a little more damaged than the rest of us. What do I really know about the guy, where he came from, where he's at. Is he in therapy, is he on medication, what do I really know about him outside of a few posts I've read by him here on the forum? I don't even know what the guy looks like.

I think it's important to remember that the issue that is at hand here is that we are all victims of a brainwashing cult, damaged goods. People who arrive at this forum are coming from a very severe shit kicking in their lives. The next time I meet someone like Keith here, I hope I'm cool enough to remember that.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jul 31, 1998 at 13:07:29 (EDT)
From: Selena
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: Hello
Message:
Hi Jerry,
When I arrived here in January I was a basketcase. Most of the new arrivals since haven't seemed as messed up as I was. It's only been in the last few, weeks maybe?, that I can say I am really coming out of the pits. I didn't just leave M, I left a friend (who turned out to be not a friend) of 25 years and a whole way of looking at and explaining life.
And I discovered I was full of anger that I had not dealt with for years. And quite lost and scared.
Also, regarding what you said about feeling bad about your responses to Keith's posts. Truthfully, I didn't read much of that. I got the 'drift' and stopped reading them. So I can't say much about the thread. But I can say, that one of the reasons I have decided to do more of the letting it go stuff is because I felt bad about some things I said to people. And my self-esteem is not all that great anyway so I don't need to feel bad about forum too. Still, sometimes a genuine spouting off at someone is exactly what is called for. I think it's a matter of getting to know one's self and one's natural instincts (as Jim called them) vs. just ranting on for the sake of winning a point or just have something to do. Hope that makes sense and thanks.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jul 31, 1998 at 14:52:07 (EDT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Selena
Subject: Hello
Message:
Hope that makes sense and thanks.

Makes a lot of sense, Selena. Thanks.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Jul 28, 1998 at 20:06:10 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Saving Patrick Ryan
Message:
I just wanted to say we saw this last night and it was incredible. Incredibly heavy. I spent the entire movie squirming, sweating, crying, laughing just a little and thinking. A lot of thinking. I saw heroism I could barely relate to and cowardice up close like never before. Any question I had about Spielberg's credentials as a serious director is finally answered. I just wanted to tell you all about it.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Jul 28, 1998 at 20:27:49 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: I meant 'Private'
Message:
Who's Patrick Ryan? A criminal defendant in Canada? A congressman... was he the guy shot by Jim Jones? Yeah, I think so. Well, anyway, I meant 'private'.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Jul 28, 1998 at 23:59:41 (EDT)
From: Mickey the Pharisee
Email: mgdbach@ziplink.net
To: Jim
Subject: I meant 'Private'
Message:
Naw, Jim, the guy shot by Jim Jones' goons was Leo Ryan. I don't know who Patrick Ryan is; maybe he's a criminal defendant in Canada, or maybe he's working for Kenneth Starr!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 12:05:55 (EDT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Saving Patrick Ryan
Message:
Any question I had about Spielberg's credentials as a serious director is finally answered.

Hi, Jim

I haven't seen a Spielberg film since Jaws I fully enjoyed. Since then, I think he's been mainly soap and hype.

I'm curious about something. Somebody once posted that you jammed with Jimi Hendrix. Is that true? I think he's the greatest blues guitarist that ever lived, him and Stevie Ray Vaughn. I like others but these two I think are in a class by themselves.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 17:49:27 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: Do I look that old??!
Message:
Jerry,

I never jammed with Hendrix. I SAW him in Toronto at Maple Leaf Gardens the same day he got busted at the airport. I was around 14.

Schindler's List was another great film. I, too, used to tnik Spielberg just didn't have enough grit to make anything but fluff. For example, I HATED Empire of the Sun with it's stupid muzak soundtrack. But Schindler's List was something different. He's now cemented his reputation as a heavyweight as far as I'm concerned. Go see it. I think you'll agree.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Jul 28, 1998 at 18:30:27 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Keith's apology
Message:
You know, just after I posted my agreement with Veep that Keith's garbage should be buried at sea for once and for all (I mean his garbage about the cult being a forum, or was it forum being a cult, or whatever), I'm still not satisfied. I'm not satisfied to see that little asshole continue to post away here as if it was all fun and games. Look, he lied to all of us. When I first read his post I inferred -- just as he intended me too -- that he was posting on behalf of 'many' people, that he was their spokeman (or 'spokesperson' as he awkwardly said). That wasn't true.

