Ex-Premie.Org |
Forum III Archive # 46 | |
From: Apr 27, 1999 |
To: May 17, 1999 |
Page: 3 Of: 5 |
Date: Wed, May 05, 1999 at 16:38:05 (EDT)
From: a disappointed ex Email: None To: Everyone Subject: juvenile bickering Message: The effectiveness of this website to combat Maharaji's cult is diminished every time the forum discussion degenerates into the kind of silly, hateful, childish bickering which appears today. Such toxic and useless speech appears quite often here. I suppose that allowing this nonsence to flourish is the price paid for keeping the discussion open and without censorship. But it is a high price. I am quite sure that there are many ex-PAM's and other exes who could have powerful, pertinent information to post here who are reluctant to do so because of the vulgar, unprofessional atmosphere. This negative aspect of the Forum discussion also makes it easier for practicing premies to dismiss the whole site. If you all want to be taken seriously, you've got to do better. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, May 05, 1999 at 17:26:58 (EDT)
From: Nim Email: None To: a disappointed ex Subject: juvenile bickering Message: I find your dissappointment juvenile. People come onto this forum with no intention other than to disrupt it, and insult and badger regular forum participants. And unfortunately there are those exes who have already posted here, but have been dissuaded from continuing because of the pathetic attacks that they've been subjected to on the forum. If these creeps are not being blocked from posting and they choose to post such insulting material here, then they certainly should be met head on. If all you can do is complain about the 'juvenile' nature of the whatevers taking place, I think THAT'S JUVENILE. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, May 05, 1999 at 21:57:44 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: a disappointed ex Subject: Who are you to say? Message: Hey, this is rich. You don't like the way people communicate here but, as far as we know, you, personally, have offered nothing. Who are you and what's with the anonymous complaint? Please don't tell me you're just some lurker. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, May 05, 1999 at 22:18:42 (EDT)
From: Robyn Email: sundogs@hotmail.com To: Jim Subject: Who are you to say? Message: Dear Jim, Who is anyone to say anything! This is a public place, eh? Anyone can say anything. Evidenced by the premies that post here and the fact that NO ONE can shut you up! You of all people should respect that, just more space for you to let it all out. Love, Robyn Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, May 05, 1999 at 22:29:00 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Robyn Subject: You miss my point, Robyn Message: I don't think people have any right to complain about how others conduct themselves here unless they, too, are active participants. Sure, they can state their piece. I wouldn't try to stop that but I would question their own involvement before I'd take seriously any of their criticism. Some anonymous lurker, as far as I'm concerned, has a lot of nerve telling others here how to do the 'work' he hasn't bothered to undertake himself. That's my point. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, May 06, 1999 at 09:05:22 (EDT)
From: Robyn Email: sundogs@hotmail.com To: Jim Subject: You miss my point, Jim Message: Dear Jim, 'I don't think people have any right to complain about how others conduct themselves here unless they, too, are active participants.' There are a few rules here, no threats being the main one. There is NO bill of rights and wrongs. You certainly do not adjust your conduct because others who ARE active here find you offensive, hurtful, arrogant, or unable to 'see' yourself the way MANY others see you. I think if over all the time I've been here if different people said the same critical things to me over and over that I might just say, hey, maybe they see something I don't. Maybe I should think about how I act. But that is me. 'Sure, they can state their piece. I wouldn't try to stop that but I would question their own involvement before I'd take seriously any of their criticism.' What the frock does this mean, you would question their own involvement before you'd take their criticism seriously. First of all it just doesn't make sence and sencond YOU TAKE CRITICISM SERIOUSLY! Hahahahahahahahahahahaha! To FUNNY! :) 'Some anonymous lurker, as far as I'm concerned, has a lot of nerve telling others here how to do the 'work' he hasn't bothered to undertake himself' You have a BIG problem with anonymous posters, you bring it up all the time. They have every RIGHT to be anonymous. It is allowed her Jim. Get over it. We have to learn to deal with you and you have to let the anon's be. Is someone uses a name that is not there own but is still a regular name you don't know the difference. Who gives a shit what any of us calls ourselves as long as we can identify the person by their thoughts and writing. There are reasons people don't want to use their real names, why do you give a shit about that? Also when someone posts then they are starting to do the 'work' that you are speaking of. As JW said somewhere recently, we have to accept all kinds of undesirable things here to enjoy the element of free speech and honest expression. Maybe you should avoid premies and anons if they annoy you so. Right. Like I usually avoid you but I was in the mood for some confrontation, :) and you didn't even give me that, damn ya. I even tried to egg you on with my polite and loving salutation! Love, Robyn Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, May 06, 1999 at 11:23:02 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Robyn Subject: You miss my point, Jim Message: Robyn, You really didn't get my point but, know what? I don't care. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, May 06, 1999 at 12:44:00 (EDT)
From: Robyn Email: sundogs@hotmail.com To: Jim Subject: I know you don't care(nt) Message: 1-[093 Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, May 06, 1999 at 16:49:05 (EDT)
From: Helen Email: None To: Robyn Subject: I know you don't care(nt) Message: Hey Robyn Is it just me or does it seem like ex-es really look the other way when Jim behaves like a prick to other ex-es like he just did to you? It's like some big dysfunctional family where everyone denies the elephant in the living room. This is one of the aspects that I least enjoy about the forum, people look the other way as other people get torn apart. Jim isn't interested in connecting, or having a discussion or debate, he's interested in belittling people. In fact he relishes it. And other ex-es allow it to happen by their silence. This is why I am limiting my involvement here these days. Love Helen Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, May 06, 1999 at 18:16:52 (EDT)
From: Robyn Email: sundogs@hotmail.com To: Helen Subject: I know you don't care Message: Dear Helen, Thanks sweetie. I did egg him on a bit I suppose but mere child's play compared to the low blows he himself is capable of. What the fuck I guess. ;) Love, Robyn Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, May 06, 1999 at 20:06:47 (EDT)
From: Mickey the Pharisee Email: None To: Robyn and Helen Subject: I know you don't care Message: The internal fighting reminds me of my family of origin. I am the eldest of four, and we all fought all the time. But if someone from outside of the family ever fought with or even threatened any of my siblings, I would go after them, and my siblings responded in the same manner. Some of the ex-es argue and disagree and get pretty nasty with each other, but as soon as pwk (a widdle pwik?) or premie or whatever they call themselves now days attacks an ex, you can pretty much rely on the rest of the group to go after the attacker. Now that doesn't mean it is a healthy reaction, but it is one which I find familiar. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, May 06, 1999 at 20:21:41 (EDT)
From: Robyn Email: sundogs@hotmail.com To: Mickey the Pharisee Subject: I know you don't care Message: Dear Mickey, Thanks for writing. I have been going through some family stuff lately myself, that was why I was egging Jim on. Even if I think he is out of line a lot that doesn't mean I should to the same but I figured if I was then Jim was my only choice. I understand what you are saying about internal fighting but pulling together when outsiders threaten one of our own but you see dear, I usually don't read those threads at all because that attacking really freaks me out. I was the one in my family who couldn't take the abuse and couldn't take watching it happen to my sisters and our animals so I miss out on that banning together you see going on here. I am stirred up with this thing with my sister and I have even read some premie posts and even posted to some myself. I've really been walking on the edge! :) Love, Robyn Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, May 06, 1999 at 21:01:44 (EDT)
From: Sir Dave Email: david.studio57@btinternet.com To: Helen Subject: No it's not like that Message: In my view, the more credence you give to a pointless argument where the two sides are naturally opposed, then the more entrenched you get into nonsense. It's past my bedtime. The way I see it, there's better things to do than argue the toss with disembodied sentences on a web forum. I mean true, I have my own sad and pathetic Internet vices, like scanning the search engines every day to see if my web sites have beaten Rawat's in the search indexes. Hey, we all have our little insanities. But for me, arguing with people I've never met and probably never will meet, seems pretty pointless. I mean, does anybody ever win these arguments? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, May 06, 1999 at 21:26:50 (EDT)
From: Helen Email: None To: Sir Dave Subject: No it's not like that Message: You're preaching to the choir. How often do you see me arguing with people here? Very rarely, I'd say. But I have as much right as anyone here to voice my opinion. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, May 06, 1999 at 21:57:38 (EDT)
From: Runamok Email: None To: Helen Subject: Carefully carrying caring Message: Helen, Since you have a way of cutting through a lot of bullshit, it seems only fair for me to join in the possible fray your humanist sword may be summoning. There are a few different points so give it the whole text before you assume I've taken sides. I think a lot of people strongly support Jim, and I think it's because many, maybe most of the more active posters, are opposed to Mirage in a militant way. For myself, I think Jim is more helpful than hurtful, and I appreciate the way he takes on premies and feel that it is, more or less, necessary. I, myself and strongly opposed to Miragey and do want to support people who have a militant view. Jim seems to not only have that, but does have a long history of dissing Miragey on the internet (even before any forum or site existed). Where I have tried to take Jim to task, at times, I found myself woefully encouraging the enthusiastic bullshit of a flock of premies who thought they had made an ally. I don't associate with premies at all. It's not a rule but an ongoing choice. I also don't spend time on premie websites. I think, realistically, I've spent less than an hour on all of them combined (including ones webmastered by exes), but ok, amybe 2. I don't pay much attention to posted satsangs of M's (Jim's posts, usually). The prospect of me encouraging premies in any way has outweighed for me the desire to tangle with Jim. But I don't always agree with him and sometimes we have argued, mostly about science. Sometimes I have felt his behavior is inappropriate but haven't said so (altho I did get into this some while arguing about science with him). It's hard to say where he goes over the line (although I will say where I THINK that is) His behavior usually seems kind of necessary to me. I think he goes too far with Skepticism and evolution, as if it is recquired to believe these things and disbelieve all forms of unfounded, non-scientifc teachings. Jim got too heavy with Miloochie, for example. Miloochie, like you, is thoughtful, articulate and contributes a less rational and more humanistic point of view than Jim that is nonetheless cultivated and edifying (educates us, folks). While I see how Jim, and others to a lesser extent, view Skepticism as intricately related to leaving M, it is clearly an off-topic. If I argued a Freudian model of Jim's behavior and insisted it was on topic and argued it ad infinitum, it would be utterly ridiculous and obviously off-topic, but it would be just as possible to make a case for claiming it's relevance. I guess I'll say that much for now. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, May 06, 1999 at 22:21:36 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Runamok Subject: Come on Message: I think he goes too far with Skepticism and evolution, as if it is recquired to believe these things and disbelieve all forms of unfounded, non-scientifc teachings. Jim got too heavy with Miloochie, for example. Run, I never said that believing in evolution was 'required' although I think it's pretty absurd not to given the overwhelming evidence for it. I've always said that I think understanding and accepting evolution is really helpful in seeing through Maharaji if for no other reason than the fact that he's on record disputing it. Moreover, evolution puts the lie pretty handily to the whole 'holy man' theory and even, when you get right down to it, to spirituality in general. But I know there are lots and lots of ways to see through Maharaji even while believing in a 'higher power'. I was already out of Maharaji's camp for years before I stopped believing in spirituality. But about Miloochie, please, give me a break. I didn't say a single unkind, uncivil or insensitive thing to him in that entire exchange. Not one. The only crime that I -- and Nigel -- might be rightfully accused of was persisting in discussing the matter a bit longer than he felt comfortable. Was that too heavy? I don't think so. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, May 06, 1999 at 23:21:06 (EDT)
From: Helen Email: None To: Jim Subject: Come on Message: If he (Miloochie) felt uncomfortable and verbalized that, why did you persist? Do people's feelings have any import whatsoever in Jim's world? Do you even pick up the feelings of others on that big brain radar screen of yours? I don't think so. You're on send and not on receive as I've said before. And Jim you don't things like 'I have found evolutionary theory really helpful'; you say stuff like 'fuck off, pea brain' when people don't want to discuss it with you to the degree that you would like to. You don't say stuff like 'I still belived in spirituality after I left Maharaji'; you say stuff like 'how can anyone in the 20th century believe in God?'. You are intentionally inflammatory and provocative, and you love to see things burn baby, burn. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, May 06, 1999 at 23:43:57 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Helen Subject: Come on Message: Looking for a fight, Helen? Quack, quack, quack!! How's that? Is that what you want? Helen, you must have something better to do. I think if you go back to the astrology discussion youd be hard-pressed to find where exactly Miloochie exhibited his discomfort. That became evident pretty well after the fact. Did he feel 'verbalized'? Sorry, forgive me for laughing. Anyway, Helen, I sympathize with you to some extent. Evolution obviously threatens some cherished beliefs of yours and I do know how that feels. Still, I think you're a little guilty of shooting the messenger. You seem to be reaching for some excuse to do so -- like making up this nonsense about my telling people to 'fuck off, pea brain' if they don't want to discuss the subject as much as I do. Helen, that's just dumb. Sure, I've yelled at people here but what of it? What we've got here is an interesting interface between cult members and ex-cult members. People defiantly impervious to reason and others who value their reason like renewed freedom for an ex-hostage. Emotions roil on both sides. It's really kind of bizarre that we can all talk to each other at all. Do I care about protecting the hardshell encasement of cult apologists? Helen, you've got to be kidding. I couldn't imagine a more misguided sensitivity myself. Personally, I think all Maharaji's followers should taste some of the embarrassment we all felt back when the astrodome did not lift off. Now that was a 'drip' and the more drips the better. Getting scolded for being irrational liars might, just might, be another drip for some premies out there. Whatever, if they come here I figure they're game for a little frisson. So be it. I do enjoy trying to dunk premie clowns at the fair. Like I say, if they were so concerned about getting wet they wouldn't come here. You don't say stuff like 'I still belived in spirituality after I left Maharaji'; you say stuff like 'how can anyone in the 20th century believe in God?'. You are intentionally inflammatory and provocative, and you love to see things burn baby, burn. Part wrong, part right. In fact, I do say stuff like 'I still believed in spirituality after I left Maharaji'. I certianly don't make a point of hiding that fact. On the other hand, you're right I also say 'how can anyone in the 20th century believe in God?' What's wrong with that? Is that 'inflammatory and provocative'? Maybe. So what? Do I like to see some things 'burn, baby, burn'? Yeah, I do. But don't you? By the way, Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, May 07, 1999 at 07:14:19 (EDT)
From: Robyn Email: sundogs@hotmail.com To: Jim Subject: Come on Message: Funny Jim to my post you just reply you don't care, that is why it is easy to pick a fight with you because although I think maybe in your physical life you couldn't be such a prick and have any friends. I made some points and as usual you just ignore them and then pick on things Helen said that you find not accurate or not inflamatory. BTW I do not think saying, how could anyone believe in god in the 20th century, isn't inflamatory in and of itself but I'd bet my left breast that the additional words around it were cutting. You say you pick on premies and that is OK, that may or may not be true, personally you know how I feel but when there are no premies you have no outlet for your attacking nature and are forced to lash out at the more gentel(sp) ex's. I've been there myself. I am sorry I started this, it is a middle child trait, hope that isn't as sore a subject as astrology! The reason I am sorry I started it is that others got involved and it is as pointless as going in circles with premies but there is absolutely NO redeeming outcome, ie. causing truth about M to come out. As I said before you are like talking to a Jehova's Witness. Thanks to Helen for caring about me and showing me support and to Mickey for trying to bring some sence to my brain. Love, Robyn Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, May 07, 1999 at 09:46:39 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Robyn Subject: Fuck off, Robyn Message: nt Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, May 07, 1999 at 11:37:01 (EDT)
From: Sir David Email: None To: Jim Subject: with lance at the ready Message: and ready to strike down anyone who attacks Robyn. Anyone who wants to get Robyn has to get past me first! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, May 07, 1999 at 11:38:51 (EDT)
From: Robyn Email: sundogs@hotmail.com To: Sir David Subject: with lance at the ready Message: Dear Sir, Thanks sweetie but I don't think that will be a problem for him. Love, Robyn Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, May 07, 1999 at 12:03:20 (EDT)
From: bb Email: None To: Sir David Subject: with lance? at the ready Message: Are you saying everyone else has sloppy seconds? Jimmy, You know, I improved my punctuation at your request. And also, I discovered paragraphs at your suggestion. Consider other more inventive invectives than the fuck word. Mainly because lots of people are using it now and you want to get back ahead of the curve. I am going to make a frontal assault on Robyn on mothers day. My style. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, May 07, 1999 at 12:08:00 (EDT)
From: Robyn Email: sundogs@hotmail.com To: bb Subject: with lance? at the ready (bb) Message: Dear Bill, Thanks to you too sweetie. 'I am going to make a frontal assault on Robyn on mothers day. My style.' I must confess to not knowing what a 'frontal' assault could be and it sounds a little iffy when considered with your 'sloppy seconds' remark but I know it is meant in a kind regard.... See you Sunday. :) Love, Robyn Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, May 07, 1999 at 12:43:58 (EDT)
From: bb Email: None To: Robyn Subject: with lance? at the ready (bb) Message: The 's...s...' remark was because Sir David left an -er-opening for it. The 'frontal assault' is not the first post on sunday but part of the light fun of the characters involved. And, not AT you, but...well, you'll see. Hopefully Sunday wont be so busy, but if it is, it can also run on into monday. And beyond! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, May 07, 1999 at 13:05:22 (EDT)
From: Robyn Email: sundogs@hotmail.com To: bb Subject: thanks bb :) (nt) Message: [fq209yth'q Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, May 07, 1999 at 21:48:08 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Sir David Subject: with lance at the ready Message: What's that supposed to mean, David? Really. What are you saying here? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, May 07, 1999 at 09:26:33 (EDT)
From: Helen Email: None To: Jim Subject: Come on Message: Part of your post is missing! It's a very civil post by the way!! The one below where you tell me 'fuck you' is not but I probably was a little aggressive in my attacks on you, eh? I think Run hit it on the head when he said that Miloochie's state of mind was more important than whatever you all were arguing about. But I think for you, ideas are more important than people. I have to interview someone about what happened in Denver for an article, you have a jolly day. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, May 07, 1999 at 09:49:57 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Helen Subject: And you too, Helen Message: I think Run hit it on the head when he said that Miloochie's state of mind was more important than whatever you all were arguing about. But I think for you, ideas are more important than people. You guys are a joke! To read your self-righteous protests here, without knowing better one would think that I (forget about Nigel for a moment) was all but torturing Miloochie. Sorry, you might be able to but I can't take you seriously. Oh, I'm so sorry if I've 'verbalized' you. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, May 07, 1999 at 00:53:43 (EDT)
