Ex-Premie.Org

Forum III Archive # 4

From: Apr 19, 1998

To: Apr 29, 1998

Page: 5 Of: 5



gumby -:- Missing... -:- Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 01:34:15 (EST)
__gumby -:- Missing... -:- Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 01:49:47 (EST)
__CD -:- Missing... -:- Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 13:24:45 (EST)
__Katie -:- Missing... -:- Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 13:25:01 (EST)
__Petrou -:- The End of the Forum -:- Tues, Apr 21, 1998 at 08:08:23 (EST)
____VP -:- The End of the Forum -:- Tues, Apr 21, 1998 at 15:00:32 (EST)

Samuel -:- What's going on in hear -:- Sun, Apr 19, 1998 at 21:31:53 (EST)
__Selena -:- What's going on in hear -:- Sun, Apr 19, 1998 at 21:47:45 (EST)
____Samuel -:- What's going on in hear -:- Sun, Apr 19, 1998 at 22:02:09 (EST)
______Petrou -:- What's going on in hear -:- Tues, Apr 21, 1998 at 06:19:06 (EST)
____Samuel -:- Why I am asking -:- Sun, Apr 19, 1998 at 22:38:13 (EST)
______Robyn -:- Why I am asking -:- Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 10:12:21 (EST)

Selena -:- My site & I'll whine if I want -:- Sun, Apr 19, 1998 at 21:12:18 (EST)
__Petrou -:- My site & I'll whine if I want -:- Tues, Apr 21, 1998 at 06:11:28 (EST)
____Still Crazy -:- My site & I'll whine if I want -:- Tues, Apr 21, 1998 at 09:27:34 (EST)
____JW -:- My site & I'll whine if I want -:- Tues, Apr 21, 1998 at 13:32:06 (EST)

Rick -:- Another CultTechnique Revealed -:- Sun, Apr 19, 1998 at 20:38:15 (EST)
__Scott T. -:- Another CultTechnique Revealed -:- Sun, Apr 19, 1998 at 21:03:06 (EST)
____Vacol -:- Another CultTechnique Revealed -:- Sun, Apr 19, 1998 at 21:38:02 (EST)
______Scott T. -:- Another CultTechnique Revealed -:- Sun, Apr 19, 1998 at 21:53:58 (EST)
______Scott T. -:- Forgot something -:- Sun, Apr 19, 1998 at 22:14:20 (EST)
__Brian -:- Another CultTechnique Revealed -:- Sun, Apr 19, 1998 at 22:45:49 (EST)
____Scott T. -:- Another CultTechnique Revealed -:- Sun, Apr 19, 1998 at 22:59:12 (EST)
__Bruce -:- Bullshit, Rick -:- Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 00:46:59 (EST)
____JW -:- Bullshit, Rick -:- Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 13:22:06 (EST)
______Still Crazy -:- Bullshit, Rick -:- Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 16:12:41 (EST)
________JW -:- Bullshit, Rick -:- Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 20:37:45 (EST)
__Rick -:- Another CultTechnique Revealed -:- Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 00:59:19 (EST)
____Bruce -:- Another CultTechnique Revealed -:- Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 02:07:19 (EST)
______Jim -:- Not so fast, Bruce -:- Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 15:50:02 (EST)
__Nigel -:- Another CultTechnique Revealed -:- Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 20:29:42 (EST)
__Petrou -:- BLATANT MISINFORMATION -:- Tues, Apr 21, 1998 at 06:04:14 (EST)

Jim -:- outing 'Vacol' -:- Sun, Apr 19, 1998 at 19:20:27 (EST)
__Scott T. -:- outing 'Vacol' -:- Sun, Apr 19, 1998 at 19:48:53 (EST)
____VP -:- outing 'Vacol' -:- Sun, Apr 19, 1998 at 20:12:07 (EST)
______Selena -:- outing 'Vacol' -:- Sun, Apr 19, 1998 at 20:27:16 (EST)
________Robyn -:- outing 'Vacol' -:- Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 10:44:46 (EST)
__________Jim -:- to Robyn -:- Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 15:58:35 (EST)
____________Robyn -:- to Robyn -:- Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 21:16:12 (EST)
______________Jim -:- to Robyn -:- Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 22:02:22 (EST)
________________VP -:- On this anon thing, Jim -:- Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 23:12:05 (EST)
__________________VP -:- On this anon thing, Jim -:- Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 23:18:09 (EST)
____________________Jim -:- On this anon thing, Jim -:- Tues, Apr 21, 1998 at 00:03:11 (EST)
______________________VP -:- On this anon thing, Jim -:- Tues, Apr 21, 1998 at 15:41:48 (EST)
__________________Robyn -:- Happy Birthday, Jim! -:- Tues, Apr 21, 1998 at 12:04:43 (EST)
__Rick -:- outing 'Vacol' -:- Sun, Apr 19, 1998 at 20:24:34 (EST)
____Scott T. -:- outing 'Vacol' -:- Sun, Apr 19, 1998 at 20:36:41 (EST)
__VP -:- outing Maharaji -:- Sun, Apr 19, 1998 at 20:30:12 (EST)
__Katie -:- outing 'Vacol' -:- Sun, Apr 19, 1998 at 20:57:21 (EST)
____Vacol -:- outing 'Vacol' -:- Sun, Apr 19, 1998 at 21:13:49 (EST)
____Robyn -:- re: Katie, outing 'Vacol' -:- Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 11:15:19 (EST)
__Rick -:- outing 'Vacol' -:- Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 00:35:08 (EST)
__Anon -:- outing 'Vacol' -:- Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 04:45:54 (EST)
____Brian -:- outing 'Fritz' -:- Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 07:50:46 (EST)
______Anon -:- outing 'Fritz' -:- Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 17:53:07 (EST)
________Katie -:- outing 'Fritz' -:- Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 18:08:33 (EST)
__________Robyn -:- outing 'Fritz' -:- Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 21:27:23 (EST)
____________JW -:- outing 'Fritz' -:- Tues, Apr 21, 1998 at 12:37:48 (EST)
____JW -:- Outing 'Vacol' -:- Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 15:50:10 (EST)
______Anon -:- Outing 'Vacol' -:- Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 18:10:43 (EST)
________Katie -:- Outing 'Vacol' -:- Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 18:21:32 (EST)
________JW -:- Outing 'Vacol' -:- Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 18:40:58 (EST)
__________Anon -:- Outing 'Vacol' -:- Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 19:12:26 (EST)
________VP -:- Outing yourself -:- Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 18:59:30 (EST)
__Anon -:- outing 'Vacol' -:- Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 05:19:24 (EST)
____Jim -:- But look at it this way -:- Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 11:36:59 (EST)
______Jim -:- And furthermore -:- Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 11:50:55 (EST)
________Anon -:- And furthermore -:- Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 18:24:35 (EST)
__________Jim -:- And furthermore -:- Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 18:34:52 (EST)
____________Anon -:- And furthermore -:- Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 19:00:56 (EST)
______________VP -:- And furthermore -:- Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 19:13:03 (EST)
________________Jim -:- To Anon and VP -:- Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 19:25:17 (EST)
__________________Anon -:- To Anon and VP -:- Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 19:45:06 (EST)
____________________Jim -:- To Anon and VP -:- Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 20:02:32 (EST)
______________________VP -:- To Anon and VP -:- Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 22:23:16 (EST)
____________Robyn -:- Furthermore! -:- Tues, Apr 21, 1998 at 13:02:13 (EST)
______________Jim -:- to Robyn -:- Tues, Apr 21, 1998 at 13:39:40 (EST)
________________Vacol -:- to Robyn -:- Tues, Apr 21, 1998 at 14:35:34 (EST)
______Rick -:- But look at it this way -:- Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 11:51:25 (EST)
________Jim -:- But look at it this way -:- Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 12:12:02 (EST)
__________Rick -:- But look at it this way -:- Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 12:19:37 (EST)
____________Jim -:- But look at it this way -:- Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 15:28:21 (EST)
______________Rick -:- But look at it this way -:- Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 15:55:50 (EST)
________________Jim -:- But look at it this way -:- Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 16:19:07 (EST)
__________________Rick -:- But look at it this way -:- Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 17:03:36 (EST)
____________________Jim -:- I love you, Rick -:- Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 18:15:33 (EST)
______________________Rick -:- But look at this way -:- Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 20:32:32 (EST)
________________________Jim -:- NO -:- Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 20:59:08 (EST)
__________________________Rick -:- NO -:- Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 21:11:47 (EST)
____________________________Jim -:- NO -:- Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 21:14:20 (EST)
________________Scott T. -:- Vacol's veil -:- Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 18:39:45 (EST)
__________________Jim -:- Vacol's veil -:- Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 18:57:02 (EST)
____________________Robyn -:- Vacol's veil -:- Tues, Apr 21, 1998 at 12:17:36 (EST)
______________________Jim -:- Vacol's veil -:- Tues, Apr 21, 1998 at 13:05:34 (EST)
__________________Rick -:- Vacol's veil -:- Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 19:44:17 (EST)
____________________Rick -:- Footnote -:- Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 19:49:02 (EST)
______________Scott T. -:- But look at it that way -:- Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 17:23:01 (EST)
________________Jim -:- To Scott - re threatening -:- Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 17:33:37 (EST)
__Still Crazy -:- outing 'Vacol' -:- Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 15:38:38 (EST)
____Jim -:- outing 'Vacol' -:- Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 15:43:17 (EST)
______Still Crazy -:- outing 'Vacol' -:- Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 17:02:55 (EST)
____Scott T. -:- outing 'Vacol' -:- Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 17:45:09 (EST)
__JW -:- outing 'Vacol' -:- Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 16:02:13 (EST)
____Jim -:- to JW -:- Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 16:31:35 (EST)
______Katie -:- outing Vacol -:- Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 17:35:53 (EST)
________Scott T. -:- A true dilemma -:- Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 18:20:28 (EST)
________Jim -:- Katie's real name -:- Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 18:25:58 (EST)
__________Katie -:- Katie's real name -:- Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 18:35:51 (EST)
________Mr Ex, shocked! -:- calling names -:- Tues, Apr 21, 1998 at 03:33:38 (EST)
__________Katie -:- calling names -:- Tues, Apr 21, 1998 at 09:48:46 (EST)
______JW -:- to JW -:- Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 17:43:41 (EST)
____Scott T. -:- outing 'Vacol' -:- Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 17:57:08 (EST)
______JW -:- outing 'Vacol' -:- Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 18:07:19 (EST)
________Jim -:- My birthday party -:- Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 18:55:30 (EST)
__________JW -:- My birthday party -:- Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 18:56:35 (EST)
____________Mickey the Pharisee -:- My birthday party -:- Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 19:03:09 (EST)
______________Jim -:- My birthday party -:- Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 19:29:09 (EST)
__________Rick -:- Whoahhh Jim -:- Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 20:48:15 (EST)
____________Jim -:- Whoahhh Jim -:- Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 21:00:25 (EST)
______________Rick -:- Whoahhh Jim -:- Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 21:09:22 (EST)
________________Jim -:- Whoahhh Jim -:- Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 21:16:53 (EST)
__________________Rick -:- Whoahhh Jim -:- Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 21:21:35 (EST)
____________________Jim -:- Whoahhh Jim -:- Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 21:26:11 (EST)
______________________Rick -:- Whoahhh Jim -:- Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 21:34:12 (EST)
________________________Rick -:- Whoahhh Jim -:- Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 21:35:57 (EST)
__________________________Jim -:- Whoahhh Jim -:- Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 22:07:23 (EST)
____________________________Katie -:- Whoahhh Jim -:- Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 23:01:44 (EST)
______________________________Jim -:- Whoahhh Jim -:- Tues, Apr 21, 1998 at 00:04:44 (EST)
________________________________katie -:- Jim's age -:- Tues, Apr 21, 1998 at 00:07:47 (EST)
______________________________eb -:- 1956 was a very good year -:- Tues, Apr 21, 1998 at 01:28:43 (EST)
________________________________Katie -:- 1956 was a very good year -:- Tues, Apr 21, 1998 at 01:36:40 (EST)
__________________________________Mickey the Pharisee -:- 1956 was a very good year -:- Tues, Apr 21, 1998 at 01:47:10 (EST)
____________________________________Katie -:- Happy Birthday Michael -:- Tues, Apr 21, 1998 at 01:54:16 (EST)
______________________________________Mickey the Pharisee -:- Happy Birthday Michael -:- Tues, Apr 21, 1998 at 02:08:21 (EST)
____________________________________gumby -:- 1956 was a very good year -:- Tues, Apr 21, 1998 at 11:11:34 (EST)
______________________________________Mickey the Pharisee -:- 1956 was a very good year -:- Tues, Apr 21, 1998 at 11:43:24 (EST)
________________________________Katie -:- 1956 was a very good year -:- Tues, Apr 21, 1998 at 02:41:49 (EST)
__________________________________eb -:- 1956 was a very good year -:- Tues, Apr 21, 1998 at 11:48:18 (EST)
__eb -:- outing 'Vacol' -:- Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 19:08:47 (EST)
____Jim -:- outing 'Vacol' -:- Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 19:30:51 (EST)
______eb -:- A Long Response -:- Tues, Apr 21, 1998 at 01:19:37 (EST)
________Katie -:- A Long Response -:- Tues, Apr 21, 1998 at 01:42:27 (EST)
__________eb -:- The Guru Papers -:- Tues, Apr 21, 1998 at 13:25:58 (EST)
____________eb -:- Nevermind -:- Tues, Apr 21, 1998 at 13:34:39 (EST)


Date: Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 01:34:15 (EST)
From: gumby
Email: megumby@hotmail
To: Everyone
Subject: Missing...
Message:
Hi Everyone,

Has anyone seen or heard from Joy? She hasn't posted in a while?
Also Mili?