I'm amazed that people can continue to converse with this guy as if nothing happened. And about what, for God's sake? 'Love' and 'trust' and 'respect' and.... give me a fucking break!

I've asked Keith to deal with this a couple of times now. Typically, he just laughed it off. In fact he tried to make it my fault. There I am calling him names again, this time 'liar'. Well he is a liar and he's a liar to everyone here. If you guys think that's okay, no big deal, I guess that's that. 'Til the next time then?

Oh well.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Jul 28, 1998 at 19:09:36 (EDT)
From: VP
Email: None
To: Jim/Keith
Subject: Say what you mean, Keith
Message:
Jim,
Think about this for a minute: How long did it take to get your thinker back in shape after all of this crap happened to you? Then how long to put thoughts into words and later to put them down on paper? THEN how long to have them make sense??? Now think about others who may not be as quick as you are...

I do not think Keith lied intentionally. I could be wrong. I am not Keith, but from reading his posts, this is the impression that I have of him right now. I think he has a very hard time figuring out what he wants to say and then JUST saying it.

Let me explain. I thought his post meant, 'Jim, you are a fucking bully and I think it is hard for people to talk about what they want to on this forum without feeling intimidated by you and a few others who bully people as well.' But something (fear? his less than direct personality?) motivated him to speak as a mouthpiece for other people instead of for himself.

In Keith's defense, it is harder to find precise words when you have been supressing your ego, self, mind, etc. for a long time. I see this in posts of other people just leaving the M scene all of this time (no offense to anyone, I am NOT perfect either!)

It seems to me that Keith TRIED to tell you that he used the wrong words, but he fell short of just saying, 'I said the wrong thing' or 'I'm sorry' or 'No, Jim, I am not representing anyone else here but myself.' I don't know why it is so hard for people to admit they have made a mistake, but it really isn't that difficult.

Getting back to Maharaji, want me to order that magazine for you? I HATE to give Maharaji eleven dollars, but if you give it to Brian when you are finished, I will consider it a donation to the site...
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Jul 28, 1998 at 19:19:05 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: VP
Subject: Say what you mean, Keith
Message:
Veep,

Please order the magazine and just send it to Brian. He'll find the good parts I'm sure. That would be great.

There are two issues with Keith's honesty here. One is the inital statement, the other is how he's dealt with it afterwards. Veep, I'm sorry, I don't accept that Keith doesn't have to speak accountable English just like you and I. Even in the thickest, snuggest grasp of the divine master, if I told some co-worker that I had already processed those invoices or whatever, I either meant it or meant to mislead. But, in any event, that's all about the first issue.

The second is just as troubling. How dare this little jerk continue to spout out about honesty of all things and just laugh off his own deception? Here, if you didn't notice, is something he just posted a little while ago:

I know that my journey is largly involved with the search for meaning and pleasure. And relationship and honesty .

This is craziness.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Jul 28, 1998 at 19:32:00 (EDT)
From: VP
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Babies can't walk
Message:
'I don't accept that Keith doesn't have to speak accountable English just like you and I.'

Agreed. I'm not saying he DOESN'T HAVE TO, I am saying I'm not sure he IS ABLE TO. Yet. Asking him to speak accountable English is like asking a baby to feed itself or get up and walk across the room. It ain't gonna happen. Yet. Like I said, this is just my opinion from reading his posts and I could be way off base.

Jim, there is nothing wrong with showing a baby how to walk because in the end they are all going to have to do it :) I am not asking you to change, BTW. Just trying to ease your frustration a little.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Jul 28, 1998 at 19:53:55 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: VP
Subject: Babies can't walk
Message:
Veep,

I just can't agree. It's not as if Keith is just learning -- or re-learning -- English. This is it. This is how he speaks, this is how he thinks. There's no reason to think he'll ever get 'better'. Life's too short. Besides, it's not as if you get to throw your cards in and get a new hand every couple of years.