From: Runamok Email: None To: Jim Subject: on going Message: Jim, As with my response to Helen, please read through to get all the points before reacting to strongly. There's good stuff in the second half (and sounds like criticisms or the like in the first). You've mellowed about evolution some, and the evolutionary psych thread was exceedingly well behaved, but you still sound pretty rigid in your response to me: 'I never said that believing in evolution was 'required' although I think it's pretty absurd not to given the overwhelming evidence for it.' Why would I say this is kind of rigid? Because we are not discussing evolution right now. It's a distraction at the moment whether you're correct or not in what you say. The 'overwhelming evidence' is irrelevant. You're getting your plug in. With Miloochie, I felt like the guy was kind of freaking and you just had to press the point. It's not about right and wrong, either factually or ethically. It was about that he was more important to me at that moment than the argument (and I felt he was freaking, which in retrospect looks correct). Look, my biggest beef with the forum is that there's too much small talk. I can tolerate that, but still. When I look at your overall contribution, I think you help move the forum in the direction I want to go in. We are both pretty militant against Miragey and seem to agree somewhat about dealing with premies online. These are ongoing, evolving situations, but we have some kind of mutual understanding in them. Maybe you can respect where I have differences of opinion with you. It seems a natural part of a diverse universe (one not centered around some single, overrated, fake messiah) that there is difference, and that human understanding does not fit an exact mold but is an ongoing process between people. Try some Humanism with your Skepticism, when you get the chance. It is historically associated with evolution as a grounding for morality for atheists and agnostics. By the way, I could register some other complaints, but I'd rather point out that I've grown more interested in philosophy, evolution and the philosophy of science from arguing about those things with you and others here. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, May 07, 1999 at 01:31:39 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Runamok Subject: on going Message: Run, I'm going to let you have the last word because our differences at this point are too small to parse out. (ooooh, I'm so tempted ... but... alas, I won't). Hey, like Gerry, I'm an easy-going, fun-loving kind of guy. Some of my fun is, of course, in debating things I'm interested in, like the folly of the late 20th century cult leader, Maharaji. And easy-going gives way to strong indignation when I deal with evasiveness, especially smug evasiveness a la CD. I stand by what I said about evolution and, yes, I enjoy getting athe odd dig in about it. Big fucking deal, eh? You brought it up. In fact, you always bring it up. So what'd you expect me to say? I think it's unacceptably antique for people in this day and age to not accept it as fact and proceed accordingly. So shoot me. (Just kidding, Cat!) But, ... well, I did get into it, didn't I? Sorry. Anyway, ... oh I don't know. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, May 07, 1999 at 15:29:54 (EDT)
From: Runamok Email: None To: Jim Subject: on going Message: Well, if it was somebody talking Freud as often as you talk Dawkins, you'd probably find it absurd. Therapy and the like is as relevant as anything, NO more relevant. Genetics versus environment- that would be the real argument and I could talk Freud all day. But that isn't why I'm here and I don't want to work too hard at something that's not interesting to me. Think about it. I don't really give a shit about Skepticism, although I do respect it. The little commercials for evolution detract from whatever you're arguing for when they're not relevant. Your arguments lose something for the lack of focus. Both you and me are probably kind of thick-skinned. I know I can talk loud into the night, drinking coffee. It's seems like nothing's being said if there is no disagreement- but my friends and lovers can't always understand this about my nature and I've learned to adjust to them. Because I'd get pretty bored arguing with myself. Let's get serious. Anyway, Shp has started to bore me to death. I'm getting terminal Shpitis. I'm going to hook up the IV and start a special 200 year fasting regiment where I can only breathe in in the presence of marijuana smoke. I feel better just thinking about it. When they unthaw me, I want to be reading posts from Helen and Miloochie. That's why lawyers are so cool. I'm going to watch the Independent Film Channel till my eyesight fades. I'm going to grow gray hating Miragey. I'm gonna hate mirages or all kinds because I hate Miragey so much. Oh, maybe Miragey will start to bore me to death too. He really is pretty boring. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, May 07, 1999 at 17:09:18 (EDT)
From: Helen Email: None To: Runamok Subject: on going Message: I followed the first part of your post just fine and then I wondered if the neurontin was starting to give me a flashback/not sure how me and Miloochie related to lawyers/but what the hell. If you like reading my posts while thawing, well anytime you get yourself freeze dried and you want me to write to you just let me know. You know I loved it one time when you wrote some beat poetry to SHP; it was a crack up. Helen Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, May 07, 1999 at 19:53:58 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Runamok Subject: I disagree - strongly Message: Think about it. I don't really give a shit about Skepticism, although I do respect it. The little commercials for evolution detract from whatever you're arguing for when they're not relevant. Your arguments lose something for the lack of focus. Run, I'm amazed you can't connect the dots better. Skepticism is exactly what we're developing here with respect to Maharaji and Knowledge. Don't forget, at first blush, Knowledge can indeed impress people as some sort of 'spiritual' experience of the 'consciousness within'. Skepticism promotes the close, careful scrutiny of claims and beliefs such as this. As for evolution, you might believe it has no bearing on the discussion here but then we've always known you feel that way. I don't. I think it's quite the opposite; that there is no other fact known to science that so threatens the whole regime of eastern spirituality and gurus in particular. As for Freud and Dawkins, please don't get confused. Freud created his theories from whole cloth. In its time, his was a brilliant display of powerful, creative speculation. Dawkins, on the other hand, is essentially just a popularizer of a whole wing of modern science. It's not Dawkins but evolution that matters. And does it matter? I can only repeat myself on this point. Evolution put the kibosh to spirituality for me. Once I understood how consciousness evolved and wasn't 'planted' somehow, I began considering it radically different. This was all at the expense of any lingering belief I might have held in some form of 'higher consciousness'. The Maharaji cult gets handily dusted in the process. So you might as well quit trying to lecture me about leaving out such 'extraneous' material on account of how it lessens whatever I have to say. It is what I have to say, in large part. You might not agree with me but it's what I've got to say. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sat, May 08, 1999 at 13:28:36 (EDT)
From: Runamok Email: None To: Jim Subject: Dawkins is your dog Message: and I was surprised how much of a rehash (of evolution) he is when I finally cracked open one of the books. (I expected more creative thought or his own research.) I usually resort to encyclopedias and reference texts for that sort of stuff. At the expense of a little fluff I can cover a lot more ground. This is especially good in a situation like this where sometimes I am considering a prob which I would not bother with except for the conversation I am in (like some of the evolution discussion is only in response to you), so I'd rather read a shorter explanation from a reputable source. You are really confusing Skepticism as a philosophical movement and skepticism as a personality trait or state of mind. Obviously there is a relationship between the two, but it's not one of total equivalence. It's perfectly reasonable that I experience skepticism about Skepticism, so you're confusing the issue by implying that by our skepticism about Rawatt we are embracing philosophical Skepticism (designated with a capital letter to underline its status as a proper noun). Since evolution-related philosophy and psychology seems to get you going so much, I thought a look at humanism and its history might do you good. You did surprise me by seeming to like Freud. I thought you would consider him too much of a softie at science. My point was a constant reference to Freud might be a bit ridiculous, but no less justifiable in terms of relevance to the path away from M. The human side of leaving M and K is about having the strength to face what you know is right. The facts are overwhelming and some kind of philosophical grounding while helpful for some, is probably akin to using a calculator to add single digits. What other processes go on with exes on their road away from Rawatt? I experienced a tremendous amount of isolation, losing friends by the bushel, and fearing for my safety at times. While growth in intellect was an important long term goal/effect of leaving the cult, it wasn't my immediate concern while watching Rawatt rip people off. I don't want to miss the forest for the trees. There's a lot out there that isn't going to be overly or overtly scientific in its rejection of Rawatt. It's more important what individuals are going through. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sat, May 08, 1999 at 14:08:19 (EDT)
From: Robyn Email: sundogs@hotmail.com To: Runamok Subject: Dawkins is your dog Message: Dear Run, I'll leave the rest between you and Jim but: 'What other processes go on with exes on their road away from Rawatt? I experienced a tremendous amount of isolation, losing friends by the bushel, and fearing for my safety at times. While growth in intellect was an important long term goal/effect of leaving the cult, it wasn't my immediate concern while watching Rawatt rip people off. I don't want to miss the forest for the trees. There's a lot out there that isn't going to be overly or overtly scientific in its rejection of Rawatt. It's more important what individuals are going through.' I think this says it quite consicely, especially the last sentence. Love, Robyn Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sat, May 08, 1999 at 16:52:46 (EDT)
From: Runamok Email: None To: Robyn Subject: I like dogs. Message: Well hey, Robyn. Thanks. The last time I criticized Jim, Mel Bourne and CD starting chiming in. I thought to myself, I don't think this is worth it. So, I guess I'm moving up in the world. Jim's done a lot of right stuff. I probably agree with him most of the time when he's heavy with people. I wouldn't want him to feel unwanted just because some of us see him as being sometimes unsupportive. I would say he's mostly minding his own biz, just that he might mind others' biz a little more just to make things smoother for the group. And that says a little more, not a lot more. But he doesn't really owe it, I just wish he would consider it. It's a free country, world, universe, forum. Premies can come on here and bore us to death. Regardless of what more moderate folks may say, there is something bloodcurdling about a cultist posting satshit in my face on the forum. I can reprogram myself toward boredom at the sight of satsang, but years of premiedom were truly enough and I prefer to actively reject Miragey and his apologists. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sat, May 08, 1999 at 18:46:39 (EDT)
From: Helen Email: None To: Robyn Subject: Dawkins is your dog Message: I agree with Robyn, Run, great post. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sat, May 08, 1999 at 21:26:55 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Runamok Subject: Are you sure? Message: [Dawkins is your dog]and I was surprised how much of a rehash (of evolution) he is when I finally cracked open one of the books. (I expected more creative thought or his own research.) Sorry, Run, if I misspoke a bit by describing Dawkins as a popularizer of evolution. The fact is, he is that without question. His current post at Oxford is actually under some endowment dedicated to science education. But it's kind of hilarious to see him referred to as less than creative or a 'rehash'. His selfish gene theory was an earthquake in the world of evolutionary studies. I thought you knew that. I usually resort to encyclopedias and reference texts for that sort of stuff. At the expense of a little fluff I can cover a lot more ground. This is especially good in a situation like this where sometimes I am considering a prob which I would not bother with except for the conversation I am in (like some of the evolution discussion is only in response to you), so I'd rather read a shorter explanation from a reputable source. What are you saying? That Dawkins isn't a 'reputable source'? I'm really not clear on what you mean here. Could you explain yourself? You are really confusing Skepticism as a philosophical movement and skepticism as a personality trait or state of mind. Obviously there is a relationship between the two, but it's not one of total equivalence. It's perfectly reasonable that I experience skepticism about Skepticism, so you're confusing the issue by implying that by our skepticism about Rawatt we are embracing philosophical Skepticism (designated with a capital letter to underline its status as a proper noun). Since evolution-related philosophy and psychology seems to get you going so much, I thought a look at humanism and its history might do you good. Again, Run, I think you're a bit confused here. There's no such thing as Skepticism as a 'philosophical movement'. But you think otherwise so tell me, what are the philosophical tenets of this 'movement'? What is its history? Who are its leaders? And perhaps more interesting, what are you saying about 'skepticism about Skepticism'? (Indeed, I think I am being skeptical about Skepticism by questioning the latter's existence!) You suggest that adherents of this movement, Skepticism, have some article of faith that they're not willing to be skpetical about. What is that? Now I guess I have to ask you what your comment about humanism and its history was all about. Are you assuming you know something here I don't but which you're going to teach me? What's that and why would you make that assumption? You did surprise me by seeming to like Freud. I thought you would consider him too much of a softie at science. My point was a constant reference to Freud might be a bit ridiculous, but no less justifiable in terms of relevance to the path away from M. Well this is a bit of a hard point to argue. You're asking me to imagine some series of references to Freud in our discussions and then to consider how they match up relevance-wise to references to evolution. I dunno. What references? None particularly spring to my mind but I'd be happy to hear about any that you're think of. Otherwise, how can I even answer this? The fact is, I can't. The human side of leaving M and K is about having the strength to face what you know is right. The facts are overwhelming and some kind of philosophical grounding while helpful for some, is probably akin to using a calculator to add single digits. But that's it exactly (in a perverse way, I'm afraid)! Think about it and I'm sure you'll agree that your analogy doesn't work for the most significant reason. We don't need calculators to add single digits because we so easily conceptualize simple addition like that. Evolution, on the other hand, is a very powerful idea that pierces the veil of the 'illusion of design'. It's not second-nature for us to see ourselves as evolved beings. The world really does look like the effect of some intelligent design. That's the problem. I guess your analogy could be retro-fitted well enough: considering our origins and consciousness and all that is like doing very complex math which one could never really grasp without a calculator. Thanks, I like that. What other processes go on with exes on their road away from Rawatt? I experienced a tremendous amount of isolation, losing friends by the bushel, and fearing for my safety at times. While growth in intellect was an important long term goal/effect of leaving the cult, it wasn't my immediate concern while watching Rawatt rip people off. I don't want to miss the forest for the trees. There's a lot out there that isn't going to be overly or overtly scientific in its rejection of Rawatt. It's more important what individuals are going through. Yes, I know you think this way because you keep telling me. But all I can say to that is, again, Run, I disagree. You might be right and all. I just disagree. I don't think there is a manual based on long-standing, time-tested practises for relieving onesself of the Maharaji virus. I can't even honestly tell you how much this factor or that ever made a difference for me, let alone others. But, when it comes to my present understanding, I do find myself pretty grounded in this science shit -- in particular evolution -- as a starting, maybe even end, point in seeing through the Maharaji myth. Or myths, rather. There are more than one. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sat, May 08, 1999 at 23:07:15 (EDT)
From: Runamok Email: None To: Jim Subject: Yes, I like dogs. Message: 'Dawkins is your dog and I was surprised how much of a rehash (of evolution) he is when I finally cracked open one of the books. (I expected more creative thought or his own research.) I usually resort to encyclopedias and reference texts for that sort of stuff. At the expense of a little fluff I can cover a lot more ground. This is especially good in a situation like this where sometimes I am considering a prob which I would not bother with except for the conversation I am in (like some of the evolution discussion is only in response to you), so I'd rather read a shorter explanation from a reputable source.' -was what I wrote you. So, I implied that you built him up as more than a popularizer of evolution, which is all I have found him to be. The fact he's on an education related grant seems to agree with this point of view. I read in 'Gravity's Rainbow' (is that right?) something about his research but could not find an original thought in the book. Interesting yes, original nyet. Whether I like him or not there's nothing in what I said whatsoever that casts doubt on his reputability as a source about evolution. I just found your absolute fascination with him unfounded. And your statement that 'I misspoke a bit by describing Dawkins as a popularizer of evolution.' is misleading (or a typo?). It was that you did not clarify that his primary function, apparently, is as a popularizer of evolution. The 'selfish DNA' theory is attributed to August Weismann and dates from the turn of the century, by the way. Apparently when Dawkins tells us he has been busy researching, he means a hard day at the library, not the laboratory. It's like Sagan or Hawkings. They are good, but I don't like the music from 'Cosmos' much, and seeya. Here's more of mine: 'You are really confusing Skepticism as a philosophical movement and skepticism as a personality trait or state of mind. Obviously there is a relationship between the two, but it's not one of total equivalence. It's perfectly reasonable that I experience skepticism about Skepticism, so you're confusing the issue by implying that by our skepticism about Rawatt we are embracing philosophical Skepticism (designated with a capital letter to underline its status as a proper noun).' Skepticism is a philosophy as well as an attribute connoting a reasoning, questioning mind. 'The philosophic theory that no certain knowledge can be attained by humans. Broadly speaking, skepticism states that all knowledge should be question and tested--for instance, by the scientific method.' which is taken from the current NY Public Library Desk Reference. I would presume that Huxley would be one of its primary forefathers, but it's your philosophy and you go to all the websites quite a bit more than I do. I'm only touting humanism to you because it is historically linked to evolution in its appeal to reason as opposed to faith. It's importance and rebirth as 'scientific humanism' dates to the crisis that Darwin originally brought to fundamentalism and a desire to be good without God as a rationale. Here's me again, mentioning Freud: 'You did surprise me by seeming to like Freud. I thought you would consider him too much of a softie at science. My point was a constant reference to Freud might be a bit ridiculous, but no less justifiable in terms of relevance to the path away from M.' Now look, I've made it perfectly clear why I've mentioned him, as an example of an off-topic which would be relevant but still off-topic. I'm citing theoretical references. One reason I used the example is that it might counter-balance a discussion of evolution (i.e., genetics versus environment). That wasn't too bad, or was it? I will continue this in a second post. There's not enough room for it all. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sat, May 08, 1999 at 23:43:06 (EDT)
From: Runamok Email: None To: Runamok Subject: Yes, I like dogs. Part 2 Message: Briefly, before my computer crashes and I have to start over again (which it just did), here's me: 'The human side of leaving M and K is about having the strength to face what you know is right. The facts are overwhelming and some kind of philosophical grounding while helpful for some, is probably akin to using a calculator to add single digits.' And here's you about that' 'But that's it exactly (in a perverse way, I'm afraid)! Thi nk about it and I'm sure you'll agree that your analogy doesn't work for the most significant reason. We don't need calculators to add single digits because we so easily conceptualize simple addition like that. Evolution, on the other hand, is a very powerful idea that pierces the veil of the 'illusion of design'. It's not second-nature for us to see ourselves as evolved beings. The world really does look like the effect of some intelligent design. That's the problem. I guess your analogy could be retro-fitted well enough: considering our origins and consciousness and all that is like doing very complex math which one could never really grasp without a calculator. Thanks, I like that.' Really, I can't make much sense out of this. People can figure out Miragey is a fraud and not have a clue about evolution. It really is simple calculation (i.e., fat + fraud = fat fraud). Are you saying that people have to understand evolution to fully leave Miragey? I'm a bright guy. It wouldn't bother me, but it'd be nice if anybody could walk away from a ripoff without special training. Ultimately, one thing that is lacking in a forum discussion of evolution is the emotional implications of it. You're a fucking animal, Jim! (Get it?) Nah, I just have my own opinions and they don't always agree with yours. In fact I'm so busy painstakingly rebutting you, I don't really have a chance to say what is important to me when I'm talking to you sometimes. But you might get curious, cause I really do my homework pretty well. You ought to look some of the stuff up sometimes instead of making me do it for you. Skepticism is a philosophy (which it looks like you subscribe to) and selfish dna wasn't postulated by Dawkins. And I miss Miloochie, you ape. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, May 09, 1999 at 03:31:22 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Runamok Subject: Yes, I like dogs. Message: So, I implied that you built him up as more than a popularizer of evolution, which is all I have found him to be. The fact he's on an education related grant seems to agree with this point of view. I read in 'Gravity's Rainbow' (is that right?) something about his research but could not find an original thought in the book. Interesting yes, original nyet. Gravity's Rainbow is an exciting and interesting book, often confusing but worth the effort. It's incredibly original even if it isn't by Dawkins. It's by Pynchon. Dawkins wrote Somewhere over the Rainbow ... no, make that Unweaving the Rainbow. Is that the book you read? Is that the only book you read of his? Tell me, please, straight up. It makes a difference, believe me. The 'selfish DNA' theory is attributed to August Weismann and dates from the turn of the century, by the way. Apparently when Dawkins tells us he has been busy researching, he means a hard day at the library, not the laboratory. Interesting that you've gathered such expertise so very quickly. I'm impressed. Now when was it they discovered DNA? Think about what you're saying, Run. As for Dawkins, I'll reserve my further comments until you tell me what you've read by him. I just wonde though if you have any sense at all of the impact The Selfish Gene had and continues to have on the scientific community. Do you? How? More later. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, May 09, 1999 at 09:03:14 (EDT)
