Ex-Premie.Org |
Forum III Archive # 4 | |
From: Apr 19, 1998 |
To: Apr 29, 1998 |
Page: 1 Of: 5 |
|
Date: Wed, Apr 22, 1998 at 23:35:28 (EST)
From: Brian Email: brian@ex-premie.org To: Everyone Subject: My testimony: Part 1 Message: I stopped by my puter a couple of times today and read the new posts in the H&J thread. Then I went back to work and thought about things some more. JW asked: Brian, I'm unclear if you are having problems with the site because of the way these people are posting. Is that true? If so, can you elaborate? What 'trouble' are they causing you? About the only way to describe it is to say that they were forcing me to constantly review where the lines should be, what constitutes crossing them, and what I should do about it. I've never blocked anyone from posting here before the last few weeks and only did it because I couldn't delete posts. I removed the block as soon as possible and put it behind me. Anon's post regarding the Sheriff isn't that far off base. But I didn't sign on to be an enforcer, let alone someone who had to write the laws as I went. So I've been in a constant state of flux as to what I could/should do about a situation that isn't typical of premie posts, but is one that I know I'm going to have to face again whether it involves those two people or not. And without any clear mandate from the other people involved I wasn't sure who would be roasting me over a hotter fire when I acted to contain the chaos that was over-running the forum. For anyone who didn't see it as being that bad, compare today with yesterday. There's a completely different feel to the forum today. Mickey the P commented on it when he returned, and sent me email about it. I've seen the change, because I don't get to participate in the forum the same way I used to. I check in and sort of get an overview of what people are talking about, but can't always read through the posts to follow the flow of conversation. So I saw changes in jumps and starts. When Petrou first appeared, he and I talked in the Forum before it opened. We almost had some conversations, but he kept speaking Vulcan to me so I blew him off and just worked on the software. His 'participation' since the move has been comprised of repeated taunting of ex's on a forum that nobody invited him to join. I view his posts as nothing more than an ininterrupted harassment of people who don't obey Maharaji's agya any more than he does. Vacol is different, I know. He's probably nuts, but he did engage in discussions with many people here. But he kept pushing the lines as fast as I could draw them. My own attempts to talk to him were viewed by him as me speaking for 'The Site'. I was constantly having to explain why I do this or that. When I finally reverted to 'potty mouthed' questions as to just what he actually believed, he blew up that there was a double standard here. I don't want my entire posting/reading time to involve site policy. I used to be an ex. Remember that? I used to be able to post just like normal munmats. So it's a strain to have to keep defining policy since I have to wrestle with moral questions about fairness and being consistent when everyone else gets to play here. My main reason for blocking the both of them this morning is so that we could have the discussion that took place today without them swamping the forum with rebuttal posts. They have no say in any of this as far as I can see, and I don't believe that they would have shut up long enough to keep the thread in the active index. That the two of them could combine for more than 20% of an archive's content is pretty obscene in my eyes. Granted, Vacol has more personalities than the rest of us combined, but do they get to argue with each other on our forum? Vayu and Vacol were actually responding to each other's posts! I might be getting near the limit on size so I'll run this over into another post addressing the ideas proposed by everyone today. Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, Apr 23, 1998 at 00:02:15 (EST)
From: Brian Email: brian@ex-premie.org To: Brian Subject: My testimony: Part 1 Message: I love the committee idea, since my main goal here is just to support the forum for ex's to be able to use. Making every policy decision myself is driving me nuts. I have to get some stuff off to Leslie tomorrow early and I really want to concentrate on the main project in front of me now. But a committe can have a separate forum to haggle things over if you want. There have been some good issues raised here in public today and ALL of them are the ones I've been wrestling with. So let me offer you some advice from someone who's been through it and had to find a resolution within myself before I could make any decisions: Forget fairness and consistency. Nothing is fair unless it gets us what we want. Anything that stops that isn't fair. That's just how people are. This forum is not fair to premies, and Maharaji will never treat us fairly. And no two situations are the same, and being consistent is refusing to acknowledge that fact. Back the decisions of the committee. Anything is better than no decision, and there will always be people coming in here looking to spread dissent. Petrou is no aberration, but an aspect of our own human ability to be petty about our own wants. Be willing to limit people from posting. This is the Anything & Everything forum, not the Everybody forum. This forum may face a large influx of people wanting to post. Posts are useless if they aren't online long enough to read them and respond to them. Forget how we look to others. We all post here for ourselves, not for any other reason. The forum's reputation is the value that WE place in it, and other's don't get a vote. Don't make rules. They will be used against you. The idea that Jim or any other ex has deserved to be blocked due to offending premies too cowed by Prem Pal Rawat to open their own online forum and live by their own rules is no reason that we should forget who this forum serves. If Jim or anyone else rants and raves here, that is what this forum was setup for them to do. People who have yet to post here have no say. If the forum is to be run by premies who do post here, those new ex's will have no forum to post in anyway. If you want a committee, let them decide on a case-by-case basis as to whether some premie's behavior online qualifies them to be off-lined fast. In a year from now there may be a different set of ex's posting here and running the show. They might find Petrou's antics to be as tolerable as we now find Mili's to be. Don't saddle them with rules. They can decide for themselves. Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, Apr 23, 1998 at 00:45:12 (EST)
From: Scott T. Email: None To: Brian Subject: My testimony: Part 1 Message: Brian: It's fine with me if you, and others, would like a committee to make decisions on an ad hoc basis for a period of time. I think what you mean by not worrying too much about consistency is that you can't plan for all contingencies. I like what you said about 'doing what works.' We are probably in a situation where rules will evolve out of experience and trial and error, but I really can't imagine not having at least some rules. Constitutions, which are really 'rules about rules,' can either be written down by a group of 'founders' or they can evolve and be unwritten, but you can't manage a resource like this one without at least some guiding principles. You have already expressed some of those yourself. I like the idea of at least making an attempt to write them down, and get agreement about them. It will hold things together in the long run. It is not so important to come up with a set of rules that meets a wide range of contingencies as it is to have a set of governing principles that people agree with, that can be called upon to help make decisions and establish precedents, and that people are willing and able to enforce. -Scott Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, Apr 23, 1998 at 01:46:03 (EST)
From: Mickey the Pharisee Email: mgdbach@ziplink.net To: Brian Subject: My testimony: Part 1 Message: Brian, I want to thank you for blocking those two and giving us a chance to discuss this issue. The feel of the Forum today was calm, collected, and reasoned, and I really appreciated the way the community came together and work on this. I agree, we really can't be fair about this; it is a site for ex-premies first and foremost. Thank you, once again, for all the work you do here, and thanks to Katie and Robyn and any other folks assisting you. Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, Apr 23, 1998 at 02:17:44 (EST)
From: JW Email: None To: Mickey the Pharisee Subject: My testimony: Part 1 Message: Mickey, I think it was nice for one day, but I think it would get really boring if it went on for very long, IMHO. Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, Apr 23, 1998 at 02:16:31 (EST)
From: JW Email: None To: Brian Subject: My testimony: Part 1 Message: Brian, I appreciate your concerns. And I can understand that you don't want to play policeman. But I do have some thoughts: As to the 'feel' of the forum, I have seen the 'feel' of the forum change many times over the past year. It all depends on who is posting and what the subject happens to be. Sometimes it's been exciting, sometimes boring, sometimes confused, and sometimes confrontational. I don't think we should over-react because the 'feel' changes from time to time. That is bound to happen. And maybe I'm oblivious, but I didn't find Petrou, and especially Vacol all that disruptive. Petrou didn't have much to say, although he was nasty, and Vacol raised some good points, although he was inconsistent, to say the least. And I have no reason to believe they won't burn out and leave like all the other premies have -- they've only been posting for a short time, and people do change after being engaged or challenged. It also appears that they didn't cause any technical problems, threaten people, use profanity, post under others' names, or engage in sabotage. They are guilty of being zealous premies, and maybe not being to bright. I don't see that as grounds for expulsion, even if they are premies, and even if we don't like them. And by the way, during the period, Petrou and Vacol were about the ONLY premies who WERE posting, with the exception of a post by Bruce and one or two by that old stalwart Mili. I actually found other premies who have come and gone to be much more aggressive, nasty and disruptive than either Vacol or Petrou. But I also saw them change during the dialogue, and I think when it became too confronting, when things started to hit, they left. I think some progress was made there and they were made to think about some things, and we all know that's the first step in deprogramming yourself. And 20% of the posts does seem like a lot, but that might be partly to due to the fact that ex-premies are posting less. I frankly think the forum can become very boring with us just talking to each other. The premies, even the disruptive ones, are catalysts for some of the best discussions I have seen. That has really helped me challenge and examine what I think about things. And that's what I find stimulating. The ex-premies are grown ups and can ignore people who bother them. No one forces anyone to read posts from people they don't respect. I also think it's healthy for all of us to have our views challenged. And as some premies have mentioned, and I have observed myself, ex-premies do tend to refrain from disagreeing with each other, and so it sometimes takes premies to stir things up. But I like to argue, so maybe that's the viewpoint I'm coming from. And I for one, am not just posting for myself and don't consider the forum just for ex-premies who post. If that were true I would have left long ago. Many people read this stuff, and a large number are premies, or people who aren't sure they are still premies or not. Whenever I post, I almost always have in the back of my mind the audience who is reading it. The ex-premies already know what I think. It's others who might find it helpful, maybe, hopefully, and they are the many people who are reading but not posting. And to me the reputation of the site is very important. If it appears to censor people, I think we lose in the eyes of people just beginning the process of thinking about what they've been doing and believing. . I for one, care about that. So I guess I disagree that how we look to others isn't important. I think it's very important. In my opinion, it's better to put up with a little disruption than to expell people unless they do something really nasty like threaten people with physical harm. I would rather not see premies be able to come on the forum with the list of premies who have been banned and repeat it over and over and you or someone having to explain over and over why. It just supplies another red herring to those who don't want the forum to succeed. Clearly if things become techincally impossible, like too may posts, or if someone causes other technical problems, that is another matter. But otherwise, I would hope we wouldn't overreact to people we don't like. But, of course Brian, you are in charge and I respect your views. Best of luck. I hope your not sorry you asked for our opinions. Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, Apr 23, 1998 at 08:28:40 (EST)
From: Scott T. Email: None To: JW Subject: My testimony: Part 1 Message: JW: I find their posts extremely disruptive, not because of their content, but because they have no content. If there were a way for me, personally, to simply set a parameter so that their posts did not appear on my screen that would be fine. I can't do that, so it's a big problem. It wastes my time and resources. One thing that would help would be if I could see two or three posts ahead from the 'Read' screen, and just skip them. If I want to skip some stupid comment from Petrou I have to page back to the Index screen, which eats up a lot of my available time. The more we could bring sanctions imposed by 'public opinion' as opposed to 'restraints' the better. If no one can, or has to, read their posts they will either leave or change the content. There is, or will be, a serious problem with traffic management. If it hasn't happened yet, it will. I do public policy in the area of transportation, so I know that there is a point at which traffic stops moving freely and becomes a jam. It's not a smooth transition, but a cutoff point. I hate to think about it, but the problem is looming as Brian and Katie will no doubt tell you. What happens after the news mag article comes out, for instance? One day nothing, the next day Grand Central! Furthermore, if you want 'the impression' to be the major purpose of this site then so be it. I suspect if that becomes the reason for the site's existence a lot of people will stop posting and a lot will quit watching. Just a guess. As for Mr. Ex's comments. Fine to be so forgiving if you aren't around much. I'm sure you recognize that, of course. It's a little like the natural disagreement between parents and grandparents. -Scott Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, Apr 23, 1998 at 11:55:16 (EST)
From: Still Crazy Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: Tangetially related question Message: It seems like a lot of the problems being discussed here would not exist if this were a Usenet forum like alt.cult.maharaji. Why was the newsgroup evacuated in favor of this forum? -Still Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Fri, Apr 24, 1998 at 06:58:42 (EST)
From: David Email: David.Studio57@btinternet.com To: Still Crazy Subject: Tangetially related question Message: The newsgroup was abandoned in favour of the forum because too many posts just weren't getting to all the news servers on usenet. At least on a web forum, everything you post is read by everyone. Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, Apr 23, 1998 at 13:02:25 (EST)