As far as I'm concerned, people like Keith and Bobby are virtually impossible to communicate with. They're new age casualites and they'll probably stay that way forever. Bobby will continue to 'heal' people and Keith can give them tarot readings. THANKFULLY, I got out of that stuff but not everyone does. I don't expect either one of these guys ever will. And why should they? They love it.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Jul 28, 1998 at 20:09:17 (EDT)
From: Nigel
Email: nigel@redcrow.demon.co.uk
To: Jim
Subject: Babies can't walk
Message:
As far as I'm concerned, people like Keith and Bobby are virtually impossible to communicate with.

So why try?

:-) Nigel.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Jul 28, 1998 at 20:22:25 (EDT)
From: VP
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Beyond help?
Message:
Jim,
And this whole time I thought you were trying to help them. What have I been thinking? Or are you saying that some people are just beyond help? I just can't give up that notion yet. I guess the fuzziness is rubbing off on me, too.
HELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLP!
:)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Jul 28, 1998 at 20:04:11 (EDT)
From: Rick
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Keith's apology
Message:
Jim,
This is boring, but there are no innocent premies to attack right now, so this will have to do.

Keith definitely puked all over the little land known as Forum and we're wiping the stuff off our faces and clothes. But I think you're missing the really stinky stuff and homing in on a moot point. Here's what I think happened: As VP pointed out, Keith feels intimidated. He holds his warm fuzzy thoughts very dear, and although they get him through the day he can't really defend them. You and a few others (not me) really screw up Keith's warm fuzzies by being cantankerous and argumentative. Keith just wants to have a little love-fest and bask in his reverie - then at night, he wants to rock himself to sleep, knowing all is fine in all the lands throughout the world. He knows there a are few other warm fuzzy people out there... maybe like Carol and Judex and CD and PAM and a few others that may have dropped out along the way. And Keith, being the snuggly guy that he is, thinks they might also feel intimidated. He doesn't really know - he just imagines it's so. And so, not having thought this through, and feeling very strongly that warm fuzzyhood should spread throughout the land, he glommed onto a new cause, with Keith as its new leader. No one else was strong as he, to speak up for the righteousness of fuzziness, so Keith would forge the way, not only for himself but for all fuzzy people like him.

Now you, Jim, barged in as usual, asking for explanations and definitions and evidence. But Keith's brain was muddled with fuzziness despite his moment of righteous indignation and he got overwhelmed. Sort of like a kid who broke something and didn't want to get in trouble, so he hid the broken item, hoping the focus would shift before long so that he'd be in the clear. After all, his cause of fuzziness was of primary importance. Any small lack of credibility on his part might undermine his campaign. So like many politicians, his cover-up of an originally small crime got him into big trouble.

Keith isn't so much dishonest as he is stupid.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Jul 28, 1998 at 20:23:19 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Rick
Subject: Keith's apology
Message:
Rick,

You're right, right down the line. There's nothing really to add. You're right as well that this is all just a bit of filler until the next Maharaji apology or kiss-and-tell. I'm still waiting for the upper level floor plan. And how 'bout that editorial comment from the Divine Times ('sweet nothings')? Furthermore, like I said, I now am personally quite satisfied that Maharaji's affair with Monica Lewis is old hat and that he was directly involved in planning and assisting Fakiranand's escape to India.

I really liked Mark's post yesterday (or was it the day before?) about the purpose and impact of the forum. This page is a bit of a mitzvah, eh bubbala? Here's a question: how many people actually believe it's even remotely possible that after all this time Maharaji hasn't checked out the site? I can't se it. And how about his kids? What do they surf for besides new toys from the Sharper Image? Marolyn? You reading this? How 'bout the brother? Hey Raja Ji, remember me?

The house slaves, on the other hand, must have a real hard time sneaking peaks. I can see them darting down to some internet/fax/office service place or the library to lurk a bit. And how about you instructors? Yeah, right, tell me that you're not reading this from time to time against your master's explicit orders.

Gerry and I were talking about this last weekend and both agreed that sooner or later, as the technology becomes more and more de rigeur for communication and such, Maharaji will be forced to reverse himself and establish a net presence. Of course that will mean a little backtracking for him, not to mention the logistical difficulty of keeping his suckers on his page and not ours. But it's got to happen. He's got to do something. Hell, he's got too many people around the world who need to find out about programs, learn where to order videos and stuff, send their messages of love, etc. Unless he can develop a new cult around the purities of snail mail, he's going to have to cave.