From: Runamok Email: None To: Jim Subject: Yes, I like dogs. Message: The book I looked at was by Dawkins, but I spent an hour with it. Not _Gravity's Rainbow_ then, but I'll have to look in the bookstore I was browsing in. It was still in stock the last time I looked. The book in question, unnamed at this time, is the only book of Dawkins which I looked at and chose not to read. _Unweaving the Rainbow_ is the book I didn't read. Pynchon's a novelist, you're right. As far as Weismann and selfish DNA. better wording might have been that 'W. first conceived of selfish DNA.' A discussion of perceptual psychology would probably tell us more about why K affected us the way it did. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, May 09, 1999 at 12:19:59 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Runamok Subject: Yes, I like dogs. Message: Okay, Run, Here's where I guess I'm supposed to be 'empathetic' or something but instead I think I'll go in for the kill. The fact is, you don't know shit about Dawkins. Unweaving the Rainbow is nothing but his stab at showing how marvellous science is in the strictest sense of the word. His argument is that if one only appreciated the real wonders of the natural world one wouldn't miss the fake wonders of spirituality. In the bok he only touches on evolution. He touches on evolution just a bit in the book because that is, after all, the field he knows best in but the book is basically just an apology for science. If that's your exposure to Dawkins you'd have no way of knowing what his contribution to evolutionary theory would be. None. I won't even get into the fact that you didn't really read it. By the way, I agree with one thing Joe said and that's that the book is a bit of a muddle. Or maybe not a muddle so much as simply unsatisfying. Religion offers one thing so fantastic that no amount of appreciation of the natural world can ever replace: the sense of companionship, guidance, support, etc. one enjoys wen one imagines the presence of God. Dawkins never even deals with the loss one feels when one sees through that illusion. That to me is the really disappointing oversight of the book. But hey, Run, you should read it and then maybe we could talk about it. Whether or not one agrees with Dawkins' theories, the fact is he has made a singular impact on evolutionary theory. You'll find that theory laid out best in two books, The Selfish Gene, which has had immeasurable impact on evolutionary theory since its publication in'76, and The Extended Phenotype. Now what is it you want to tell me about Weisman and selfish DNA? As far as I know Crick and Watson discovered DNA long after Weismann died in 1914. If I'm missing something, let me know. To tell you the truth, I'd never hear od Weismann, not being the student of evolutionary theory that you obviously are. Thanks for the tip. I did do a little net search and came up with this hand thumbnail sketch: August Weismann (1834-1914 August Weismann was a German biologist best known as the originator of the germ-plasm theory of heredity, the concept that a special hereditary substance constitutes the only organic continuity between one generation and the next. He achieved distinction through his zoological investigations, notably on the embryology of insects and crustaceans. Weismann was the first scientist to reject as unproven the then prevalent but incorrect doctrine accepted by the French naturalist Jean de Lamarck and others that characteristics acquired during the lifetime of an individual may be transmitted to the offspring. How very interesting. This is an obvious antecedent to Dawkins' theories and my sheer speculation is that Dawkins himself would never say otherwise. To think otherwise, i.e. that Dawkins craftily attempted to avoid mentioning every possible precursor to his theories in the history of evolutionary studies would be bizarre. Yet that's the impression you gave. Who gave you that idea and really, Run, what do you actually know about any of this? How are you in a position to declaim Dawkins as a poseur when you don't even know his 'so-called' theories let alone where they 'claim' to begin where others left off? Finally, you say this: A discussion of perceptual psychology would probably tell us more about why K affected us the way it did. Apples and oranges, Run. Evolution is most important to me not in the evolutionary psychology realm of considering why we believe in gods or fall for gurus. I love that stuff and believe that in general it's true, that is that there must be some kind of evolved preference for some of our more universal thought schemes (e.g. religion). The problem is that there are so many plausible ev/psych explanations. I'm sure one of them is right but how to pick? Forget it. No, evolution's most important here because, as I said yesterday, it pierces the veil of the illusion of design. Period. And that speaks to the nature of life and the possible existence of God. It essentially wipes out all the evidence for God one might otherwise perceive exists throughout nature. If you don't think that's relevant to our discussions here -- whether or not there even is a God, let alone if Maharaji can help you find Him -- we'll just hav eto disagree about it. But please don't lecture me about how irrelevant it all is. We've been down that road before and I have yet to hear you even address the issue directly let alone persuade me. As for Skepticism, you said something that I asked you about that you didn't reply to: this notion of skeptics not being skeptical about skepticism. (Forget about whether or not it's a 'philosophy'. My take is that it has some of the traits of a philosophy but no where near enough to qualify. But that's just a semantic squabble that ultimately isn't that interesting. My view, anyway.) No, I'd like to hear more from you on this point you made. Primarily, because I think it doesn't make sense. It's like that superficial comparison people love to make between science and religion. They're both 'faiths' so go ahead and pick one. You like the blue? Fine, I'll take the red. I say that's fundamentally flawed reasoning but common enough amongst -- guess who? -- spiritual or religous people. So what did you mean anyway? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, May 09, 1999 at 16:50:54 (EDT)
From: Runamok Email: None To: Jim Subject: I like fruit. Message: You didn't do your homework. Here's Dawkins: 'The idea of The Selfish Gene is not mine, but I've done the most to sell it, and I've developed the rhetoric of it. The notion is implicit in the approach of the turn-of-the-century biologist August Weismann and in the neo-Darwinian synthesis of the 1930s. The idea was carried forward in the 1960s by W.D. Hamilton (then in London, now my colleague at Oxford) and by George C. Williams, at Stony Brook. My contribution to the idea of the selfish gene was to put rhetoric into it and spell out its implications.' This is a quote from Dawkins. The url is 'http://www.edge.org/documents/ThirdCulture/j-Ch.3.html'. Since you went for the kill, I suppose I am somewhat obliged to go for it back (love those semantics- I'm a poet not a scholar). Jim, this is where you appear ugly, and whether it's an appearance or a true phenomena I don't really care to look. I assume the best of you, but as I've stated we're possibly more akin as debaters than others online here. Firstly, you have challenged me at times to step up to the argument which I have consistently stated was not of particular interest to me. I consider myself on firm enough intellectual ground to answer the challenge but am not sure if it's appropriate for you to in effect challenge 'my credentials' when you don't do your own homework and when you are the person urging me into the conversation. But ok, let's go on. I did not, in any way, describe Dawkins as a 'poseur'. You have completely read this into what I have said. Your buildup of him led me to expect more than a popularizer of science, which is essentially what he is. He may be the best at it, he may be a poet disguised as an educator. He may have impeccable credentials, but there are other reputable sources to choose from and it's my perogative to do so. If it is so important to you that I read _The Selfish Gene_ or any other work, then send it to me, but I really don't see how your obsession with one person's communication skills is so intricately related to the actual continuance of science and thought. I am, likewise, not calling science a religion, as you seem to imply. We've had that discussion and my viewpoint contains quite a bit more subtlety than that. You didn't see fit to look into Kuhn very deeply, and you seemed shocked by the historical complicity of the powers of science, religion, and politics. These things are common knowledge to historians and social scientist. Miragey denigrate scholarly pursuits and academic learning. We've been able to grow and understand them as crucial to the life of our mind. There's no reason to limit ourselves by only looking to science to tools for our minds to grow. Good scholarship is the basis of the work of many, including Dawkins. He doesn't rely on the scientific method and neither do you. Argumentativeness does not make a good scholar by itself. Cut the apples and oranges stuff. Leaving knowledge and Dawkins, skepticism, evolution are apples and oranges. It's not the evolution website and I have strayed again. I like apples AND oranges. I like fruit. What's wrong with that? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, May 09, 1999 at 11:16:24 (EDT)
From: JW Email: None To: Jim Subject: To Jim and Run - An Aside Message: Jim and Run: I went to see Dawkins speak twice in the past 6 months in San Francisco. The first time he was with John Cleese and second time, which was in March, he was all by himself, touting Unweaving the Rainbow, which, as a result of the program, I purchased and read. I found it a bit of a muddle. Apparently, it was Dawkins' attempt to be a kinder and gentler, but I don't think it worked and it ended up, in my opinion, just making he theories more fuzzy. I did read The Selfish Gene and the Blind Watchmaker and also that short book called The River of Eden, or something like that. By the way, Run, it is also my understanding that Skepticism is an actual school of thought, or maybe a religion with science as the bible. Anyhow, I think Dawkins has added a lot to the discussion, but in the realm of the whole idea of cosmology etc., I hate to see the discussion get polarized. I guess I'm a pragmatist and here are a couple of my observations, although I am certainly no expert. 1. I think the realm of thought on cosmology, god, etc., runs the gamut from fundamentalist religions to atheist believers in science. In my view both extremes take their texts literally and have to have a degree of 'faith' in either religion or science, that really isn't warranted, at least from what we know. Other religious people use 'god' to fill in the gaps of what science can't prove, which is lazy and deceptive, and believers in science have 'faith' that science will eventually come up with the answers, although there is no proof that will ever happen; it's really a matter of faith, so I'm 'skeptical' of that as well. So I have mostly derision for fundamentalist religions, because I think they breed rigidity and prejudice and keep people stupid, but I have lot of sympathy for something more in the middle, being the pragmatist I am. 2. And there are a number of 'gaps' in Dawkin's theories, for example, that remain in the gray areas and just don't fit. One is consciousness itself. It doesn't make any sense to me that the human brain's ability to observe events and then come up with theories of either god or forces of nature has any 'selfish gene' origins. I can't see how our ancestors running around in the jungle got a survival advantage out of that. But that trait has apparently been around since the beginning of man himself, resulting in man creating both religions and science. And there are other things that don't fit either, like homosexuality for example, which I notice just because it's something that has an effect on my life personally. Finally, Jim, just my two cents. I think what people are on your case about is two things. One is that I think sometimes you don't use your empathetic antennae with people you are discussing things with. From my perspective, for example, I agree with Run that Miloochie was freaking out in that discussion about astrology and I don't think you were aware of it. You didn't give him a path of escape, you just went in for the kill, although I don't think you see it that way. I really think you don't see it as causing hurt, but as you can see, several other people, including me, Helen, Run and others did see it. I don't think you were wrong in what you said, I just think you could have been a little more generous with Miloochie, whom you had a track record with and he deserved a little slack. By the way, I think Nigel did the same thing, although he did apologize and you didn't. The second point is just common courtesy. Something I think is highly underrated. I know this sounds trite, but it really is extremely important in our interractions with people, even people who say things that drive us nuts, especially over the internet when you don't get body language, etc. Jim, you have a gift for writing and might consider a career as a screenwriter and you have nothing you need to prove. A little generosity, especially with exes that have become part of your cyberspace family, might be in order. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, May 09, 1999 at 11:57:17 (EDT)
From: East Coast Carol Email: None To: JW Subject: Your 2 cents worth Message: Hello JW- Your comments above (not Dawkins related)are right on the money. I think Jim is a huge asset to this site and I hope he realizes his value to us. I'm not taking any jabs here-I wonder if his methods are related to what he does for a living? I would imagine that you'd really have to be quite focused and not subject to people's emotions to be able to 'go in for the kill' if you were to be successful as a lawyer(although I don't know what type of lawyering he does). Sometimes when I read his posts (especially to premies) I think that his ability to zero in on specifics is a 'learned' skill. What do you think about that? Regards Carol Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, May 09, 1999 at 13:05:38 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: JW Subject: To Jim and Run - An Aside Message: Joe, For all that Unweaving the Rainbow didn't address (see my post above) Dawkins did make one point you might have appreciated better and that is the danger of misapplied conceived metaphor in discussing nature. Why doI say this? Just because you said this: By the way, Run, it is also my understanding that Skepticism is an actual school of thought, or maybe a religion with science as the bible. If science is a 'bible' then it really is no better than any other faith one might encumber onesself with. But how, Joe, could this ever be true? Hwo could the sentence even make sense for that matter? I know spiritual people bandy phrases like this around but what do you mean by it? Are you saying that the Brothers of Chemistry believe that the periodic tables fell out of the sky? I know that some religious people consider science this way but, know what? They're just projecting! (Thanks Denise.) As for gaps in Dawkins' theory, are they gaps as in challenging evidence that hi theory must conveniently ignore to thrive or are they gaps in the sense that we just don't know if and how it all fits together ... yet? I'd agree with you that there are major gaps. So would Dawkins. But I'd say they're of the second order. I mean, Dawkins himself barely touches on consciousness. How could his theory fully explain it? Mind you, I think ev/psych does have some really poweful specualtions about how god worship began. The foundation, though, has to be the illusion of design. Don't you agree that flaura and fauna do look one hell of a lot like they've been designed by something? This is interesting, let's talk about it. Regarding my blinders, Joe, it's easy now in retrospect to see that Miloochie was flipping but did you really see it at the time? There's a certain feel one gets when one's cornering someone in a debate. Your antennae are indeed operating if only to sense if and when the othe person knows they're cornered. I know that your antennae work more than well enough in that respect, thank you very much. And that's a good thing. But was it so obvious that Miloochie was going to react as he did and not just fold? See, we argue things to persaude. There's often a moment of tension before capitualtion. And it's easy after the fact to blame someone for causing that tension of the other person doesn't take the tension well. Should I have known Miloochie would go that route? I dunno. He'd never done that before (although, I admit, he did not get one or two of my jokes. My fault or his I can't say but, I concede, that should have put me on some notice.) All I can say is that people who won't concede when they're losing a debate but instead react emotionally put the pending 'winner' in a bind. Does he or she move in and take the point or act somewhat hostage to their emotionality? There's got to be responsibility on both sides, don't you think? I do. What really gets me about Helen is that she thinks she's beng smart dismissing much of what I find interesting as so much quacking and then gets all self-righteous when I pursue my arguments with others. If she thinks she's got a better way to deal with Shp AND stay on topic I'd like to see it. Same with Robyn. Easy for her to love and respect Shp. They don't talk about anything. Katie too. She never mixes it up with premies -- or rarely -- so how easy for her and others to lobby for more pleasant decorum. ('Forum decorum' - I like that.) Shp is a loser and, tell me, that you don't get a little perturbed by the way he so predictably siezes on the misguided 'support' he gets here. I think that's the biggest joke of all. I could easily make a point of being courteous. After all, do you think I swear at people like this at court? Of course not. But, remember, there are no judges here to keep people from being evasive and what not. It's a different trip when you've got to referee your own arguments and particularly so when those arguments are with cult members. Some people are especially good about staying even-tempered and still discussing with these guys. I just can't believe Jerry sometimes. How does he do it? But even you, Joe, a pillar of reason and civility here, lose it if you maintain any sustained discourse with someone like Shp. Okay, you lose it the Joe Whalen way, I lose it the Jim Heller way. We both get pissed and do nothing to hide it. Do you think I like getting angry and insulting? Honestly, do you think I enjoy it? I cantell you the answer's a definite 'no'. It always comes in the mist of real disappointment. See, foolish me, I keep expecting more of these cult members. Yes, I know, that's an indulgence I perhaps have to give up somewhere along the line. But is it now? Already? Do I have to close the dorr on them so soon? Say it ain't so, Joe? :) But Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, May 09, 1999 at 13:56:23 (EDT)
From: Marianne Email: None To: Jim & JW Subject: Forum decorum Message: Hi guys! I'm still pretty new to this place, so take my comments with a grain of salt, or a spoon full of sugar. I find both of your comments to be insightful and intriguing. Both of you usually come up with some slant on premiedom that has eluded me. I think that there has to be a place for all ranges of the spectrum here. Jim, does it really matter that someone (like Katie) doesn't mix it up with the premies? I know you didn't intend this, but your post mostly identifies women as people who don't 'mix it up', and it verges on sexism. From my observation of the patter, the women tend to be more supportive and the men more combative. No one has to win any of these discussions, in my humble opinion. Is capitulation in discussion really what you want? Capitulation doesn't necessarily mean one has reached an understanding. I think you do want people to understand. I also think that you want to get rid of the assholes who get into every thread and try to dominate it with verbal garbage that has no meaning. I have supported you in this, because I see it as destabilization of the site by people who don't want us to talk about the truth. I think that the point that your lawyer skills come out sometimes is true ---- I can see it. I do the same thing. I think you are very effective that way. I guess my criticism is one of form over substance. I value your contributions and admire your verbal acuity. Same with Joe. You guys travel in heady intellectual territory. I also think that it is passion that motivates both of you. Oh well. I hope this made some sense to you. Did you get my email the other day, Jim? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, May 09, 1999 at 14:49:13 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Marianne Subject: Forum decorum Message: Hi Marianne, Yes I did get your email and God knows why I didn't respond. Sorry. I meant to. I read it, really appreciated it, got called out on some business and then forgot. I'll get back to you later -- now I've jsut got enough time for this and then off to Mother's Day which, as I understand it, is all about interrogating mothers. I've got some great questions this year which I'd like to see her even try to avoid. Should be a great lunch. :) Oh yeah, what was I going to say? Does Katie have to mix it up? I useed to harangue her for not but I don't anymore -- that is until she supports those who dis me for my efforts. But she didn't do it too bad this time and I've got so many 'enemies' now I guess I should be more selective in talking back to any of them. Semi-joke. Sexist? Well you yourself generalized about men and women here. I don't think I'm doing anything but replying to several people who've taken me to task for confronting premies harshly. They're pretty well all women. What can I do? Laurie's here ... gotta run. Thanks for your kind words, though. Maybve you're right about capitulation not necessarily implying aggreement or understanding. Gotta think about that one. (Okay, I'm coming already! Leave me alone. No, I'm not on the net. What gave you that idea? Sheesh!) Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, May 09, 1999 at 15:17:25 (EDT)