Allright I cant resist. Just another quickie:

A young man once asked God how long a million years was to Him. God replied, 'A million years to me is just like a single second in your time.'

Then the young man asked God what a penny was to Him. God replied, 'A single penny to me is just like a million to you.'

Then the young man got his courage up and asked: 'God, could I have one of your pennies?'

God smiled and replied, 'Certainly, just a second.'


GAGBWYA

-gumby
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 01:49:47 (EST)
From: gumby
Email: None
To: gumby
Subject: Missing...
Message:
Hi Gumby,

Correct me if I'm wrong but i think the sentence:

God replied, 'A million years to me is just like a single second in your time.'

Should be something like:

God replied, 'A second to me is just like a million years in your time.'

-gumby
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 13:24:45 (EST)
From: CD
Email: None
To: gumby
Subject: Missing...
Message:
Little human upon the sand
Now I'm lying here in your hand
You to me are but a passing dream

Donovan
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 13:25:01 (EST)
From: Katie
Email: petkat@mail.trib.net
To: gumby
Subject: Missing...
Message:
Hi Gumby -
As far as I know, Joy is still around, just busy off the net. Mili periodically goes underground from time to time - he just put up a couple of new web sites so he may be working on those.

Regards from Katie
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Apr 21, 1998 at 08:08:23 (EST)
From: Petrou
Email: None
To: gumby
Subject: The End of the Forum
Message:
Hey that was a good'n.Where do you get them?That's just what the Forum needs,more humour.
As far as the disappearing Exers go,I believe they could be ducking for cover.I know that 'bb' has gone missing too; as well as a few others.I get the distinct impression that the Forum could be on its last legs.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Apr 21, 1998 at 15:00:32 (EST)
From: VP
Email: None
To: Petrou
Subject: The End of the Forum
Message:
Get a grip. You really are paranoid, and I hate to call names. VP
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 19, 1998 at 21:31:53 (EST)
From: Samuel
Email: s_condon@yahoo.com
To: Everyone
Subject: What's going on in hear
Message:
Hi,

Just wandered in hear and found this big ruckus going on. I was a premie along time ago, for a few years. Haven't thought of it in along time but you guys are making so much noice I just had t o drop by. Anyone got a cup of sugar? I think I 'm probably hypoglycemic, but who gives a damn.

Wild Goose
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 19, 1998 at 21:47:45 (EST)
From: Selena
Email: None
To: Samuel
Subject: What's going on in hear
Message:
So whay are you asking if you think there is much ado about
nothing?
No need to question. Just accept that the site is here (or hear)
and move on.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 19, 1998 at 22:02:09 (EST)
From: Samuel
Email: None
To: Selena
Subject: What's going on in hear
Message:
Selena,

Thanks for the reply. Sure is much ado. Don't think it's about nothing tho. I have been watching from afar and you have picked my interest. Don't know quite what I have to say tho. Geese are always moving on. They're always going somewhere too.

Wild Goose
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Apr 21, 1998 at 06:19:06 (EST)
From: Petrou
Email: None
To: Samuel
Subject: What's going on in hear
Message:
Yep,you've wandered into the asylum and us sane folk are trying our best to put things right and make sure the misinformation is corrected. There has already been enough said on this link to probably bankroll GMJ for the rest of his life but the 'ol EX-filers keep pumping it out just to make sure.They like a bit of rough treatment and are a way bit obsessive so you can imagine the smorgasboard of hangups they must have.Its a psychiatrist's dream come true.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 19, 1998 at 22:38:13 (EST)
From: Samuel
Email: None
To: Selena
Subject: Why I am asking
Message:
Selena,

Though about it some. Here is whay (or why) I am asking. I see a battlefield. No dead bodies, but lots of running around, smoke, and noise. This seems strange to me. Premies always seemed so peaceful. I left because they were to damn peaceful. Made me scared. Reminded me of my mother.

WG
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 10:12:21 (EST)
From: Robyn
Email: sundogs@hotmail.com
To: Samuel
Subject: Why I am asking
Message:
Dear Samuel,
There was a Samuel posting here not to long ago are you another Samuel?
Robyn
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 19, 1998 at 21:12:18 (EST)
From: Selena
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: My site & I'll whine if I want
Message:
Hi,
I tried to fit all the lyrics in the subject line:
' It's my web site and I'll whine if I want to'
So, there. I said it. Do you know how easy it is to make a typo and say instead:
'I'll shine if I want to?'

and, in this case it's the same thing, no matter what these
errant premies think. Why are they posting here anyway? Did I not hear their ' meditation teacher ' say in LB ind Dec. 97 the following: ' and we don't need the web to do it either. We can do it the old way. like we always have.'

Please please go do it your old way premies. Think about it, you will no longer suffer from having to be bored by us!
You can blissfully get under you blanket, and know that the internet will die in the y2K anyway!
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Apr 21, 1998 at 06:11:28 (EST)
From: Petrou
Email: None
To: Selena
Subject: My site & I'll whine if I want
Message:
I feel I've never done enough for GMJ and I'm enjoying trouncing the weird Ex-filers.Its a piece of cake.They have nearly all lost the plot and one serious threat has already been monitored,let alone the daily venom.You all might end up making GMJ even more money in compensation payments!
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Apr 21, 1998 at 09:27:34 (EST)
From: Still Crazy
Email: None
To: Petrou
Subject: My site & I'll whine if I want
Message:
I think even Maharaji is savvy enough to know that your harassive tactics here are doing everything but helping him.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Apr 21, 1998 at 13:32:06 (EST)
From: JW
Email: None
To: Petrou
Subject: My site & I'll whine if I want
Message:
In response to your idiotic post, which seems to be some sort of beleagured attempt at a threat, (something has been 'monitored,' now that is really chilling), there is nothing I would like to see more than the Big M do something so self-destructive and stupid as to sue former devotees for complaining about his previous claims to be god, and how they were ripped off big time by him. The suit would be perceived by everyone as a slap suit to get people to shut up, by a filthy rich, selfish guru-noid, going after the very people who helped make him rich, in an attempt to stifle their rights to talk about him. The publicity would be just too precious.

Not only that, just think: Exhibit A: The Book 'Who is Guru Maharai Ji?' Exhibit B: the Movie 'Satguru Has Come.' Maybe people like Bill Patterson, Michael Donner, BBJ, Bohle Ji, Claudia and others could also be required to testify under oath. Also, I marvel at the opportunity to have the Big M be required to testify under oath (and under penalty of perjury), and there would be a multitude of ex-premies who would just LOVE to do the same.

I'm sure it would make Court TV, if not CNN.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 19, 1998 at 20:38:15 (EST)
From: Rick
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Another CultTechnique Revealed
Message:
It's so refreshing to see cult techniques exposed, one by one. Bruce's post below mentions having his questions answered mystically. That is, an individual asks maharaji a question or sends a letter, and gets no reply. Then, in desperation, imagines that the question's been answered. I remember this well: It was usually a sign, like an omen, where something symbolizes the answer. A person may say something or an event may happen that confirms the imagined answer to your question. Of course, this is an extension of the belief in maharaji's omnipresence, and in reality it's the extension of a delusion. Then the lucky premie can talk about it in satsang, that night, because he/she doesn't really have anything to say. Not having much to say will expedite the occurrence of these types of imagined miracles.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 19, 1998 at 21:03:06 (EST)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Rick
Subject: Another CultTechnique Revealed
Message:
Rick:

Great observation. And one thing builds upon another until you've got an edifice made of nothing but imaginations. It doesn't even leave you with anything to tear down when you get around to dealing with it. Perhaps this is why we see Vacol flailing around wildly and basically hitting nothing. The only real target that could give him any 'purchase' on his problem is forbidden. Hence, he has to make Maharaji's 'mistakes' inconsequential. I'm secretly hoping he'll send M a letter or something, but don't really expect him to do it. It's probably more likely (though not much) that he'll get real with someone here on the forum, or someone else he knows and trusts. Of course, what the hell do I know anyway...

-Scott
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 19, 1998 at 21:38:02 (EST)
From: Vacol
Email: None
To: Scott T. and Rick
Subject: Another CultTechnique Revealed
Message:
DID you two know that all mystics who ever lived were actually deluded cultists ?
DId you know that the Sceptics society of every country are always looking for new members.....you two sound like you'd really add some quality to their cults...oopps ,I mean groups.
Buddha, jesus , kabir, aurobindo, gibran, krishnamurti, and a cast of thousands including Bruce and Vacol ...and of course the master magician Himself, big M were all deranged cultists.
Good one lads .....Vacol
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 19, 1998 at 21:53:58 (EST)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Vacol
Subject: Another CultTechnique Revealed
Message:
Thanks Vacol. I know you're sincere. But does the term 'deluded cultists' mean they were deluded in thinking they were in a cult, or the other way round? I mean, were they in a cult and that made them deluded, or was there a 'divine delusion' that gave them the power of enlightenment? We have to keep these things straight you know. Building a big conspiracy theory is no picnic.

-Scott
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 19, 1998 at 22:14:20 (EST)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Vacol
Subject: Forgot something
Message:
Vacol:

Forgot to ask where in the hierarchy of deluded cultists you figure Maharaji fits. I mean, is the scale delusion, the ability to delude, or enlightenment... or are they all the same? If the scale is ability to delude (which would mean not answering doubts) then that would put JC down near the bottom, wouldn't it? I mean, didn't he spend a lot of time wandering around and answering questions? Didn't a lot of people come to him with real, personal problems they thought he could help solve? Did he not spend time actually solving them? Seems like on the scale of deluded cultists he's almost a 'no show.' What say you?

-Scott
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 19, 1998 at 22:45:49 (EST)
From: Brian
Email: brian@ex-premie.org
To: Rick
Subject: Another CultTechnique Revealed
Message:
Too bad for the premies that it doesn't cut both way, eh?

Maharaji makes a plea for funds for propogating this great gift everywhere in the whole wide world (except the clunky internet of course), and the premies send him real, actual money, which he spends on his own self.

They really should just tell him it will magically appear under his pillow if he wishes really, really hard...
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 19, 1998 at 22:59:12 (EST)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Brian
Subject: Another CultTechnique Revealed
Message:
Brian:

That's really funny. I can see him trundling off to bed now, with an expectant gleam in his eye.

-Scott
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 00:46:59 (EST)
From: Bruce
Email: None
To: Rick
Subject: Bullshit, Rick
Message:
Rick,

Don't misquote me for your own purposes.

I did not say that I never received a reply from M.

He has personally answered some questions I've had, and I have seen several letters to other premies.

Nor did I say that I was desperate for an answer.

Do you think that M. should sit down, read and reply to the hundreds, sometimes thousands of messages he gets in a day?

You are what we call over here, a stupid prick
.
That's about all the time I want to waste on you.

Bruce
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 13:22:06 (EST)
From: JW
Email: None
To: Bruce
Subject: Bullshit, Rick
Message:
Gee, am I impressed. Bruce knows that the Big M took time out from buying luxuries to answer 'several' letters. And what did he say in those letters hmmm? Was he answering troubling questions, or was he saying 'thank you for the money?'

And how in the hell do you know he gets 'hundreds if not thousands of letters a day?' Do you know that, or did you make it up?

When I was at IHQ in the late 70s and early 80s, one sister had the job of answering the Big M's 'non-business' correspondence. These were mostly letters from premies, sometimes asking questions, and sometimes just lavishing praise.

Big M never even saw the letters and she just answered them on his behalf. Of course, the premie receiving the response was supposed to believe that the 'grace' was working through this sister and that is was really the Big M who was responding. I even wrote a couple of those letters, in fact, one time I wrote a letter and just dropped it off on this sister's desk which was just down the hall from me. The response wasn't all that satisfying, it was just 'satsang' about how I should surrender and trust the Big M more and that, really, I didn't have any questions or problems, it was just mind. This, of course, is a pile of crap, since these issues were very real for me and represion did not solve them, but what could I say?