Can you imagine what his page is going to be like? Sure, that's easy. It'll be like his videos. I can't wait.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Jul 28, 1998 at 20:33:01 (EDT)
From: VP the detective
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Sneaking peeks
Message:
I have it from what I believe to be a reliable source that Elan Vital's main method of communication from office to office is now email. This makes perfect sense, most large organizations do this now. So you think they really send email and stay away from this site?

It is also my understanding that some places have a person charged with MONITORING this site. They are not supposed to engage in conversations here, only read. Can you imagine what this must be doing to these people?

Wink wink atcha, all you Elan Vital lurkers-
VP
allowed to participate here or anywhere I choose
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Jul 28, 1998 at 20:59:51 (EDT)
From: Rick
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Keith's apology
Message:
Okay. Did I miss a post that explains why you're personally satisfied that BM had an affair with Monica Lewis and that he engineered Fakirinand's escape? I know someone told you some stuff but what did they say that clinched it for you?

It is hard to believe that BM and his crew haven't checked out the site but... let's start with his kids and Marolyn. If they love BM alot and believe he's the Lord, it might sting too much to look at the criticism. Sometimes family members will criticize their own but won't stand for anyone else doing it. In Marolyn's case we already know she subverts any bad thoughts she has about BM. The kids might be a little more spontaneous but they might actually be more interested in fast cars than more thunder about Pop.

BM himself might be like an ordinary businessman. He might be looking at stats and figures, and as long as everything is moving as projected, he might be just looking for that vodka bottle in his desk drawer. If things aren't looking good on paper he might be searching for answers and then the web page might hold some interest. Most performers abhor bad reviews so if BM really thinks he's the Lord, he might not want to read how bad his acting is.

The initiators are a definite no. Unless they're having some major doubts already. After all, these are the most devoted. Can you imagine David Smith or Ira Woods sneaking a look at an anti-BM web page?

But the everyday ordinary premie - now there's an almost sure bet, especially if they're recent initiates. The new knowledge lite allows for a much wider girth even in the face of direct agya. It also allows for more doubt. No strong devotion plan automatically invites the natural questioning process. A little meat, a little sex, a little web surfing... who's to know? Just check out the web site to be sure there's nothing one didn't miss in the knowledge Q and A. Then one premie tells a friend and that really gets the curiosity peaked. And with knowledge, curiosity definitely kills the Fat Cat. So yes, Jim, a mitzvah. Oy!

Now, as far as a web page of their own, absolutely. It's amazing they don't have one already. I agree it's just a matter of time. Then this web site will get even more exposure.

But there's a sucker born every minute, and a slick dude like the BM will adjust his schtick to adapt. After all anyone who would find those videos appealing might not like what we'd have to say. And the poor souls living bare footed without enough food in the Third World probably aren't going to be web-surfing anytime soon.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Jul 28, 1998 at 21:16:39 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Rick
Subject: Keith's apology
Message:
Rick,

I'm deciding to withhold a bit of information on this. All I can say is that I'm personally satisfied on both those points. That's not meant to be any more persuasive than it is. I'm just letting you know how things are for moi. Sorry, that's all I can offer for now.

As for which Holy Family members and friends are reading this page, yeah your speculation's as good as mine. Who knows? Maybe they do all avoid it, maybe they don't. We DO have KK's anecdote about the instructors -- all of them -- who used to bend her ear for gossip about Maharaji.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 00:09:27 (EDT)
From: Rick
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Keith's apology
Message:
Why are you witholding information? What the fuck gives? This is like getting a video tape of BM drinking booze out of a paper bag in front of a liquor store, only to say 'Nah... maybe I'll play the tape for you later. That's all I can say.' Why offer up the personal conclusion without the story that led you there? Jim, when other people do this, don't you start acting like... well, acting like Jim?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Jul 28, 1998 at 20:29:15 (EDT)
From: Katie
Email: petkat@mail.trib.net
To: Rick
Subject: Keith's apology
Message:
I think Rick is right - I think that Keith mis-spoke with his 'spokesman' remark. I don't consider it to be a lie. I think that he thought he was speaking for some of the people on MMT (Magical Mystery Tour) listserv, but I'm not certain of that.