From: Runamok Email: None To: Jim Subject: To Jim Message: I gotta say this Jim. I was absolutely sitting on the edge of my chair while you and Millochie were having that interchange. I was sitting there, swear to Francis Huxley, Aldos Huxley, and my dog, going 'Don't do it, Jim, please backoff Jim,' absolutely every single solitary inch of the entire thing. And some people. like Milooch and Helen, really do contribute a lot, but they're not particularly left-brained, and probably wouldn't want to talk evolution much. But there is still an intellectual development there that probably blossomed with leaving Miragey, which is something that I'm sure you value. Absolutely saw it, with digital closeups. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, May 09, 1999 at 20:45:00 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Runamok Subject: To Jim Message: Okay, where is the thread in the archives. I've got to see this. Anyone remember? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, May 09, 1999 at 16:26:39 (EDT)
From: JW Email: None To: Jim Subject: To Jim and Run - An Aside Message: If science is a 'bible' then it really is no better than any other faith one might enncumber onesself with. Yes, it was a metaphor Jim and you are jumping to conclusions. And I think your statement is wrong. Science is what it is. It stands as better or worse than any other 'faith' on its own merits. In some ways it's very successful, and it some ways it comes up short. The 'faith' in science comes in the belief that it will 'eventually' solve everything. That is nothing but faith, and Science, in and of itself, would support that because you can't objectively prove that it WILL solve everything. That's what I meant by that statement. As for gaps in Dawkins' theory, are they gaps as in challenging evidence that hi theory must conveniently ignore to thrive or are they gaps in the sense that we just don't know if and how it all fits together ... yet? I mean the latter. See my statement above about your 'yet' statement and how it is a matter of faith. Isn't it Jim? I'd agree with you that there are major gaps. So would Dawkins. But I'd say they're of the second order. I mean, Dawkins himself barely touches on consciousness. How could his theory fully explain it? Yes, there are gaps, and the consciousness one is more of a lack of part of the foundation than just a gap in the roof. I think it isn't addressed by Dawkins because it's a seriously difficult problem for his theory. Not that it won't be rectified, but that's a matter of faith at this point too :) Altruism is another problem, but less of one for me. I think I'm becomming convinced on that one, although I have to go to a discussion of groups rather than individuals and that's a bit of a jump, but one that I am willing to make. Don't you agree that flaura and fauna do look one hell of a lot like they've been designed by something Not really. I can't say I have ever felt that. It isn't so much that idea anyway, it's the existence of the impetus to even ask that question, let alone find an answer for it. What is it in the selfish gene theory that could account for even asking that question, let alone account for the huge amounts of energy that has gone into designing elaborate, expensive, sometimes extremely destructive (to people and their genes) religions? Nothing that I can tell. Regarding my blinders, Joe, it's easy now in retrospect to see that Miloochie was flipping but did you really see it at the time? Yes, I did. And I felt a little guilty for not defending him. I didn't know how to do it because I thought it would just be messy and complicated. I actually agreed intellectually with you and Nigel but emotionally with Miloochie. Hard to explain really. This medium is a very difficult format for supporting people emotionally. If the four of us were in a room together, I could make eye contact with Miloochie, let him know I sympathized with him, made a joke, laughed at you and Nigel for taking things so seriously, etc. But here it's difficult, really impossible, to do that. So, in my humble opinion, it's an individual's responsibility as part of this little community here to be more sensitive to that. But was it so obvious that Miloochie was going to react as he did and not just fold? You never know how someone is going to react, but with some empathy you would know that it was quite a possibility. Moreover, it's because Miloochie had established himself here, shared himself here, etc., so, in my opinion, he has a status that deserves more sensitivity than some anonymous poster. Because Miloochie viewed you and Nigel as part of the same team, so to speak, when you treat him like a stupid premie, it can have a greater impact. He is more vulnerable to you and it hurts more. Now, that's true in the alternative as well, but you have a well-established image of never being hurt by anyone. That also tends to be more of a trait of men than women, and I think that's why the behavior is so noticeable to the women here, Helen, Robyn, Katie, Carol, etc. See, we argue things to persaude. There's often a moment of tension before capitualtion. See, Jim I think these two statements are contradictory. I don't think you 'persuade' by causing 'capitulation.' It has never worked for me. As you know, when someone loses an argument they just change the subject, split or whatever. I have yet to say to you, Jim, that yes, you are right and they are convinced. Persuasion is a whole different arena. You might 'win' a discussion, but have you PERSUADED? I don't think so. Miloochie may have capitulated but he isn't going to say so. He just split. And he was not in any fashion persuaded in my opinion. Jim, I work with lots of lawyers and I'm constantly in settlement negotiations with insurance companies. In my experience, in negotiations, persuasion works best when both sides feel like they have won something. And you usually have to give the opposition a means to save face and make a retreat if they need to. If you cut those things off, you don't usually persuade, you just end the discussion. [Maybe in criminal law it's different. I suppose it is.] This is of course, if you goal is to persuade. If it's just to 'win' that's something else again, but as you say, there isn't any judge here keeping score to say that yes, you win. When it comes to premies, I think you serve a very useful purpose. You cut through the bullshit and that's great and you seem to have endless time and energy to do so. Others can take a more persuasive tone if that is how they deal with things, or not talk to premies at all, as you note. But sometimes I think exes get wounded from friendly fire from you and I think that's counterproductive to what we are about here, in terms of going after the fraudulent former guru. As I have said, Jim, if it weren't for seeing you be so out front with all of this, I probably wouldn't be here, so I try to keep this is in perspective as well. All I can say is that people who won't concede when they're losing a debate but instead react emotionally put the pending 'winner' in a bind. Does he or she move in and take the point or act somewhat hostage to their emotionality? There's got to be responsibility on both sides, don't you think? I do. It depends, Jim. How important is 'winning' to you? Is it paramount to everything else? If so, I agree. But it isn't for me at least. And maybe this is just a question of priorities and again of pragmatism. I think it's more important to protect and support someone like Miloochie than to 'win' an argument with him. And the reason is, again, because of the overall purpose and value of the forum in the first place and the value Miloochie added to the mix here. Does that make any sense to you? People are a lot more complicated than their arguments and language. Again, this medium is such that you have to be extra careful because you can't hear the tone of voice, see the body language, and get the other clues that tell you what is going on. But, remember, there are no judges here to keep people from being evasive and what not. No, but most people, including wavering, lurking premies can spot evasion, and there is nothing wrong with you pointing out an evasion. Those are the judges, or maybe the jury in my opinion. Explaining the evasion is great, I just think that if you do it with bile and swear words, it can give people a chance to dismiss your point as just vindictiveness. But with premies I don't think it's such a big deal, really, I think my concern is more with the exes. Clearly, there are premie posters who are doing nothing more than being jerks. Gloves are off in that case and I think that's fine. As you said, I have done it myself. But doing the same to Helen and Robyn -- well, that bothers me. Do you think I like getting angry and insulting? Honestly, do you think I enjoy it? I don't know. In fact, I can't tell sometimes, again because of this medium, if you are angry or not. I mean I can't tell if there is actual anger behind it or you think it's funny. So, you know you can't expect much from the cult members and you've learned that over the past couple of years. Maybe you should give up that idea of expecting that. But the exes are, again, are a different story. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, May 09, 1999 at 19:44:43 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: JW Subject: Straw man or what? Message: Yes, it was a metaphor Jim and you are jumping to conclusions. And I think your statement is wrong. Science is what it is. It stands as better or worse than any other 'faith' on its own merits. In some ways it's very successful, and it some ways it comes up short. The 'faith' in science comes in the belief that it will 'eventually' solve everything. That is nothing but faith, and Science, in and of itself, would support that because you can't objectively prove that it WILL solve everything. Who ever said that? Science solving 'everything'. I don't even know what that means and I don't know anyone, quite frankly, who'd believe it even if I did know. Are you talking like immortality, no bad dates, talking avocadoes. What? Naw, classic straw man argument, Joe. Regarding 'gaps' in Dawkins' theory, I'm really at a loss to understand you. How in the world is consciousness a problem for Dawkins? Please spell it out because I don't get it. Honestly, I don't know what you mean. Now, as for my saying that science hasn't cracked the secret of consciousness yet and that being, according to you, an expression of my faith, I'd say you're wrong. The fact is we have made incredible, astounding strides in understanding the brain and consciousness in modern times. No, I don't know for sure but there's every reason to think we'll continue to learn more and yes, one can be reasonably sanguine about our hopes of learning a whole lot more in, oh, let's say the next 20,000 years for instance. Is this like religious faith? Not at all. It's just trying to approximate some reasonable expectations based on experience. Do I know for sure? No. Maybe the truth is we've learned the very last little bit we'll ever know about consciousness. But there is good reason to think otherwise and doing so is not the slightest bit like having religious faith. Sure, religious people would love to think so but they're wrong, wrong, wrong. Science, as a process, vindicates itself again and again. Religion never has and never will. It has no predictive powers in spite of its grand claims to the contrary. Past experience really shows us that praying to god is worthless as anything but a placebo. On the other hand, past experience shows us that science keeps helping us learn more and more. Regarding Miloochie, god you guys make it sound liek we -- Nigel and I -- were ripping right into him. That's simply not true and I'm almost tempted to find the thread jsut to prove so to myself all over again. (You guys are trying to brainwash me!). When was it? I'd love to track it down. My memory was that it was pleasant, a little tense, a bit of a boom and then all over. Yes, Miloochie begged off but, well, that motherfucker Nigel just had to get the last word in. Talk about assholes. You say that plants and animals don't look designed to you? Well that makes one of us. They sure look that way to me even still and I think I understand why that's all a mirage. Come on, Joe, admit it, they look designed! All those pretty flowers seducing all those frisky bees, and on and on and on. Really? You never thought the nautral world was just one big display of god's creative genius? As for persuasion in arguments, here at least, I often expect that we -- meaning you, me and anyone who bothers debating premies -- make real impact on their thinking but that they'll rarely concede as much. Why should they? Think where it would lead. I've seen you make so many excellent points when arguing them that I just can't imagine for a million years that some of that wouldn't be sinking home. In any event, others beside the premie himself read the discussion. Who nkows who gets what out of it? You've talked with these guys at length too. You must have your reasons. But back to this persuasion/winning question. Joe, you and I have argued at length over a few things ourselves. Did either of us ever capitulate? Not particularly, I guess, but that's not to say that we didn't get somewhere with our various points. For example, I think you might now, somewhere in the back of your head, have better appreciation for why some people think Chomsky's a pompous jerk. I know that I better appreciate why others respect him, even if, in some way, that were true. Yes, I'm projecting a bit here. Am I completely wrong? This 'same team' thing with Miloochie .. isn't that the very clubiness that we try to avoid, us ex's against them there premies? It would be patently unfair to softpeddle Miloochie on an issue like astrology jsut because he's an ex. I thought you knew that more than well enough by judging your various political arguments here. We're all just people sharing various sentiments and ideas. In Miloochie's case, I had nothing but fondness and respect for the guy. That's why I felt 'safe' arguing astrology with him. His heightened sensitivity on the matter is still kind of strange to me. Can you say you understood it? I like ex's more than premies becuase I can relate to them better, they don't deny my own past in order to protect their present and I repsect the process they've gone through in leaving the cult. Plus, as ex's they're a million times more honest and I can sure relate to that. But there the bias ends. I'm sorry, I tihnk it would be really wrong and immoral even to treat anyone herer differently just because of their religious affiliation. It's all just discussion, marketplace of ideas ... everyone pays the same price. Fair is fair. I particularly do not like being called a Jehovah's Witness, something Robyn has done a couple of times. And why? Just becuase she hasn't been able to persuade me to adopt her style of interaction. That really pisses me off and I don't mind showing it. How? I usually don't even bother with her. This time, though, she started gathering steam with Helen who was more than happy to jump in and jsut start, well, quacking is the only word that comes to mind. Then what happens? All the nice women in the world have a cause. Stop the bombing in Kosovo and make nice on the ex-premie forum. Smoochie, poochie, Shp. Stand a moment of silence for brave Miloochie who died an innocent victim of what at best can be described as 'collateral damage' in a war that some good souls think is immoral to begin with. Sorry, Joe. I don't buy it. In real life I'm a nice guy and, guess what, this, to me, is real life. I don't mean to hurt anyone's feeling except when I think they downright deserve bad feelings. Like with Shp, starting that thread about him beign a broken person and all. I wanted to stop him in his tracks a bit. Maybe that was misguided on my part but I really thought he deserved it. And guess what again -- I still thought I was a nice guy. If I had any question about going a little too far there, it disappeared the moment he replied. People talk about hitting these guys when they're down, when are they ever down? They just keep coming back like those little clown blow-up punching dummies. The very moment things are too intense for them here they're more than welcome to leave. Some do, like OP. Was it wrong to antagonize her the way I did here? I mean talk about someone who was nice or what? And yet I called her a bunch of names too. Sorry, Joe, I'm proud of that. I'm proud of what I think is seeing through fake cult civility that's presented as part of a scheme to hid e the truth. This is a funny world, in a way, isn't it? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, May 06, 1999 at 23:36:04 (EDT)
From: Helen Email: None To: Runamok/Fr Mickey Subject: Carefully carrying caring Message: Hi Run and thanks for the input to my rant. Fr Mickey I am including you in this post because perhaps you can bring some perspective to the fray. I think that if I am to remain any kind of presence here I have to be honest as I see fit. And I needed to rant about Jim a bit. Not that it means any huge thing in the scheme of things. I have no problem with off-topic posts about evolutionary theory, science, atheism, etc; what I do object to is the lack of respect shown to others or the lack of listening to other perspectives. I also object to the knee-jerk hating of all premies that does occur here; I just can't understand or support that, although we all get into heated arguments with premies. Now of course if a premie behaves like an asshole, or makes threats, etc, of course they deserve to be blasted, in my opinion. I'm struggling with being here because it feels like witnessing drive-bys and not stopping to see if the folks are okay. It really feels kind of voyeuristic to me at times, like 'gee, what fireworks are happening tonight on the forum. Wonder how many premies will get roughed up tonight, Mabel, yuk yuk' I'd like to see us do a little more self critique of the culture we're creating here. It seems to me we're so entrenched in the culture that we don't always see how it looks and feels to newcomers. Taking a break has been good in that regard. You know I consider you both friends and appreciate your honest input always Helen Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, May 06, 1999 at 23:59:35 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Helen Subject: Yeah? Message: I have no problem with off-topic posts about evolutionary theory, science, atheism, etc; what I do object to is the lack of respect shown to others or the lack of listening to other perspectives. Yeah? Is that like when you ridicule any discussion which doesn't go where you want it to with all your stupid duck shit? Fuck you. I also object to the knee-jerk hating of all premies that does occur here; I just can't understand or support that, although we all get into heated arguments with premies. Now of course if a premie behaves like an asshole, or makes threats, etc, of course they deserve to be blasted, in my opinion. I can't think of too many times when premies have been unfairly blasted here. Can you? There are a few and, believe it or not, I've cringed to see them. But for the most part the process is really simple and fair: 1)premies are engaged in conversation; 2) they start cheating on way or another; then 3) they get blasted. It's that simple. And don't forget evasion is cheating. Smiley-faced lying is cheating. Well, I think it is anyway. I'm struggling with being here because it feels like witnessing drive-bys and not stopping to see if the folks are okay. How ill-fitting an analogy! This is an ex forum, Helen. 'Drive by shootings'? That's sublimely ridiculous. More like missionaries getting eaten by the savages maybe. And that'snot so bad, is it? (Sorry, Mickey). Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, May 07, 1999 at 00:10:59 (EDT)
From: carol Email: None To: Helen Subject: Carefully carrying caring Message: Hello Helen- Just thought I'd throw in my two cents. You have hit the nail right on the head with this post and the 'Come on' post above. I've posted my first reply on this forum tonite (down below) after hanging out on the sidelines for over a year because I have no desire to be anyones target. I don't know Jim but I definitely have a love/hate relationship with him--after all, I have been listening to him for a long time now. And while I think he's quite intelligent and even entertaining at times, I don't think I could ever talk to him directly for a lot of the reasons you have stated. While Jim is the most tenacious ex once he has his hooks in someone, there are others here too who also forget that they were once in the same trap as current premies. By the way, I'm not defending Jim at all--just noting that he's not the only one keeping people away. Well, thanks for what you've said tonite. I wish I had been able to say it as well as you did--I also worry about if the 'people are all right'. Carol Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, May 07, 1999 at 01:28:00 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: carol Subject: Carefully carrying caring Message: Carol, I think you're imagining things. Who 'targeted' you and how when you were posting? Was it really so bad? Tell us all about it. I remember that you just had a bunch of laughs and discussions about all sorts of stuff that you seemed interested in. I sure don't remember anyone giving you a particularly hard time about anything. Did someone challenge your beliefs about something or other in a discussion or two? Wow! That must have hurt. But it's sensitivity you're campaigning for, right? Tell us, Carol, how one sensitively discusses Maharaji with current cult members. Better yet, please show us. I'm more than willing to learn. Please, if there's a better way, please, show us. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, May 07, 1999 at 23:43:09 (EDT)
From: East Coast Carol Email: None To: Jim Subject: There's one thing I'm sure of Message: You didn't 'get it'. But Robyn did--you've gone and jumped all over someone else. No real surprise though. I knew I'd get a reply(slap) from you in response to my post before I even finished it last night. That's fine---you seem to be out of sorts this week. In the future I'll be sure to post as East Coast Carol so there won't be any confusion. But you are right about the sensitivity thing Jim-and I won't apologize for being that way. I have no desire to hurt other people or force them to see things the way I do. Everyone comes around when it's right for them--and it's not always going to fit your timetable. And let me make this perfectly clear-I'm not avoiding any of your questions. I'm flatly refusing to get drawn into a discussion (argument) with you at this time. By the way, your 'sensitivity' above hasn't gone unnoticed--it's reminicent of Wiley Coyote baiting the Road Runner (take that any old way you want to). West Coast Carol: If you are reading, please accept my apologies for confusing Jim. I thought I had added an initial.... Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, May 07, 1999 at 09:28:16 (EDT)