From: JW Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: My testimony: Part 1 Message: Scott, I don't understand what you are saying about 'traffic management.' Are you concerned that too many people might try to post and that might create a 'jam?' As I said in my post, if it comes to that, that is a legitimate concern and will have to be dealt with. But from what Brian has said, I don't think that's a concern yet. And I don't think Petrou and Vacol should be banned because of something that 'might' happen. If it's done, it should be because they did something unacceptable or unworkable. I do go back to the index quite often and I don't usually find it takes any additional time. Maybe it's just my computer. That allows me to skip around on a thread, which I often do. Sometimes I like to read them backwards. Weird, huh? Kind of reverse linear reading. So, I can skip any posts that I don't want to read. Several exes have stated that they don't read posts from ANY premie, at all. I think that choice should be left up to the individual. Again, I thought Petrou was kind of fun. And Vacol, in my opinion, was actually helpful to the discussion. But we're all different, right? And isn't that part of the problem in these things? What one person likes, another might hate. So, how do you decide, when it involves something like free speech? And I agree completely, that we should use 'public opinion' to keep things orderly. For example, maybe it would have been better to point out to Petrou that he was just saying the same stuff over and over, instead of being sarcastic, like I was, no matter how much I enjoyed it. But Brian may have had that conversation with him via e-mail, for all I know. And I didn't say the 'impression' is THE purpose of the site, I said it was A purpose, responding to Brian's statement that it wasn't a purpose at all. Again, people are going to have differing views on this, and I think the forum actually has a number of purposes, and I don't think there's any reason it can't fulfill them all. In my opinion, the primary one, is an aid to people who are questioning Big M, to be given some things to think about. And I think the way Brian and Katie redesigned the site has really helped in that regard. It is much less off-putting than the old site was, and I'm just concerned that the fact that censoring is going on is off-putting too. Besides, I can just see some article in some magazine talking about and quoting what is said on the forum, followed by some premie saying, correctly, that the credibility of the forum is questionable because those who control it ban premies from posting simply because they don't like the content, or lack thereof, of what they say. I would rather they not be able to say that. And believe me, if they can, they will. I don't think we should give them that ammunition. Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, Apr 23, 1998 at 13:36:10 (EST)
From: VP Email: None To: JW Subject: My testimony: Part 1 Message: JW, You know that I hear and understand what you are saying and I agree with a lot of it, but did you see the amount of posts that Brian had to deal with from Petrou today? Any premie who says (to a magazine or anywhere else) that we are banning him/her based on free speech alone would be way off base. Look at some of the things that Mili, Aesop, or a premie have said on this forum, for example. Brian has said that a premie has to do a LOT more than just be annoying to get banned. There is no rule that says, 'Be nice to the exs or you will have to leave.' This is a discussion forum and Petrou was only spamming today, not discussing. (My opinion.) If we want to have a forum and a webmaster, there has to be some common sense involved from anyone who wants to participate. Petrou said himself in one post that his full intention was to shut this place down, so his motives are very different from those of premies who want to defend M or wish to tell a positive story about M or even tell a negative story about one of us. I understand what you are saying, JW, I really do. I stopped reading Petrou and I could care less about his ramblings, personally. I just read how much work it is for Brian and I think we need to consider that. VP Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, Apr 23, 1998 at 17:38:05 (EST)
From: JW Email: None To: VP Subject: Rainbow Grocery Message: Hello VP, hopefully this stuff can get worked out. I personally hope Brian can have technology available to limit posts from certain parties with the minimum of hassle. I realized you posted awhile back about Rainbow Grocery. When I was a premie, there were a bunch of health food stores run by premies, the majority of which were called 'Rainbow Grocery.' There was one in Denver, two in Chicago, one in Atlanta, one in Seattle, one in Boston, one in San Francisco one in Malibu, and one got opened in Miami as well. Maybe some other places too. They had different degrees of ownership by DLM. For example in Chicago, I was on the Board of Directors. The stores weren't actually owned by the mission at the beginning, but I think they eventually were. They also supplied the food for festivals, etc. Only premies worked there, mostly the ashram premies at pretty low wages, and a lot of money went to M from them. I think later, some of the stores were re-named 'Premark' which was a name the Big M chose. Anyhow, Mahatma Vijayanand did something naughty and was canned from being a mahatma and was assigned to do 'service' at Rainbow Grocery bagging nuts and raisins. At one point he stormed out saying that a saint shouldn't have to work at Rainbow Grocery, or something like that, so I heard. Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, Apr 23, 1998 at 20:46:46 (EST)
From: VP Email: None To: JW Subject: Rainbow Grocery Message: I have been to two of those in different cities. I remember back in the 70's they had flyers of the Guru up all over the bulletin boards and the windows. The last time I was in a Rainbow Grocery, I didn't see any evidence that the Guru was present at all. (of course I didn't know about the name Elan Vital then either) My family said that they used to be premie/DLM owned and I wasn't sure whether or not they still were. Thanks, JW. VP Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, Apr 23, 1998 at 20:56:19 (EST)
From: JW Email: None To: VP Subject: Rainbow Grocery Message: The one in San Francisco never really had direct connection to DLM, but a lot of premies worked there. Today it's a 'worker-owned-cooperative,' has moved to this beautiful new location with indoor parking, skylights and the most modern features, and is always rated 'the best health food store in San Francisco' by the Bay Guardian, a local newspaper. I shop there all the time, and I don't see anyone working there I remember from my premie past. But I know the stores in Denver, Chicago, Atlanta and Miami, WERE much more connected to the mission. But I don't know if they still are. Last time I was in Chicago, I did notice that at least one of the stores is still there, still called Rainbow, but I didn't have a chance to go it and ask any employee, or to see if anyone I knew still works there. Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Sun, Apr 26, 1998 at 23:57:58 (EST)
From: Joy Email: Bluebirdd@aol.com To: JW Subject: Mahatma Vijayanand Message: Joe, I was in Denver and at the satsang hall the night Mahatma Vijayanand made his stunning announcement. He strode up the center aisle onto the stage unannounced (and uninvited), and to everyone's surprise proceeded to announce that he did not come to the West to work in a grocery store (or something along that line), that he was Mahatma, etc. I can't remember the exact things he said, but it was pretty shocking at the time, to hear him declaring his own agenda. Then I remember him stalking off back down the center aisle in grand manner when he was through with his annoucement and later had heard he'd left Maharaji (not something the Indian mahatmas did in those days, this was 1976), and I'd see posters up around town after that for his own satsangs and things in buses about Knowledge, and how he (Vijay) could reveal it, come to his satsangs, etc. I have no idea what happened to his little alternative 'mission', assume he went back to India, though I think he got some western premie girl pregnant, so maybe he did the right thing and became a father, who knows. Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Tues, Apr 28, 1998 at 23:05:36 (EST)
From: bill Email: None To: Joy Subject: Mama Vijay Message: Hi Joy, yep, thats exactly the story I heard. Guess the grapevine didnt change the story. Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, Apr 23, 1998 at 13:40:22 (EST)
From: Brian Email: brian@ex-premie.org To: JW Subject: My testimony: Part 1 Message: Besides, I can just see some article in some magazine talking about and quoting what is said on the forum, followed by some premie saying, correctly, that the credibility of the forum is questionable because those who control it ban premies from posting simply because they don't like the content, or lack thereof, of what they say. I would rather they not be able to say that. And believe me, if they can, they will. I don't think we should give them that ammunition. That a premie might bad-mouth us by saying he/she can't post as much as he/she desires on a particular online forum is hardly a terrible prospect in my eyes. The article in question would either be titled How To Deal With Spammers, or else it would be an expose into Maharaji's cult and would also include references to Maharaji's efforts to guilt-trip his followers into not exercising their under-cherished freedom of speech on the web. I'm sure the readers of said article would be appalled by our actions far less than by Maharaji's - or his follower's blind obedience to his whims. That premies don't post here or anywhere else on the web is pretty stark evidence of a personality cult. I am constantly amazed that so many educated adults become cringing children in the face of a grade-school-dropout's childish demands on them. It's the same stupid obedience that allowed a corporal to command large powerful armies in Europe. Besides, I certainly don't propose banning premies or any other group of people from posting on the forum. But individual people should be held accountable for their actions - whether or not they take responsibility for their choices in other areas of their lives or simply defer to the wishes of a pseudo-daddy. And, BTW, Petrou had it pointed out to him repeatedly by lots of people here that his posts contained no content. He wasn't concerned with how others were affected as he exercised his perceived right to post here, and I am not concerned with his feelings about having forfeited the priveledge of posting here. I talked about this before and I'll say it again: There are no rights in life that do not directly stem from assuming a responsibity. It's a sad fact of Western society that rights are held in high esteem, while responsiblities are optional. Since the American Constitution (and accompanying Bill Of Rights) has been the model for democracies implimented since, it's a shame that the people who wrote it could not forsee a time when people didn't feel that they had any responsiblity to work, yet would have their right to possess what only comes from working guaranteed under our wobbling welfare system and the mindset behind it. Even animals are now afforded rights under this bizarre value system. I can't for the life of me figure out why plants and rocks are being left out... Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, Apr 23, 1998 at 13:50:00 (EST)
From: JW Email: None To: Brian Subject: My testimony: Part 1 Message: Brian, I responded to Scott before reading your post below, which I have now responded to. I frankly didn't understand that you were having to deal with such a large number of posts from one person with no content. Do you think the 'limit-the-number' technique might solve a lot of the problem? I think the point about the new sarticle is that, unfortunately, there usually isn't an opportunity to explain some complicated reason why someone was banned from a forum in response to some cult-member crying censorship. You wouldn't be able to say for example, 'no, we have never permenantly banned anyone, we have just limited the number of posts from people posting excessively with the intent to disrupt the forum,' if we have really banned people. That's the only point I am making. Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, Apr 23, 1998 at 14:18:43 (EST)
From: Brian Email: brian@ex-premie.org To: JW Subject: My testimony: Part 1 Message: I think the point about the new sarticle is that, unfortunately, there usually isn't an opportunity to explain some complicated reason why someone was banned from a forum in response to some cult-member crying censorship. You wouldn't be able to say for example, 'no, we have never permenantly banned anyone, we have just limited the number of posts from people posting excessively with the intent to disrupt the forum,' if we have really banned people. I understand your concerns here, JW. I've been pondering all this stuff over for weeks as the problem escalated. Katie has a permanent phone mark on her ear now from listening to me flip-flop about rights, freedom, ex's, premies, etc. I was only able to sort it out by going back to what purpose this forum serves. I love posting and reading here, and was overwhelmed at the responses to the H&J thread. I had told Katie that I was concerned about how much support there would be for harsher measures than ignore them - they'll go away being taken by me. But as for premies being quoted in articles - it ain't gonna happen anyway. Reporters will first seek out Maharaji. He'll ignore their requests for interviews. They will also search the web and clipping services for information, which will lead them here. We will always get to talk first because premies will mimic Maharaji's ignore it - it will go away approach to problematic requests for honest answers to tough questions. He, and his devotees, can ignore it all they want. The ex's here have shown that they are more than willing to deal with it, and the truth will get published far more often and widely than the silence eminating from Maharaji. Reporters aren't stupid. None of them bought into Millennium, although I'm sure that they had lots of fun covering that circus. Only Maharaji and his premies actually thought that there was anything newsworthy going on. BTW, I don't have the code in place to limit posts yet. I'll get to it soon. Meanwhile the lads can read. Vacol will have far more daily posting access than Petrou. Unfortunately the smallest non-zero number that the computer recognizes is ONE, so Petrou had better use it wisely or watch it wither and die under his keyboard. Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, Apr 23, 1998 at 14:32:43 (EST)
From: JW Email: None To: Brian Subject: My testimony: Part 1 Message: Brian, I disagree that premies won't be quoted. Big M won't respond himself, but he has a PR point person and there are a number of people around him that are very articulate, and fairly sophisticated in PR, which has mainly been 'below the radar' in the last 15 years. No, reporters aren't stupid, but they also aren't very well informed on what they are covering and they are pretty lazy. They just do the 'pro' and 'con' stuff and move on. You usually have only one chance to get your point accross, and no chance for follow-up. Plus, once the idea, for example, of censoring premies gets out, you might be dealing with that irrelevent issue for a long time. For anyone or anything about to be discussed, the key principle is 'give as little room for attack as possible.' Clearly, that's what Big M has tried to do. And I think it's a sophisticated strategy, not something he just stumbled into. 'Censorship' (especially banning) is just a hot issue, and something people can understand more easily than cult programming. So, reporters, being the lazy people that they are, will glom on to it and won't have the time or space to go into all the explanation details. That's why I really like the 'limit the number' approach to the 'banning' approach. I think it's hard to find that such a hot issue. It just seems more reasonable. What can some premie say: 'they only let me post X posts per day.' Big deal. Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, Apr 23, 1998 at 15:07:35 (EST)