I am sure that people on MMT say things like 'I wouldn't want to say this on the forum', or 'Boy, I'd get flamed if I said this on the forum'. However, I am not sure that this means they WANT to say those things on the forum. The listserv is more private because it has a limited and known audience. I say things in my e-mail that I wouldn't want to say on the forum, but that doesn't mean I WANT them to go on the forum - they are too personal to be broadcast out to the hundreds of people who read the forum.

I'd be really curious to know if anyone else besides Keith and Bobby feels censored or stifled here on the forum. Please speak up if you do - or e-mail me. But as I have said several times, the posts on the forum are not moderated or censored, so people CAN say whatever they want here (read the Forum Introduction for the guidelines if you have not already). They just have to be prepared for other people to say whatever THEY want back at them.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 22:26:37 (EDT)
From: Bobby
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Keith's apology
Message:
Keith is not on the MMT forum.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 10:49:08 (EDT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Bobby
Subject: if not MMT, then what
Message:
Hi Bobby - if Keith is not on the MMT forum, do you have any idea what the other ex-premie website he was talking about was? This is a sincere question, as some people have asked me. I just assumed it was MMT.
Regards,
Katie
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 00:14:02 (EDT)
From: Mickey the Pharisee
Email: mgdbach@ziplink.net
To: Jim
Subject: Keith's apology
Message:
I've been wondering if perhaps Keith has stopped taking some sort of medication. His tear of the past few days reminded me of a similar rant and tear he went on several months ago as Vacol. Remember how inane and pompous he was during that episode? I've decided that I'm just not going to read his posts anymore, which will be difficult for me as I read ALL the posts, but he's driving me nuts with his lies and drivel.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 00:43:03 (EDT)
From: VP
Email: None
To: Mickey the Pharisee
Subject: Hi, Mickey!
Message:
I just listened to your tape, on loan from Katie, and it was awesome! I am sending it on to the next unsuspecting victim. You are very talented. Thanks for the great listening. (Much better music than the tapes you gave me-snicker!)

So you think Keith is lying intentionally, too? My radar must be busted.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 11:28:17 (EDT)
From: Mickey the Pharisee
Email: None
To: VP
Subject: Hi, Mickey!
Message:
Hey VP, I'm glad you liked the tape.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 21:45:47 (EDT)
From: Robyn
Email: sundogs@hotmail.com
To: Mickey the Pharisee
Subject: Hi, Mickey!
Message:
Dear Mickey,
Hey, I get your tape next and I can't wait, already have a blank one all ready to copy it!
Love,
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jul 30, 1998 at 22:21:06 (EDT)
From: Mickey the Pharisee
Email: mgdbach@ziplink.net
To: Robyn
Subject: Hi, Mickey!
Message:
Gee, somehow I feel that I'm missing out on making the big money once again! :-)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jul 31, 1998 at 19:59:28 (EDT)
From: Robyn
Email: sundogs@hotmail.com
To: Mickey the Pharisee
Subject: Hi, Mickey!
Message:
Dear Mickey,
Brian will have his gopies and you will have groupies(sp).
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 01:00:53 (EDT)
From: G's mom
Email: None
To: Keith
Subject: Mickey's post
Message:
Dear Keith,
I could be WAY off base here and if I am I apologize in advance. But I tonight was thinking the exact same thing as Mickey. If you are supposed to be taking a medication you need please try to do it or get some help. Your post's give me the feeling you may be in some sort of trouble. Please understand it is not that I disagree or agree with what you say it is more the way you are expressing yourself seems like you could be in some distress.
I hope you are fine and I am wrong but if you are you will understand I wrote this because I care.
G's mom
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Jul 28, 1998 at 16:09:18 (EDT)
From: Bill Cooper
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Elvis+ the Preslyterians
Message:
I watched a program on tv here in NZ last night called Elvis and the presleyterians. It was about how Elvis was being transformed into a religion. Sure there were some who were using it to take the piss out of christianity but many had the glint in their eyes of the true believer. People spoke in warbling soft tone voices of how they had seen Elvis transformed in white light and that he had come from Rigel originally. Endless Elvis impersonators told of their shamanic conversions when they acted as a channel for Elvis. On and on it went. At first I thought it was merely amusing but it was clear this is how religions started. In the end it made BM seem kinda normal in comparison, but that might just be due to familiarity creating an enormous blindspot
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 00:10:12 (EDT)
From: Peter
Email: None
To: Bill Cooper
Subject: perfect elvis light
Message:
If you want to really understand Elvis the Perfect Being, you have to listen to 'Elvis is Everywhere' by Mojo Nixon & Skid Roper on their album Bo-Day-Shus!!! Remember that little guy with the broom and scoop who boogied along behind the elephant in the parade at the end of Bullwinkle? That's how M is to Elvis.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 09:30:07 (EDT)
From: Gerry
Email: None
To: Peter
Subject: perfect elvis light
Message:
Peter,
I love this imagery! For someone who doesn't make mental pictures all that easily, this one came in loud and clear.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Jul 28, 1998 at 11:14:35 (EDT)
From: Mark
Email: None
To: Keith
Subject: Get Over It
Message:
Jim's just being himself
It sounds like you have some power issues
that you're playing out for all to see