From: Helen Email: None To: carol Subject: Carefully carrying caring Message: Carol, thanks, I hope this means you'll be posting more???? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sat, May 08, 1999 at 04:43:31 (EDT)
From: bb Email: None To: Helen Subject: Hello Carol E. Message: I may be wrong but I am having a good time reading your posts and thinking about who you are. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sat, May 08, 1999 at 16:40:13 (EDT)
From: East Coast Carol Email: None To: bb Subject: Hello Carol E. Message: Hi bb- Do you think you know me? That's not paranoia by the way, just a question. DLM was still around when I started with all of this--1976 in Providence, RI. Rosie Lee was my initiator. I'm curious-are you Bill Burke or someone else? Regards Carol Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sat, May 08, 1999 at 17:33:51 (EDT)
From: East Coast Carol Email: None To: Helen Subject: Carefully carrying caring Message: Hi Helen- I'm not really sure what I'll do. As I said, I've been lurking here for over a year but it seems that pretty much everything has been said about Maharaji and his cult-when a premie wanders in its simply a matter of repeating it. I'm not sure that I could add anything more and I definitely don't want to get involved in any of the bickering either--too much of a time waster. I will say I'm curious about what will happen in regard to the info that was given to the IRS. Since nothing else is taking Maharaji down, it will be interesting to see where that will lead. By the way Helen-I've always thought you seem to be a nice person. I was sorry to see you jumped on, but you made some excellent valid points in your posts last night and I do hope that others here noticed too. It was nice to see that someone who frequently posts on the Forum is able to see that things can go too far here sometimes and wasn't afraid to say so. I'm sure many others have felt the same but don't want to deal with the fallout. Everyone here has value, but your comments on exe's taking a second look at what happens here sometimes is good advice. I find it disturbing that I've seen comments from premies that imply that what is said on this site can't be valid or worth listening to because of the bullying type behavior that happens here occasionally. This site has a wealth of information for people looking to get out that they can't get elsewhere and I wouldn't want those people to not have anywhere to go. Like it or not, there's a kind of 'reputation' that needs to be maintained here. I guess that's it for now. Regards, Carol Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sat, May 08, 1999 at 18:59:58 (EDT)
From: Helen Email: None To: East Coast Carol Subject: Thanks Carol Message: Thanks Carol, It was very kind of you to acknowledge the fact that I tried to tackle some rough issues here on the forum. I am doin' fine, but it still feels great to hear that. I know what you mean about the re-hash factor here on the forum. It's still compelling to me because, like a lot of baby boomers and boomlets I'm still trying to grow up. I think a lot of us here share some of the same reference points--certainly having a Guru and all the specific Maharaji paraphenalia. Also there are so many great people here too, including Jim, who I believe could be awesome if he only tempered all that bark of his with a little kindness. I don't think confronting premies is bad, it's bashing them into the ground I object to. Will I receive another 'fuck off' for saying that--only time will tell. But it's a free country. I'm sorry I also had you mixed up with west coast Carol who actually was in the same knowledge session as I was, in Lansing Michigan!! We discovered that quite by coincidence. There was another Helen who posted once and then so people wouldn't be confused I posted as Helen C for awhile and Katie got completely confused!! Well, thanks for your input and for the kind things you said. We would like to hear more of your story/journey if you're ever so inclined. Helen Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, May 05, 1999 at 22:23:09 (EDT)
From: Brian Email: brian@ex-premie.org To: a disappointed ex Subject: Thankyou Message: I enjoyed your post, and you've made points that have gone ignored by many here in the past. The effectiveness of this website to combat Maharaji's cult is diminished every time the forum discussion degenerates into the kind of silly, hateful, childish bickering which appears today. Such toxic and useless speech appears quite often here. I suppose that allowing this nonsence to flourish is the price paid for keeping the discussion open and without censorship. There will always be a certain amount 'attacking' going on here, since expressing anger follows from feeling it, and the forum is for expressing what we feel. Maharaji maintains complete deniability for the past (and present) lies being told by him and propagated by the premies who post here, so it's the 'visible' premies who end up being the targets of the anger felt. But it is a high price. I am quite sure that there are many ex-PAM's and other exes who could have powerful, pertinent information to post here who are reluctant to do so because of the vulgar, unprofessional atmosphere. We get email from people who choose not to participate in the forum because of how they see others treated here. Still they do contribute materials and information at times, although they often remain anonymous. But those people who post here with the belief that they're going to hound someone away are mistaken. They only end up adding to the huge pile of posts that have to be sorted through by Katie and deleted when they go inactive. I couldn't agree more with your accessment that it's juvenile behavior. There are those who post helpful information, and those who just flood the forum with garbage about who they think should be allowed to use a resource that was in-place and being maintained by others back when they first stumbled in. Finding the forum and using the forum is not the same as having any say in how it runs. THAT only comes from taking on real responsibility - not from running on at the mouth about who should be allowed to post. There are far more people telling us what we should do than asking how they can help. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, May 05, 1999 at 22:53:42 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Brian Subject: Here's a possible solution Message: Right now, the forum's wide open to anyone except people who threaten, impersonate others (with intent to deceive) or 'flame'. Unfortunately perhaps, f'alme' is defined quite narrowly. I think it's really only been applied to people who've posted so many posts at once Brian interpreted it as an attempt to actually gum up the board. So premies and ex's argue and sometimes it gets nasty. Most of us who've actually talked with premies here, including even those of us apparently more civil by nature (like me!) have lost our tempers at times. The premies have lost their tempers, the ex's have lost their tempers. Sometimes ex's lose their tempers not in reaction to hostility as such but rather to avoidance and dissembling. When you're waiting at the pumps for your kids to get back in the car and it turns out they've left the gasstation bathroom and gone wandering in the field instead, yes, you can get a little pissed off even though they're not. Why? They're wasting your time and you're justifiably frustrated. That's only natural. So, it's really easy to see what would make this forum more civil all around: simply limit the involvement of premies. Real quality control. Moderate the discussion so that evasion isn't tolerated but instead gets one kicked off the forum. I know for myself, if this discussion had that kind of quality control I'd never have to get really pissed off cause I could just keep channelling my efforts into better arguments and that kind of thing. Another measure, along these lines, might be to eliminate anonymity altogether here, just like on ELK for example. Let people sign their names to their words, that might affect some. (Again, look what it's done for me!) You want things more civil, that's the way to do it. Get rid of assholes like Catweasel or even CD and Shp and everyone will truly get along. But, personally, I wonder if it'd be such a good move to abandon the free speech principle enshrined so far here. It's a neat idea because: 1) it's a great counterpoint to the slick, guarded lack of free speech in the cult itself; 2) it enables anyone to come in starting off wherever they might be now and still to be able to possibly get something from the exchange; and 3) it allows premies to show how unpious and enlightened they really are. And as long as the premies post here there are going to be sparks. It's unavoidable. Now this concern about other ex-PAMS or whoever who don't post because of the often vulgar tone of the dialogue well I say too fucking bad. There are so many different voices, moods and cliamtes here, it's an extremely pathetic excuse for someone to withhold whatever because they're not happy with every last activity at the company picnic. I say these people can fuck themselves for all I care. Or, perhaps more helpfully, they can start their own page. If they want to be precious about it there are lots of ways they can be indulged, most of them by themselves. No, that's a carrot I'm sick of waiting for. How long has this site been active? And how many ex big-shots have deigned to grace us with their presence? And now you want to say it's because we argue a little undaintily with premies here? I say you can go fuck yourself and maybe in the process you can rid yourself of some of your pomposity. Coem back when you've got a name and we can talk. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, May 05, 1999 at 22:56:36 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Jim Subject: oops Message: I really only wanted to embolden the word 'But'. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, May 05, 1999 at 23:13:38 (EDT)
From: Sasquatch Email: None To: Jim Subject: oops Message: Jimbo: I get sick of saying it: I concur, I concur, I concur. Where are these sensitive PAM's who would grace us their presence? I say fuck em, to, if they are too timid to jump into the fray. Really, who cares? They were collaborationists, as far as I'm concerned. They deserve having their asses toasted for their participation in the deception. PAM's my ass. What a bunch of elitist fucks anyway. Piss on them. Gerry Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, May 05, 1999 at 23:29:50 (EDT)
From: Sir Dave Email: None To: Jim Subject: Here's a possible solution Message: I don't often f'alme but when I do, I do it the French way and always in the kitchen. I often think on these sunny Spring days how nice it is to coem, especially when I'm in good company although one mustn't do it too loud in case the neighbours complain. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, May 06, 1999 at 07:42:28 (EDT)
From: Helen Email: None To: Jim Subject: Here's a possible solution Message: You calling yourself civil is rich, too. It reminds me of the way Henry Higgins sees himself in Pygmalion (or My Fair Lady). 'I'm just an ordinary man' he sings; which is a laugh since he is a stubborn, opinionated sort who must always have things his way. Jim, you are not civil. You are quick to dimiss people's opinions and beliefs as garbage and the 'fuck off, fuck you, or fuckface' rolls off your tongue so frequently it's astonishing. You seem to have absolutely no interest in changing your behavior so I know I have to live with you being here. But I just want to put out there that the difficulties some ex-premies have being here is not soley because of premies posting here. I cringe when I see how you treat people and it makes it very difficult for me to spend time here. I don't like how you treat people. You are very intelligent but your intelligence is really lopsided, I see little emotional intelligence in your posts, and I've been reading them for a long time. I've posted about this before and got no response from you. So I don't expect one. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, May 06, 1999 at 22:35:33 (EDT)
From: bill Email: None To: Helen Subject: Here's a possible solution Message: Hi Helen, The swears ARE rough reading. Although I did uncork one myself and even put it in the subject heading! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, May 06, 1999 at 12:30:34 (EDT)
From: AJW Email: None To: Jim Subject: Oral hygene Message: Jim, say three hail marys, centre yourself at that place within, stand on a ley line facing Mecca, and wash your mouth out with a vintage charanamrit from the good old days- something pre 76- before it all went pear shaped. Antonioni Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, May 06, 1999 at 23:44:57 (EDT)
From: carol Email: None To: Brian Subject: Thank you very much!!!! Message: I've been coming here for over a year and every time I finally think it's safe to jump in another battle starts---and I back off again. I'd love to participate here but I absolutely refuse to allow anyone to badger me like I've seen other posters subjected to here. I'm absolutely amazed how some of the most innocent comments are jumped on. I'm an ex too and if there is one thing I've learned it's that NO ONE can set a timetable on how long it takes another person to disentangle themselves from the cult--people trying to leave it behind have to prepare themselves and just like any other addiction, it ain't gonna happen until they are ready to let go. All anyone here can really do if they want to help others see the light is try to be supportive while the process runs its course. And the last thing that ANYONE posting here should say is that any particular person should be banned or shunned from this site (unless forum rules have been violated). I can't believe how some of the people here have been through such terrible times while involved in the cult, but seemingly have no compassion whatsoever for other people looking to get out. The lack of empathy is appalling since exes know first-hand just how badly screwed up the cult can make a person. I'm not referring to all exes posting here, but I have to say that lately it seems that a lot of the people who do want to help others are staying away because there's so much nastiness going on. That's truly a shame, because no one is being helped by all this arguing and fighting. And I'll probably get my share of bullshit now that I've had my say. Fine then, fire away if you must. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, May 07, 1999 at 00:49:16 (EDT)
From: Liz Email: None To: carol Subject: Thank you very much!!!! Message: Hi Carol, You are new to me. I totally agree with your comments, Some imbeciles here are giving us exes a bad name! Hang in here. There are some more sensible comments occasionally although as you say some of the more sensible ones seem to be staying away recently. That's a shame. Love, Liz Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sat, May 08, 1999 at 00:56:55 (EDT)
From: East Coast Carol Email: None To: Liz Subject: Just so you know Message: Hi Liz- I'm new to everyone here! I'm not discouraged in the least-as the saying goes 'this too shall pass'. Don't know how often I'll post, but I intend to stick around. It's good to hear that being sensitive to other's needs hasn't gone out of style though! Regards, Carol Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, May 07, 1999 at 07:34:16 (EDT)
From: Robyn Email: sundogs@hotmail.com To: carol Subject: Thank you very much!!!! Message: Dear Carol, Please excuse Jim for assuming you are a Carol that use to post. You haven't mentioned that fact so I assume you are another Carol. As Carol from the west coast isn't the only Carol on this earth. The thing that is interesting to me is that when there have been flame free forums they are not as visited as this forum and eventually fizzle out. Curious. I know I rarely read the parts of the forum I think may have nastiness and have felt bad about the attacked being OK as well but I just can't expose myself to the back and forth, I get to caught up. I've always been more able to defend someone else than myself although I am working on it. I use to really enjoy a lot of Jim's posts also. He can be hysterical but that is the price I pay for missing his nasty edge, I miss out on the funny stuff. Take care Carol, and good luck in sorting out your ex-ness. Love, Robyn Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sat, May 08, 1999 at 00:10:36 (EDT)
From: East Coast Carol Email: None To: Robyn Subject: Thank you very much!!!! Message: Hi Robyn- You were correct-I am someone else and now thanks to you I have a new name. I hope West Coast Carol didn't see Jim's response to me, but I have apologized to her for the confusion. I wouldn't want people to be censored here-people should be free to say what they want. But recently, there's been too much nastiness and since I have been lurking for quite some time, I thought I should speak from an outsiders point of view. If premies come here to flame the forum, well they're asking for trouble. I'm more concerned about the ones who are watching and waiting and sincerely want to get some answers, but hesitate because emotionally it's too risky for them to leap in. Hopefully our friend Jim will be more cordial soon. Seems like he goes thru these phases every 4 or 5 weeks or so and then he's back to his normal self. The nasty edge will be there but it's not quite so sharp. Thanks for the good wishes... Carol Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, May 07, 1999 at 11:40:41 (EDT)
From: Katie Email: katie@ex-premie.org To: carol Subject: Thanks, Carol Message: Hi Carol - Thanks for posting (I am not sure if you are the Carol that I know from e-mail? She's never posted either - basically for the reasons you describe.) You wrote: I'm an ex too and if there is one thing I've learned it's that NO ONE can set a timetable on how long it takes another person to disentangle themselves from the cult--people trying to leave it behind have to prepare themselves and just like any other addiction, it ain't gonna happen until they are ready to let go. All anyone here can really do if they want to help others see the light is try to be supportive while the process runs its course. I liked your whole post, but I particularly like this paragraph. As I wrote above, I've been corresponding with someone via e-mail who is going through great personal grief over leaving Maharaji. This is HARD, and it's usually not a subject that's discussed here. This person decided to stop following Maharaji because of the things he read on the forum, and I think the forum should also provide support for what he's going through now. Pressuring people to leave Maharaji has not ever been my goal here. I think it's more important to provide support for those people who decide to leave on their own. Also, some of the people here left years ago and still have feelings about Maharaji that need to be addressed - feelings that may not appear 'acceptable' when revealed to the forum as a whole. While I WISH people on the forum would be more civil and accepting to others who may not share their view exactly, we can't MAKE that happen. There's a lot of anger here that's going to get expressed, and in my opinion, sometimes that anger is aimed at the wrong targets (like individual premies that post here sincerely.) The only advice I have to people who find the anger overwhelming and don't want to get into it is to not answer angry posts (even if they're aimed at you - I know this is hard, and that the angry posts can be quite hurtful), to try and get in threads with people who you feel you can relate to, and to establish e-mail relationships where you can discuss things with sympathetic people in a less public environment. Sometimes people have to develop a pretty thick skin to post on the forum - I really wish it didn't have to be this way. But there are a lot of very supportive people here too, and generally when people post sincerely, they get some sincere and caring answers. Thanks again for posting, and I hope you'll continue to be a presence here. Take care, Katie Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, May 07, 1999 at 12:05:13 (EDT)
From: Helen Email: None To: Katie Subject: Thanks, Carol & Katie Message: for great posts. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, May 07, 1999 at 21:54:47 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Katie Subject: You guys really don't get it Message: Okay, there's the Katie school: don't argue with anyone about Maharaji. Be nice, be supportive, friendly... am I missing something. Everyone in their own time, to every thing, turn, turn, turn. La di da. Then there's reality: premies come here defending their cult leader. Someone's got to talk with them. It's never Katie. That's just not what she does. So it's some of us others who don't mind arguing with current cult members. Does it get nasty? Sure. Who's fault? Whoever cheats. Could it be any simpler? Then there's idiocy like what Robyn posted today to Shp. 'Hi Shp, I love everyone and I really love you! Bye! Love, Robyn' Sentiments good for nothing but to show that Robyn's full of love. Big fucking deal. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, May 07, 1999 at 22:45:37 (EDT)
From: Katie Email: katie@ex-premie.org To: Jim Subject: You guys really don't get it Message: Hi Jim - I was just telling some people today that it's about time for our quarterly big argument. I'm not particularly in the mood for it, so I hope you're not either. You wrote: Okay, there's the Katie school: don't argue with anyone about Maharaji. Be nice, be supportive, friendly... am I missing something. Everyone in their own time, to every thing, turn, turn, turn. La di da. Then there's reality: premies come here defending their cult leader. Someone's got to talk with them. It's never Katie. That's just not what she does. So it's some of us others who don't mind arguing with current cult members. Does it get nasty? Sure. Who's fault? Whoever cheats. Could it be any simpler? I feel that you're misrepresenting me here (as you probably know, your characterization of my approach here as 'don't argue with anyone about Maharaji. Be nice, be supportive, friendly... am I missing something. Everyone in their own time, to every thing, turn, turn, turn. La di da.' was bound to annoy me), but that's nothing new. I just posted two posts to Nil and Catweasel that re-iterate some what I'm going to say, but I'll say it again. NO, I am not into arguing with premies, UNLESS they attack ex-premies or the ex-premie site or forum. The only 'arguing' I do with premies is just to tell my OWN experience. I realize that you ARE into arguing with them, and I know that a lot of people have benefited greatly from your stand-up arguments against some of the premies who post here. So thanks for that, Jim - I want you and everyone to know that I acknowledge and appreciate you for that. I feel that your black and white characterization of premies vs. ex-premies in the above paragraphs was too simplified. What I am concerned about, and what I try, and have been trying to express, is that I am concerned about people who MAY be what you call 'current cult followers', but are very unhappy. Or people who have just left and have major doubts. I realize that your approach may help some of these people (in fact, I know it's helped certain people here a lot), but others have a hard time with it. They're in a fragile state - they may still have mixed feelings about Maharaji that they need to discuss. I DO think people really need support at this stage, and that they should be able to get it on the forum rather than just via e-mail. It DOES take time to get over being involved - sometimes the devotional feelings and the feelings of doubt persist. And sometimes the in-your-face approach doesn't work. Jim, I hope you can accept that we have two different approaches to posting on the forum. I think there is room for both of us here, but I also think that we are bound to disagree some of the time (and sometimes vehemently). For example, I really didn't like the things you said about shp and Denise in this thread. I didn't think what Denise said was out of line at all - you might disagree with it, but it's not all BS. And I think that shp is having a hard time right now. I don't know if he'll be able to accept Maharaji's involvement in concealing Jagdeo's pedophilism, but at least he's LISTENED to G's Mom and others testimony instead of just dismissing it like so many other premies have. I know that the fact that you and I sometimes get into big arguments really upsets some of the other ex-premies here, but I do think that it's healthy - it proves that we're not in a cult, for one thing. And that there IS freedom of speech here (with a few restrictions.) It may hard to believe this, but I really do feel supportive and friendly to most of the people who post here, and I feel good about expressing that on the forum. And, frankly, I am tired of talking about Maharaji and the cult - I am much more interested in the well-being of other people here on the forum than I am in 'bringing Maharaji down'. I think Maharaji is BORING, personally - I wouldn't even stick around here if it wasn't for the other exes. Take care, Jim. Love, Katie Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sat, May 08, 1999 at 18:49:20 (EDT)