From: John Email: None To: JW Subject: Huh Message: 'Plus, once the idea, for example, of censoring premies gets out, you might be dealing with that irrelevent issue for a long time' Gets out to where, to who,? The press? What am I missing here? You don't really think that this will become a news item do you? Why would anyone care? I mean, if M has not made the news for 20 years, why would our merry little band of ex's make the news for banning Petrou from our Forum? Perhaps you mean it becomes known in the premie community that we don't allow freedom of speech on our forum. Well, hell's bells, they are not even allowed to HAVE a forum! That said, I believe I have changed my mind. I think it's more trouble than it's worth to ban or limit anyone. I think the harm that Petrou and others will do for their cause is worth the hassle it is having them around. Petrou really is a priceless example of a cult member. Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, Apr 23, 1998 at 15:12:41 (EST)
From: VP Email: None To: John Subject: Huh Message: John, Good points, but are you willing to archive this stuff every day or two for Brian? VP Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, Apr 23, 1998 at 15:36:27 (EST)
From: John Email: None To: VP Subject: I don't understand Message: Ya know, I've realized that I don't fully understand Brian's problem. I thought it was more a problem with the 'content' of the premie's posts. That the content was offensive. NOt the sheer number of the posts. Are you saying that there are so many posts that Brian has to archive more often? But that does not make sense to me because isn't the whole point for the forum to grow and attract more and more people who post? Somehow we need to automate the archiving process, if that's possible. Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, Apr 23, 1998 at 15:25:42 (EST)
From: JW Email: None To: John Subject: Huh Message: John, this is what I meant about it (censorship) getting out and getting a life of it's own. Suppose People Magazine, the New Yorker, or somebody decides to do article on M, premies, cults, etc. They get a bunch of stuff off the site, including what a lot of us exes are saying about his past, etc on the forum. So, they then go to M's PR person or some premie and that person says like: 'you can't take what is said on the forum as being anything reliable. It is very distorted and one sided. My god, they have even BANNED some premies from posting, because they don't like what they say and aren't interested in a balanced discussion, that are just out to bash M, etc..' So, let's say that gets printed. If Brian or someone responds, the answer is likely to be kind of complicated: 'we only censor in certain circumstances, etc' and my point was that is unlikely to get published, or noticed if it is. So, then some reporter down the road does ANOTHER article. One of the things the reporter will do is look at what has already been published. Precious little in the last 15 years as you know. But there is that People Magazine article that says the forum is biased because it censors people. So, Brian might, again, have to try to get someone to pay attention to the fact that the FIRST and now SECOND articles are incomplete in the way they are talking about censorship. I have seen this happen a lot when I worked in PR. Some information gets repeated and takes on a life of it's own and it's very hard to correct and stop it, because reporters are very lazy people, have deadlines, limited space, and the correction is not very sexy, not as sexy as cries of censorship are. So, the advice is: Try to avoid giving the opening in the first place, if you possibly can. And John, I agree with you about banning people, but I think I understand more what Brian is dealing with, so I guess I'm backing down from my leftie libertarianism and I think Brian should be able to LIMIT THE NUMBER of posts from people having problems. And I think that WON'T be such a problem if the press does get wind of it. Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, Apr 23, 1998 at 16:04:38 (EST)
From: John Email: None To: JW Subject: Best defense a good offense Message: Have you ever thought of submitting an article like the one you are imagining might get written? You write very well, and I think that given the subject matter, it really would not take you very long to write it. Really, there is so much on this forum that could be used. Of course, given the bland nature of M and his message I can't see much interest in it, but if it was done right, maybe with a lot of humor, some mag might want to pick it up. Then again, there's always Jerry Springer. Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, Apr 23, 1998 at 17:54:00 (EST)
From: Brian Email: brian@ex-premie.org To: JW Subject: So what Message: So it get's out that people who pay for an online forum think that gives them the right to determine who can participate in it? Who's gonna stop the presses and run with this hot story? If it were headline news would you feel that you had to explain that to someone? Or that they would even care? What's the big problem here, other than you maybe feeling that you might no longer be able to allow yourself to wear a white hat or whatever. Is the fact that you don't let just anyone drive your car a fact that you fear will get out? What if it does? So we're assholes? So what? Does that mean that Maharaji is actually the Lord Of The Universe? Or that you've blundered into yielding some moral high-ground in some sort of struggle to see who's nicer - premies or ex-premies? I couldn't care less. And I'm posting it on a forum where everyone can see it. Do you see any premies jumping into this debate? Cause I sure don't. Somehow I feel that the issue is WAY smaller than you're building it into in your crazy mind :) Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, Apr 23, 1998 at 18:22:57 (EST)
From: JW Email: None To: Brian Subject: So what Message: No Brian, that isn't my point at all. I'm not worried that it 'gets out.' It also has nothing whatsoever to do with my 'feelings' as I could care less what people think of me in regard to Maharaji and of course you have the 'right' to exclude anyone you want to. That also has absolutely nothing to do with my point. Maybe I didn't express myself clearly, or maybe you just disagree. I'm just saying that whatever press gets generated, using information from the forum, I think it's better that it not be discounted in the eyes of readers because we have unnecessarily given guru-apologists a reason for doing so. And I think censorship on the forum potentially provides that and maybe we shouldn't do it if we don't have to. That's all. That's my point. Period. So, I've made my point. I think it's significant, maybe you don't think so. And I'm not trying to piss you off, just trying to be helpful. Sorry I mentioned it. Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, Apr 23, 1998 at 19:16:27 (EST)
From: Katie Email: None To: JW Subject: So what Message: Dear JW - I hear what you are saying about 'whatever press gets generated, using information from the forum, I think it's better that it not be discounted in the eyes of readers because we have unnecessarily given guru-apologists a reason for doing so.' In other words, you are concerned that banning certain premies may give the appearance of censorship, right? And that will make any information gained from the forum appear biased. I have another point to make regarding the topic, which is that any press person is likely to take more information from the site than the forum. I think it would be hard to get much of a story from the forum, personally, unless one read it for weeks or months. And the site itself is admittedly and unashamedly an ex-premie site - premies aren't allowed to write dissenting opinions except in the 'letters to the site' portion. Also, Mili and CD constantly discount the information on both the site and forum and they are allowed to post here whenever they want. If someone asked them, I am sure they would say that much of the material about M on both the site and the forum was exaggerated, one-sided propaganda. So you can't win, really. Just another consideration... Regards from Katie Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, Apr 23, 1998 at 19:30:24 (EST)
From: JW Email: None To: Katie Subject: So what Message: Katie: Maybe I'm beating a dead horse here. I thought it was a simple point, but maybe I'm just hysterically over-reacting like Brian says. Well, really, my concern is that it gives M and PREMIES the right to SAY that the forum is biased BECAUSE it's censored. By NOT censoring, but maybe just LIMITING, they lose that argument. Clearly, the forum is 'ex-premie,' but we, as opposed to the cult, do allow premies to present their side, and premies actually do. That increases the credibility of the forum, because although started by exes, it is nonetheless open to comments by premies. And I disagree. There really is precious little available about M OTHER than this forum, that isn't 25 years old, except from EV. So, the forum might be one of a very few sources, maybe the only one. And I can just see an EV PR person saying the forum is biased because they won't even let premies give M's side because they ban people who cause them problems. I know that isn't what really would be happening, but that's the appearance, and the premies would certainly use it to their advantage, and the press isn't good at making fine distinctions in this area. Thanks for your comments. Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Fri, Apr 24, 1998 at 11:12:35 (EST)
From: Still Crazy Email: None To: JW Subject: So what Message: JW, I don't think you're 'hysterically overreacting' at all. While, as I said, I don't think I have much right to say how the forum should be run, since I'm such a newbie, I haven't had to speak up, because you've been saying exactly what I felt. Thanks for your effort. -Still Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Fri, Apr 24, 1998 at 11:41:32 (EST)
From: Robyn Email: sundogs@hotmail.com To: JW Subject: to JW and Brian Message: Dear JW and Brian, I just want to let you know I've been reading everything and not posting much, to busy. I see what you are saying and think it is valid. We are in a fish bowl here on the web and are the 1st site to come up, for me anyway, when I've done a search on M. I don't think any of us cares what anyone thinks of us personally but I think it is important that the public is not mislead by premies crying censorship. I am extreemly conserned for Brian in all of this. He does to much now and the actual work of archiving more for excessive posting is to much to ask, and the overload of worry for him over forum policy is just unthinkable. I think you would agree, JW. I think a committee could be formed to hash all this out. I see Still Crazy mentioned being on a committee that didn't get a majority opinion first and that the committee disbanned I'm not sure I get how this would work but I'd like to read more about it. Right now I am writting on the forum, have another instance of Netscape open and I'm printing archives. I have another computer going printing archives and I'm doing email on a 3rd! No wonder I don't understand what Still Crazy was saying! Have a great weekend! Robyn Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Sat, Apr 25, 1998 at 13:35:12 (EST)
From: Scott T. Email: None To: Robyn Subject: Greek riding computers Message: Robyn: Had to laugh out loud at your Greek computer riding technique. (Greek riding is standing while riding up to six horses at the same time, while Roman riding is standing on just one.) I thought you were supposed to be a techno-novice! -Scott Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Mon, Apr 27, 1998 at 12:49:51 (EST)
From: Robyn Email: sundogs@hotmail.com To: Scott T. Subject: Greek riding computers Message: Dear Scott, Necessity is the Mother of invention! Robyn Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Fri, Apr 24, 1998 at 14:10:56 (EST)
From: Katie Email: petkat@mail.trib.net To: JW Subject: So what Message: Hi JW, I am beginning to see your point, but I think you, I, and Brian (and Still Crazy and Robyn) are on the same side, which is: We don't want to ban people, but limiting posts might be OK under certain circumstances. If this isn't what you are saying, please let me know. Regards, Katie P.S. I don't think you're hysterical, either (I hate that word. If you know the derivation of it, you'll know why.) Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Fri, Apr 24, 1998 at 15:11:10 (EST)
From: VP Email: None To: Katie Subject: So what Message: Katie, I agree with that after listening to JW's impassioned (not hysterical) posts. I just was concerned with Petrou's motives and actions, not really with the content of his posts. If people are kept from threats, spamming and making too much work for the Shri webmaster then I agree--let's let em speak. VP Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Fri, Apr 24, 1998 at 20:17:07 (EST)
From: Robyn Email: sundogs@hotmail.com To: VP Subject: So what Message: Dear VP, I think spamming is disgusting. Jade's paternal grandmother use to send me, in the mail, books, spam and corn beef hash. Jade's dad would try to get those canned meats away from me because he loved them. I'd be racing to open them and get them into the dog's dish. I know that is not what you are talking about but I always think of that when I hear that word on the news or that phone commercial. Robyn Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Fri, Apr 24, 1998 at 22:27:07 (EST)
From: VP Email: None To: Robyn Subject: Spam Message: I agree. Spam is even worse than Tofu. The dog's dish is where it belongs, Robyn:) Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Sat, Apr 25, 1998 at 13:22:53 (EST)
From: Scott T. Email: None To: JW Subject: So what Message: JW: Sorry I posted this late. Had some trouble with my browser when this thread was 'hot.' I really can't imagine anyone attempting to make the point that followers of Maharaji are not allowed to say whatever they want on the anti-Maharaji website. This does not strike me as a plausible line of argument. If I'm missing something how about writing a short paragraph indicating how the story might sound. Right now, that line of argument just seems implausible. It's not a 'free speech' issue. Who is keeping followers from saying whatever they want, wherever they want, at their own expense? We simply are not choosing to subsidize them, that's all. Again, what am I missing? -Scott Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Sun, Apr 26, 1998 at 21:10:55 (EST)