Anyway, this sister rarely got more than 10 letters or so a day. Some days she got none. And Big M never even saw any of them, he was just too busy being god to actually communicate with his devotees.

And then, of course, I personally know a number of ex-premies who have written letters to Big M, including me, and have never received a response, even from some Elan Vital premie. Now, I sent a couple of these letters around the time I was splitting from the cult and I was asking a few troubling questions and raising some concerns, especially about the Big M's consistent 'hands-off' approach to the premies who were devoting to him, especially the premies who had been living for years in his ashrams devoting all their time, money and labor to him. Response: zilch. I also sent one some years later, asking if he had a response to what I was feeling about him (that he is a charlatan) and that I felt I deserved a response, having been his devotee for 10 years. Response: Silence.

So, he personally answered some questions you had. Really? What were those, Bruce? Why don't you share this rather rare occurrence with the rest of us, whom the Big M has chosen to ignore completely. Maybe we could benefit from the profound advice he gave you.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 16:12:41 (EST)
From: Still Crazy
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: Bullshit, Rick
Message:
Was he answering troubling questions, or was he
saying 'thank you for the money?'


Hmm, I doubt if that was it. He certainly never thanked me for any of the money I sent him.

Once I got a letter like you describe from some girl, but I never got a single word from M.

[Historical note:] It used to be said that the surest way to get M's autograph was to send him a check, because he'd have to endorse it. I looked eagerly at the first cancelled check I sent him, but all there was was a rubber stamp on the back saying 'Identity of recipient guaranteed' from some bank in Miami (even though I'd sent the check to Malibu).

And then, of course, I personally know a number of ex-premies who have
written letters to Big M, including me, and have never received a
response, even from some Elan Vital premie.


Yes, I only got that response once, I believe the 1st time I sent in some money. After that, the only way I knew that M had received my gift was to look on my bank statement.

-Still
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 20:37:45 (EST)
From: JW
Email: None
To: Still Crazy
Subject: Bullshit, Rick
Message:
Still, a woman who used to post on the forum, but hasn't for awhile, also just left the cult about a year ago. Anyway, she said that for those who gave a large sum of money, like a couple thousand dollars for his plane or something, the Big M actually sent out lovely 'thank you' cards. I don't know if he personally signed them, but in the old days even that didn't happen. But, obviously, those only went to comparatively rich premies.

I did know one premie who donated $5,000 for Big M's Austin Martin, which was a birthday present for him one year, and he got invited to the residence in Malibu for his birthday party. Who said money can't buy you access?

And then, of course, there were all those rich premies who got lots of access, all the time. M seemed to like to hang out with them for some reason. Wonder why?

Jim mentioned David Coyne. He inhereted a ton of money and bought the Big M a Rolls Royce one time. And look where he is now! Talking to people like Jim on behalf of the Big M!
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 00:59:19 (EST)
From: Rick
Email: None
To: Bruce
Subject: Another CultTechnique Revealed
Message:
Bruce,
I wasn't misquoting you. I'm sorry if it came off like that. I pointed out that in your post you proposed that questions to maharaji can get answered mystically. As I went on to describe a process, it was a generic scenario, not necessarily yours. I re-read my post and I can see how it could be read as you say. I probably should have been more clear about that. Sorry for that.
Rick
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 02:07:19 (EST)
From: Bruce
Email: None
To: Rick
Subject: Another CultTechnique Revealed
Message:
Rick,

OK, Accepted . Maybe your not such a p---- after all!

Bruce
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 15:50:02 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Bruce
Subject: Not so fast, Bruce
Message:
Bruce,

Why are you so quick to decide Rick 'might not be such a p--- after all'? That's a little hasty, isn't it? I mean, you KNOW he's going to keep disrespecting Maharaji and making fun of the premies who defend him. Wouldn't it be better to just keep calling Rick whatever names you like? That way you won't drift into that dangerous realm of having to talk with him seriously.

Just trying to help,

Jim
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 20:29:42 (EST)
From: Nigel
Email: nigel@redcrow.demon.co.uk
To: Rick
Subject: Another CultTechnique Revealed
Message:
I'm not too interested in what Bruce, bless him, was or was not saying here, Rick, but I think you have raised an important point about the nature of premie-think.

For a divine being, answering letters is like answering prayers. When I was about ten years old, I brought home a tract from Sunday school that explained how God always answers our prayers. It said something like:

'If you ask your mummy for a book for your birthday, she'll probably say 'Yes.'

If you ask for a typewriter, though, she might say 'Wait...'

If you ask for a gun she will say 'No.'

This is how God answers our prayers. He is like your mummy who knows what's best for you, and he will always answer. You might not get a direct reply, but you will always be able to work out whether He is saying 'Yes', 'No' or 'Wait...''

If GMJ is God's main man on the planet, then it seems perfectly reasonable to me that he should answer letters in exactly the same way that God answers prayers...?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Apr 21, 1998 at 06:04:14 (EST)
From: Petrou
Email: None
To: Rick
Subject: BLATANT MISINFORMATION
Message:
This is supposed to be a technique? Blatant misinformation.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 19, 1998 at 19:20:27 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: outing 'Vacol'
Message:
Just curious, how many people here think it was wrong for me to divulge Keith Simons' identity?

Keith emailed me saying he was looking forward to having a principled debate. He didn't mention anything about his name.

Shortly after, as our 'debate' was going nowhere, I chose to call him by his real name. I guess I felt that my life isn't just a game and anyone who's going to waste my time defending my former cult leader gets no special consideration.

There's a lot I could say about this -- I guess you can talk about anything.

But, at this point, I'm just curious if you guys think it was wrong for me to have outed him?

Just curious.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 19, 1998 at 19:48:53 (EST)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: outing 'Vacol'
Message:
Jim:

Not that it's worth much, but I think it may have been 'wrong' to out Vacol on a couple of strategic levels.

First, it undermines your credibility with people a good deal more deserving of confidence than Vacol. How are they to know you regard them as different? It might have been a good idea to preserve the confidence for their sakes. Not implying there is an issue of network ethics here at all. It's just that if you wanted to be regarded as a 'safe' person to take into confidence some might now have second thoughts.

Second, it completely blew your leverage. This is somewhat Luciferian, but as long as you had not outed him you could always imply that you might do so. That could have a calming effect.

Of course, their are counters to both of these arguments.

-Scott
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 19, 1998 at 20:12:07 (EST)
From: VP
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: outing 'Vacol'
Message:
Jim,

Even if he didn't mention keeping his name a secret in the email (which wasn't too smart on his part) I feel that it was wrong to out Vacol IF you read the post where he asked that his name please be kept confindential. He explained in a post that he did not want his identity revealed. If you didn't read that post, then you can't be faulted. I still think it would have been a bit smart of him to ask you for this priveledge in the email.

I think that this site does really important work. Anything that jeopardizes the trustworthiness or fairness of the people questioning Maharaji is only harmful to the site. But, Jim, who am I to judge your actions? I make mistakes all of the time! I am very appreciative of this site and of all of YOUR hard work.

Thank you, VP
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 19, 1998 at 20:27:16 (EST)
From: Selena
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: outing 'Vacol'
Message:
Jim, my only criticism is that I wish you wouldn't give this Keith / Vracul character so much energy. If he didn't get all this attention maybe he would go away and I wouldn't have to click the mouse button so frequently.
But, then I am blind and boring so what the hell do I know? Loving premies stike again! Thank the goddess or whatever that I don't deal with them anymore!
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 10:44:46 (EST)
From: Robyn
Email: sundogs@hotmail.com
To: Selena
Subject: outing 'Vacol'
Message:
Dear Selena,
I've already mentioned in another post that I don't think Jim should have outed Vacol, or anyone for that matter. I certainly notice that Vacol irritates many. He does flip flop on his view of things but I see him questioning and looking for answers and I want to incourage that. Wether, in the end, he stays a premie or becomes an ex. I see his flip flops as the begining of the process. Maybe 5 years down the road he will have more of a grip on what he holds true. I must admit I haven't read every post of his because they are long. I don't read every post anyway because of time constraints but what I have read of Vacol's convince me that he is thinking, questioning, and seeking his own truth and I wish him well with that task. If I see a premie questioning I have much more patience with that person.
Robyn
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 15:58:35 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Robyn
Subject: to Robyn
Message:
Robyn,

As I've explained elsewhere, I outed Keith because, in my opinion, he abused his anonymity. Obviously, anonymity facilitates irresponsibility, just as signing things encourages accountability. How many anonymous letters get published in newspapers or magazines?

Keith made a big deal about promising to have this fair discussion with me and, as soon as we started, he threw a whole fistful of dirt in my face. I decided that, as far as I was concerned, I had absolutely no obligation to 'protect' his identity any longer. He should have thought of that when he sent me his email and then behaved as he did.

I'd do the same thing again without question but I AM curious what you'd have done in my shoes. Well?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 21:16:12 (EST)
From: Robyn
Email: sundogs@hotmail.com
To: Jim
Subject: to Robyn
Message:
Dear Jim,
I read your explination of why you felt justified doing what you did to Vacol. I can't remember if I wrote my thoughts/feelings before and or after I read what you had to say, I think I wrote one before and then when I read Katie's, after I read your post I still felt the same way for myself. I just don't think any of us should assume anything on another person's behalf. I know some people who post here under psuedo names and I have to tell you I look at it as kind of a sacred trust. It is an honor to me for that person to entrust their name to me and I hold that as a big responsibility. I know the situation wasn't the same with Vacol but as Katie said I would also have checked with the person before I used their real name. I don't have a problem with people not using their real names at all. I think you said it waters down what they have to say but in some cases I think it makes their thoughts and writings stronger because they don't have to hold back as they might using their real name. They may not use their real name because of friends or relatives that may read their words and relatiate. I realize, or believe Denna used her real name and her husband was still a premie but I understand she stopped posting because it was causing friction in their relationship. Was that right? I think it is a very personal choice and none of us can judge what is right or wrong for another. I use my real name but I don't think my words would be different under another name. What's in a name, eh? It isn't like someone can hold me more accountable than another because I use my name and they don't. Maybe if I also used my last name but that isn't even a point for discussion. I know you started the site and must have decided to allow anonimity. Have you changed your thoughts on the matter and if so why. I hope to see your reply when I get to job 1 in the morning. I didn't spend much time here tonight but saw my name and couldn't resist. Good night Jim.
Robyn
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 22:02:22 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Robyn
Subject: to Robyn
Message:
Robyn,

There was no such sacred trust between me and Keith. Are you kidding? He broke our first deal and spat at me in the process. My conscience feels GREAT about outing him and I'd suggest that anyone in a similar situation do the same.

One gets respect by being respectable. Keith wasn't and I think he got what he deserved. That's my opinion anyway.

You're right, Deena split because it was too strifeful for her to post while her husband is a gurunoid.

Like I told Rick below, I distinguish between sincere people and unprincipled guru apologists. I'll go out of my way to acomodate the first and won't give any false respect in any fashion to the latter.

Again and again, I've seen premies post here and, like I said a few weeks ago, I'd give anything for just one honest, premie. They don't exist. At least not the ones who come here. That's not what they're interested in, plain, old human honesty. 'Boring' I can hear them say.

Rick said below that I'd have to be fooling myself to expect a premie to discuss M fairly if, in so doing, he riskes talking himself right out of the cult. Fine, no problem. But when they come here, not to explore and udnerstand but to spit at ex's, I have no interest in making life easier for them, espeically not when my face is still wet.

You're right, the situation wasn't the same with Keith and I wasn't about to check with him about anything. What are you suggesting, that I email him and blackmail him, saying that if he didn't apologize for such and such post I'd out him? That's too complicated. Besides, it raises the same questions about my 'right' to out him ultiamtely anyway.

I agree that anonymity allows people to produce stronger things at times. But that's a different question than their effect which, I think, must always be stronger if signed by a real name, in a real city, etc. etc.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 23:12:05 (EST)
From: VP
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: On this anon thing, Jim
Message:
Jim,

Butting in here again to tell you (even though you didn't ask me) what I THINK-whoa. (Remember that we non-premies are really good at this. Mind reading, no. Thinking , yes.)

When we read posts, personal things that we know about the authors color their words. When I read posts by you, I know that you are a lawyer. I know that Mickey is a priest and gumby is a christian. I don't mean to do this, but I am human. This isn't always the case, but I'll bet we all do this to some extent whether we like to admit it or not.

When I read a post and I know nothing about the person, I can just consider the words and not the source. This can be helpful in making the words stronger in and of themselves. The words and ideas are free from interpretive misconceptions based upon knowing the author.

On the other hand, it is more fun for readers to know a little bit about the person posting because it makes the posts more interesting. Depending upon the post, it can make it funnier, too. It is easier to tell if a person is kidding or not if you know them a bit.