From: Liz Email: None To: Katie Subject: Great post! Message: I know you don't need me to validate you being here but I'm sure you are really helping a lot of people. By the way I've sent the video on to Mary. Bye for now, Katie, Liz Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sat, May 08, 1999 at 20:48:04 (EDT)
From: Mary M Email: None To: Liz Subject: Thanks Liz Message: It should be an interesting reel! Luv, Mary Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, May 07, 1999 at 23:58:34 (EDT)
From: Robyn Email: sundogs@hotmail.com To: Jim Subject: You really don't get it Message: Jim, I started to write something sensible and explanitory, but you don't care. I do not apologize to you or anyone for seeing the humanity in any person. I don't see any in you and I am sure that is how you like it. I don't love Sandy, I don't know him. I read his words and had empathy and replied. Hey guess what I can say what I want here! I dare to be myself and not conduct myself in order to not ruffle your feathers although I am usually quite content to avoid you. I thought we were going to our seperate corners now but I guess because I said I egged you on that you feel justified in following me around nipping at my heels. Well I was in the mood for conflict and what I did was start reading your posts, or rather a thread were I knew you were spouting. It didn't take long until I found a post to reply to but what I said was what I felt. I didn't fabricate something to pick on you. Would you be happy if everyone here was just like you? It seems like that would be the only way you would not be crusading in the name of science, slashing down premies, and against astrology. There is no room for color in your world and to quote you from when I was first here, Ca Ca. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, May 06, 1999 at 00:59:54 (EDT)
From: JW Email: None To: a disappointed ex Subject: Try To Be A Grown Up Message: I suppose that allowing this nonsence to flourish is the price paid for keeping the discussion open and without censorship. No two people will agree as to what 'nonsense' is, but otherwise, I think you hit the issue on the head. The price you pay for the right of free speech, is that some people will actually exercise it. That's just the way things work and I am actually grateful for that. Free expression is always a bit messy, but it's also the most powerful. As for ex-PAMs, there are, in fact, a number who HAVE posted here. I can think of two in particular who have provided a lot of information, were extraordinarily supported, and not attacked in any way, by the ex-premies, and they both were flamed, in fact attacked, by PREMIES, not ex-premies because of the things they said. I think that might be much more of an impetus to not go public than because some ex-premies might be irreverent to them, [and maybe not treat them with the exaulted status they had in the cult.] I think there are others who don't post for various reasons, probably very personal ones having to do with how they are dealing and coming to terms with their cult involvement and they are other than because they don't like the neighborhood here. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, May 06, 1999 at 01:52:03 (EDT)
From: cp Email: None To: jim- ect Subject: on bieng rude Message: In the past I have been horrified by Jims language, stance, attack and surliness. Untill...... today. I had a run in with a full blown premie and of course the cliches started to come from her lips and I just cut loose. I had zero patience. In the middle of the fray- I said to myself 'by god- I sound like JIM!~ She got uncut anger and attack and still she was sort of smirking that I was (so to speak) still waiting at the pumps for the conversation to follow along rational lines. I felt like I was being played with- mind-fucked to put it nicely. If this is disjointed its because I am still running hot. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, May 06, 1999 at 02:26:13 (EDT)
From: Roger E. Drek Email: None To: cp Subject: ***Best of the Forum*** ??? Message: cp, I'll ask first, but I really liked your post. I'm not making fun of you, but that was really funny. Actually, I feel that I'm learning to be more assertive by reading the Forum and seeing examples of people not being overly PC polite and taking shit. I hear myself being stron and assertive and I'm wondering where is this coming from. Just today I was involved in a little deal at work and I said firmly with total conviction No, that's not what happened when my boss was trying to tell me that what I experienced and felt didn't really happen. I wonder how the years of carrying around Maharaji's philosophy and trying to follow his agya of propagation and trying to impress people that I was mellow and having a deep inner experience has affected my inter personal communication skills. You gotta believe and understand that we were living some kind of spiritual elitism on a mission for God and that ain't real normal. We further complicated ourselves, again by his philosphy, where we thought that life and consequences were meaningless and pointless. And now we're finally breaking free and learning to Just Say No! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, May 06, 1999 at 08:10:16 (EDT)
From: Zac Email: None To: Roger E. Drek Subject: ***Best of the Forum*** ??? Message: Thumbs up on your post Roger! I have noticed similar changes in myself even though I'm polite around here. I find it much easier to say no I disagree. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, May 06, 1999 at 12:51:09 (EDT)
From: AJW Email: None To: a disappointed ex Subject: a small price Message: Hi disappointed-ex, I'm also a disappointed-ex, but I'm not disappointed with the Forum. I would become extremely disappointed, however, if people started to censor it any more than it is already censored, particularly if premies were prevented from posting. I value the freedom of expression here. Although my 'Journey' was censored by transatlantic imperialists, and £ was converted to dollars, the rest of it was pretty much as I wrote it. Jim suggested banning shp and a couple of others, but as a relative newcomer to the forum, I really enjoy getting into conversation with them. I love reading a heated discussion between a long term premie and a forum 'heavyweight'. Conflict is the essence of drama. If everyone here agreed all the time, it would be another 'Enjoyingboredom.org'. Ugh. So let's have Freedom, not censorship, fist fights, not friendly chats, love not hate, smooth peanut butter not crunchy, sincerity, not tomatoes, granola not museums, and small fluffy kittens, not sharp shards of green glass. Love and Peace man. Al Literation Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, May 06, 1999 at 17:08:54 (EDT)
From: g's mom Email: None To: AJW Subject: enjoyingboredom.org LOL(nt) Message: no text Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, May 07, 1999 at 11:17:50 (EDT)
From: bill Email: None To: AJW Subject: a small price Message: I give in to your thinking. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, May 05, 1999 at 13:31:52 (EDT)
From: Katie Email: katie@ex-premie.org To: Everyone Subject: Ex-premie Grief Support? Message: I've been communicating by e-mail with a new ex-premie who just decided to stop following Maharaji recently. This person has decided that he can never 'go back' because of what he now knows about Maharaji and his organization. But he's experiencing a tremendous amount of grief and sadness at giving up his relationship with Maharaji. He KNOWS that most of this was inside his head - basically a fantasy, but it's still really painful to him, and he keeps wanting to be able to run back to something that's not there anymore: a safe place where someone loves him unconditionally. I know that other people on here have probably experienced this as well. (I personally did not have this same problem - I basically viewed Maharaji as an authority figure and was scared of him.) But I know that other ex-premies on here have found that ending their relationship with Maharaji (even if it was completely one-sided) was a huge loss - a REAL loss - and left a big hole in their lives. If anyone here can relate to this, and can tell about the pain and grief that they went through when they left Maharaj, and if they have nything helpful to say about how they healed, I think it would be very helpful to the new exes who are now experiencing this grief. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, May 05, 1999 at 14:30:29 (EDT)
From: Happy Email: None To: Katie Subject: Ex-premie Grief Support? Message: Realizing that one has been fooled, and in an extremely cruel way, is bound to give grief. Since it is about sixteen years since I exed, and I had seen through M quite some time before that, I passed this stage long ago. But I still can recognize and remember it. Then follows anger, perhaps hate - if you really 'loved' M, you're bound to hate him as much, when you realize the truth about him. Then that, too, eventually fades, and what followed, in my case, was disgust, towards all religious movements, spiritual masters, cults. I'm still there. In an sense, it leaves a hole, an empty space inside. A distrust towards everything that even smells spirituality. Perhaps this is wrong, but it is extremely difficult to relate positively to anything spiritual. Fair or not, I don't know. But I don't take any risks anymore. I do yoga/meditation, for my physical and mental well-being, and I still like it and get much out of it. But I don't like the Hindu guru-trip, not in the least. But I also feel a great relief. It HURTS, yes, as somebody wrote in an excellent post recently. But reality hurts. That's why so many (myself included) tried to escape it in the first place. And M, like a vulture, took advantage of it. That's why I participate in this Mahabharata, I would like to see him go down and pay for what he did. Gurus are really assholes of the worst kind. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, May 05, 1999 at 14:45:37 (EDT)
From: Liz Email: None To: Happy Subject: Ex-premie Grief Support? Message: Hi Happy, Are you really a happy Brit living in Paris? I missed your reply to my question if there was one. I'm feeling sad that I spend so much time addicted to this site after haveing been addicted to M for so long it must act as a substitute. I would realy prefer to do something creative but I find it really difficult after being so uncreative for so long, always having my mind on 'practicing' and not achieving very much. Love, Liz Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, May 05, 1999 at 20:48:45 (EDT)
From: Robyn Email: sundogs@hotmail.com To: Liz Subject: Ex-premie Grief Support? Message: Dear Liz, About forum addiction. I think it will end eventually, I think a lot of us had it and most of us have moved beyond it eventually. At least there is honesty here and you can say anything you want to and maybe you will become motivated to move on by something you read here. Only you know for sure but there are no rules here so don't be to hard on yourself. Do what feels right. If it feels wrong talk about it and start to try to move on. I am no one to give advice but just wanted to tell you I feel for you. Love, Robyn Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, May 06, 1999 at 01:18:27 (EDT)
From: Roger E. Drek Email: None To: Liz Subject: Forum Addiction??? Message: Yes, it certainly is something that my time goes into. Maybe I'll move on and spend less time. But, there is great drama and information content here along with a lot of good interesting people. And afterall, we share a similar experience that not a whole lot of other normies share. Quite unique, in fact. How many people can say that they saw a half naked guy with a crown dancing until 2:00 a.m. in a cow pasture and then kissed his feet the next morning? Nah, this is better than TV or movies. Maybe not books, though. And some of us are on a mission to help premies who want out a way to get out. The other side of the mission is to keep other innocents out of the clutches of Maharaji. There is also the recovery aspect and filling that hole that comes when you kick Maharaji, your Lord and Master, out of your life. It's a huge life-change for people who've put everything they had into it for 10, 20, or even almost 30 years. And I'm doing HTML stuff over at the House of Maharaji Drek and that looks good on my resume. Maybe one day I can move up from my night assistant manager job at the 7-11. I can't really imagine doing a whacky personal I'm a way-cool radical dude webpage. It's only a matter of time until Microsoft or Amazon.com contacts me and I get paid the big bucks for putting their ads on my site! Money for nothing and chicks for free just like the Boss. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, May 06, 1999 at 20:49:26 (EDT)
From: Denise Email: None To: Roger E. Drek Subject: **Best Of** Nomination Message: Hey Drek, Can I vote this one into your 'Best of' collection? I love the term 'normies' and the line about watching a half naked man dance until 2 a.m. and then kissing his feet the next morning! Great post! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, May 06, 1999 at 22:04:31 (EDT)
From: Roger E. Drek Email: None To: Denise Subject: I Accept The Nomination Message: Balance, diversity, creativity - these are the elements of Republican equation. Republicans agree, Republicans agree heartily to disagree on many, many of their applications, but we have never disagreed on the basic fundamental issues of why you and I are Republicans. This is a party, this Republican Party, a Party for free men, not for blind followers, and not for conformists. I repeat, I accept your nomination with humbleness, with pride, and you and I are going to fight for the goodness of our land. Thank you. Above from Barry Goldwater's Nomination Acceptance Speech 1964 In your heart you know I'm right! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, May 07, 1999 at 10:07:49 (EDT)
From: Happy Email: None To: Liz Subject: Not living in Paris Message: Liz, No, I am not HALIP (=Happy living in Paris), there seems to be a lot of confusion between the two of us. I have a journey over at the journeys section - actually, I am living in Scandinavia. Maybe I'll decide to go public one day, then you'll know who I am. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, May 07, 1999 at 16:00:32 (EDT)
From: Liz Email: None To: Happy Subject: Not living in Paris Message: Dear Happy, I'm sorry - you told me this already. I'll try and remember next time. Which part of Scandinavia? Love, Liz Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, May 07, 1999 at 21:05:11 (EDT)
From: Diz Email: None To: Happy Subject: To Happy Message: Hi Happy I've been wondering how you're going, particularly with your daughter. Hope things are improving rather than getting worse in that very difficult situation. Just wanted to send my best wishes Diz Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, May 05, 1999 at 15:41:30 (EDT)
From: Richard Email: rich2@globalnet.co.uk To: Katie Subject: Huge personal grief.... Message: It dosn't take too long to realise that the organisation surrounding M is a crock, I think we all see that pretty quickly. However, to reject M is a different matter. It all depends on how much hope you had invested in him in the first place. For myself, it was everything and that, I think, is the key. It is not a question of how much time you gave to him so much as how deeply you gave of yourself. In my case I know that I made vows and promises in my most secret and personal space which were more precious to me than the breath that I used to make them. And I meant every single word. I did it because of who I thought he was and what I thought he was giving. I was completely aware of the gravity and import of those vows and knew, in my heart of hearts, that what I was doing was extreme and dangerous and, most amazing of all, that there would be a heavy price to pay for it if it went wrong. So why did I do it? Because, I thought, what if it was real and I rejected the opportunity? I wanted the prize so badly that I was prepared to risk everything. And what was the prize on offer? Absolute truth..nothing less!! That's something huh! So having given so deeply of myself I was not going to back off lightly. It took almost 26 years to finally turn my back on M and I think that the scars will last forever. They ought to, they are a huge part of my life and I cannot pretend that it never happened. The pain that I felt when I finally admitted in my heart what my brain had been telling me for years was immense, the worst pain that I have ever felt and that I am ever likely to feel. I still feel pain and that pain is a measure of my committment. Your pain is a tribute to your ability to give of yourself and is a measure of your humanity. Even while you suffer from it, feel proud of what says about you. It says that you are truly open to experience. You WILL be able to live with it and your life and your feeling about it WILL change. You did the right thing in talking to Katie, she's the best. When you feel like it, come and talk to the rest of us. Hang in there and take care. regards Richard Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, May 05, 1999 at 20:08:14 (EDT)
From: Diz Email: None To: Richard Subject: Huge personal grief.... Message: Hi Richard, Thank you for that post. And thank you Katie for raising this point. I agree this is a major issue, at least for some of us. Perhaps particularly those who hung in there for years. There's still grief there for me, and sometimes it gets mixed with doubts about whether I've done the right thing. Although I can't see any way that I'd want to go back. I am less sanguine than you, Richard, in attributing my inability to completely let go to the positive ability to commit. Lately I'm wondering what lessons I need to learn about myself, in all this. I can see personal weakness both in the way I attached myself to MJ, and in the way I left. Getting a handle on this stuff is difficult. I still feel there's so much to sort out, and it touches the deepest part of me. I would like to see myself, and the situation clearly, but find it so hard. Personally, this is the kind of thing I'd like to explore with ex-premies. I think there's a lot of wisdom amongst ex-premies, but also so much damage that perhaps we're all somewhat blind. That old desire to have someone big and wise tell me where it's at is still around. I KNOW it's not on, any more. I've been reading a book by Scott Peck, and although I enjoy much of what he has to say, his Christian bent puts the fear of God into me, literally. So many people run around saying God knows best, and they know what that is! They frighten me, these knowers of truth, wherever they may be found (including here). Human beings who try for honesty, despite full knowledge of their limitations, seem to me to be the best bet. I guess this forum at its best is a way to get our limited heads together. Though this is delicate stuff, and I am not sure how possible it is to explore the depths of one's being in a public forum. Diz Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, May 06, 1999 at 10:00:32 (EDT)
From: Richard Email: rich2@globalnet.co.uk To: Diz Subject: trust yourself........ Message: I am less sanguine than you, Richard, in attributing my inability to completely let go to the positive ability to commit. Lately I'm wondering what lessons I need to learn about myself, in all this. I can see personal weakness both in the way I attached myself to MJ, and in the way I left. Getting a handle on this stuff is difficult. I still feel there's so much to sort out, and it touches the deepest part of me. I would like to see myself, and the situation clearly, but find it so hard. At the end of it all Diz, by talking to people here and listening to other friends, I realised that the bits of me which I saw as weak and ineffectual were the truly valuable bits. Being open to manipulation isn't a crime and nor is it a weakness. It's just openess and that's a good thing. Cherish it and trust your instincts. regards Richard Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, May 06, 1999 at 19:19:32 (EDT)
From: Diz Email: None To: Richard Subject: trust yourself........ Message: Thanks, sweet Richard, I really needed that reply. It's a question of which self to trust. I'm going through it at present. Imagine having put myself in a position of listening to one person's ideas for 20 years, with virtually no opportunity to debrief! I feel invaded and polluted. Which isn't to say some of the ideas don't have value...well, maybe some do...I don't fucking know... Diz Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, May 07, 1999 at 12:38:43 (EDT)
From: Richard Email: None To: Diz Subject: trust yourself........ Message: You will do Diz..in time. regards Richard Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, May 06, 1999 at 22:51:48 (EDT)
From: bill Email: None To: Diz Subject: Huge personal grief.... Message: Well Diz, Your post is a successful example of 'exploreing depths in a public forum'. You and the other writers are making a heck of a thread. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, May 07, 1999 at 21:01:57 (EDT)
From: Diz Email: None To: bill, Richard Subject: Huge personal grief.... Message: Thanks, both of you. I need a few cyber stokes at present. Diz Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, May 07, 1999 at 23:00:02 (EDT)