From: JW Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: So what Message: Scott, you said: 'I really can't imagine anyone attempting to make the point that followers of Maharaji are not allowed to say whatever they want on the anti-Maharaji website. This does not strike me as a plausible line of argument.' You're kidding right? Where have you been? That premies are excluded from saying what they like on the 'anti-maharaji' are exactly the arguments Messrs. Petrou and Vacol are making at this very moment. So, that the argument will be made is not only plausible, it's already happening. But, we don't know yet if the censoring will ever become a part of any publication that undermines the credibility of the forum or not. But as I say below, I'll bet those guys have already told EV people that they got kicked off the forum. You can bet on it. Then you said: ' If I'm missing something how about writing a short paragraph indicating how the story might sound.' Whether we like it or not, the forum is one of the few, and perhaps the only, public information available about Maharaji and his cult that isn't 20 years old. So, anyone doing an article on the subject will probably get information from the forum, most of which is not the most flattering to Big M. If M's PR person has any brains, he or she, when confronted with said unflattering information, will, among other things, say the forum is biased, and, as evidence that the forum is biased, it doesn't give free access to premies who might tell the other side of the story, because when premies become problems for the 'anti-Maharaji' leaders of the forum, those premies have been banned. [I would bet my house that Petrou and Vacol have been on the horn to EV to tell them this already.] So, when the article is written it might say 'There is an anti-maharaji website with a forum with former followers of M saying thus and such [insert whatever information we'd love to have in an article because we ex-premies are trying hard to keep M from covering over], but premies claim that the forum is biased because it does not give premies free access to correct information, etc., and it does appear that although premies have posted on the forum defending M, some attempting to post on the forum have been prevented from doing so by those running the website. In at least two cases, premies attempting to post have actually been banned from the site.' It's good to get the info in the article, I would just prefer they not be able to say the last caveat which, at least to some degree, reduces our credibility in my opinion. Then you said: 'Who is keeping followers from saying whatever they want, wherever they want, at their own expense? We simply are not choosing to subsidize them, that's all. Again, what am I missing?' Nobody is preventing premies from saying what they want 'at their own expense' and that is a good point except it's irrelevent to the point I'm making, which is: censorship undermines the credibility of the forum and the information on the forum. Because it gives guru-apologists an argument for undermining the credibility of the information on the forum. In this particular discussion, I am not addressing concerns about whether or not premies get to say what they want. It's not a free speech issue, it's a PR/credibility issue. The free speech issue is entirely separate. I'm most concerned about the credibility of the information a lot of us worked hard to get put on the website over the past year. Whenever it gets wider distribution, I would like it to have the maximum credibility possible, and we shouldn't do anything to undermine that unless we really have to. Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Sun, Apr 26, 1998 at 22:39:28 (EST)
From: VP Email: None To: JW Subject: So what Message: JW, I agree with you that censorship would undermine the credibility of the forum, but only among some of the readers and participants here. I think this point is irrelevant to Elan Vital. If they do prefer that premies not use the internet, why would they care if premies are prevented from participating in this site? I would think that they would want premies to stay away from here, IF that is their official stand on the net. What reporter is going to give any comment from an EV spokesperson credibility anyway? What reader, besides a premie will? Also, I have heard that Elan Vital refused to cooperate with the latest outside publication about M, anyway. Don't get me wrong, I think that the censoring of someone would be a bad idea, just not for the same reasons that you do. VP Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Mon, Apr 27, 1998 at 10:59:28 (EST)
From: Robyn Email: sundogs@hotmail.com To: VP Subject: So what Message: Dear VP, and Joe, I agree with Joe here. What EV really feels about the net is imaterial and I think they would 'use' anything they could to discredit the forum if they got a chance. It doesn't matter that they don't want premies discussing M on the web just that they could use a ban to say we discourage premies from equal access to forum so as to not have to spport our distorted views of M and EV. Robyn Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Mon, Apr 27, 1998 at 13:04:21 (EST)
From: JW -- Exactly, Robyn! Email: None To: Robyn Subject: So what Message: EXACTLY!!!!!! And thank you for saying it apparently better than I can. Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Mon, Apr 27, 1998 at 14:41:58 (EST)
From: VP Email: None To: Robyn and Joe Subject: So what Message: All I am saying is who (in the real world) is going to read anything that a cult spokesperson has to say and not shake their head? People in the cult, and maybe a few open-minded folks. Most everyone else will just kind of laugh and think that it's nuts. Maybe that is why EV has chosen and continues to choose not to cooperate with the media outside of their own operation. Any comment they made would be percieved with bias so it doesn't behoove them to comment. (Or maybe they believe they are above having to explain themselves to reporters.) I've been on the outside looking in for a long time and most people just don't take this stuff seriously. 'Mainstream America' wants to know about it and read about it and they want to make sure it isn't happening next door to them. They are going to take any statement coming out of a cult headquarters as being a load of 'hooey'. I'm not shaking in my shoes about what EV may say to a reporter about us is all I'm saying here. I'm not saying blocking someone is good. I may be wrong...we'll know soon enough. I'll buy JW some tofu and Robyn a tanning session if you guys are right. How does that sound?:) Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Mon, Apr 27, 1998 at 15:08:20 (EST)
From: Robyn Email: sundogs@hotmail.com To: VP Subject: So what Message: Dear VP, Not to look a gift horse in the mouth but I'd rather a day at the beach since it's a gift! Thanks. I still agree with JW though, why take a chance. Not for mainstream America or mainstream global as we aren't just in the US, we are a selfcentered bunch in that way, us Americans. The point in my mind/heart is more turning off aspirants, fence post premies and those ex's that need to be here. Any of those groups could become apprehensive with that bad press looming. Hopefully it won't come to that. Robyn Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Mon, Apr 27, 1998 at 15:29:14 (EST)
From: JW Email: None To: VP Subject: So what Message: Well, VP, you might be right, but you are better informed about M than 99.99999% of the population about M. Sure, IF, it's perceived as a 'cult' likely little EV says will be believed. But why do you assume it will be perceived as a cult? M has spent the last 15 years staying below the radar of the press, but otherwise portrays himself as a meditation teacher who is just helping people find a nice place inside that's peaceful. There aren't ashrams, communities, renunciates, Hindi trappings, outgrageous claims to save the world, etc, and he goes to the outback of Australia to give darshan (a HUGE PR mistake in my opinion, (giving darshan, not going to Australia)). He may seem fairly innocuous to most people, or maybe reformed from who he used to be. Ostensibly, what he says sounds quite reasonable, even though we know it isn't all that is really going on. What I'm saying is that the general public probably won't look at what EV says with as many grains of salt as we would, given what we know. And the only counterweight to EV is this website. And if EV says something that is actually true, and we can't deny it, that might actually INCREASE the credibility of EV, as well as reduce the credibility of information from the forum. But you may be right. I just think we shouldn't take the chance, and apparently we aren't going to. Tofu can be good, but tanning sessions are bad for your skin. I don't know about Robyn, but a bottle of good cabernet would be very nice. You will also have to get something for Rick and Still Crazy, too. Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Mon, Apr 27, 1998 at 15:55:51 (EST)
From: VP Email: None To: JW Subject: So what Message: ' Sure, IF, it's perceived as a 'cult' likely little EV says will be believed. But why do you assume it will be perceived as a cult?' JW, Without saying too much more, I'm sure this is a geographical bias of mine, don't you think? I just thought about that. Maybe in other places this wouldn't be the case. I am sure that a writer would more likely than not bring up the gooroo's past. This would clue the reader in to the cult aspect if they weren't aware of it before. Scientology is a video based seemingly harmless new age program, and most people I know think this is a cult. Could be the geography... I am with Robyn about wanting to keep the credibility of the forum for the questioning people who may be reading here. I doubt anyone else cares, (like in the public media, but that is just my opinion.) Okay, wine it is for you. Still Crazy and Rick have to fend for themselves:) VP Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Mon, Apr 27, 1998 at 17:43:48 (EST)
From: Scott T. Email: None To: VP Subject: Wall Drug Message: Personally, I think 'Wall Drug' is a cult. Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Mon, Apr 27, 1998 at 17:53:17 (EST)
From: Robyn Email: sundogs@hotmail.com To: Scott T. Subject: Wall Drug Message: Dear Scott, What is Wall Drug!? Robyn Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Tues, Apr 28, 1998 at 10:13:33 (EST)
From: Katie Email: petkat@mail.trib.net To: Robyn Subject: Wall Drug Message: Hi Robyn - I see that this question is too complicated for Scott to answer (just kidding, Scott!). Wall Drug is a drugstore in South Dakota. It is a tourist attraction (trap) for some unknown reason - sort of like 'South of the Border' in South Carolinia. I think because it's the only possible tourist attraction for hundreds of miles? I don't know. Anyway, lots of people have bumperstickers that say 'I've been to Wall Drug' (maybe this is why Scott thinks it's a cult!). I have never been there but I've heard from friends who have that it's basically full of junky nick-nack, etc. Gotta go to work! Katie Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Tues, Apr 28, 1998 at 10:59:08 (EST)
From: Robyn Email: sundogs@hotmail.com To: Katie Subject: Wall Drug Message: Dear Katie, Thanks for the info. It is like when someone I know here says a persons name and I say, I don't know them (which is most often the case) and they say you should be happy! I am listening to Bonnie Raitt right now! Thanks. Robyn Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Tues, Apr 28, 1998 at 23:57:59 (EST)
From: Selena Email: None To: Katie Subject: Wall Drug Message: Hi Katie, good to hear from you. I have been wondering where you were. Wall Drug sounds like 'the thing' in the south. Have you seen it? billboards for miles saying 'don't miss the thing' and 'you are getting closer to the thing' and 'the thing, don't miss it!' Then when you get there it's nothing but a dumb gift shop. Some band did a verse about it, can't remember, I think it was a female alternative from the late 80's early 90's. Now I am going to obsess on this so if anyone knows please post. Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Wed, Apr 29, 1998 at 10:43:03 (EST)
From: Katie Email: None To: Selena Subject: Wall Drug Message: Hi Selena - I have been around, and I've even been reading the forum, but I've also been working for Brian. He's a real slave driver! 'The Thing' sounds real familiar to me, but I can't place it either. I asked my husband about Wall Drug and he said it's the same deal. Billboards for hundreds of miles each way and then it's just an old drugstore that is now a cheesy gift shop. (He has been there, though!) Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Mon, Apr 27, 1998 at 00:24:27 (EST)
From: Scott T. Email: None To: JW Subject: What free speech issue... Message: JW: That premies are excluded from saying what they like on the 'anti-Maharaji' are exactly the arguments Messrs. Petrou and Vacol are making at this very moment. VP, I live in a city where people make arguments about 'free speech' all the time, so I have a feel as to what kinds of things would be considered 'plausible' in the real world. If I told someone on the Post, say Tom Edsal, about this 'argument' of Vacol and Petrou's it would strike him as so odd that he would probably just shake his head. I mean, if I took it seriously I'd be in danger of undermining my own credibility, just by mentioning it. I don't care what P or V had said, or what they've told EV. No one would take their argument seriously enough to even waste ink on it. I read your paragraph, and it my opinion no one would even submit that to an editor. I think it's noble of you to want to give premies a chance to say their piece, but the American public would just change the channel. There is nothing here to interest them, and there is certainly no plausible free speech issue. You may have an argument that comes down to supporting an 'unconstrained dialogue,' but this is way beyond the public's comprehension or interest. Perhaps in 50 years. In the public's mind the only credibility this site has is whether it can produce verifiable evidence of fraud, or if it can tell a good story about a charlatan. I mean, all you'd have to do to win over the public is mention the golden toilets. It's 'not rocket science.' A free speech issue would have to do with whether premies were allowed to give their side in an article, or a documentary, and they wouldn't hold us responsible, they'd hold People or Time or Newsweek responsible. In short, what I'm saying is that the American public, and the American media, don't think like you, and you don't think like them. You may be better than they are, but I just want you to see the difference. -Scott Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Mon, Apr 27, 1998 at 13:57:41 (EST)