I'm embarassingly NewAge/ NoAge
no ones ever given me shit

Jim just actually likes people to back up their statements
a fair bias for an attorney
M you me anybody
and believe me he's a perfect aspect of a Forum
against a false Messiah
who didn't/doesn't back up his statements

he only goes ballistic on people
who don't respond to questions precisely
then his bulldog emerges

He reminds me of Barry Scheck of OJ fame
anyway his note is clear

you on the other hand
have been all over the pitch
like my teenage daughter
trying out all your post Devotee personnas
currently playing the sheriff
and howling banshee

I agree
it is a miraculous universe
play your notes
check your motives.
Carefully
Whats your Journey?
What issues are you dealing with?
16 Years /
What have you seen and learned?
What can you contribute ?
What was the dynamic of you and your wife exiting
the Groupthink?
what are you feeling about yourself RE M/personally ?

all i can say is that you're acting something out
get over it, flying Eagle.
go deeper.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Jul 28, 1998 at 18:31:00 (EDT)
From: Keith
Email: None
To: Mark
Subject: Get Over It
Message:
Mark , your defense and support of jim is seemingly blind
to the harm he has caused to others .

Extreme views do no real good to anyone ; and fighting
an extreme (maharaji) with an extreme is only changing
the clothes , not the body.
But I feel that My view will get little sympathy here.
The forum is mostly made up of ex-extremists who don't
realise the counter-pole extremity they now embrace ;
and those who are more balanced in their world views mostly
pass on by or set up other think tanks where the atmosphere
is less judgemental.

Certainly Mark all those questions you have listed that you
think I should be addressing , I have addressed at one time
or another and am always more than happy to respond to them,
and ask the same questions of you and others.

As for the 'get over it ' theme ; seems like you've got me
all worked out .
Hey , I'm continually getting into and out of things ;
getting under and over things .
What next?
Ah well I did ask for it ; kick my butt , eh?
You all sure did !

'Whats my journey?' you asked ;
Mark , I wonder if and/or how you would answer that one?
Not so easy. The journey of life is complex.
I reject Maharaji's view (as I have understood it) that life is simple and that complexity is somehow a defective attitude.

I know that my journey is largly involved with the search for meaning and pleasure. And relationship and honesty .
And communication and dialectical interchange.
And learning and evolving.
And remaining open . How about you ?
Keith
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Jul 28, 1998 at 18:40:40 (EDT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: Keith
Subject: Get Over It
Message:
You call THAT a 'butt kicking?' Man, you do like your milk-toast don't you?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Jul 28, 1998 at 18:54:22 (EDT)
From: Gerry
Email: None
To: Keith
Subject: Shit or get off the pot
Message:
Keith, why not simply answer the questions asked of you? Isn't this only the decent and courteous thing to do? If someone asks me a direct question, I do my best to answer it clearly and honestly. Try it sometime. You might even like it.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Jul 28, 1998 at 19:43:54 (EDT)
From: Keith
Email: None
To: Gerry
Subject: Shit or get off the pot
Message:
Bullshit Gerry !
You are so indirect yourself .
At least I confront my detractors and risk ridicule , unlike you .
And if you feel that my remark here is unjustified , why not
review your own vitriolics.