From: Katie Email: None To: Diz Subject: Cyberstrokes for Diz Message: Hi Diz - I really liked your responses (and your and Richard's exchange) in this thread. Thanks for that, and for being so open and honest about your feelings. I think that talking honestly about this, and other things, really will help people. I hope that it will help you as well. As for cyberstrokes - you REALLY deserve them. I'm constantly amazed by the perceptiveness and quality of your posts - and by the way you really reveal and give something of yourself every time you post. I only wish you had the time to post more, but I know that you have other, pressing, commitments. Take care of yourself, Diz - hope everything is OK. Lots of love, Katie P.S. I did get your e-mail & I apologize for not responding as yet (I'm switching computers, as well as going through a lot of other stuff). Will write soon. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sat, May 08, 1999 at 09:20:15 (EDT)
From: Helen Email: None To: Diz Subject: Cyberstrokes for Diz Message: Thanks from me too, Diz!! I wanted to add something here about Scott Peck. Scott Peck may have sold a zillion copies of his books but he has not called himself Lord or Guru. You can take or leave his ideas, take the ones you like, discard the rest. He's up front about his Christian bias, so he won't sneak anything up on you either!!. Scott Peck has his limitations like any other human being. I guess what I'm trying to say is there's a lot of helpful authors, etc out there, but you get to decide if you like what they have to say or if you want to chuck them. With Maharaji you had to swallow the whole pill without mentally digesting it or knowing what the hell you were swallowing. I'm a big Peck fan, but I'm not a Christian and I take him with a grain of salt--he's always been in a very priviledged ivy tower kind of position all his life. But he's got a lot of great stuff in his books, IMO. Girl, when I read a post like yours it makes me want to stick around this here forum. Love Helen Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sat, May 08, 1999 at 18:41:13 (EDT)
From: Diz Email: None To: Helen, Katie Subject: Cyberstrokes for Diz Message: Thanks, you all. I take your point about being able to accept or disguard what authors in the public domain say. Maybe I'm just dealing with my devotee tendencies here - they really are a damn nuisance. They mean that it's hard for me to walk a middle path around people who talk God: I'm either prone to being sucked in by, or need to stay well away from, things religious. Diz Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sat, May 08, 1999 at 19:12:16 (EDT)
From: Helen Email: None To: Diz Subject: Cyberstrokes for Diz Message: Diz, I think all of that will even out for you in time. You will feel more sure of what your idea of God is, and your comfort level with religious ideas and people. What's so great is that you are so honest about it. I don't know if I already told you this, but when I drifted away from Maharaji, a therapist told me to stop torturing myself trying to figure out this realizing God thing. In other words, she said I should try to loosen up all the 'God structures and God strictures' from my mind.She told me to read novels instead and to try to get creative and loosen up the other side of my brain. In my years with 2 gurus I hadn't read any fiction. So I started reading all this cool fantasy fiction and having great dreams and I started feeling better. Talk to you soon Love Helen Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, May 05, 1999 at 20:45:14 (EDT)
From: Denise Email: None To: Richard Subject: Huge personal grief.... Message: What a wonderful, sincere post! Thank you. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, May 05, 1999 at 21:59:34 (EDT)
From: Robyn Email: sundogs@hotmail.com To: Richard Subject: Huge personal grief.... Message: Dear Richard, I knew you were a good man, that has come through all your posts but this was a beautiful post. Thank you so much for sharing that with us. You are pretty wonderful person Richard. Love, Robyn Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, May 05, 1999 at 16:49:51 (EDT)
From: Jethro Email: None To: Katie Subject: Ex-premie Grief Support? Message: Just a note. After realising that the premie trip was a fake, I found that after some time of not knowing what to do with THAT LOVE, THAT PLACE etc......I discovered that I could give THAT etc to whoever, whenever I wanted. It makes a very ineteresting world after being zoned out for over 25 years. Thank you Prempal (Maharaji) for showing me what is perfectly fake. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, May 06, 1999 at 10:20:55 (EDT)
From: Katie Email: None To: all Subject: Thanks to all Message: Thanks very much to everyone who answered this thread. I know it's a very personal question, and required people to really 'get personal' about their own feelings. I do think it's an issue that needs to be discussed, and that all of your feelings and experiences could be quite valuable to others who read the forum. I do hope that we CAN discuss sensitive issues like this on the forum, too! P.S. Thank you, Richard, for the nice things you said about me, and for being so open. Your post was very moving. (I did get your e-mail, BTW - thanks very much for that as well.) Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, May 05, 1999 at 07:50:56 (EDT)
From: Zac Email: None To: Everyone Subject: He or she was really nice Message: On a thread below I said L.G. was a really nice person in so many words. I take it back. When 'I' say it and think it, it seems right, but when I read on the forum so and so was a really nice person and I haven't had contact with them it translates to 'they must have been a really nice pawn for M.' And if they rose in the ranks they were a totally programmed pawn who would've been a nice person or could've been a neat person except for M. By defending or justifying individuals I'm playing into M's hands and the tactics he uses. It's stupid and I wont do it anymore. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, May 06, 1999 at 14:03:00 (EDT)
From: AJW Email: None To: Diz Subject: I take it back too... Message: Hope Zac doesn't mind me jumping into his thread, but his post brought a similar feeling of remorse in me, for a reckless offer I made to Diz recently. Diz, about the world war 2 helmets and marmite massage, I take it back. I was going through a difficult period in my relationship at the time, but things have worked out now and I'm mentally a bit more stable. Anton le repentant. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, May 06, 1999 at 19:01:22 (EDT)
From: Diz Email: None To: AJW Subject: Aw gee, do you? Message: Well, AJW, after crying at Richard's message above, yours has made me laugh. As did the last one. Thanks for that. Though I have to admit I'm a bit disappointed... Well, Richard tells me it's good to be open to new experiences. I didn't know if your suggestion was alluding to some sort of quaint ethnic custom. I have led a sheltered life in many respects, you know - I was in a cult for 20 years, for instance. Your relationship sounds like it has many fine qualities, and a history that would be worth recounting on any dark night. Stick with it. You could, perhaps, introduce some variety by renovating ethnic customs such as you mentioned to me. I gather you have lots of creativity to bring to any union. Best wishes Diz Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, May 07, 1999 at 15:57:45 (EDT)
From: AJW Email: None To: Diz Subject: Aw gee, do you? Message: Hi Diz, Are you male or female? (I might want to take it back again). Anton le confused. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, May 07, 1999 at 20:51:28 (EDT)
From: Diz Email: None To: AJW Subject: Aw gee, do you? Message: Female. Do I win? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sat, May 08, 1999 at 06:25:44 (EDT)
From: AJW Email: None To: Diz Subject: Aw gee, do you? Message: I'll let you know when I've finished therapy. Anth. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sat, May 08, 1999 at 18:26:12 (EDT)
From: Diz Email: None To: AJW Subject: Aw gee, do you? Message: Jeez. Don't think I can wait that long. Such is life. Diz Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, May 04, 1999 at 22:05:21 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Everyone Subject: Why Shp is a broken person Message: Down below I gave Shp shit. I called him fuckface and aksed him, once again, to get the hell out of here. G's-mom wondered why such hostility on my part. Well, I've had a little time to read a few more of Shp's posts today and to really reconsider. Here's what I think. I think Shp is a broken person. The human brain is an amazing phenomenon. It continues to develop at a breath-taking pace long after birth and has absolutely amazing faculties to process information. Amazing. Despite the grinding, long-standing conventions of the new-age and other destructive traditions, the fact is that our ability to think is our most precious faculty. Alzheimer's sufferers simply aren't as much 'person' as they used to be. They've lost some of their integral specialness, their core identity. Even great, wonderful minds and personalities like Iris Murdoch, the English novelist who recently died, become mere shells of their former selves without a properly functiong mind. Shp chooses to abandon his own critical faculties. He knows what's wrong with his thinking but he simply doesn't care. I say this is every bit as bad as serious moral turpitude, the only possible mitigating factor being that he is his own greatest victim. Too bad this creep has kids but, oh well. Now, you say it's okay if he has a sunny disposition and all that? Nice Shp is okay by you? I say you're forgetting what human beings really are and can be. If it's admirable to fulfill your potential to some great degree and even admirable to at least try to do so, it necessarily must be despicable to deny your own evolved faculties to reason and think clearly. We can enjoy clowns and we can enjoy clowning around. But we aren't really clowns, we're something better. We're human beings. We can think seriously and reasonably about things. Shp has turned his back on this potential and all indications are that, already middle-aged, he is never going to change. Never. He's going to die like this and I, for one, shudder to think that I might have turned out that way too. This is a broken life as surely as a chronic alcoholic or junkie might be. I'm not happy to say so but I do think it's true. Your opinions? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, May 04, 1999 at 22:08:12 (EDT)
From: traveler Email: None To: Jim Subject: my opinion Message: You have too many opinions. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, May 04, 1999 at 22:55:32 (EDT)
From: Gerry Email: None To: traveler Subject: my opinion Message: Hi Jim, I think yours is an astute and accurate observation. I think sheep is basically a fraud, an insincere person who his afraid to confront the fact that many of his most cherished ideals and concepts are wrong You say Shp chooses to abandon his own critical faculties. He knows what's wrong with his thinking but he simply doesn't care. I say this is every bit as bad as serious moral turpitude, the only possible mitigating factor being that he is his own greatest victim. Too bad this creep has kids but, oh well. I think this is the crux of the situation. He knows he's wrong but doesn't have the guts to admit it and change. I agree this is every bit as bad as moral turpitude. In fact it is the definition of moral turpitude. And you're right about his inability to change. That's why I consider him to be a total waste of time no matter how amusing or pleasant he seems on the surface. There is something seriously amiss about him. I would not place my trust in him or his judgement or his character. I thought your post was excellent, succinct, on target and well stated, as usual. But then, you know me. Sincerely, Neand,.. Sasq,.. er... youknow. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, May 05, 1999 at 02:08:05 (EDT)
From: bb Email: None To: Gerry Subject: my opinion Message: His only question is how to process the jagdeo 'issue'. He has emailed m about it and is 'still waiting for a reply'. If m is a master, he says, then how can we question his actions? Maybe m is not a master but sanford is 'going to give him the benefit of the doubt'. His ears are not open and niether is his eyes, so what is the point in talking to him I guess. I approach him after he says things like 'maybe I am going through things!' And then he posts the things I reported above and I see I am being taken. Sorry sanford, but really, you are not ready to be here at this forum and the premie forum is available and steven is waiting for some companionship there and you callously ignore him. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, May 05, 1999 at 02:15:12 (EDT)
From: bb Email: None To: bb Subject: banishment option? Message: Didnt we have a commitee to judge when someone is best served by limiting thier access? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, May 05, 1999 at 06:22:05 (EDT)
From: Jean-Michel Email: None To: bb Subject: I don't agree Message: My friend has EXACTLY the same problem. I've told him about the Jagdeo issue, and some others I know of, involving persons HE knows. I've asked what would have been his reaction if one of his kids had been involved in such crime: his answer always was that he'd have gone and break Jagdeo's head, and the BM's if he'd have protected him. And he still believes in knowledge and all the theories related to it. He merely thinks that m is some kind of 'perverted' avatar, like some others. He rejects m as a qualified 'master', but still believes in the rest.... And he is struggling between his 'faith' and what common sense dictates. He might be struggling for all his life, or slowly leave his faith. My attitude towards him is not to criticise him or what he believes in. What is the point? I'm just showing him my reasoning, and what is worth valuing in my life. He's still a friend and I like him. But I can't be that close to friends still believing m's the Almighty Lord. What is the point being with people who've temporarily lost parts of their brains. I'm not a therapist. I guess it's the same thing with religious people: it takes one's life long to leave your parents' faith, to raise your children away from faith, and some might go back to it, or to another faith. I've seen it for me, being raised away from Judaism, for my sister who's back to Judaism, my brother who's an agnostic, but whose sons are interested in Judaism. There is no easy answer, & no easy solution. People like shp and others can come here, you don't have to discuss with them. That might piss them off, so what. When they become a nuisance, they might be banned from posting here... Maybe some of them will have more interesting forums and websites. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, May 05, 1999 at 11:36:36 (EDT)
From: bb Email: None To: Jean-Michel Subject: I don't agree Message: I guess it is like knowing an addict. Any effort you make is wasted because they themselves are not going to make a change until they hit rock bottom. Any squealing for assistance is fraudulant. Perhaps someone with an AA background will be able to articulate the character type. While seeking compassion, they turn the samaritans head in circles and waste his time. It is abuse. It is not 'accepting another viewpoint' as catcrap surmises. Too many sentences were extended in his direction to warrent anymore, based on his recent comments. JM, Having said that, I will defer to your view and say 'ok'. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, May 05, 1999 at 22:20:54 (EDT)
From: Robyn Email: sundogs@hotmail.com To: traveler Subject: my opinion Message: Dear Traveler, 'You have too many opinions.' :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) Perfect! That's a lawyer for you! :) Love, Robyn Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, May 05, 1999 at 01:16:30 (EDT)
From: Runamok Email: None To: Jim Subject: Why Jim isn't a mechanic... Message: Or... When is it time to consensually toss some premie out on his ass? The subject of Shp on the forum, while not dear to my heart, is one for which I have expended considerable effort; more effort, in fact, than any other except actually dissing Miragey. Shippy has been a persistent pest, quick with politically expedient agreement when under attack, and even quicker with satsang about Miragey and other 'masters' when finding his acceptability rating high enough to get away with it. His opinion about Mirage is as close to the incarnational view as can be found today. If it is ever to change, then so be it but I, for one, do not expect it. While I wouldn't want to close the door on the possibility, I wouldn't invest the time of day in it, either. Some active exes haven't been here to see Shp's whole brief, but extremely active history with the forum. I know more about Shp's personal life than most of you will probably ever know about mine or many other active ex-premie contributors. This is a forum about Miragey created by people who left him and, in fact, are opposed to him. Shp's personal life has no direct relation to the discussion at hand and as a premie it could be consider intrusive, a distraction at best. Now that we know his brother died on morphine with him present and fairly recently, should those who have found his posts offensive desist from criticizing him or questioning his motives? In this respect, he does seem to me to be a compulsive con artist. The words, 'con artist', seem EXTREMELY TAME to me, but I know Shp may post that they were extreme. He may imply (and has) that I am culpable for escalating the war of words to increasing heights. He has claimed that my criticisms of him are not only entirely unfounded but are representative of my own anger. To me, as Jim says, Shp is confusing the issues rather than actually discussing them. He appears to obsessed with winning approval. What other effect could he possibly desire by posting this and numerous posts characterizing his own good intentions and depth of feeling. Are these kinds of personal statements, totally unverifiable as they are, ever actually relevant? Isn't it fair to say that it may be less appropriate for a premie to attempt to interest us in his private life than an ex? Doesn't Shp clearly show an agenda of attempting to cultivate sympathy by his continual bemoaning of his treatment on the forum? We often discuss the issue of M.'s responsibilty for his actions. Was he a dumb kid who was a victim himself? Some exes, especially people who were PAMs, seem to have a certain pity for him. They hope when M finally realizes that he is a mass-abuser (needs capital letters, think?), that the news is broken to him gently. I, for one (and we are many), hope that he is punished or at least STOPPED, and if I can watch him go down, there will be no doubt or pity here! I won't blink, I can assure you. Shp ain't M, but the principle is the same. He's caused us harm running us around in circles, and starting up again as a new wave of exes joins the forum. Does he know? Does he understand? I don't care at this point, but I do have to agree with Jim in spirit. Shp's just not capable of comprehending the human predicament of people on this forum and he's too obsessed with his own self image to try to understand. Mary M., I don't think you have seen enough of Shp to get his game. He's played the forum over and over with singular agreements partially espousing the point of view of most of the exes online. Watch out, Mary M! Because whenever he does, there's free satsang on the way in appreciation of your acceptance of him. Yes Shp, we talked about you some when you left. Not that much after the first few days. Did you notice what people said? There were numerous posts which all made you out as the premie Nasruddin. You know, the guy who does it all wrong, the guy who is the example of what it's like when you get it completely wrong. For myself, my respect for Shp grows when he stays offline. This is not a trick statement. If he would stay off for say 6 months (longer after the hour+ of writing this post), I might have some respect for him accumulated. If he would post sparingly, I might feel some respect for him. But he can't. He loves to double-deal and cajole us for respect and turn his nose up at our social behavior. He'd rather bust us for our lack of netiquette than help us find it or create it. The reputation of the ex-premie forum for being a volatile environment is strictly, IMHO, due to the presence of Shp and people like him. When Shp appeared, I posted to him in the most civil manner, over and over. I asked him to email individuals on the forum rather than burden the forum with satsang. I posted my own email address with these posts. Ironically, Shp didn't respond to my posts much, until I grew more aggressively critical of him. So Shp, why not stay away for a year. It will probably take that long for your name to go away at this point. Because you are an attention-greedy bastard, that's why. Some cars aren't worth trying to fix. OK, Shp is not a car, but this is not Shp's forum. If he's a distraction or a detriment in our actual stated purpose, we have a right to let him know. It isn't fair, he will tell us, to be talked about. Well, I guess if he didn't post, we wouldn't talk about him. Give it a rest, Shp. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, May 05, 1999 at 01:39:14 (EDT)
From: cp Email: None To: Runamok Subject: sheep shit Message: you guys are right-- he is ok, even pleasant untill he can slip in some free satsang. The comment above 'you have too many opinions ' is also just the kind of childish things premies say; It IS ninth grade. And they are proud of it. Tough Love is in order Ignore him- it is the alcholic syndrome - a response is equal to attention- and the forum provides many patsys to fall into a co-depandant role. But I would not like the forum to have NO premies to deprogramm. It adds spice as intervals to the OTHER thing. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, May 05, 1999 at 04:31:12 (EDT)
From: Jean-Michel Email: None To: Jim Subject: Why why? Message: I've spent almost 6 hours the other day with one of my best-long time friends. He's definitely an ex, as he doesn't go watch videos anymore (and hasn't been for more than 2 years, and doesn't intend to go back), and doesn't intend to go and see m anymore. BUT his mind still works like shp's and many other people who've been posting here. I would say you have to really do something else to leave what I would call a new-age thinking (not thinking so much) mode and try to go back to normal. We know it's a painful and difficult process. Some people will, some definitely won't, as new-age thinking/philosophy has become more or less an accepted sub-culture. I'd say that people staying in the new-age world can't and won't reject the core of m's philosophy, even when they'll reject EV's indoctrination system. I guess that's why the 'message' has become more and more inconsistant, and the cult is going to slowly fade away except for the hard-core who's always going to be glad to go do some service in Malibu, or enjoy the 'master's' darshan. I'd also say that the BM's cult is not so trendy anymore among the new-agers, and most of them will tend to keep their distance with the premies' group. BUT, and I've seen this with that friend (as well as with some others), they will discuss and defend their faith to no end. Unless something happens..... And until that moment comes, they're extremely boring, even though they appreciate exes' company. Maybe we represent some hope for them, when they'll never openly admit it. And these guys are definitely NOT faithful premies, otherwise they would NEVER post here that kind of stuff. They would say something like pamela recently did, and that's all. As far as I'm concerned, I don't have so much interest discussing with that kind of person. Except from time to time. THEY're looking for people to talk to, but I don't feel any necessity to induldge into it myself. It's interesting to understand what they're going thru, but it's an endless and pointless discussion. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, May 05, 1999 at 05:54:06 (EDT)