From: JW Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: NOT a free speech issue... Message: Scott, you said: 'If I told someone on the Post, say Tom Edsal, about this 'argument' of Vacol and Petrou's it would strike him as so odd that he would probably just shake his head. I mean, if I took it seriously I'd be in danger of undermining my own credibility, just by mentioning it.' First, Scott, you wouldn't be telling the reporter, EV would. The only reason P's and V's, and subsequently EV's, argument has 'credibility' is that there's truth in it. It's not just an entirely made up lie. They have, in fact, been banned. And if a reporter asks Brian whether, in fact, premies HAVE been banned, he would have to say 'yes, but' when it would be better for him to say 'no' which would kill the argument. And the only reason it matters is that printing that 'truth' would undermine the ONLY public information on M that he doesn't personally control. Scott, then you said: 'I don't care what P or V had said, or what they've told EV. No one would take their argument seriously enough to even waste ink on it. I read your paragraph, and it my opinion no one would even submit that to an editor.' I completely disagree. You could be right, but why take that chance if you don't have to? If EV discredits information in an article coming from the forum claiming bias and using actual censorship as evidence, I think any reporter worth his or her salt will have to give it credence and check it out. And, since it happens to be true, my bet is that it would get printed. And Brian's explanation likely won't be printed because it's too complicated. 'Yes we did ban people, but only .........' A reporter is going to hear from this confirmation of EV's argument, and I don't like that. The information on the website is too rare and important to have it discredited, again, unless you really have to do it (censorship). Scott, believe me, I have seen this happen a lot in news articles. In PR, one of the major preventative strategies is to avoid giving the opening in the first place. As I said, reporters want to write in a 'pro' and 'con' viewpoint, and persist in it no matter how discredited one side might be. It's just the way it works. For example, there currently is a book out written by a woman whose name escapes me at the moment, the subject of which is people and organizations that deny the holocaust. When her book came out, she was asked to be interviewed on TV and radio, and in print, but the news outlets insisted on having a representative of a holacaust denial group on with her (because of the knee-jerk requirement to give both a 'pro' and 'con' to everything). Now, we all know that there isn't a non-lunatic person around who can really deny the holacaust. It isn't a legitimate position and shouldn't be given air time. In fact, this author decided not to do interviews because it just gave air time to crazy holacaust denial viewpoints. I know that is extreme, but that's how the media works. And this case, the reporters are going to be woefully uninformed on the subject, much less informed than they are on the holacaust, but will probably still want to give 'pro' and 'con' sides. This is ESPECIALLY true for media that has the widest audience (People, Time, Newsweek, etc.,), as opposed to more scholarly publications (like the Nation, the New Republic, etc.), which have TINY circulations by comparison and probably wouldn't even cover the issue of gurus, cults, etc. anyway. And you are again mixing up the free speech and the credibility issues. By doing so you've complicated the subject. I do have a 'free speech' issue personally about this, but your references to free speech are misplaced here in regard to this issue. I think Robyn summed it up pretty succinctly in her post up above. I don't know if the American public thinks about free speech like me or anyone else. It's a pretty big group after all. But again, that's irrlelvent. What the American public is, when it comes to M, is UNINFORMED. All but a tiny fraction are only going to know what they read or hear about in the media. They aren't going to be able to make sophisticated judgments about who is telling the truth because they are only going to have the information in the article. And, in that article, if it's suggested that one side is said is biased, and there is some support fot that, that side, and the information that comes from it, just loses some weight in the eyes of an incredibly uninformed reader. But maybe you juse see this subject as less significant than I do. I guess there we will just have to agree to disagree. Joe |
|
Date: Mon, Apr 27, 1998 at 15:22:19 (EST)
From: Scott T. Which is worse, Email: None To: JW Subject: weird or biased. Message: Joe: They aren't going to be able to make sophisticated judgments about who is telling the truth because they are only going to have the information in the article. And, in that article, if it's suggested that one side is said is biased, and there is some support for that, that side, and the information that comes from it, just loses some weight in the eyes of an incredibly uninformed reader. Philip Converse did a study on voters in the US called appropriately, The American Voter. He concluded that only about 2% of the public votes ideologically in the sense that they are ideologically 'sophisticated' and that they know the position of their congressman and compare that to their own. The 'high' estimate for this is 20%. I've thought a good deal about why you might believe this is an important issue (clearly, I don't) and I think it's probably because you are looking at it from the perspective of a minority. You know, I would put this to someone I know in the media (Joel Garreau, who wrote 'Edge Cities' and who is on the Post staff, is about two doors down) but I can't even think how to phrase it. I suppose there is a knee jerk reaction to the term 'banned' so that anyone associated with banning anyone for any reason is suspect. But, the word 'censored' has connotations that are almost as bad. Surely you aren't suggesting that we take no steps to protect the integrity of the forum? I just see it as much ado about nothing. The fact that we allow cult members to publish information telling each other about upcoming cult events and personal appearances by the cult leader is much more likely to undermine our credibility. Why? Because it's weird! Weird = bad. The idea that anyone might consider this site unbiased, or that being biased is detrimental to its credibility, just doesn't sink in with me. I can't even imagine anyone in the general public being able to make the distinction between a premie site, and a non-premie site for instance. Let's see... we have an anti cult site that doesn't allow some cult members to post. The immediate question that comes to mind is: 'What! Do mean you allow some cult members to post? Why? Are they friends of yours or something?' Do you see what I'm saying? Well, anyway I'll ask around if I can think of a way to put the question. Maybe someone can explain it to me. -Scott Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Mon, Apr 27, 1998 at 15:36:06 (EST)
From: JW Email: None To: Scott T. Which is worse, Subject: weird or biased. Message: Scott, we are entirely missing each other here. I think we need to take whatever steps need to be taken to protect the forum and I have never said otherwise. As I have said repeatedly, I agree that it's probably okay to 'limit' posts if someone becomes a problem. That denies the 'banning' argument. I also never said the forum wouldn't be considered 'unbiased' just because we don't ban people. But banning gives what may be perceived as concrete evidence or bias, and that's what we shouldn't do, again, unless we really have to, and apparently we don't have to. We've beaten this subject to death, Scott, time to move on. Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Mon, Apr 27, 1998 at 14:50:15 (EST)
From: VP Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: Was that for JW Message: Scott, I agree with that post completely. But I'm confused as to why it was addressed to me. Did you mean to address that to JW or did I not make my point susinctly? No one else cares, but us and the premies. VP Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Mon, Apr 27, 1998 at 14:53:14 (EST)
From: VP Email: None To: VP Subject: succinctly Message: oops! I need spell check! Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Mon, Apr 27, 1998 at 15:49:50 (EST)
From: Scott T. Email: None To: VP Subject: Was that for JW Message: VP: Sorry VP, I got you confused with JP Morgan. (Is that the female jazz vocalist, or the banking rogue?) -Scott Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Mon, Apr 27, 1998 at 15:58:54 (EST)
From: VP Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: Was that for JW Message: I am pretty sure that I would qualify for rogue these days :) VP Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Tues, Apr 28, 1998 at 00:01:20 (EST)
From: Brian Email: brian@ex-premie.org To: JW Subject: So what Message: There is an anti-maharaji website with a forum with former followers of M saying thus and such [insert whatever information we'd love to have in an article because we ex-premies are trying hard to keep M from covering over], but premies claim that the forum is biased because it does not give premies free access to correct information, etc., and it does appear that although premies have posted on the forum defending M, some attempting to post on the forum have been prevented from doing so by those running the website. In at least two cases, premies attempting to post have actually been banned from the site. Okay, JW. I see what you mean now. This is what I was asking when I originally started this sub-thread. You were essentially warning me about the dangers of driving with an oil-warning light on. My question was how this little light could possibly prove dangerous. I wanted to know what possible danger lurked that I wasn't seeing. I wasn't trying to imply that I don't care about any danger, just ignorant of the one you had in mind is all. Your example article clarified it for me and I have seen this sort of reporting before. In any case, unless the code is broken and I don't know it, the lads seem to not want to post right now. Boys, if you're out there and you can't post, email me cause it's broken. Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, Apr 23, 1998 at 14:12:46 (EST)
From: JW Email: None To: Brian Subject: My testimony: Part 1 Message: Brian, I just wanted to say one other thing. I have worked a lot with the press, and, unfortuntely, the 'sound bite' and the fact that there is this knee-jerk view in the press that there are (only) two sides to everything is how it works. It is nearly impossible to control. In the area of attacks on the forum, the old adage 'less is more' holds true. If the forum is about to get press, I think we should be prepared for that, and give as little for the guru-apologists to hang their hat on that we can. There is almost never the opportunity to explain-away a technically correct attack, and if there is, almost nobody will see it. Of course, I agree, that you have to do what you have to do to keep the forum functioning, and I freely admit, that I likely have no idea what you have to put up with. Regarding the bill of rights, I think you are on solid ground. The courts have consistently put limits on rights that infringe on the freedom and security of others. ['Yelling fire in a crowded movie theater' is not protected 'free speech,' but burning the American flag is. And there is no constitutional right to welfare, but there is also no requirement that someone work either if they are willing to bear the consequences. And animals have no consistional rights either.] All those 'rights' have come from the people or the legislature deciding to pass laws addressing them. It's a constant back-and-forth to figure out what is the best way to address these issues, and it's always kind of messy, and clearly the forum, and how it is structured, is no different. It's like what Winston Churchill said. 'Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.' Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Sat, Apr 25, 1998 at 13:48:50 (EST)
From: Scott T. Email: None To: JW Subject: public views in retrospect Message: JW: This whole thread about the impact of 'banning' premies on the perceptions of outsiders, somehow hurting the anti-Maharaji cause, is just very perplexing. Can you imagine an American public not already predisposed to despise the Guru? It's a biased public, and it's biased toward our side of the argument. People are sensitive to free speech issues, but there is no free speech issue here. We are, in the eyes of the public, the anti-Guru guys. Hence, we are the good guys. They don't give a damn whether we let the premies speak on our website or not. It is assumed we are biased, and we would be suspect in the public's eyes if we were not! Believe it or not, that's the way it works. -Scott Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Mon, Apr 27, 1998 at 14:01:26 (EST)
From: JW Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: public views in retrospect Message: Scott, I think I've said all that I want to say about this. I also think it may be moot issue anyway, because I understand Brian intends to just limit postings by people who are causing problems (at least when he gets the software in place) and does not intend to ban anyone in the future anyway. As I said above, I can accept that, because it eliminates the 'banning' argument of the guru-apologists. Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Mon, Apr 27, 1998 at 15:38:34 (EST)
From: Scott T. Email: None To: JW Subject: public views in retrospect Message: Joe: So, do you feel that the word 'banned' is inherently a lot more negative than the word 'censored?' Just asking. I don't want to solicit another response from you. We've about beaten this to death anyway, but the sense of the post I made below could be summed up this way. The biggest hit we take in terms of credibility is a result of the fact the we are ex-cult members. In other words, we are already just a little bit more stupid than the general public (in their eyes) because they never fell for the Guru in the first place. But, at least we've come around. That's nice... (Imagine being patted on the head.) I guess that we might be seen as something like 'disgruntled employees' or something. In other words, it's just an issue that of interest to current and past members, and WE (the innocent public) need not get involved or even form an opinion. In the sense that 'banned' makes us look more like ex-cultists, and therefore engaged in an insular family squabble, then I see your point. But the problem is that we ARE ex-cult members. I don't see how we can come off looking like a university study or something. -Scott Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Mon, Apr 27, 1998 at 17:32:00 (EST)
From: JW Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: public views in retrospect Message: More talking past each other Scott, I think it's a really simple point that I think you are making a lot more complicated. Of course we will be viewed as ex-cult members, but other than that, the forum is open discussion, unless we ban people. Further, if we just limit the number of posts occasionally, I don't think either of the words 'ban' or 'censor' can be used. Neither of them. 'Banning' prevents posting, 'censoring' alters the content of a post. Moreover, then all Brian has to say is: 'No, we have never banned or censored posters and have always allowed premies to participate. On ___ occasions, we did have to limit the NUMBER of posts because someone was jamming the site, but at no time have we ever prevented anyone, premie or ex-premie, from saying what they want to say on the forum. Indeed, if there is anything stated on the forum that is incorrect, premies, M and EV, have had every opportunity to correct it, or supply more complete information. Besides, as former cult-members, we know that M is all about LIMITING information and discussion about him and his cult. We believe open discussion and sharing of information among premies ex-premies, will reveal Big M for what he really is.' It's call the high ground. Scott, don't you see that that's a LOT better than saying 'yes we have banned people, but only ____ times'? I mean, you may be right and no one will even care or pay attention, but why should we take that chance, when we clearly don't have to? Anyway, we also could take the view that since we are going to be viewed as biased anyway, and nobody cares, why don't we just make up shit? Jim has already suggested this and I have always found it an interesting possibility. Granted, I know it would be hard to make things up more unbelievable than the stuff that has actually happened in regard to M and DLM, but I'm sure we could come up with some really great stuff about M, that he has engaged in: human sacrifice, canibalism, murder, orgies, drugs, polygamy, littering, smoking in non-smoking areas, tearing the 'do not remove' tags from pillows, spitting in public, failing to return shopping carts, failing to recycle, and wearing white pants after Labor Day. I'm sure we can present such an image that the public will have a negative view of him. And just think, EV would spend all it's time denying things, which we can just repeat over and over. Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Fri, Apr 24, 1998 at 08:57:14 (EST)
From: Scott T. Email: None To: Brian Subject: Negative vs Positive Freedom Message: Brian: It's the same stupid obedience that allowed a corporal to command large powerful armies in Europe. To which one are you referring, the French or the German version? Also, it's important to point out the difference between 'positive' and 'negative' freedoms. Negative freedoms, and the associated rights, have had greater status in the US system. These are the freedom from interference of various kinds, especially from government and religious institutions. Positive freedoms have been growing, but are much less 'legitimate' and are tolerated for the sake of redress for past injustice. They have greater constraints placed on them. I'm not sure where I come down on this, but think I support the overall premise that negative freedom supersedes positive freedom. -Scott Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, Apr 23, 1998 at 18:30:35 (EST)