Your justifications for mmt or whatever you've called it
is feeble and evasive , I feel.

I did answer Marks first question ; but he did not answer mine.

Gee , you bully boys sure know about pack instinct .
But then ; that's just me being paranoid again I guess.

I may write a book entitled ' how I was a thorn in the side
of a rose ; or was it just rose coloured?'

Anyway , when all is said and done I'm proving how
wonderful this forum is ; really ; I am allowed to
criticise it and I'm not banished (more than can be said
for Maharaji's mob) ; and who said that a society that cannot withstand self-examination and criticism is corrupt and decaying.

And Gerry , I believe that Maharaji and premies are not isolated subjects that should be examined independent of many
other issues , especially ones core beliefs and experiences.
Regards , Keith
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Jul 28, 1998 at 20:27:42 (EDT)
From: Gerry
Email: None
To: Keith
Subject: Really Keith?
Message:
Keith,

Here's the list of questions

.Whats your Journey?
What issues are you dealing with?
16 Years /
What have you seen and learned?
What can you contribute ?
What was the dynamic of you and your wife exiting
the Groupthink?
what are you feeling about yourself RE M/personally ?


You said you answered the first one. You did not. You spouted your usual evasive blather. So, I guess you lied again. Maybe you are a pathological liar as well as infantile.

Your justifications for mmt or whatever you've called it
is feeble and evasive , I feel.


This shows your contemptuous and superior attitude. We are just a group of people wanting talk in a more private venue. We may not be on your spiritual or intellectual level, but we are try to be honest and direct. We invited you to participate. You think you are too good and too important to stoop to participate on our level. You think need the much wider read and public forum to spout your inanities. And I control the membership. Guess what? You're OUTTA THERE.

Gee , you bully boys sure know about pack instinct .
But then ; that's just me being paranoid again I guess.


Keith you invite the bullying. In fact, you enjoy it. I don't see any evidence of my bullying you here in a pack mentality. You bring it on yourself, because you love the attention. Well guess what again? I'm not responding to another of your posts, nor am I reading one. So as far as I'm concerned, you're not on the forum either.

I believe that Maharaji and premies are not isolated subjects that should be examined independent of many other issues , especially ones core beliefs and experiences.

It would be fine if you did discuss anything even close to core beliefs and experiences. Instead you deliberately bait people and then retreat when you get cornered.

Keith, you are a pathetic excuse for a human being. Is that direct enough for you, asshole?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Jul 28, 1998 at 19:50:31 (EDT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Keith
Subject: Get Over It
Message:
Ah well I did ask for it ; kick my butt , eh?
You all sure did !


Are you happy now that we did? Don't you think that's a little fucked up to invite an entire forum of strangers to kick your ass?
What's in it for you except maybe the overabundance of attention? I'm not a psychiatrist but I'd really like to know what motivates you (and don't tell me love again). People who know what love is don't go shouting hey everybody kick my butt! They're a little more humble than that. And they don't jump on a podium to preach to everybody else what love is all about. Let us discover in our own hearts what that's all about, OK? Maybe you think all the attention you're getting IS love. It isn't. But if it means anything to you, my heart to your's, I do wish you all the love you can receive and more. OK? I don't want to be a rotten son of a bitch. Why are you inviting me to be?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Jul 28, 1998 at 20:02:06 (EDT)
From: Nigel
Email: nigel@redcrow.demon.co.uk
To: Keith
Subject: What's next...? THE POINT!
Message:
Hey , I'm continually getting into and out of things ;
getting under and over things .
What next?


FOCUS!!

Try making exactly one point per post, Keith. You ramble too much. By all means draw from many sources but stick to the point you have raised; allow people to discuss that point and if one of those people happens to be Jim, take no notice, and carry on discussing the point (though never discount the possibility that Jim too has made a valid point , when pointing out, in his inimicable style, that your own point is not especially to his liking.)

Don't take this the wrong way, Keith. I enjoy the company of people I disagree with (I even miss Mili's regular presence here and his cheerful defiance of all things rational!).

But focus a little, and we'd all be the better for it. ;-)

Nigel
Return to Index -:- Top of Index