I don't think that if a person gives his real name, it makes his/her ideas more valid. How many writers throughout history have used pen names? Their work is still valid. I realize this is a work of non-fiction so it is a bit different.

Happy Birthday, Jim! VP

Have you ever had an anonymous birthday greeting before?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 23:18:09 (EST)
From: VP
Email: None
To: VP
Subject: On this anon thing, Jim
Message:
Oh, God, I said 'interesting'!!!
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Apr 21, 1998 at 00:03:11 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: VP
Subject: On this anon thing, Jim
Message:
I just lost a post for not doing it right so I'll give you the short version substitute.

Not my birthday! Sorry, I was just kidding. It IS Hitler's apparently.

I think anonymous arguments can indeed be strong for the reasons you suggest but, when you're talking about history -- especially with a bunch of people who try to obscure or deny it -- who you are, when and where you served and what you saw or heard, can be critical.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Apr 21, 1998 at 15:41:48 (EST)
From: VP
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: On this anon thing, Jim
Message:
Right, I agree with that. That is critical. Did you talk to that reporter? VP
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Apr 21, 1998 at 12:04:43 (EST)
From: Robyn
Email: sundogs@hotmail.com
To: VP
Subject: Happy Birthday, Jim!
Message:
Hey Jim,
Happy Birthday, is it today? My goodness I was only on the forum for a bit last night and just got to work from Jade's orthodontist appointment and I totally missed that it was your birthday. Have a great day!
Robyn
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 19, 1998 at 20:24:34 (EST)
From: Rick
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: outing 'Vacol'
Message:
Jim,
If Vacant's real name was listed under 'sender' in your email program, then he wasn't hiding it. In that case, you weren't violating any trust that was agreed on. Revealing Vacant's name appeared hostile to me until I took time to think about it. Vacant's use of his handle in the forum, implied that he intended to keep his real identity hidden, and the sending of an email with his real name, indicated he was okay with you knowing it, but not necessarily anyone else. I think it really depends if Vacant had revealed himself to be the asshole he is, by that time. In that case, I don't think he deserved any special consideration because he's been deceitful in presenting his real opinions on the forum. Considering that, he should have taken care to protect himself and relied on you. If you had to do some searching under 'properties' or 'message source' to find his real identity, then he may have been concealing it, and for you to reveal it, in that case, would have been wrong. I assume that wasn't the case.
Rick
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 19, 1998 at 20:36:41 (EST)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Rick
Subject: outing 'Vacol'
Message:
Jim and Rick:

Considering that, he should have taken care to protect himself and relied on you. If you had to do some searching under 'properties' or 'message source' to find his real identity, then he may have been concealing it, and for you to reveal it, in that case, would have been wrong. I assume that wasn't the case.

I can buy this argument. My opinion that it was a strategic mistake does not automatically imply it was an ethical mistake.

-Scott
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 19, 1998 at 20:30:12 (EST)
From: VP
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: outing Maharaji
Message:
Jim,

I think the work you have done to 'out Maharaji' is a lot more important.

Brian wrote a damn good post below about how every ex posts here for their own reasons. This is supposed to be a support system for ex or questioning premies. If you need to flame, joke, or do whatever you need to get where you are going, my friend, then who can judge that?

So how can I question or judge Maharaji? He claimed to be the Lord, he set himself up as a God. You have never done this.

Take Care, VP

P.S. If I ever email or call you, will you keep my name a secret?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 19, 1998 at 20:57:21 (EST)
From: Katie
Email: petkat@mail.trib.net
To: Jim
Subject: outing 'Vacol'
Message:
Hi Jim - you can probably already guess what I'm going to say, as I think I said it earlier. No, I don't think you should have revealed Vacol's real name without asking his permission. I agree that he should have made clear that he preferred to use a pseudonym in his original e-mail to you, but if it had been me, I probably wouldn't have used his real name without asking.

There are a couple of people that I know on this site who use pseudonyms for important reasons. If their names were revealed it could affect other people apart from themselves (family, children, etc.) So I feel that it is probably good to use a person's pseudonym unless they specifically give you permission not to (no matter what you think about the person in question!)

Regards,
Katie
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 19, 1998 at 21:13:49 (EST)
From: Vacol
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: outing 'Vacol'
Message:
I guess I should say a bit. I sent that e-mail to Jim just before going away for a few days and because I did'nt know if my message to Jim went into the index (because of a problem with delayed response time)....;a few days before a friend reconfigured my computor and my real name was actually not meant to be on my e-mail address.
I did'nt know it was there ...until Jim used my real name on the forum , much to my astonishment.
I in no way blame Jim for my error in this regard but it still if you read Jims posts about this after I complained to him it becomes quite clear that his intentions were hostile and crude.
I agree with Katie ....one never knows the consequences of breaking certain rules of trust and common decency especially in a forum of this nature.
Jim should have known better.
and he has not said sorry...which may have helped
Vacol
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 11:15:19 (EST)
From: Robyn
Email: sundogs@hotmail.com
To: Katie
Subject: re: Katie, outing 'Vacol'
Message:
Dear Katie, et al,
You have stated my sentiments exactly! Thanks.
Robyn
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 00:35:08 (EST)
From: Rick
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: outing 'Vacol'
Message:
Jim,
I've been thinking some more about this subject, and upon reconsideration I think it was unjustified to out the Vacant one. Not that I wouldn't have done it myself for much the same reason as you explained. But I probably would have felt regret later.
Rick
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 04:45:54 (EST)
From: Anon
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: outing 'Vacol'
Message:
I'm just curious if you guys think it was wrong for me to have outed him?

What do you think? Of course I think it was wrong. JW did it to me because I accidently bugged him (and the entire gay population of the world apparently) by saying that Mili would probably not like being called an 'old faggot'. Sorry JW, Jim et al but I think that this practice of punishing people, who one finds irritating, by revealing their identity is a very weak retort. If you're not eloquent enough to pen a sufficiently potent counter without resorting to such desperate measures then you may consider holding your tongue until your wits return.

I consider it to be a matter of common decency to preserve the privacy of contributors who wish to remain anonymous. As we seem to have eventually generally agreed, there are some good reasons to remain anonymous and we should respect the wishes of all those who wish to remain so.

Also, I reckon that there are a lot of people out there, like myself, who will not dare express themselves in public without the opportunity of remaining anonymous. If you can't appreciate this then you must surely have a blind spot.

Why should anyone expect others who are not so inclined, to share their willingness to be so upfront about their identity?

This 'Stand-up and be counted brother Ex's' stuff is puerile in my opinion; as is the call to unite and form a retaliatory 'gang' from premies.

I noticed that those that used to trot out this indignancy towards shyer contributors soon shut up when Mr EX came, conspicuously anonomously, on line with his harder-hitting and rarer revelations.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 07:50:46 (EST)
From: Brian
Email: brian@ex-premie.org
To: Anon
Subject: outing 'Fritz'
Message:
Of course I think it was wrong. JW did it to me [snip]

And he may very well do it again now, you know.

I remember your earlier post and considered responding to it, but hoped that it would just fade away un-noticed. You've just repeated the infraction, and I don't think he's gonna be any happier this time.

It's not what you said about a group of people, but that you brought his name directly into your comment. By doing so you 'out' him. Can't you see this????

I'm free to make all the comments I want about the Billys and Bobs of the world without it involving a particular Billie/Bob.

If your name is actually 'Fritz' and you view that as personal information, and then I make the comment:

Fritz's are idiots (Sorry, Anon).

...then do you think I haven't just 'outed' you??? Aren't you going to actually take it that at the time I posted I actually chose to tie you directly to my comment? How're you going to feel about that, 'Fritz'?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 17:53:07 (EST)
From: Anon
Email: None
To: Brian
Subject: outing 'Fritz'
Message:
You misread my use of the word faggot. I was in jest (as it happens) trying to think of the most offensive term that one could level at Mili. No he is not gay (as far as I know).I was merely implying that Mili is if anything a bit of a 'ladies-man' and would resent being called a faggot.

My apology to JW was sincere in and designed to have the opposite effect to your notion that I was 'tying him to my comment' as you put it. JW had said he is gay quite openly on the forum so I felt it polite to add my comment.. 'no offence meant to JW'. Do think if I hadn't said that that he would have still thought I was having a go at gays? I can't win here.

IMHO just by using the word 'Faggot' as a light-hearted go at Mili, does not amount to calling gay people 'faggot' which is obviously extremely rude.

I would like to say here now that I have many gay friends who I respect without reservation. I am not the slightest bit homophobic and certainly meant NO OFFENCE to JW or any gay people. What more can I say.

Look, I will avoid using all derogatory terms for minority or ethnic groups in any context from now on, just to avoid confusion. OK.

But I stand by my comments that it is uncool to 'out' people who want to be anonymous.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 18:08:33 (EST)
From: Katie
Email: petkat@mail.trib.net
To: Anon
Subject: outing 'Fritz'
Message:
Dear Anon -
As the other person that you 'insulted' in your attack on Mili, I appreciate your post. JW's post below (or above, or whatever) may give you some insight into his state of mind, which had a quite serious basis. Your insult to me was exceedingly mild and might have not even been perceived as an insult by some women. I work in a male-dominated profession so I am extremely sensitive to any 'woman-bashing' implications, and I am sure that I over-reacted. It's necessary that I do this at work, but it doesn't appear to be necessary on the forum (yet).

You are right about Mili's being, or at least appearing to be, a ladies' man (although not in an obnoxious way, I must admit). However, he's been quite non-judgemental about homosexuality. Possibly you could have substituted the epithet 'mama's boy' or something similar. Same impact, different implications. (I think, anyway. Possibly this is politically incorrect as well?)

I also think it's uncool to 'out' people who want to be anonymous.

Regards,
Katie
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 21:27:23 (EST)
From: Robyn
Email: sundogs@hotmail.com
To: Katie
Subject: outing 'Fritz'
Message:
Dear Anon,
I should be gone home by now but I just have to comment on the use of the word faggot. I view it as similar to the word nigger and find them both reprehesable. (sorry I'm not taking the time to spell check) I also don't want to see political correctness rear its wacko head here on the forum. It just gets to nit picky and left field. I am more than willing to accept some terms that may make me cringe to protect the flow of normal speech and converstation. I think that, with the word nigger anyway that a white person has absolutely NO right to use that word. I have black friends who use it with each other but we have discussed it and they also feel it would be hard to hear it coming from me. I feel the same way about the word faggot and once told my brother in law that if he said it a 3rd time he would have to leave my home. I am not black and I am not gay but out of respect for those who are I refrain from using those words. I don't see where they could ever be taken lightly by blacks or gays, at least if I was I would feel that way. I feel like I'm flip flopping because I don't want political correct speech to become part of the forum and that I find those 2 words in particular abhorent but I guess I wouldn't stop reading your posts just because you used one once. I find you to be a sensitive and thoughtful person and I would have probably just commented on it as I have done here and the rest is up to you. Good night and now I mean it!!
Robyn
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Apr 21, 1998 at 12:37:48 (EST)
From: JW
Email: None
To: Robyn
Subject: outing 'Fritz'
Message:
Thank you, Robyn. Very well said, and I agree that it isn't a simple issue.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 15:50:10 (EST)
From: JW
Email: None
To: Anon
Subject: Outing 'Vacol'
Message:
Anon, like Brian, I also hoped to let those events, and those unfortunate statments, fade away unnoticed, and I would think you would want to as well, no matter how 'anon' you might be.

But now that we are on the subject, let me also say this in regard to your 'apology' regarding your statment. Specifically, you apologized to anyone 'going by the name faggot.' Well, hmm, let's think about this, now shall we? Isn't it the point that nobody 'goes by' the name 'faggot,' primarily because it is a hateful, derrogatory term that is imposed on people by those who hate them, not because of what they have done, but simply for who they are? I mean, it's used to dehumanize people, to belittle, to denigrate, and yes, the use makes it just a little easier for others to hate, bash, and, yes, even kill, someone they don't even know.

And I reacted to you like I did partly because just prior to that little interchange, someone I knew,(not well, but I knew him) was murdered on a street a few blocks from my office by someone yelling that very term. Words do have meaning. They do matter, no matter if someone used it 'accidentally.' [How exactly you do that in printed communication, especially as slowly as you claim to type, I don't know.]

Oh, and by the way, in California, special punishment can be imposed on someone who commits murder as a 'hate crime.' Now, while the law applies to those who murder because of race, religion, ethinic origin, or gender, it doesn't apply to orientation, so THAT murder is not a 'hate crime,' and the guy who committed the murder won't suffer exposure to the death penalty because there aren't 'special circumstances.' Now, I'm PC and opposed to the death penalty and all, but it sounds kind of unfair, now doesn't it. I don't know if you have ever been attacked or hated by someone for what you are, as opposed to something you did; hated and attacked for something that you can't do anything about --if so you would know it's a pretty rotten thing-- I mean it feels really rotten -- and it's something you never forget.