From: Scott T. Email: stalking@freewheeling.com To: JW Subject: common pool vs. public good Message: JW: maybe it would have been better to point out to Petrou that he was just saying the same stuff over and over, instead of being sarcastic, like I was, no matter how much I enjoyed it. I think this is almost incredibly naive. I won't say any more, but I don't think Petrou was anywhere close to behaving. As for being fun, well... one can have fun with athlete's foot. That's not a good reason to cultivate it. Some people had fun in the Tuberculosis Sanitoriums around the turn of the century. Read Thomas Mann. Does that mean we should bring back Tuberculosis? I think that Petrou's posts had some salutary consequences, but enough is enough. If the forum had gone on like that much longer I'd have just stopped posting and reading. It was wearing me out. We have far too many Frank Burns-like premies. It's easy to counter them, but it just gets incredibly tedious. Suspect that's why Jim's on vacation. and I think the forum actually has a number of purposes, and I don't think there's any reason it can't fulfill them all. Well OK, no one is saying you can't have more than one purpose, but you can't have more than one primary purpose. That's because in economic terms they are, to some degree at least, substitute goods. You can't optimize one without degrading the other, after a certain point. There's a testimony from eb to the effect that if things had gone on this way she'd have stopped posting. You can't have everything, no matter how much you want it. Sometimes you've got to make a choice between goods. It might be a tradeoff, in which we try to optimize the sum of two goods, but that will involve a lower return on each than would be possible if we concentrated on that one alone. There are exceptions where two goods complement each other, or help each other up to a point, but premies can impose a cost so that this ideal world gets subverted. We are then compelled to make the tradeoff. That's exactly what is happening, and it will in all likelihood continue. It is a classic scenario regarding 'common pool resources' vs. 'public goods.' When the site was a common pool resource no one was restricted. At a certain point a common pool becomes a public good, that then has to be protected in some way by excluding access. Read Tim Harden's 'Tragedy of the Commons' if you want an idea of what a nasty problem this can become. And it is related to traffic, although volume is not yet the basic problem. -Scott Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, Apr 23, 1998 at 18:33:55 (EST)
From: Scott T. Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: Brian read Message: Brian: It's now dropping my html, after the first edit. I'm going to try and repost that last one without editing. -Scott Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, Apr 23, 1998 at 18:36:09 (EST)
From: Scott T. Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: common pool, etc. again Message: JW: maybe it would have been better to point out to Petrou that he was just saying the same stuff over and over, instead of being sarcastic, like I was, no matter how much I enjoyed it. I think this is almost incredibly naive. I won't say any more, but I don't think Petrou was anywhere close to behaving. As for being fun, well... one can have fun with athlete's foot. That's not a good reason to cultivate it. Some people had fun in the Tuberculosis Sanitoriums around the turn of the century. Read Thomas Mann. Does that mean we should bring back Tuberculosis? I think that Petrou's posts had some salutary consequences, but enough is enough. If the forum had gone on like that much longer I'd have just stopped posting and reading. It was wearing me out. We have far too many Frank Burns-like premies. It's easy to counter them, but it just gets incredibly tedious. Suspect that's why Jim's on vacation. and I think the forum actually has a number of purposes, and I don't think there's any reason it can't fulfill them all. Well OK, no one is saying you can't have more than one purpose, but you can't have more than one primary purpose. That's because in economic terms they are, to some degree at least, substitute goods. You can't optimize one without degrading the other, after a certain point. There's a testimony from eb to the effect that if things had gone on this way she'd have stopped posting. You can't have everything, no matter how much you want it. Sometimes you've got to make a choice between goods. It might be a tradeoff, in which we try to optimize the sum of two goods, but that will involve a lower return on each than would be possible if we concentrated on that one alone. There are exceptions where two goods complement each other, or help each other up to a point, but premies can impose a cost so that this ideal world gets subverted. We are then compelled to make the tradeoff. That's exactly what is happening, and it will in all likelihood continue. It is a classic scenario regarding 'common pool resources' vs. 'public goods.' When the site was a common pool resource no one was restricted. At a certain point a common pool becomes a public good, that then has to be protected in some way by excluding access. Read Tim Harden's 'Tragedy of the Commons' if you want an idea of what a nasty problem this can become. And it is related to traffic, although volume is not yet the basic problem. -Scott Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, Apr 23, 1998 at 18:39:22 (EST)
From: Scott T. Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: Brian read Message: Brian: That time it worked, so it appears that I get only one shot. Can't do anything after the first submission, or the html gets clobbered. Does anyone else have this problem? -Scott Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, Apr 23, 1998 at 18:49:13 (EST)
From: Scott T. Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: Brian read Message: Brian: The html code is getting dropped in the edit window on the second submission. Just disappears. Do I have a parameter set wrong, or is this happening to others? -Scott Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, Apr 23, 1998 at 18:51:21 (EST)
From: Still Crazy Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: Brian read Message: Not me. I usually submit articles 5 or 6 times before hitting the 'post' button, and my italics are intact. -Still Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, Apr 23, 1998 at 18:41:47 (EST)
From: JW Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: common pool vs. public good Message: Sorry, Scott, as to Petrou I was being sarcastic, but perhaps I wasn't too successful. Thanks for the comments nonetheless. I do have a terrible problem with atheletes foot, however. I put on the cream until it stops itching, but I don't have the fortitude to keep applying it until the fungus is really gone. I'm pretty shortsighted sometimes. Well, I did state what I thought the primary purpose of the site was, and I also admit there might be disagreement at to that. But I don't see why the forum can't both adress wavering premies and be a support to exs. And, unfortunately, if you have people posting who have different priorities, I don't see any way that you won't get some of both. There is no way to impose on others a set of priorities, even if more than one person agreed what they are. But I agree fully that there is a trade off. That's why I started a thread on family relations, which, for me, is all about dealing with the ex-cult experience. I think if we believe in a certain priority for the forum, we should start threads on those subjects. Others can start threads on subjects they think are more of a priority. I just disagreed that how the forum is viewed is NOT a concern at all. I think it should be at least somewhere on the priority list. Perhaps if volume ever does become a problem, someone will start another site. Hey, how about you guys over in Britain! Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, Apr 23, 1998 at 18:57:36 (EST)
From: Scott T. Email: None To: JW Subject: common pool vs. public good Message: JW: I hear you about athlete's foot. If I wear the same pair of socks for two workout sessions the critter's are back. I also get a raging case of it every time I fall in love. Don't know what's up with that. (Of course this only happens once a decade, so it's not a big problem.) But I don't see why the forum can't both adress wavering premies and be a support to exs. These two goals are not as widely separated as the ones I was considering. Certainly, the site has to try to optimize these two goals. Same with AA. -Scott Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, Apr 23, 1998 at 08:48:39 (EST)
From: Robyn Email: sundogs@hotmail.com To: JW Subject: My testimony: Part 1 Message: Dear JW, I also feel what you say. I think there needs to be a balance between freedom here and a way to deal with issues as they arise without dumping the bulk of any resolutions rather than Brian having to use his energy figuring out what to do at the spur of the moment. I am for as little structure as we can possible get away with but the forum may very well grow in numbers posting as time goes by, maybe even as a result of this People Magazine article. Any structure we create, in my mind, is to save Brian or any webmaster in the future any extra work and certainly any more effort spent on moral delemas over and above any other ex. Robyn Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, Apr 23, 1998 at 11:06:40 (EST)
From: Brian Email: brian@ex-premie.org To: JW Subject: My testimony: Part 1 Message: And 20% of the posts does seem like a lot, but that might be partly to due to the fact that ex-premies are posting less. This is not true. I have never had to archive on a Wednesday morning before. It's always been Saturday. Were the growth of posts here gradual, I would find myself having to archive on Friday or Thursday long before we hit 2-a-week threshold. Ex's posts comprised around 80% of the new archive. I frankly think the forum can become very boring with us just talking to each other. Premies stir up debate of course, and they will continue to come to this site (expecially after Leslie's deadline passes). I found Vacol disruptive because he bumbled around calling on me to fix his life for him. Whether that was figuring out where his posts went for 4 hours, or having to delete his repeated test posts where he continued to make mistakes that indicate that his family's genepool is in grave Darwinian danger. I've responded to his email messages to me to help track down his problems, and had to make modifications to the program to trap errors that he wasn't bright enough to stop making. None of which inconvienced any other ex's reading the forum. But don't take the view that these are somehow the last two premies who will wander in here. They are just the latest ones. You personally have a way of posting that causes premies to abandon their fear of rebirth as a bovine version of their current cow-like behavior and post anonymously here. I don't favor blocking Vacol permanently, but have no code in place to limit the number of posts from an IP. I'll put that there and put a limit on him. He can spend them as Vacol, Vayu, Vaccuum, or Vacant according to whatever agreement his personalities arrive at internally. In my opinion, it's better to put up with a little disruption than to expell people unless they do something really nasty like threaten people with physical harm. I wanted to address this. Others had made similar comments. The statements boils down to this: I personally don't mind the index being flooded with posts that I have no interest in reading myself. But I mind it very much. That's what I do here - mind things. Petrou has shown what happens when you just let anyone walk into your house and do whatever they want. You may view yourself has having a reputation as hospitable, but that's about all you're gonna have, and that's why you lock your doors at night. That someone may have to eventually archive once a day, or that posts will go inactive within 24 hours of appearing in the index is a very real problem that is hovering on the horizon. The easiest way to shut this forum down is to use it to the point where it becomes unuasable by anyone else. Do you believe that wasn't Petrou's intention?? I spent the morning cleaning out his posts, and that was a problem I saw coming. Did you?? I hope your not sorry you asked for our opinions. Not at all! There is no reason for me to do this except that ex's can have this forum for discussion of issues/feelings that are important to them. It's your forum. I just want it to be usable by you first. Maharaji can take care of his obedient servants himself. And he has. Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, Apr 23, 1998 at 13:10:53 (EST)
From: VP Email: None To: Brian Subject: Right vs. practical-Brian Message: JW made some great points and I really believe that a lot of what he said is right. But sometimes what is right and what is practical are two different issues, and it seems to be the case with this forum. I don't want to lose you as webmaster or to lose this forum. You have (or should have) a life and we need to respect that, IMHO. I did want to add that asking for everyone's opinion was really great. Thanks again for all of the hard work, VP Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, Apr 23, 1998 at 13:25:02 (EST)
From: JW Email: None To: Brian Subject: My testimony: Part 1 Message: Brian, I guess I didn't understand from your earlier post that Vacol was bugging you from behind the scenes. And I am gratified that any banning of Vacol would only be temporary. Perhaps that will be enough. And if you can technically limit the NUMBER of posts for someone like Petrou or Vacol who are posting 'test' posts or saying the same stuff over and over, I would agree that that is a good compromise. Am I correct that you now have that capability? I did't know how many posts Petrou made, but I gather that's because I didn't see them because you eliminated them. DUH! Sorry, I didn't realize it had come to that. If you can put a low limit on him, that might take care of it. That way, you probably can just use your own judgment and not have to turn to some committee. I am just opposed to banning people entirely, even temporarily, if that can be avoided, and maybe you won't have to if you can limit the number of posts. If the forum gets too busy, we might all be limited in the number of our posts. I would like to see that day. Thanks for all your hard work, Brian. I know a speak for a lot of people who really appreciate it. Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, Apr 23, 1998 at 17:35:43 (EST)
From: Rick Email: None To: JW Subject: My testimony: Part 1 Message: JW, I agree with you on all counts. Rick Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, Apr 23, 1998 at 08:36:39 (EST)