And I only used your first name, anon, so you haven't been completely 'outed.' My first name has been plastered all over this forum. I don't know what your sexual orientation is, anon, or very little else about you. You may be a raving homophobe for all I know, but somehow I don't think you are.

But believe me, I would NEVER use a derrogatory term, even directed at someone else, that applied to your orientation, race or anything else. LET ALONE would I make sure everyone who reads this forum, knew I thought it might just apply to you by apologizing to you, in advance, and in doing so, specifically using the name under which you have been posting on this forum for a good year, to apologize for using the word 'faggot.' So, that's why I reacted the way I did. And believe me, I refrained from saying anything more, thinking maybe you just needed a little consciousness raising. But to think you could do that while hiding behind the name 'anon' (and use that word AGAIN in direct connection to me)and be rightously indignant because I used your first name in responding, is just a little cheeky.

Oh and by the way. I'm pretty proud of who I am. I go by JW. But many people who read this site know exactly who I am. I have revealed too much about my premie past, places, dates, service positions, etc., for them not to know. And just for anyone doesn't know for sure, my name is Joe Whalen. I'm a pretty ordinary person. I'm an ex-premie, and I'm also a pretty good cook, a decent 10K runner for my age, a lover of good books and movies, and I'm also happen to be a gay man. If you have a problem with that, that's tough.

But I agree with what you said anon, that people should be allowed to 'out' themselves if they want to, under their own terms. I would hope you would extend that to me as well.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 18:10:43 (EST)
From: Anon
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: Outing 'Vacol'
Message:
Thank you for your reply JW. I read it all and thank you for taking the time to explain yourself clearly. I did indeed take your 'outing-me'post as being mildly cheeky and as you may have noticed I didn't feel the need to react. When this new thread came up, the former incident came to mind as an example of 'outing' someone out of anger. I suppose it was innappropriate of me to drag that up. Sorry.

If you read my reply to Brian, you will see that I have many gay friends. Where I live is considered to be the gay capital of Europe. There is little trouble towards the gay community from homophobics or anyone. Maybe the USA is a lot more violent in that respect. I have no problem with gays at all and whatsmore I think you particularly seem like a very nice person which is actually why I tried to 'untie you' from my comment to Mili. Mili also seems like a decent guy and I wasn't really meaning to offend him. It was supposed to be a joke. Oh dear never mind.. (In the light of this Petrou character Mili seems like a paragon of virtue and common sense)
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 18:21:32 (EST)
From: Katie
Email: petkat@mail.trib.net
To: Anon
Subject: Outing 'Vacol'
Message:
Anon said:

Mili also seems like a decent guy and I wasn't really meaning to offend him. It was supposed to be a joke. Oh dear never mind.. (In the light of this Petrou character Mili seems like a paragon of virtue and common sense).

'You ain't just a'whistling Dixie' when you say that!, Anon. Hope you get the idiom.
Regards,
Katie
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 18:40:58 (EST)
From: JW
Email: None
To: Anon
Subject: Outing 'Vacol'
Message:
Thank you , Anon, I appreciate that, I never thought you intended to denigrate anyone or any group. I believe what most of this stuff is about, is just being aware of what we say and do -- to be conscious of it, and the effect it could have on other people.

And I think you can see that your intent to say 'sorry' to me, made my orientation an issue, when it is only ONE of the things I am. Moreover, I'm sure you don't know the sexual orientation of everyone else who posts on the site. I am likely not the only gay person. Although I have not hidden that fact, I also reacted to the 'sorry' comment as it felt like being treated like the site's 'pet homosexual' or 'the one that's gay.' So, I posted your first name, not because I was trying to punish you, but because I wanted you to know how serious I felt what you said was. But, so much for that.

By the way, that was the SECOND time you had called Mili that name. The first time I was not mentioned, and I think I made a joking comment to you about it. It was only the second time, when you mentioned me, that I responded, and even then I didn't respond to your apology, thinking it was better to drop the subject. And I admit, I HATE that word, and I DO tend to react to it, maybe more than I should. I just find it amazing that educated people still use it, for any reason. Anyone who I had any respect for that used the term, I would think it would be my duty to call them on it. I know you're not a homophobe anon, if I did, I wouldn't bother to mention it.

I live in what is known as the gay capitol of, not only the U.S., but the entire world. It is an amazingly tolerant place. And even here, where gays and lesbians are so interwoven into the fabric of the society, that kind of thing still goes on -- what happened to that guy David Wilmes that I knew. Although it tends to be caused by people who come here from elsewhere. They come here because of the reputation the city has. And gay bashing is still a real problem in the UK too, from what I read. I belong to an organization called CUAV, (community united against violence)and I get their newsletter, which gives statistics from all over the world, wherever they are kept, which isn't that many places.

Thanks, anon. By the way, why DO you want to remain anonymous? Has anyone threatened you?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 19:12:26 (EST)
From: Anon
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: Outing 'Vacol'
Message:
By the way, why DO you want to remain anonymous? Has anyone threatened you?

No not directly but I am a very cautious person and being so has served me well so far. As a matter of fact I feel a sense of responsibility towards my wife and young children. My wife, as it happens, is not so keen on me obsessing over this forum when there are nappies (diapers) to be changed etc. and I know she is disturbed at the extreme reactions that I have had from former friends who are staunch premies, and to whom I have spoken with about my misgivings. Frankly I think that my words on the Forum should stand up well enough without my name stamped all over them.
Although as a premie I have always had a low profile, there are nevertheless many premies around the world who know me and whom I don't wish to alienate just because of my opinions as expressed here.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 18:59:30 (EST)
From: VP
Email: None
To: Anon
Subject: Outing yourself
Message:
Anon,
If it makes you feel any better, I didn't know WHAT JW was talking about when he wrote Fritz in that old post. Actually, I thought it was some private joke from an older posting that I didn't know anything about. So, in a way you outed yourself here. (Then again, I didn't even know what a computer bug was, so maybe others caught on to this when I didn't :) VP
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 05:19:24 (EST)
From: Anon
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: outing 'Vacol'
Message:
Keith emailed me saying he was looking forward to having a principled debate. He didn't mention anything about his name.

That doesn't amount to a reason to mention it. It would seem perfectly plain from the fact that he called himself 'Vacol' in the forum, that this was his chosen pseudonym for that context. (which is quite a distinct context from that of the Forum)

Shortly after, as our 'debate' was going nowhere, I chose to call him by his real name. I guess I felt that my life isn't just a game and anyone who's going to waste my time defending my former cult leader gets no special consideration.

Jim. Whilst what you say makes some sense it also reveals the limited extent to which your reaction was considered.
It's odd that you did not consider that other less deserving individuals may this fear that they would be treated with the same scorn.

Jim, I detect a glimmer of remorse from you over this. You obviously felt the glare of tangible but silent disapproval upon you from the others.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 11:36:59 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Anon
Subject: But look at it this way
Message:
Thanks for all your comments. It's gotten me thinking. In fact, I argued with my girlfriend about it last night. She thought it was simply 'wrong', that I was bound by 'honour' to respect Keith's wishes just because I knew them. There's a bit of an issue, I guess, over that -- he'd sent me his email without even the slightest mention of anonymity -- but I have to admit I assumed, naturally, that his anonymity menat something to him, that's why he had it.

However, have you looked it at this way? Keith agreed to discuss Maharaji fairly. He did so in reply to my call for a premie who wouldn't just shuck and jive and spit at the someone, like me, who wanted to ferret out whatever justification M might have for being M. Not only did he say as much on the page here, he also emailed me saying:

Jim,I accept the conditions of your reasonable proposals.  I look forward to a mutually fruitful debate.  I am going away for 2 or 3 days, and will contact you on my return.regards
                                                            Vacol

                 P.S. I couldn't get this message on the forum


Now, does that seem like a deal or what? Couldn't be clearer.

So, then, how do you think I felt when, as soon as we started our 'debate', he posts:

...and why should you feel sanctioned to pass your totally over-generalised and blinkered subjective judgements about matters that you only have a limited comprehension about.
Your 'facts...facts...and more facts 'is tiresome and narrow-minded. You are kind to those who agree mostly with your ideas.
Enough said.....too many words ....the truth is simply beyond our petty little debate!
Regards Vacol


Count the insults, will ya'? I know we get used to being spit on by premies here but, think about it, I'd already taken off my 'suit' so to speak, thinking I was going to actually have an honest discussion with this guy. Instead, he just throws this shit at me.

Quite simply, I thought that he was hiding behind his anonymity and using it as an excuse to recklessly provoke or attack me. Nothing big, I know, but, in the scheme of things, neither is his anonymity. I thought, 'there's no way in the world, fella, that I'm going to keep your little secret -- that I never agreed to hold for you in the first place -- when you're using that very secret to attack me'. He'd have to be nuts to think I would. That'd be simply crazy. That's not honour, that's just stupidity.

If you're fighting someone and they hit you with their shield, their shield becomes a weapon, wouldn't you say? No one's going to criticize you for taking it from them. That's how I look at it.

I'd do it again, too. If anyone who posts here bothers to let me know their real name if they're not using it, and then throws shit at me, you can rest assured that I'm going to consider that an abuse of your anonymity and respond accordingly. Not tah that's likely to happen. But, that's how I see it, anyway.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 11:50:55 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: And furthermore
Message:
Anon,

I don't agree that 'stand up and be counted' is puerile. Come on, let's be honest here. You can't tell me that there isn't a significant difference to a bunch of anonymous critics complaining about their former guru and Jerry Jerry, of such and such street, doing same? Of course there is.

I guess the greatest example might be Mr. Ex. He's anonymous, like you, for his own personal reasons and I don't have a problem with that. (If he started abusing me here and I knew his name I might out him, yes, but I can't see that happening.) But I think even he would agree that he'd be even more effective than he already is if he disclosed his identity. Same with all of us.

Not to say that it's worth it for all the hassles one might invite upon one's self. Nor am I saying that that 's anyone's business but that person's. But there IS a difference, don't fool yourself.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 18:24:35 (EST)
From: Anon
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: And furthermore
Message:
But I think even he would agree that he'd (Mr EX) be even more effective than he already is if he disclosed his identity. Same with all of us.Not to say that it's worth it for all the hassles one might invite upon one's self. Nor am I saying that that 's anyone's business but that person's. But there IS a difference, don't fool yourself.

I am not fooling myself. I am well aware of the difference. Maybe if I was younger I would feel a bit more prepared to sacrifice an easy life for a just cause. I think you will appreciate that I got rather burned doing that once before and am rather enjoying life less in the the firing-line. Sorry that's just the way it is right now. It may very well be cowardly to take a low profile but I think it quite prudent especially since I have a young family.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 18:34:52 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Anon
Subject: And furthermore
Message:
Anon,

I'm not saying you or anyone should reveal their identities if they don't want to. After all, there's Mahatma Fakiranand and the W.P.C. to consider. I'm just making the point that anonymity impinges credibility somewhat. Not that that can't be compensated for. Your posts, for example, usually reek of sincerity and candour (when you're not disagreeing with me, I mean) irrespective of your identity. But really, if you started calling me an 'asshole' here, would you even expect me to respect your wishes to protect your identity? I hope not.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 19:00:56 (EST)
From: Anon
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: And furthermore
Message:
if you started calling me an 'asshole' here, would you even expect me to respect your wishes to protect your identity? I hope not.

Yes.
Well no... no, not 'expect' but I would hope that you would respect my wishes. You may be interested to know that some of the outspoken premies who post here (who I have obviously managed to offend considerably within the forum context and who plainly dissapprove totally of what I say) have corresponded with me privately and have indeed not seen fit to reveal my name on the forum. In fact our private correspondances have been pleasant. I still feel quite at liberty to mercilessly oppose them in an argument. Arguing can be fun!

Anyway what's so bad about being called an asshole? I call my best friends assholes sometimes.

It is important in my opinion to maintain an attitude of impartiality in debates and to resist getting drawn into emotional reactions. It clouds the judgement for a start. You yourself seem to have somewhat lapsed from the standards you set yourself when you used to proclaim the virtues of avoiding the practice of making 'ad hominem' comments.

As you so rightly said one's credibility is not entirely dependant on what name you go by. I have so far been accountable for all my statements on this forum within the context of this forum. Is that not enough?

If someone were to sue me for what I have said I would be glad to 'stand up and be counted' as I think what I have said has always been honest and well-informed. At the end of the day if someone really needs to know who I am in order to believe what I say, then I'll tell them privately. They can give their email address to Brian and I'll reply. (as long as they are not the thought police)
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 19:13:03 (EST)
From: VP
Email: None
To: Anon
Subject: And furthermore
Message:
Anon and Jim,

Anon, I agree with what you just posted. There are a few ex-premies who know who I am. I just do not want any of the premies to know my name because of my premie family members. Katie touched on my reasons above and they impact others, not just myself. (If I had thought more about it I probably wouldn't have even posted in the first place! I'm glad that I did, because it has been very helpful.)

Jim,I really wouldn't mind anyone knowing my name if I thought that they were trustworthy of keeping my name a secret, even if I razzed them a little. Jim, those premies DID go WAY TOO FAR with you, bud! VP
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 19:25:17 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: VP
Subject: To Anon and VP
Message:
Anon,

Your words are effective. But wouldn't they be MORE effective if you signed them? Again, not saying you should. You understand. Don't you think it makes some sort of difference in THIS particular situation that people are willing to confront Maharaji in broad daylight, as it were?

I mean, here's a guy we used to literally worship with the most solemn pledge of fealty we could imagine. I think it DOES make a difference when the former slaves can picket the master's house WITHOUT masks.

Also, you say that you'd hate to jeapordize certain relationships you have with premies all over on account of what you express here. Anon, Anon, aren't we perilously close to if not already touched by the big 'H' brush in that case?

Finally, where have I argued ad hominemly? I might have argued ABDOMINALLY but where have I ever gone after the person INSTEAD of the argument?

VP,

Who asked you anyway? Now is that fair, ganging up on me like that? 'Anon, I agree with what you just posted.' Yeah, right. How's that supposeed to make ME feel? Did you even THINK of that you non-premie you? I thought you guys were good at thinking. Oh well.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 19:45:06 (EST)
From: Anon
Email: None
To: Jim and VP
Subject: To Anon and VP
Message:
Your words are effective. But wouldn't they be MORE effective if you signed them? Again, not saying you should. You understand. Don't you think it makes some sort of difference in THIS particular situation that people are willing to confront Maharaji in broad daylight, as it were?

As I said (I thought I said anyway) Yes of course it would add something, and yes I do see the difference.

Please don't make me trawl through the forum looking for examples of where you might have attacked your opponents character rather than his argument. I was under some impression from what I have read recently that you were increasingly given to attacking your opponents character as well as his argument. Maybe that is not strictly arguing ad hominem. Maybe I don't understand the proper definition either.

BTW my mother says that she is looking forward to meeting your mother, but you didn't say whether I could come. Would that be OK?

To VP:

That Jim guy needs to be knocked down a peg or two wouldn't you say? I think he's an asshole and thanks for your support. I need it dealing with this jerk.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 20:02:32 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Anon
Subject: To Anon and VP
Message:
Anon,

Attacking character is not ad hominem if character's the issue. It's also not ad hominem if it's a police matter. Take chris for example. Ask him something and get an 'interesting'. Ask him again, get another evasive answer. His forthrightness -- or lack of it -- then becomes a central issue for discussion and mentioning it is neither a diversion nor UNNECESSARILY incendiary.

I try not to divert discussion from subjects onto personalities. I think you'd have to do a lot of searching to find an instance where I have.

Your mother is more than welcome to call my mom. I just want more presents. Plese don't talk to VP that way. He doesn't have Knowledge, remember, and might get confused.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 22:23:16 (EST)
From: VP
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: To Anon and VP
Message:
This is all very confusing-I thought I had knowledge. Jim I think you have been hanging around these premies way too long as I asked you a question and didn't get a direct answer (snicker). I hope that you are kidding around with me. It's hard to tell sometimes. I guess it's because I didn't get knowledge...VP

OOPs I saw my answer below. I have to pay for the silence. I guess I can't email you as I was just mugged by the IRS.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Apr 21, 1998 at 13:02:13 (EST)
From: Robyn
Email: sundogs@hotmail.com
To: Jim
Subject: Furthermore!
Message:
Dear Jim,
What you said to Anon really disturbs me. You say if he calls you an asshole you would out him all over again. I know well that words can be misunderstood and I may be taking this more seriously than you intended it to be. If what you say is really how you feel than it makes you look more like one with power over others. You said to me about Vacol, what did I think you should do, email and blackmail him that you were going to out him, tish tish, you know me better than that whether I am Robyn or Robinski. It is enough of a responsibility to post and be true to yourself I don't think any of us should have to worry about how you or anyone else thinks we are considering our own truth. This means putting up with some people you feel are insincere but that is the price of freedom and you can choose not to read their posts. You said you would out someone for their using their anonimity as a lever against you in an argument(Vacol) and then the next day you say you would also out someone for calling you an asshole, I feel like now I don't know what might cause you to out anyone. I would probably not tell you any secret about myself at this point, not that you care or that I have any secrets, it is just the point. Someday you may catch me in a really bithcy mood, yeah right, or you may misunderstand my motivation in a post and use the secret I entursted to you against me. I know you said Vacol's name was included in his email with no mention about using it but when someone is anonomous here I think that secrecy is understood and you say you understood but didn't think he deserved it. Can you see how I am coming to this conclusion? Can you see it and understand it? Dose it mean anything to you?
JW outed Anon I see now and I don't agree with that either and so I see that my logic that I hold dear is not the same logic that you or JW have and I know outside of this situation I think you are both good men, you are just a bit prickly, Jim but as JW said I think you are honest and have a pure intent as far as the forum goes. We will probably have to agree to disagree on this one but I hope you can at least see where I'm coming from.
Robyn
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Apr 21, 1998 at 13:39:40 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Robyn
Subject: to Robyn
Message:
Robyn,

It's really a matter of degree, isn't it? If Anon just called me an asshole I probably wouldn't out him. I'd have to balance that one comment with all the other things he's said over the time I've known him. (But I can't really see any of this happening and, if it did -- say Anon turned really strongly against me for some reason, I'd try to sort it out first, belive me).

Keith REALLY pissed me off when his big pronouncement and promise to discuss Maharaji reasonably IMMEDIATELY turned ito a spray of uncalled for spleen. I have no history with this guy other than to know that I won't do anything to facilitate that kind of unprovoked and unnecessary attack. Never having been anonymous here I might not put as high a premium on being so as you. No, that's not really true, I can understand it. I'm just not persuaded it's something that should be protected for everyone, no matter what.

Sure we can agree to disagree and, really, I don't need anyone's secrets here if you actually think I can't be trusted with them. Whatever. It's not a big deal.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Apr 21, 1998 at 14:35:34 (EST)
From: Vacol
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: to Robyn
Message:
I have been really quiet during this thread until now,but I just simply have to say that Jims continual assertion of the crime I commited that inspired his 'outing 'of me ,....is half truths, lies and typical cowardly distortions so typical of this asshole. And yet his mates and half-mates still tiddle-taddle with him.....tread softly with the bully when he gets hurt by someone who stands up to his neurotic games!!!!
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 11:51:25 (EST)
From: Rick
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: But look at it this way
Message:
Jim,
How can you be certain the Vacant One's anonymity was a shield for misbehavior? Could it not have been a shield for something else (i.e., creditors, enemies, criminal warrants, etc.). Doesn't the Vacant One's continued misbehavior despite being outed, confirm that his anonymity wasn't a shield to permit misbehavior?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 12:12:02 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Rick
Subject: But look at it this way
Message:
I would say that his anonymity might ahve been for one or more reasons but, whatever other purpose it might hve served him, he used it to attack me. Do you disagree? If so we can discuss it further. I think it's pretty clear that his anonymity 'facilitated' his careless and irresponsible breach of a promise and casual attack on eme.

Got to run. You know what I'd say anyways...
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 12:19:37 (EST)
From: Rick
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: But look at it this way
Message:
I agree that he broke his promise, but how did he use his anonymity to attack you? I don't see any connection, neccessarily. Wouldn't you need to know that for certain (ideally) before exposing him?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 15:28:21 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Rick
Subject: But look at it this way
Message:
Rick,

I inferred from the circumstances that he was indeed exploiting his anonymity by childishly attacking me for following through with the 'debate' he promised to respect. That's not okay in my books and I don't think anyone deserves anonymity to do that. I can't help but imagine that if he had to sign his posts he wouldn't be such a weenie. That's why I say he 'used' his anonymity wrongly.

Same situation -- I'd do it again in a flash. Wouldn't you?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 15:55:50 (EST)
From: Rick
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: But look at it this way
Message:
Jim,
Based on what I've read from Vacol, I think the guy's an asshole, and I think your facts about maharaji are solid and that you proceeded honorably to debate with him. But when you say you inferred from the circumstances that he was exploiting his anonymity, I don't understand the connection. What circumstances? I get that the guy acted like a total jerk, and I saw how he broke his promise, but I don't see any real evidence that his anonymity was a part of it. Especially when after being exposed, he continued. Also, even if anonymity does give a person the latitude to act dishonorably, is it fair to expose them when we don't really know their reasons for choosing anonymity (and the consequences could be severe).

Would I do the same thing? I probably would have, without the time to think it over. But now that I've had time to think about it, and seen Vacol act like an idiot after being exposed, I'd question if anonymity was being abused. Wouldn't you?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 16:19:07 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Rick
Subject: But look at it this way
Message:
Rick,

I get your point. Let me ignore it a bit ...

No, seriously, my inference is as you've speculated -- that anonymity gives one the latitude to act like a goof. It doesn't mean that every one posting anonymously will do that. Nor does it mean that every one posting under their real name, voluntarily or otherwise, won't. Still, when I see someone behaving that way and posting anonymously, for my money anyway, that's a clear abuse of certain type of priviledge, posting anonymously.

It doesn't matter that Keith continues to act this way after knowing that Maharaji might hold him personally accountable for his ravings. How was I to know that he would? Besides, that's something he should have thought about, isn't it?

Really, ESPECIALLY now that you've seen him insult all the kindly ex-premies here, would YOU protect his identity if you knew it? I just can't see it. I don't believe in 'unconditional courtesy' any more than 'unconditional love' or 'unconditional trust' ir even 'unconditional forgiveness'. Do you?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 17:03:36 (EST)
From: Rick
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: But look at it this way
Message:
Jim,
I love my cat unconditionally. He bites me, I kiss him. He scratches me, I hug him.

Sometimes I ask my girlfriend to do me a favor and she won't. Then later, she asks me to do her a favor, and I have to think, 'Do I want to be that small?', and I do her the favor, maybe just because it doesn't really take that much out of me, and her doing me a favor before, would've taken alot out of her. Who knows?

The thing is, the possibility that Vacol could've have continued his behavior after being exposed, existed before you exposed him. Which means you may have assumed his anonymity was being abused. He isn't guilty until proven innocent, right?

Is posting anonymously a priviledge or a right? Or somewhere in between? It can't really be a priviledge because you found out Vacol's identity as a fluke. He created the opportunity for you to expose him, by inadvertantly including his name with his email, so that isn't a priviledge.

When someone posting anonymously is being abusive, it doesn't mean they're abusing their anonymity. Posting anonymously doesn't carry with it any additional responsiblity that posting under your real name doesn't. Where does it say that?

I'm guessing that you were guessing that Vacol had violated the good faith of his anonymity. I'd guess the same thing, but extenuating circumstances are that I don't really know and that the consequences of exposing him may be a case of the 'punishment not fitting the crime'.

Jim, when you say, Besides, that's something he should have thought about, isn't it? , isn't that punitive in the way our parents would be? Like saying, 'I'll give you something to cry about.'
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 18:15:33 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Rick
Subject: I love you, Rick
Message:
His anonymity wasn't necessarily a essential condition for his behaviour BUT it looked that way. The point is that KEITH HIMSELF should have thought of that before he betrayed me.

Posting anonymously does indeed carry an additional responsibility over posting under one's real name. It's on page 208, down at the bottom. The last full paragraph reads:

Anonymity, by its nature, offers protection for scoundrels and honourable men alike. Yet, we have seen that dishonourable folk, i.e. brainwashed cult members who sacrifice all integrity which appears to threaten or conflict with their beliefs, tend to hide behind anonymity while spouting the most ridiculous nonsense. Hey, we have concluded, it almost makes sense. After all, if you're planning to spout nonsense, why do it under your own name? (This was a rhetorical question which we choose not answer for obvious reasons.) Perhaps just to assuage the concerns of people conferring with anonymous posters that they will not be subject to such reckless attacks, we ask people posting anonymously to be particularly scrupulous intheir exchanges.

So, obvioulsy Rick you haven't read the manual recently.

Besides that, posting anonymously might not be a priviledge exactly but having someone hold your secret for you is. If he expect me to keep his secret he was expecting me to grant him this priviledge. There is no sign on my door saying,

'Secret accepted, no qualifications, all comers welcome, friend or enemy makes no difference. Don't matter what you say or do to me or anyone else. Don't matter even if your secret makes it easier for you to abuse me. Hey, it's a secret, right?