From: Robyn Email: sundogs@hotmail.com To: Brian Subject: My testimony: Part 1 Message: Dear Brian, You don't get a chance to 'play' here and that is a damn shame but when you do it is always well said and I think all of us read what you have to say. Your 2 part post here is no exception. Very well thought out and it just makes so much sense. I was thinking about all of this since I left this screen last night and my thoughts and conserns were much better stated by you. I posted about the institutionalizaton of any good idea over time as it grows. No one bite so I am not sure if no one else can see the importance of this issue or no one thought it was an issue but it is important to me. All the decisions we are on the brink of now could be the beginings of that institutionalizaton. I believe that your no rules will help keep that from happening. The rest of your ideas are also true and will help the forum deal with future growth. The idea about a seperate forum to banter back and forth about specific issues is excellent. I was thinking in response to one of the last posts I read last evening, what would a quorum be of, the ex's on the site at the moment, the use of a seperate forum would allow a certain amount of time for people to gather, not just at a moments notice. For anyone involved in the process they could check the site a few times a day. I probably should have waited to post until I read more of what is below but I have been wanting to 'speak' for hours now. Robyn Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, Apr 23, 1998 at 11:00:30 (EST)
From: Paul Email: None To: Brian Subject: My testimony: Part 1 Message: Well said. The objectives of the forum need to be clear before you can decide what actions to take. Structure should follow function. If the function of the site is for exs, aspirants and questioning premies (not necesarily an oxymoron) to be able to discuss issues around K and M in an open way, it may mean that rabid premies who only want to promote the divineness of M and K may need to be kept out. You're right, life's not fair. Let them create their own forum. But I agree that you can deal with this on an individual basis. Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, Apr 23, 1998 at 19:35:36 (EST)
From: bb Email: None To: Brian Subject: Brian the Lion Message: Brian, I am again impressed with you. Thank you for everything---hmmm, wasnt that an old line from way back when? I read the posts and agreed with everybody. Its such a relief to read you and see again what kind of stuff you are made of. On another forum issue, I think Jim should be required to post at least once a day. No exceptions allowed. And if a new person comes he has to extend a welcome as our unofficial or official greeter. And Katie should start a thread at least once a week. Not forum related. Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Fri, Apr 24, 1998 at 00:54:42 (EST)
From: Katie Email: petkat@Mail.trib.net To: bb Subject: Brian the Lion Message: And Katie should start a thread at least once a week. Not forum related. I'd love to, Bill. (I assume you were serious in suggesting that!) Any ideas for topics? Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Fri, Apr 24, 1998 at 11:28:19 (EST)
From: Robyn Email: sundogs@hotmail.com To: bb Subject: Brian the Lion Message: Dear Bill, I strongly agree with your post. I have found much wisdom in all the posts conserning the future of the forum even though some are opposing. I think a committee can hash through it all and come up with something workable. I also agree about Jim and Katie! Have a great day, it is beautiful in PA and my boss just called from out of town to say we could leave early! Great I'll get an early start, and end to my 7 hours on job 2 tonight! The best part is I'll have the whole weekend off! Robyn Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, Apr 23, 1998 at 05:48:51 (EST)
From: Mr Ex Email: None To: Brian Subject: My 2 cents ... Message: I for one am not too much on the censor's side. I'm also thinking about the future, when hundreds of premies might like to participate. Why not have 2 type of forums (2 physical forums): 1 free and anonymous like the one we now have the other one with password, where anybody can read, but you'd need to register to get a pass and be allowed to post. That could solve some problems. I also can see that Brian, who's very busy working on the site has not too much time to care for all these issues about the Forum(s). Why not have someone else doing this (with the help of some board of directors or whatever) ? I'm not a candidate. Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, Apr 23, 1998 at 10:31:39 (EST)
From: Brian Email: brian@ex-premie.org To: Mr Ex Subject: My 2 cents ... Message: I'm glad that you see what's been pre-occupying me so much lately. Part of the problem with the forum is that the software isn't finished, but the greater problem is that I've had to busy my mind in an ongoing decision process over what should and shouldn't be done. As for turning the forum over to others, I'll probably have to continue handling the software but would like those on the committee to be able to deal with the day-to-day how-to-handles that will arise with each new Petrou that finds this forum. As for Petrou, he got out of his cage and had the chance to redeem himself in the eyes of the ex's here. He chose to use his brief freedom of speech to continue his adolescent strutting. I've narrowed the bars in his cage, and he should remain there happily singing into his mirror and ringing the little bell. Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Fri, Apr 24, 1998 at 23:32:12 (EST)
From: Scott T. Email: None To: Mr Ex Subject: My 2 cents ... Message: Mr. Ex: I'm also thinking about the future, when hundreds of premies might like to participate. Don't know if you'll ever get around to reading this reply or not, but the practical implication of hundreds of premies posting to this site is that it would then be a premie site. -Scott Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Mon, Apr 27, 1998 at 09:16:00 (EST)
From: Mr Ex Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: My 2 cents ... Message: Dear Scott, you're absolutely right, and this is something that should be considered. BUT: don't forget, m forbids. That's a very strong limit. And his PR staff would freak out! Don't forget EV is strongly monitored by a whole staff of corrdinators, PR and security guys, very influential. Not speaking about the guilt feelings when you're a bad disobeying student. That's bad!!! I can't see why they would change their policy. Rawat is a coward, and will stay he can't challenge anybody in an open forum, nor could his devotees. I think we're safe. Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, Apr 23, 1998 at 09:15:41 (EST)
From: John Email: None To: Brian Subject: tongue firmly in cheek Message: Why we don't treat the premies the way their guru treats them? Their guru does not want them to give satsang in public, so we should not let them do it here. Their guru does not want them to talk to him, so we do not want them to talk to us either. What's the big deal? They don't have freedom of speech with their guru, so why should they object to not having it here? On this point, I think the guru shows great wisdom by the way. Since it's clear they will not further his cause if he does let them speak. Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, Apr 23, 1998 at 09:27:00 (EST)
From: Robyn Email: sundogs@hotmail.com To: John Subject: tongue firmly in cheek Message: Dear John, This site is not only for the ex's who post here, and I know Brian feels this way. He says he has fence sitting premies on his mind when he posts. This site is for us and to help aspirants and premies to see, hear, our truths and facts about M and EV and K to help them be informed. Also, as JW said ex's do help stir things up and it would probably become boring without their input. Robyn Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Wed, Apr 22, 1998 at 19:21:47 (EST)
From: VP Email: None To: Everyone Subject: Maharaji's presentation Message: Still Crazy posted this below and I wanted to make sure that no one missed it: I was going to tell this story another time, but you've forced my hand. At one of the last programs I went to see M in person, a 'premis only' program, M spent a good portion of the post-practice-session giving a 'business report,' state-of-the-project, so to speak, complete with view-graphs and an overhead projector. At one point, he put a slide on the projector that had 7 bar-graphs on it, each with a green bar superimposed on a larger red bar. They were labelled such things as 'Programs, Printing, Videos, Travel,' stuff like that. He told us the green bar represented donations and the red bar represented actual costs. In every case, the red bar was significantly taller than the green bar. But you know what, V/V? There was not a single dollar figure on the entire chart! The graphs could have represented anything from $5 to $5 million each. Although it was not a big deal to me (I gave M the money I felt like, not much, and didn't care what he did with it), I remember thinking, ``Maharaji, just how dumb do you think we are?'' What surprised me more was that people ate it up hook, line and sinker. So if M doesn't need to present any actual figures about his costs and expenditures, why does anyone else? -Still Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, Apr 23, 1998 at 01:28:48 (EST)
From: Steve A Email: None To: VP Subject: Maharaji's presentation Message: Dear VP I got accused of being envious for just mentioning about a Guru's wealth. I reacon you'll be touching on another sensitive nerve with some of the more vocal premies who post here. Please be gentle VP this topic is just like a sensitive wound where even the gentlest touch seems to cause painful reactions. Kind regards and best wishes VP...................Steve A Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, Apr 23, 1998 at 08:30:25 (EST)
From: VP Email: None To: Steve A Subject: Maharaji's presentation Message: Actually, Steve, Still Crazy wrote this post and I just wanted to see what everyone thought of it-if anyone had similar experiences. If anyone could cooborate this. I don't see having money in itself as a bad thing. It's the things that he has done to make the money that I question. Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, Apr 23, 1998 at 11:36:53 (EST)
From: Still Crazy Email: None To: VP Subject: Maharaji's presentation Message: If anyone could cooborate this. I realize a lot of what I say here is useless from a factual standpoint. It's just my experiences and impressions, and probably does me more good than anyone else for me to relate them. The event that this happened at was in Thousand Oaks, CA, in February 1996. There is a 'premis only' video of it, called 'Because of Love,' but I don't know if it shows the chart part (I never got around to watching the video). -Still Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, Apr 23, 1998 at 12:57:50 (EST)
From: VP Email: None To: Still Crazy Subject: Maharaji's presentation Message: '...and probably does me more good than anyone else for me to relate them.' I wouldn't agree with that. I thought the story was very telling. I'm glad you named the program and the video, because specifics help. Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, Apr 23, 1998 at 13:05:59 (EST)
From: John Email: None To: Still Crazy Subject: for SC Message: SC: Does M allow questions at a presentation like the one you describe? What was the point of his presentation, to accent the need for more donations, or to prompt a discussion about how to bring down expenses? Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, Apr 23, 1998 at 18:18:36 (EST)
From: Still Crazy Email: None To: John Subject: for SC Message: Does M allow questions at a presentation like the one you describe? I had a hard time figuring out how to answer this question. I thought of saying ``BWAAAHAHAHAHAHA!'' but I decided to be more polite and just say ``No.'' M doesn't do questions (except pre-screened ones at aspirant programs). What was the point of his presentation, to accent the need for more donations, or to prompt a discussion about how to bring down expenses? The point of the entire presentation, IMO, was 'This is my work and you can help with it if you want.' The point of the slide I described was to demonstrate the lack of sufficient funds to perform 'his work' and to inspire all of us to donate more. I take it perhaps you have never seen M. He doesn't 'prompt discussions' about anything, at least not in public. At his programs, he talks, and you listen. You can clap, you can laugh, but that's about it. -Still Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Fri, Apr 24, 1998 at 09:31:44 (EST)
From: John Email: None To: Still Crazy Subject: for SC Message: SC: you write: 'I take it perhaps you have never seen M' No, I did sit humbly in the audience of the life sized krishna doll for 10 years, but I left in '82 and really know very little about what's been going on since. But, when I was in the audience he never showed slides, so I thought perhaps, just perhaps, things really had changed. Also, David (St. of the Dairy) said that he was at a meeting with M where he declared he was NOT God or A god, so really I figured if he's gonna reverse his position on that maybe he'd be willing to change in other ways. Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, Apr 23, 1998 at 13:36:09 (EST)
From: JW Email: None To: Still Crazy Subject: Maharaji's presentation Message: Still, all most of us have is just what we saw and heard and personally experienced and our own impressions. That is 'factual' information and very important, so I think was you say is very valuable, at least I have found it that way. Your quotes from that video are so telling. They indicate to me that not much as changes, despite what some premies would have us believe. Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, Apr 23, 1998 at 18:21:17 (EST)
From: Still Crazy Email: None To: JW Subject: To JW Message: Hate to wast bandwidth and add another post to the archive just for this, but, Thanks, JW (and VP too!) -Still Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Wed, Apr 22, 1998 at 18:18:30 (EST)
From: Scott T. Email: stalking@freewheeling.com To: Everyone Subject: Need help with IE3.02 Message: Hi: Look, this is driving me nuts. I would deal with it myself, but don't know how and I simply can't keep up with the posts in the thread below. I had to switch back to Internet Explorer and for some reason it is no longer recognizing visited links. It saves one version of the 'read post page,' say it's http://www.ex-premie.org/forum3/forum3.cgi?key=02A1 and then it won't save anything more for that page in the history. In other words, additional 'key=#' are not saved. As a result I have only one visited link on this entire page, and I've long since lost track of what I've read and what I haven't. It's a nightmare! I had installed Netscape, and since then Explorer has had this problem. Finally had to take Netscape off, but Internet Explorer still fails to deal with visited links. Something that the Netscape installation did completely confounded IE3. I've tried to uninstall and then re-install IE3, but that results in no change. Am about to just give up and install IE4, but thought I'd ask to see if anyone has any ideas about what might be going on. I just can't follow the discussion about Heckle and Jeckle any more. Completely lost! -Scott Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Wed, Apr 22, 1998 at 18:59:30 (EST)
From: Scott T. Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: Is it just me... Message: Hi: Listen, does anyone else have a problem with visited links in IE3 or is it just me? It looks like it only saves one version of the 'name' field, which in this case is 'Forum III: Read Message' so it doesn't worry about actual internet addresses if it already has a name for that page. All of the links to the read page have the same name, so IE3 just says 'Been there. Done that.' Somehow there must be a parameter to tell it to save actual addresses rather than names, but I've got no idea where it is. Not in any of the documentation. Since Netscape changed it it must be a system parameter rather than an Internet Explorer parameter. REALLY FED UP WITH THIS CRAP. -Scott Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Fri, Apr 24, 1998 at 07:08:01 (EST)