Back to the question of whether posting anonymously imposes an additional resposnsibilty, the manual notwithstanding, I agree with your implication that it does not. But who said otherwise? Not me.

As for unconditional love, that's exactly the feeling I have for you, Rick. I've never expressed it before because I've never been asked but your mention of your cat brings it all out. Shit, if only I were anonymous!
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 20:32:32 (EST)
From: Rick
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: But look at this way
Message:
Jim,
I understand Vacol broke his agreement to debate fairly with you, but I think exposing his real identity was a disproportionate retaliation because it could have caused real harm. What if you knew more about Vacol than his real name, like if he had an arrest warrant or had lied on his resume? Would his failure to keep his agreement to debate fairly with you put him in jeopardy of being exposed about that? Doesn't the retaliation for a violation need to be measured? I mean, really, he didn't betray you , he made an ass out of himself . Okay, he promised to debate and then he copped out. Really, he had two choices: He had to give up the cult, or go psychotic. Well, duhhh... what did you think would happen? So you don't get to have your debate. Now, Jim your my pal, and I'm yours, so I can talk honestly and frankly with you. Isn't it a bit like little Jimmy on the schoolyard, pissed off because some kid promised to play kickball, and when the kid doesn't show up, Jimmy walks home dissappointed. Then, on the way home he sees the kid goofing around with some other kid, and they're shoplifting candy. So Jimmy, feeling violated like he does, rats out the kid, and the kid suffers a major trauma in his life. Wouldn't if be more equal to just tell the kid to fuck off, next time he asks to play?

Jim, I love you too, but let's face it we both left the cult and now we got cats. What about poor Vacol who can't love his cat cause it's maya? Vacol needs your unconditional love too.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 20:59:08 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Rick
Subject: NO
Message:
Hey, I always wanted to do that (see Paula).

Rick, it's not at all like that. Your analogy has no nexus between the broken promise and the harm. Stealing candy has nothing to do with playing ball and certainly nothing to do with 'me'. I guess we just won't agree on this but I maintain that people USUALLY act more responsibly when their not incognito. In this case, I was appalled at Keith's outrageous turnabout. I figured that his incognito status enabled him to act that way. I felt that he sure didn't deserve it --

Look, I don't agree that premies DESERVE anonymity here. I'm happy to honour their wishes as long as I think they're sincere. In other words, if they're really trying to understand things, in my opinion, I'll bend over backwards to not scare them off or treat them unkind. We were ALL there once. I don't forget.

But if premies log on as bullshit apologists (oh sorry, Paula, I forgot.)

Rick, I can't continue this. I promised Paula something.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 21:11:47 (EST)
From: Rick
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: NO
Message:
Okay, well, the horse is dead. Let me guess, you argued like hell with your parents and then did what they said.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 21:14:20 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Rick
Subject: NO
Message:
Sometimes.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 18:39:45 (EST)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Rick
Subject: Vacol's veil
Message:
Rick:

I get that the guy acted like a total jerk, and I saw how he broke his promise, but I don't see any real evidence that his anonymity was a part of it. Especially when after being exposed, he continued.

You know, I hadn't thought of this before but putting your statement together with another that JW made about premies feeling afraid to post here under their own names got me thinking. Don't know if it would have made any difference, but outing Vacol might have put him in a bind, in the sense that he could no longer anonymously impugn Maharaji for 'mistakes' and be able to take those observations to their logical conclusion, behind the cover of anonymity. Just a thought. May not be relevant at all.

-Scott
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 18:57:02 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Vacol's veil
Message:
This was the ONE downside I did consider before outing him. I can't remember what I considered but I know I thought about it.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Apr 21, 1998 at 12:17:36 (EST)
From: Robyn
Email: sundogs@hotmail.com
To: Jim
Subject: Vacol's veil
Message:
Dear Jim,
I hate to be confrontational on your birthday but I just have to ask, if you did think about silencing Vacol by outing him before you did it, for whatever reason, why did you choose to possibly shut down his free speech? We put up with the hateful Ku Klux’s Klan because free speech is so valued right?
Robyn
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Apr 21, 1998 at 13:05:34 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Robyn
Subject: Vacol's veil
Message:
Robyn,

'Free speech' doesn't include threats. I thought his little humpty-dumpty thing was a threat. Maybe I'm wrong but that's how I saw it. That's the reason I threatened to report him to his server. Now, funnily enough I guess, Petrou's going on and on about the threat HE thinks Bill made to Maharaji. Petrou is indeed 'shooting blanks' here and joins, with Mili and Keith Simons (aka Vacol or Vayu), the ranks of those absolutely unable to distinguish humour or metaphor from other speech. If he continues falsely accusing Bill of issuing a death threat, it'll be time to report HIM to his server. This is ridiculous.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 19:44:17 (EST)
From: Rick
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Vacol's veil
Message:
I think you may have a point, Scott. Out of dozens of messages that Vacol posted since being exposed, I can remember only one being critical of maharaji. Vacol was being so obnoxious, it slipped right by me.

By this account then, it may have been strategically effective but I still question whether it was justified ethically and corresponded to the severity of Vacol's violation.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 19:49:02 (EST)
From: Rick
Email: None
To: Scott and Everyone
Subject: Footnote
Message:
Strategically effective because a thinking, questioning premie dilutes the true reality of the cult. Being forced into the light made Vacol display the true cult behavior.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 17:23:01 (EST)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: But look at it that way
Message:
Jim:

Do you mean to say that you don't think you'd have more leverage over this Bozo if you only threatened to reveal his identity? I understand it assuaged your sense of impropriety and moral outrage, but is that the ONLY relevant issue, even to you?

-Scott
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 17:33:37 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: To Scott - re threatening
Message:
Scott,

Threatening to reveal Keith's name might have been effective but I would have faced the same question, namely, what right I'd have to follow through. I COULD have done that, instead I did this. I still think it was justified although, I admit, it might not have been the best strategy.

Frankly, I hoped that having his name out there would have a fast sobering effect. I couldn't have been more wrong but I still think I was justified.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 15:38:38 (EST)
From: Still Crazy
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: outing 'Vacol'
Message:
Let's put it this way: *I* would certainly not be likely to email you my real name!

-Still
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 15:43:17 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Still Crazy
Subject: outing 'Vacol'
Message:
Too bad you feel that way, Still. Does that mean you can't trust that you wouldn't slag me unfairly? Or just that I might misinterpret something you say or do like that?

Really, Still, what would YOU have done?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 17:02:55 (EST)
From: Still Crazy
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: outing 'Vacol'
Message:
I would never reveal another person's name -- that is up to them.

As for honor, I think honor is most important when people do things to you that you don't like. Honor is doing what you think is right regardless of circumstances or inconvenience.

-Still
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 17:45:09 (EST)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Still Crazy
Subject: outing 'Vacol'
Message:
Still:

I've noticed that this has been couched in terms of ethics or morality, but you are forcing a strategic issue. I think this IS the right way to look at it. Think forward and reason back. Of course, who does that consintently in real life? We adopt moral and ethical rules because we can't see around corners, and because be need a shorthand method of making decisions that minimizes cost. It's also the reason we have political parties, so they can act as 'reputation pools' that allow candidates to make credible promises before the election.

-Scott
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 16:02:13 (EST)
From: JW
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: outing 'Vacol'
Message:
Jim, it appears Vacol doesn't really care about his name being revealed here, so I guess the issue is a broader one for me.

In conversations I have had with others, both premie and ex, I get the impression that there are many, many, premies who read this site regularly. But I also think there is real evidence of group pressure in the premie kingdom, NOT to be known to be posting, or even reading this site. Premies seem really scared to reveal who they are, and really scared to even POST, lest some other premies, initiators, or Big M himself, know that someone is doing it and that is a form of revealing doubt or lack of faith. A true devotee should just be uninterested in what is being said here. But we all know, now don't we, that premies are nonetheless peaking here, and it is likely irresistable to those who have the means.

So, anonymity, if that is what someone wants, I think should be recognized whenever possible, especially of premies, who might fear they will experience some social, or spitirual, reprisals if it got out to their premie friends, or enemies, that they are so into doubt and questioning that they would even LOOK at this site.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 16:31:35 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: to JW
Message:
Joe,

Yes, yes, I agree wholeheartedly. But I still say that if someone bothers to tell me in email who they are, promising to discuss the matter fairly, and then gets back on the page and blasts me as follows:

... and why should you feel sanctioned to pass your totally over-generalised and blinkered subjective judgements about matters that you only have a limited comprehension about.
Your 'facts...facts...and more facts 'is tiresome and narrow-minded. You are kind to those who agree mostly with your ideas.
Enough said.....too many words ....the truth is simply beyond our petty little debate!


then their little 'secret' is NOT safe with me. What would YOU have done?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 17:35:53 (EST)
From: Katie
Email: petkat@mail.trib.net
To: Jim
Subject: outing Vacol
Message:
Hi Jim - sorry to butt in on your discussion with JW. I do think it's important to keep people's identity a secret unconditionally (with certain restrictions, of course: for example if they threaten someone with violent reprisals, you may want to tell Brian who they are.) I don't think it's OK to out someone just because they say obnoxious things to you.

There are a lot of reasons why people may want to be anonymous. Rick listed a few above, and so did I. I think some of the most important are: children, ex-spouses, custody battles, and fear of reprisals. Now we'll never know what Vacol may have said if no one knew who he was. Granted, it might have not been any different, but it might have.

I personally know some exes who need to remain anonymous. I don't think this stance of yours is correct. For example, if Mr. Ex called you an asshole (sorry, Gumby), would you out him? I think that he trusts you to keep his identity a secret no matter what he does.

Hope this don't make you mad, Jim!
Katie
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 18:20:28 (EST)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: A true dilemma
Message:
Katie:

This is off topic because it's really a discussion of professional ethics that has had me concerned for a long time. When I got my Masters I was also certified in Dispute Resolution, and took a series at Willamette Law School on ADR, from Beryl Blaustien, one of the founders of CUNY Law School. We got into this heated argument over what I ought to do if faced with a situation in which a murderer revealed complicity in a murder during the course of a negotiation.

The position of the ADR professional association and certification board was that this information should not be revealed even if it could forestall a subsequent crime. I was totally appalled. (Apparently, the only exception is in the case of child abuse, where statute requires the release of such information.) I understand that there may be larger issues connected with the credibility of negotiators in extremely sensitive and dangerous situations, but just felt appalled.

I was never able to prevail upon Beryl to alter her position, or the position of the ADR board, so I finally resolved with her that if I was ever confronted with that situation I would be forced to reveal the identity and information on the perpetrator and subsequently withdraw as a professional negotiator. I understand Beryl's position, and I see why this is the only way out of the dilemma. Still, it's harsh. Very harsh.

-Scott
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 18:25:58 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Katie's real name
Message:
Katie,

If Mr. Ex called me an asshole he might well threaten the security of his secret with me. It depends. In this case, I had a promise from this guy for reasoned debate. He then threw that promise in my face, so to speak. I figured 'this guy's playing games, one of which is that he's VACOL (of TESTIMONY fame)'. Well, forgive me, but doesn't the manual clearly say this isn't a game? Sure it does, page 36.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 18:35:51 (EST)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Katie's real name
Message:
Jim, I still don't think it's conditional, sorry. Love you anyway (I have two cats and love them unconditionally - bites and scratches too - does that influence you at all?). My real name is Katie Haering. According to the net, there's not another one in the US (except one with a different middle initial). I guess I would be worried about other (perhaps innocent) people that VACOL might be associated with. That's all.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Apr 21, 1998 at 03:33:38 (EST)
From: Mr Ex, shocked!
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: calling names
Message:
Katie, are you sure I called anybody an asshole?
Beside Mili, and I don't remember using that adjective,
I just said (and you'll get the handwritten proof VERY soon) that
Marolyn Rawat said that people who 'left' his husband are assholes.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Apr 21, 1998 at 09:48:46 (EST)
From: Katie
Email: petkat@mail.trib.net
To: Mr Ex, shocked!
Subject: calling names
Message:
Hi, Mr. Ex - I didn't say that you did call anyone an asshole, I used it hypothetically as an illustration (I used the word 'if'). I know that you would NEVER EVER call anyone a word like that!!! (well, almost never.)

Regards from Katie
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 17:43:41 (EST)
From: JW
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: to JW
Message:
Jim, I was speaking in the general sense. As to Vacol, I think he's made it clear he intended to 'out' himself to you, it's kind of 'no harm no foul' for you to reveal his hame. You might have sent him back an e-mail saying that he shouldn't be able to get away with these behind-the-scenes discussions and then bash you (anonymously) in public and that you intended to use his name unless he agreed to cut it out. I agree with you. But Vacol is pretty, shall we say, unbalanced when it comes to a consistent view of anything, including probably his own name, so I think he might be the exception.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 17:57:08 (EST)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: outing 'Vacol'
Message:
Joe:

But we all know, now don't we, that premies are nonetheless peaking here, and it is likely irresistable to those who have the means.

Perhaps not so irresistible if they consider how other premies have fared posting in this arena. If I were a premie watching what happened to Vacol (not in terms of being outed but his impotent flailings), and especially watching Petrou 'petrou out,' that would give me much pause. To tell the truth, I would probably go see 'Phenomenon' instead.

-Scott
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 18:07:19 (EST)
From: JW
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: outing 'Vacol'
Message:
I mean it is irrestible to READ, not to POST. I think many, many premies READ the site, and only a handful post. I think some premies could suffer some negative social effects if other premies knew they read the site and since maybe hundreds of premies do, they could suffer in that way. And if they ever did want to post, the idea that other premies could find out about it could deter them from doing so.

Most of us would never have the information Jim did, as to who some premie is who posts here. That was a pretty unusual situation from a pretty unusual ( maybe a little 'unbalanced' ) person, at least as to what he thinks at any particular time. What Vacol did, he did to himself, Jim had hardly anything to do with that problem.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 18:55:30 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: My birthday party
Message:
Okay,

JW can come. So can VP (whose identity I will protect like the others, $175 up front, $18 quarterly). Selena, you can sit with me and my best friends. Brian'll be there. Scott and Rick can come after dinner but in time for cake. Anon, my mother wants to talk to your mother. Katie and Robyn, you can come with Scott and Rick but please, don't go telling your moms that I didn't let you play with my new toys again like you did last year. It isn't true and, even if it was, your moms don't care. They just like coming so they can flirt with my dad.

Vacol, you can only come if you let us play with you the way God intended. For that matter, bring Bruce and Petrou. We're jsut getting the place ready. Should be a lot of fun.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 18:56:35 (EST)
From: JW
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: My birthday party
Message:
Can I bring a date?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 19:03:09 (EST)
From: Mickey the Pharisee
Email: mgdbach@ziplink.net
To: JW
Subject: My birthday party
Message:
Hey, I wanna come; I apromise I won't talk about Jesus!
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 19:29:09 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Mickey the Pharisee
Subject: My birthday party
Message:
Well, Mickey, I apromisa you I wonna let you talka about no Jesus. Yes, you can come, of course you can. I think I'll let you sit next to Bill, if you don't mind. Then you guys can figure out this breath/Yeshua thing.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 20:48:15 (EST)
From: Rick
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Whoahhh Jim
Message:
Jim,
Here's the $64,000 question... on what famous person's birthday were you born?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 21:00:25 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Rick
Subject: Whoahhh Jim
Message:
Prince Charles.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 21:09:22 (EST)
From: Rick
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Whoahhh Jim
Message:
No, but I just can't say it.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 21:16:53 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Rick
Subject: Whoahhh Jim
Message:
Oh that's great. Look, it IS Prince Charles, too.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 21:21:35 (EST)
From: Rick
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Whoahhh Jim
Message:
Okay, well clearly I'm the one who's confused. You know when you were born. It's just that I thought from the post I read, that today is your birthday, Hitler's birthday. Maybe there's some posts missing or I skipped something.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 21:26:11 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Rick
Subject: Whoahhh Jim
Message:
Rick,

How could I be born on the same day as Hitler? I'm jewish for God's sake!
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 21:34:12 (EST)
From: Rick
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Whoahhh Jim
Message:
Well, Jim, you're gonna love this... there's an obscure spiritual teaching, supposedly channeled directly from God; the channeler is just an ordinary woman. Part of the teaching is about reincarnation, which include claims that the Nazi's who died off in Germany during and after WWII, reincarnated in Israel and became military and political leaders. Hence the repression against the Infada. What year were you born? Get it?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 21:35:57 (EST)
From: Rick
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Whoahhh Jim
Message:
No lie about the teaching, though.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 22:07:23 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Rick
Subject: Whoahhh Jim
Message:
53. Hey I'm not surprised about that. For several years when I lived in L.A. I went to the Whole Life Expo. I felt like I'd died and gone to bedlam. Absolutely incredible -- but a lot of fun.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 23:01:44 (EST)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Whoahhh Jim
Message:
Hi Jim,
Can you just tell those of us who aren't up on the British Royal Family when your birthday is? (and what's your sign, anyway? I think you're a Scorpio....no, maybe a Gemini...wait, I'm picking up that you are a Leo with a moon in Taurus...)

Fondly,
Katie (1956)
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Apr 21, 1998 at 00:04:44 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Whoahhh Jim
Message:
14/11/53. Now if only I knew Keith's birthdate, why I wouldn't waste a second, you hear me? Not a second!
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Apr 21, 1998 at 00:07:47 (EST)
From: katie
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Jim's age
Message:
Good golly, Jim, you are only 2 1/2 years older than I am. I thought you were a LOT older than that!
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Apr 21, 1998 at 01:28:43 (EST)
From: eb
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: 1956 was a very good year
Message:
Dear Katie,

So your birthday must be coming up soon, right? I'm a Moon Child, born in the same year. What year did you receive knowledge?

eb
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Apr 21, 1998 at 01:36:40 (EST)
From: Katie
Email: petkat@mail.trib.net
To: eb
Subject: 1956 was a very good year
Message:
Hi eb -
I received Knowledge in 1972 [my 'Journey's' entry, if you have not seen it, is under Katie (Mischa)]. Anon was born in 1956 as well - which makes us some of the youngest people on the forum (ha ha), although not in real life. Actually, I believe that more people were born in 1955 and 1956 than in any other years - correct me if I'm wrong, anyone!

P.S. 5/11/56
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Apr 21, 1998 at 01:47:10 (EST)
From: Mickey the Pharisee
Email: mgdbach@ziplink.net
To: Katie
Subject: 1956 was a very good year
Message:
My birthday was Sunday, and I received some books and CDs. My Mother-in-law complained because 'Michael never wants anything religious.' Of course not, especially not from a Fundy like my Mother-in-law!

4/19/54
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Apr 21, 1998 at 01:54:16 (EST)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Mickey the Pharisee
Subject: Happy Birthday Michael
Message:
Gosh darn it Michael - Happy Birthday! (That date is also my wedding anniversary - year 2 this year - so I'll remember it). Sorry I didn't send you a Lou Reed tape to counteract that ol' time religion, but you probably already have them all. What CD's did you get - just curious.

Happy birthday again
from Katie

'Despite all the amputations, you could still dance to a rock and roll station...'
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Apr 21, 1998 at 02:08:21 (EST)
From: Mickey the Pharisee
Email: mgdbach@ziplink.net
To: Katie
Subject: Happy Birthday Michael
Message:
Happy Anniversary, Katie and Husband (Peter?)!!
My wife and I celebrated our twentieth on March 18!.
Well, I know that you think that I probably only listen to that noisy stuff, but I had some different requests this year. My daughter bought me the 'Stylistics Greatest Hits,' because I was interested in getting some of that '70's Soul I used to hear in High School. Unfortunately, she got Vol. II, which is stuff I never heard, but all the Stylistics' stuff sounds the same, so it's okay. I also got 'Kirk Franklin and the Family' which is Modern Gospel Music and has a lot of bump, and my wife bought me 'Look Sharp' by Joe Jackson, which is PRETTY OLD STUFF and we all ready have it on vinyl, but now we can put it on the five-disk player and mix it up on 'New Wave Day' as if we actually celebrate such a thing!!
Faddah Mickey
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Apr 21, 1998 at 11:11:34 (EST)
From: gumby
Email: None
To: Mickey the Pharisee
Subject: 1956 was a very good year
Message:
Hi Michael,

Happy B-Day. Grace and peace to you.

-gumby
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Apr 21, 1998 at 11:43:24 (EST)
From: Mickey the Pharisee
Email: mgdbach@ziplink.net
To: gumby
Subject: 1956 was a very good year
Message:
Thanks, gumby. The peace of the Lord be always with you.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Apr 21, 1998 at 02:41:49 (EST)
From: Katie
Email: petkat@mail.trib.net
To: eb
Subject: 1956 was a very good year
Message:
By the way, eb, when IS your birthday? Just wondering...
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Apr 21, 1998 at 11:48:18 (EST)
From: eb
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: 1956 was a very good year
Message:
Good morning Katie.

July 10, 1956. Sun in Cancer. Moon and Rising sign in Leo. Venus in Gemini. Explains a lot, huh?

Received knowledge: 1973. Mahatma Gurucharnanand Ji
Began 12 years of intensive therapy (and 12-step programs): 1984
Got my PhD in metaphysics from a Channel in Big Bear named Esprit: 1997. She said I was done doing the New Age hooey-hooey stuff, and I believe her.

BTW, congratulations on your anniversary.

On marriage: I met my current husband in 1987. It was love at first sight for me. Along with being a lot of fun, he served as a catalyst for my change and growth, and still does. Sort of a personal guru. It took me until 1990 to convince him to marry me. I told him, 'If you don't marry me, I'm taking my 4 kids and leaving.' I still can't believe how fortunate I have been, all things considered. I figure I've worked out at least 3 lifetimes worth of karma this time around, if there is such a thing as reincarnation.

Katie, I love reading your posts. BTW, what is your area of research? Email me if you want to or have time.
eb
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 19:08:47 (EST)
From: eb
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: outing 'Vacol'
Message:
When I first happened upon this site, I was looking for some inspiration. I wasn't actually an 'ex' at that point. (I saw M in 1996, but felt no attraction. Had a good time with old friends, though).

After reading through the archives and then keeping up as best as I could with the daily posts, I definitely crossed over the line. No fear lurks within me that perhaps I'm wrong and will return to the fold anytime soon. But I'm not quite ready to 'come out' for some rather personal reasons. Perhaps this means that I'm not being rigorously honest in my recovery ;) Okay, I confess: I'm a coward. I would not be able to handle the flames that would be forthcoming.

Without the ability to remain anonymous, I would not participate here. It wouldn't stop me from lurking, say, if I were a premie. But in my recovery from addiction to a cult, it helps for me to be able to post from time to time.

With gratitude,
eb
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 19:30:51 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: eb
Subject: outing 'Vacol'
Message:
eb,

You have to consider what happened. I wouldn't dream of outing a premie or an ex in normal circusmtances.

Jim

Who the hell are you, anyway?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Apr 21, 1998 at 01:19:37 (EST)
From: eb
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: A Long Response
Message:
Jim,
Although I haven't seen your picture, I'm fairly certain that I don't know you. And I doubt whether you would recognize me despite the fact that we spent many hours in the same darshan lines. I do not remain anonymous on your account.

Just wanted to add a couple of thoughts:

1) I recognize that the exchange which resulted in your 'outing' Vacol was a special circumstance. Having spent several years in 12-step-type programs, I don't see the Forum providing the same sort of healing environment. The principle of anonymity does allow honest sharing without fear of reprisal. The topics, though, are limited, and the steps, as vague as they are, provide definite boundaries. Here on the Forum, we engage in the 'cross-talk' which is discouraged in 12-step meetings. It's the 'chit-chat' I longed for as a premie. We don't all believe in a 'power greater than ourselves that will restore us to sanity.' (Sanity is overrated, IMHO). There's lots of room for differing philosophical viewpoints as well as potty words, insults, and threats (unfortunately). Katie mentioned to me once that she always liked premies , and I agree. This is the most interesting site on the web, again IMHO.

2) What I think of you, Jim: You must've been one helluva premie to be as driven in your current work to bring understanding where there is ignorance. Could be your karma. At any rate, I ordered The Guru Papers today. You sold me.

Sincerely,
eb
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Apr 21, 1998 at 01:42:27 (EST)
From: Katie
Email: petkat@mail.trib.net
To: eb
Subject: A Long Response
Message:
Hi again, eb.
I will be really interested to hear what you think about the 'Guru Papers' assessment of 12-step groups. I found it quite provocative, especially since I was brought up to think that the 12-steps were 'THE TRUTH'. I'm not sure that I agree with all that the authors of the Guru Papers say about 12-step groups, but it's definitely worth reading to get another perspective.

Regards from Katie
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Apr 21, 1998 at 13:25:58 (EST)
From: eb
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: The Guru Papers
Message:
Hi Katie,
I had to order the book, so I'll get it in about a week. After I read it, I'll let you know what I think.

BTW-what threat is Petrou talking about? I think I missed something.

eb
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Apr 21, 1998 at 13:34:39 (EST)
From: eb
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Nevermind
Message:
Katie, I just needed to wait a few minutes for the answer to appear at the top of the page.

eb
Back To Index -:- Top of Index