From: David Email: David.Studio57@btinternet.com To: Scott T. Subject: Is it just me... Message: I have a similar problem with IE and mine is version 2. No visited links are ever saved once I exit the browser. I don't have any other browser installed although I do use Lynx via telnet. Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Wed, Apr 22, 1998 at 19:05:17 (EST)
From: Lg Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: Need help with IE3.02 Message: Scott In your History folder, do you have the following: MM256.dat and MM2048.dat only? If so, you could have a corropted link in one of those file and this may be the reason why the visited links don't change color. I phone Microsoft once about this and they told me how to handle it. Reply back and I'll give you the scoop only if you have these two files. Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Wed, Apr 22, 1998 at 19:23:44 (EST)
From: Scott T. Email: None To: Lg Subject: Need help with IE3.02 Message: Lg: No, I don't have either of those two files. I can clear my history, and if I do the next post I read will get marked as 'visited' but after that, nothing will be added. It only cares about the 'Title' field, not about the actual internet address. Do you know what I mean? I'd say it's a virus engineered by Andressen at Netscape to sabotage Microsoft, but my virus checker doesn't find anything. The trouble is, nothing I do seems to make the slightest difference. -Scott Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Wed, Apr 22, 1998 at 19:35:12 (EST)
From: Lg Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: Need help with IE3.02 Message: Scott Strange, what you experience! Would clearing your Cache make a difference? If no, I would send an email to MS. The last email received from them had the address: incgwpss@MICROSOFT.com good luck Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Wed, Apr 22, 1998 at 20:08:59 (EST)
From: Scott T. Email: None To: Lg Subject: Need help with IE3.02 Message: Lg: Clearing the cache makes no difference, nor does clearing the history, although that will create one visited link on the page and then take a permanent vacation. I assume you don't have this problem, so it's unique to me. That means that it probably is connected with my having installed Netscape 4. If that' the case, it's the last time I will do that. In my opinion both Andressen [sp?] and Gates are scumbags. I sent a question to tech support at Microsoft, so will see if they invest anything in solving the problem. I suspect it has to do with the difference between the way IE and Netscape deal with links. IE saves the history as shortcuts, basically. Netscape saves every thing as one big file, and just appends stuff to it. Anyway, I'm burned out. I'm off to watch a movie or something. Scott Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Wed, Apr 22, 1998 at 20:34:57 (EST)
From: Lg Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: Need help with IE3.02 Message: Scott I hope your IE problem get solved :) I have IE 3.2, (downloaded frorm MS site) and I never encountered a problem like this. Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Wed, Apr 22, 1998 at 20:46:19 (EST)
From: Rick Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: Need help with IE3.02 Message: Did you check 'View', 'Options', 'General'... and make sure the colors are different under 'Links'? Did you check under the same area in 'Navigation' to see how many days it's set to store links in history? I noticed in my history folder it lists the title of the page and then three dots (...), indicating there is more of the URL not being shown. The links are working in my 3.01 IE, but I usually use Netscape. Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Wed, Apr 22, 1998 at 23:24:08 (EST)
From: Scott T. Email: None To: Rick Subject: Need help with IE3.02 Message: Rick: I've done all of the conventional things you mentioned to no effect. Some parameter was changed as a result of the installation of Netscape 4, and apparently was changed permanently becaues I have removed every trace of Netscape. Very Very Very Very frustrating. Absolutely nothing has the slightest effect. No three littlle dots after the title. What versions of IE and Netscape do you use? -Scott PS: I really wish there was another choice between those two boat anchors. Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Wed, Apr 22, 1998 at 23:41:02 (EST)
From: Rick Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: Need help with IE3.02 Message: Scott, I have Netscape 4.05 and IE 3.01. I've always been happy with Netscape and prejudiced against IE because I dislike Bill Gates. I've never experienced or heard of Netscape causing problems with IE. I tried IE4 but it made my whole system (Aptiva) slow, so I got rid of it. Maybe you should format your hard drive and reinstall IE. Rick Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Wed, Apr 22, 1998 at 23:40:12 (EST)
From: Scott T. Email: None To: Lg Subject: Mysterious MM256 bug Message: Lg: I tried to delete the history folder, thinking that might get me somewhere, and got a message that the MM256 file was write protected and could not be deleted. I don't actually see this file anywhere, however. What is the procedure the Microsoft people told you about? -Scott Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Wed, Apr 22, 1998 at 23:55:02 (EST)
From: Scott T. Email: None To: Lg Subject: MM2048.dat is there too Message: Lg: I discovered that both MM256.dat and MM2048.dat are lurking there, invisibly, in my history folder. Isn't that a peach? The only way I found them was to use the 'Find files and folders' engine. They don't appear in the Windows Explorer, or in 'My Computer.' So, what's the scoop on this bug? I'll bet Microsoft says its not their fault, huh? -Scott Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, Apr 23, 1998 at 01:22:32 (EST)
From: gumby Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: Need help with IE3.02 Message: Hi Scott, I was reading about your problem. Can you tell me what the following settings are: View-Options-General-Links Visted color is _______ Unvisted color is ____________ View-Options-Navigation-History Number of days to keep pages in history is ________________ When you go to View-Options-Navigation-History and click on the View History button a window pops up it has 5 sections across the top: Title,Internet Address.Last Visited, Expires,and Last Updated Is this correct ?___________________ Notice when you move your mouse from one section to another section moving horizontally (ie move from Title over to Internet Address) that the mouse changes its shape from an arrow to what appears as a || with a small horizontal arrow through it. At this point if you click the left mouse button and move the mouse left or right you can resize the sections! Now try to resize the Internet Address section and make it bigger so you can see the whole URL. ie befor the url might be something like: http://www.ex-premie.org/forum3/forum3.cgi... And after you resize the section it might be: http://www.ex-premie.org/forum3/forum3.cgi?key=02BM Let me know if any of this helps. This problem, I believe has nothing to do with Netscape, nor do I think you need to format your harddrive. One question: Why are you not using Communicator? GAGBWY -gumby Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, Apr 23, 1998 at 08:10:37 (EST)
From: Scott T. Email: None To: gumby Subject: Lg, where are you Message: Gumby: Thanks for the input, but you'll just have to take my word for it. Been there, done that. It appears the problem is with the two files mentioned by Lg. I can't see them if the browser is active, but if I shut it down there they be. I need to get the 'scoop' from Lg. -Scott Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, Apr 23, 1998 at 10:20:04 (EST)
From: Scott T. Email: stalking@freewheeling.com To: Lg. Subject: Lg, my email Message: Lg: My email address is stalking@freewheeling.com. Let me know what the scoop is regarding the two 'dat' files. Appears that's prabably the problem. -Scott Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, Apr 23, 1998 at 17:06:26 (EST)
From: Scott T. Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: Fixed visited links problem... Message: Hi: In case anyone else ever encounters this problem the fix is actually quite simple. Quit IE3.02 and log off the ISP. Then go into the 'C:\Windows\History' directory and erase all the files and folders you find there. Log on your ISP and resart IE3.02. From that point the links will work properly. -Scott Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, Apr 23, 1998 at 17:35:51 (EST)
From: Lg Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: Fixed visited links problem... Message: I was going to give you the scoop, however, seems like you find the solution to your problem. What is ISP? Thanks Lg Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, Apr 23, 1998 at 20:15:14 (EST)
From: Scott T. Email: stalking@freewheeling.com To: Lg Subject: Let me know anyway Message: Lg: Let me know the scoop anyhow. I'm still having problems with the edit window dropping html, that might have been created by making the deletions. I can restore them if I need to. -Scott Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, Apr 23, 1998 at 23:07:27 (EST)
From: Lg Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: Let me know anyway Message: Scott The MM256.dat and MM2048.dat files in the Windows\Cookies and Windows\History folders are cache files used by IE. When you visit a Web page, IE assigns the Web address a unique ID number and searches the MM256.dat and MM2048.dat files for that ID number. If the Web pages' ID number is found, the contents of the Web page are stored locally on your computer's hard disk and IE uses the locally stored content instead of downloading the info. from the Internet. If the Web pages' ID number is not found, the contents of the Web page must be downloaded from the Internet. This occurs if you have not visited the Web page before, the Web page has changed, or the Web page's ID number has expired. When the Web page's content has been downloaded to the hard disk, the MM256.dat or MM2048.dat file is updated with the Web pages' ID number. The MM256. file is used to store the ID numbers of Web pages whose Web addresses are equal to or less than 256 char. The MM2048 is used to store the ID numbers of Web pages whose URLs are between 257 and 2048 characters. Note: these files cannot be deleted in Win95, and by doing the following, these 2 files will be reduced and the corrupted link that may be causing your problem will be removed. Here are the steps I used to fix my visited-links problem: - Restart the computer in MS-DOS mode (if you have Win95) - Create a directory under C:\ Test - At the prompt C:\Windows\History > type the following DOS command: move MM*.dat C:\Test - Verify that the files have been moved by typing dir at the prompt, then Exit DOS. You'll notice that back in Windows95 these two files will have been reduced to a smaller amount of KB. - The two files previously moved to the Test folder can now be deleted in Windows95\Windows Explorer\Windows\History I use this process regularly to keep the dat files to a minimum and enhance the speed of the browser. Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Fri, Apr 24, 1998 at 08:44:00 (EST)
From: Scott T. Email: None To: Lg Subject: Let me know anyway Message: Lg: Thanks. I was able to do this from within Win95 for some reason. -Scott Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Fri, Apr 24, 1998 at 18:18:55 (EST)
From: Lg Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: Let me know anyway Message: Scott I'm curious to know how you deleted those files in Win95. I tried it that way myself and kept getting the message: 'These files cannot be deleted.' Could you list the sequence of steps you used? Thanks Lg Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Fri, Apr 24, 1998 at 19:52:12 (EST)
From: Scott T. Email: None To: Lg Subject: Win95 deletions Message: Lg: I just used the 'My Computer' file manager, after shutting down all other programs (especially the browser). Windows 95 won't allow you to delete any file that's in use, but most programs that use those system files are Internet programs (Microsoft's). You may get a dialog box message saying that they are system files, but you can choose to delete them anyway. You definitely cannot delete them from within the browser, or while the browser is running. -Scott Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Fri, Apr 24, 1998 at 12:19:00 (EST)
From: eb Email: None To: Lg Subject: Let me know anyway Message: Lg, Are you my son? Your writing style is similar to his. eb Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Fri, Apr 24, 1998 at 12:39:38 (EST)
From: Lg Email: None To: eb Subject: Let me know anyway Message: eb Unfortunately :) Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Fri, Apr 24, 1998 at 20:49:03 (EST)
From: Robyn Email: sundogs@hotmail.com To: Lg Subject: eb Message: Dear eb, I finally got around to reading that thread. That was wonderful! Unfortunately indeed! Robyn Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Sat, Apr 25, 1998 at 17:18:55 (EST)
From: eb Email: None To: Robyn Subject: I had to ask Message: because my son's initials are the same as well. I called my son just to make sure. He laughed. Slightly paranoid eb. Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Mon, Apr 27, 1998 at 11:55:59 (EST)
From: John Email: None To: Eb Subject: What am I missing Message: EB: I feel really stupid, but how can you tell from this response whether he is or isn't your son? Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Mon, Apr 27, 1998 at 12:34:27 (EST)
From: eb Email: None To: John Subject: What am I missing Message: Hi John, No, I couldn't tell either, so I called my son who thought it was quite funny. (He and I are very close; his life as the son of crazy premies will make great reading if he ever chooses to publish). I'll take Lg's 'unfortunately' as a compliment. Lg's wit resembles my son's as well. His ambiguous response made me laugh a whole lot. Gotta say, I love this site. eb Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Mon, Apr 27, 1998 at 12:47:32 (EST)
From: Robyn Email: sundogs@hotmail.com To: eb Subject: What am I missing Message: Dear eb, I was mistaken and thought the Unfortunately was written from a teenage son's point of sentimentality. Oh well. Robyn Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Mon, Apr 27, 1998 at 14:10:14 (EST)
From: eb Email: None To: Robyn Subject: What am I missing Message: Well Robyn, It may have been. Either way, it's pretty funny, doncha think? Lg has mastered the art of humorous Internet communication. Wish he were my son. Yours in jest, eb Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Mon, Apr 27, 1998 at 21:20:00 (EST)
From: Lg Email: None To: eb Subject: A good laugh anyone Message: Hi all I'm female, and no one's son. Lg Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Tues, Apr 28, 1998 at 11:05:08 (EST)
From: Robyn Email: sundogs@hotmail.com To: Lg Subject: A good laugh anyone Message: Dear Lg, I love it! Welcome to the ladies room! Do you have kids? I don't think I know anything about your story with M and K. Robyn Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Tues, Apr 28, 1998 at 17:38:59 (EST)
From: Lg Email: None To: Robyn Subject: A good laugh anyone Message: Hi Robyn To answer to your question, no, I don't have kids. As for my story with M and K.... well, it would be a repeat of many people here. Beside I'm a lousy writer. Cheers :) Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Tues, Apr 28, 1998 at 12:19:05 (EST)
From: eb Email: None To: Lg Subject: A good laugh anyone Message: Lg, Even better! In that case, are you interested in meeting my son? He's great with computers like you. :) eb Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Tues, Apr 28, 1998 at 17:31:15 (EST)
From: Lg Email: None To: eb Subject: A good laugh anyone Message: eb I'm probably too old for your son, and I have a sweetie! Thanks for the asking anyway. Back To Index -:- Top of Index |