From: Runamok Email: None To: Jean-Michel Subject: X,YZ Message: Hi Jean-Michel, Jim's post is specifically about Shp. I agree with his critique of Shp, but my critique attempts to analyse what Shp IS doing aside from him NOT being rational. Maybe you could address some of the points I made about Shp. (God knows, I've put enough energy into posting about him.) Plenty of people on the forum have no interest in cleaning out their mental bins of new age garbage. For that matter, I would guess that meditation is important to many of us (exes), and I include myself in this group. However, I do see the abiilty of an individual to allow his/herself to be deluded in the pursuit of religion as something of an absolute in life. As ex-premies we know how far we can go in deluding ourselves in our belief system. When Miragey convinced us, en masse, to demonize the mind, he castrated, molested, raped, and tortured us. Was there a truth in what he said? Perhaps there was. It's true that meditation is associated with less or no thinking. Does this mean that your thoughts are the devil? Absolutely not. In India or China, lots of people have aspired to become professional doctors or engineers with many training in America or England. donning the suit of Western dress. That has a value and is part of economic growth. It's obvious enough to state that. Suppose meditation, raj yoga style, is a gift and is even slightly comparable in importance to the Western system of education and science. Can you imagine if in the first wave of engineers or doctors coming to the West for their education, the students were convinced that they had better SURRENDER to the dean of the medical school? That their mother/family/wife/children/husband/etc was less important than their teacher? After all, it's hard enough to get through medical school. How would it have worked out if the powers that be put additional pressures on the individual students for their own financial or other gain. My point is, it's hard enough to meditate. Why should some asshole throw in 'peace on earth' and numerous demands for money/slavelabor/etc? I don't always agree with Jim, but he's really on the money when it comes to duking it out with premies. Maybe he can be a bit mean or whatever, but the truth is these zombies are going to go from 'peace on earth' to 'spam the forum' and pretend that nothing has changed. It's not easy arguing with zombies and seeing Jim take them on so incessantly has been a challenge to me. Could this be done any better? Nice really doesn't do much to a cult member. The real argument here is about Miragey. Shp is offensive in his continuing support for Miragey. His posturing, both friendly and bizarre, always seems to come back to a satsang rap. HIS particular new age garbage functions as lead-ins and filler for satsang. I eat Buddha's delight pretty often (a Chinese veggetarian dish which Shp praised in one post). I don't have a problem with the dish. I do have a problem with being nice to someone who is waiting to whip out his latest satsangs. Giving approval to Shp for his latest, self-described exchange of information becomes a lead-in to Shp giving satsang about Miragey and other 'masters', something of which I want no part. More so, something which should not be tolerated on this forum. In my community, a lot of friends and acquaintances know that I meditate. Nobody, and I mean nobody, would walk up to me and start talking astrology or a bunch of new age stuff with me. I don't tell them not to. They remember that hot air does not a conversation make when they see me. The truth is, Jean Michel, I prob fit the new age bill myself. But I cherish my ability to think and grow intellectually, and I can make distinctions between different types of information. Anecdotal evidence has little or no weight in scientific study. It doesn't matter how many people say they 'experienced' something with Miragey, the AMA won't want medical insurance covering premies' trips to festivals on that basis. When Miragey taught us to disdain the mind, he really was a traitor to our soul which we entrusted him with. He could have taught quietude without that mythology, but he wouldn't have had as much to gain. Maybe Shp is about break ranks with Miragey. I doubt it, but if he is going to it hasn't happened yet. Anyway, Jean Michel, thank you for your hard work in developing and webmastering your site. Your site is an incredible contribution to the whole phenomena of ex-premies on the internet and your hard work is much appreciated. We are truly indebted to you for your work. I thank Brian and Katie fairly often, but I don't think I have ever thanked you. You're the man. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, May 05, 1999 at 10:34:12 (EDT)
From: Jean-Michel Email: None To: Runamok Subject: You've hit something Message: Hi Run, I guess it's one of the first time I get hit this way on the Forum! I've tried to make a point in my previous post, and I'm now realizing I didn't. You, and Jim, and some other exes obviously enjoy that kind of argument with persons like shp. I don't. It's a bit like trying to argue with communists, trying to prove them they're totally wrong, and trying to understand why they have that kind of belief in a system or a theory that never worked for anybody, except for the worst things in the world. I did believe in socialism too, a long time ago. Shp and others believe in what they believe in for their own reasons. Maybe they'll eventually understand why, and tell us. Until that day, I think that none of us will be able to understand their reasons. They've said a few things about their lives, you may do some guesses, but that's all. My feeling is that you're also a special type of person, enjoying that sort of argument. Which is perfectly ok imo. And I'm definitely NOT interested either to answer your questions about shp's reasons. My reason for quoting my friend's position was to show that denial and faith is a common attitude for some exes. But I also know you're already aware of this. Now I'm back to what I wanted to say: how is it that you invest so much energy trying to understand what's obviously (for me) not understandable. Is it because YOU are trying to understand something in YOU that you still don't get to understand? As you've seen, I've been much more into debriefing myself of the old fairy tales I've bought in the beginning, because that's been a major reason for my involvement in the whole m trip. My point is, it's hard enough to meditate. Why should some asshole throw in 'peace on earth' and numerous demands for money/slavelabor/etc? You and I have been gullible enough to believe in this! We had some ideals, we've been seduced by the Indian guru trip, we've accepted m's authority, etc. That's the reason. Otherwise we'd have worshipped some other idol! It's not easy arguing with zombies and seeing Jim take them on so incessantly has been a challenge to me. Could this be done any better? Nice really doesn't do much to a cult member. Why do YOU bother arguing? I don't, and I don't feel it difficult. WHY on earth do you like that sort of challenge? WHY do YOU bother about cult members? Are you trying to understand something about yourself? (I do) I feel compassion for my friends still involved in the cult, and for those trying to des-intricate themselves, which is not an easy job. I'm not trying to be nice either with them. thank you for your hard work in developing and webmastering your site. Your site is an incredible contribution to the whole phenomena of ex-premies on the internet and your hard work is much appreciated. We are truly indebted to you for your work. I thank Brian and Katie fairly often, but I don't think I have ever thanked you. I think I've been involved in this in a compulsive way for quite some months, maybe a year almost. It's been a necessity to have a look at my own belief system. I've been also thinking a lot about my friends still involved, and done this work thinking it could maybe help them one day. I think I also had to prove to others (exes, my family and my friends) that I was not a total idiot after such a long time in the cult. I'd also say that I've been able to do this because I've been reading and participating to this Forum at the same time, thanks to all of you, including those I've never argued with, and all the 'premies' and new-agers roving around here! I've also constantly been aware of EV and very likely Rawat monitoring what's going on here, and that's been a challenge to me showing that I don't fear him, and proving them that I haven't been that stupid. I've swallowed a lot of stuff in EV, and I now know what it was. I don't have any doubt about Rawat's duplicity. The best thing we can do I guess is having these websites up, daring say what we say. And Rawat's faith will disappear in the midst of the new-age mumbo-jumbo. In spite of his so-called 'skills' and various inventions, I also do believe Rawat is an idiot. Some dangerous sort of idiot for sure. He fell in the Internet trap, and is now openly showing his cult for what it is. And I believed such an idiot was the LOTU! And I now laugh about it! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, May 06, 1999 at 02:11:18 (EDT)
From: barney Email: None To: Jean-Michel Subject: butting in - arguing w/ premie Message: Very good discussion here. Very thoughtful insights and, IMHO, sobering analysis rather than a viscous attack by Runamok (did I say that right?) It's difficult for me to really dislike or detest anyone. I don't dislike shp, but I agree with much of Runamok's analysis. Jean-Michel, I understand your desire not to participate in the endless arguments with premies on the Forum. I might let myself post a couple, but usually get bored pretty quick since it is often totally pointless. However, I certainly see the value of it and greatly appreciate those willing to battle those windmills and windbags. Specifically, about a month or two ago a premie named George Wilson posted a well written cordial post that suggested that we never really tried and we should try again. I believe that he also used the infamous Move On phrase. I posted back in a cordial manner. I quickly posted another one and finally a third one. By the time I posted the third one I was pretty angry as the content and guilt-trip nature of his post had sunken in. You must remember, like you J-M, I was in the cult for some 25 years and only got out about a year ago and I'm still susceptible to the sly satsang or whatever they want to call it. Quickly some of the other Forum Freedom Fighters joined in and tore George's post apart item by item. Reading their responses showed me exactly how close to the whole mind-control brainwash I still am. It's a conditioned Pavlovian response within me. Not only was this important and vital to me, but if there are premie lurkers hanging out maybe it gives them something to think about regardless of how uncouth these discussions may get. It's a great battle we are amidst where many of us are still battling to just save ourselves after wasting so many years under Maharaji's thumb. J-M your deprogramming efforts via examining the history and documents is a very interesting concept and a very vital one. Everyone involved in this unfunded Mahabharata deserves a round of applause. It's gotta be making a difference. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, May 06, 1999 at 04:33:50 (EDT)
From: Jean-Michel Email: None To: barney Subject: butting in - arguing w/ premie Message: Quickly some of the other Forum Freedom Fighters joined in and tore George's post apart item by item. Reading their responses showed me exactly how close to the whole mind-control brainwash I still am. It's a conditioned Pavlovian response within me. I'm now realizing how much I merely discart arguments with premies (and maybe also with people in general) as a whole. When I can see the pile of BS in their statements, I'm merely thinking: 'poor guy', does he really believe anyone here (or anywhere else) is going to buy his sales speech? If I see any interest or any point arguing, I do. Otherwise I'll drop it, there are lots of better stuff to do for me. What's still a mistery for me is what motivates these guys to come and post here. There's definitely something wrong with them cultwise. They don't realize how harmful they are for m & k. I'm sure most of the premies don't like seeing their posts and cult speech exposed this way. What's even a greater mistery is that I know for sure that many premies don't like at all what's exposed on the 'official' m websites either! Or maybe they simply do because it's m's wish after all! Read for instance what a friend of mine (not a premie) whom I recently gave m's website's URL answered me! I managed to see M's page last night - weird is one way of describing it. First a long, and ruthless, legal disclaimer including the imposition of an identity number to all users and dire threats if the content was 'misused'; then a long spiral into nothing ........ The Links include a US weather home page (which may tally with reports that M has a private jet pilot's licence), US State Department travel advisory pages, and the home pages for BBC and CNN news. The latter two went into my bookmarks. But that was about it. I moved on. I guess this is the way I am, and the way I usually behave interacting with people. I have a tendancy to first analyze what they are saying, and see if (in that sort of argument) it's really worth arguing. I definitely do argue at my job and with my friends. But I'm not the kind of person who's going to argue with anybody. Even on issues I specifically know well. I guess if you guys enjoy arguing and fighting with them, just go ahead! It looks like some 'premies' come here for this very purpose. I've also done it sometimes. This is the purpose of this Forum: Anything & Everything about the BM! Those premies are helping us achieving our goal! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, May 06, 1999 at 13:01:45 (EDT)
From: Roger E. Drek Email: None To: Jean-Michel Subject: steal some for ***Best*** Message: Jean-Michel, I agree that these renegade whacko premies are helping us achieve our goal. Not that I want to discourage their activity here, but the content and tone is very self-incriminating. If you don't mind I'd like to ***Best of the Forum*** what your non-premie non-ex-premie said about Maharaji's website. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, May 06, 1999 at 13:42:32 (EDT)
From: Jean-Michel Email: None To: Roger E. Drek Subject: I don't mind ! (nt) Message: x Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, May 06, 1999 at 10:31:16 (EDT)
From: Katie Email: None To: barney Subject: Very good post, Barney! Message: Hi Barney - You wrote: Specifically, about a month or two ago a premie named George Wilson posted a well written cordial post that suggested that we never really tried and we should try again. I believe that he also used the infamous Move On phrase.... You must remember, like you J-M, I was in the cult for some 25 years and only got out about a year ago and I'm still susceptible to the sly satsang or whatever they want to call it. Quickly some of the other Forum Freedom Fighters joined in and tore George's post apart item by item. Reading their responses showed me exactly how close to the whole mind-control brainwash I still am. It's a conditioned Pavlovian response within me. This is a good point - thanks. (I have deconstructed some 'get a life' posts in my time, too, as you probably recall. Am thinking of putting various answers to these 'get a life' posts in the FAQ so we can just give a URL instead of repeating the same things over and over :).) I do think it's possible to do it without the 'uncouth' namecalling and so forth, but maybe that helps some of the other people on here? I also have a problem with threads that just degenerate into back and forth name-calling - if this helps anyone, I'd like to know it. But I tend to forget that ex-premies can still be affected by the 'satsang' posts. As you said, it's a conditioned response - one which I don't have anymore, thank god. So thanks for bringing it up. Take care, Katie Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, May 06, 1999 at 19:38:58 (EDT)
From: Diz Email: None To: Katie Subject: Very good post, Barney! Message: Hi Katie, Barney, Barney, thanks for that post. I agree that the deconstruction helps. I stay out of the fights partly because I just don't like fights (yes, I know I'm a wimp), but also because I also am still too close to premie-think. The 'satsang' many of these guys come up with, particularly when it's abusive, still gives me the horrors. It triggers weird feelings that go back to those years I spent in MJ's world trying to orient my thinking and feeling to match what Mj was saying. YUK!!! It also triggers the feelings I associate with my last years in the cult, when I tried to talk about what I thought was wrong, with a view to fixing it, or at least fixing myself. The vibe from quite a number of premies was that I was, well, all those names that premies use to describe ex-premies here. It felt abusive at the time, and it still does. Which is one reason I don't like the name-calling, from either side. Katie, I agree with you there. Diz Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, May 06, 1999 at 23:02:52 (EDT)
From: bill Email: None To: Diz Subject: Very good post, Diz Message: Boy, you got me applauding a lot tonight Diz. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, May 05, 1999 at 09:08:54 (EDT)
From: Jerry Email: None To: Jim Subject: Why Shp is a broken person Message: I don't see why you guys are so upset by SHP. Seriously, what harm can he do? So what if he doesn't think the way you want him to. I don't think I or anybody else has got anything to lose because of it. Personally, I think your reactions to Sandy say more about all of you than it does about him. There's a self-righteous tone to the objections I hear concerning Sandy. It's as if a tribunal of judges are in session determining his fate. Here's a guy not knowing if he's coming or going and you're all on your high benches slamming down your gavels with a proclamation of 'Guilty!' Why does this guy upset you so? He's harmless. If Sandy never learns to let go of his dependencies on masters and scriptures that's his loss not yours. And for all I know (and you know I suspect), some people might really need those dependencies to get through. Can you say positively, without a doubt, that they don't? How else can you account for the multitude of premies that just refuse to let go? I don't buy that it's moral turpitude. I think that's too harsh a judgement. I think that they're just crippled souls that have found their crutches in M & K and are to just too scared to live without them. That's my take on it. I could be wrong but then so could all of you be. I don't think anybody has the final word on where Sandy's at. I don't think even he knows. As far as I'm concerned you're all just kicking a man who's already down. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, May 05, 1999 at 11:27:54 (EDT)
From: Runamok Email: None To: Jean Michel, Jerry, all Subject: Lost Puppy Message: Jean Michel, You're obviously telling the truth, in that I have rarely seen you post to premies. You have your own orientation and you act on it. Your website resounds with historical documentation, blazing for all to see. Again, you are doing us a service and I truly appreciate it. While what you say is true (i.e., if we would just ignore these people...), the reality is that Jerry or others will walk along and say, 'This guy is not so bad,' and pretty soon, voila, hot satsang with pepperoni on it, delivered to our ex-premie door. I don't agree with your comments on many exes being of a similar mind (to Shp). Even if this is true, it doesn't seem to relate to the character of people who post regularly here. It makes sense for us to espouse the cultivation of intellect in rejecting Mirage. The ex you describe sounds like more like a fringe premie, or one who has not developed away from Rawatt (i.e., is still trapped in his former beliefs). Your point about Rawatt being stupid is well taken. As an ex-initiator, you are possibly the highest profile person to post publicly and with regularity. Again, thanks are due. And again, someone online is a challenge to me in terms of asking myself, how easy can that be (for you)? Jerry, I am personally offended by anyone attempting to give satsang on the ex-forum. Jim draws the line differently with Shp and other premies, but it's amazing how much the point seems to be the same. People argue that it's more interesting getting into it with premies, but I don't really think so. We'll never know, because it's a part of life for people who hang here. The way I remember M, Jer, he was up to some really sneaky, self-serving tactics. I get passionate and righteous knocking him (because he is the bad guys) and when someone wants to play the little soldier, they're basically looking for it. At least if they bring that shit online here! It's not necessarily a question of being upset with him. It's a question of making him feel unwelcome to the extent that he uses the forum for satsang. Because he has done this so much, I would honestly and humanly appreciate his absence for an extended period of time, an absence he 'promised' us (although more ANNOUNCED or PRONOUNCED is more like it). It also would indicate that he understood what people don't like about him, instead of sticking it into a black box ('personality issues'} which in the long or short run of it is going to then construed as the fault of whoever is critical of him. His various pronouncements and self-serving cries of victimization only serve to aggravate the situation. I mean, what is it with people who have to include that they are really too busy to post and that's why their answer may not be that good. Or that they really don't want to argue but they're going to answer anyway and that's why their answer may not be any good. Those are moments when the person in question probably should not be wasting our time, but Shp comes at us with that stuff time and time again, when he's not bemoaning his lot on the forum. Or flooding us with unwanted personal information. Pretty soon he's a regular kid on a milk carton, or puppy on a phone pole. He's been kidnapped and is being tortured by ex-premie deprogrammers. You actually fall for that shit? It's a very democratic system of security. In fact, these people are not banned but they take their lumps like anybody else. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, May 05, 1999 at 16:12:26 (EDT)
From: biff Email: None To: Jerry Subject: Why Shp is a broken person Message: Jerry,aside from the 'crippled souls....crutches' part of your post; I agree with everything you've said here. There are a few people who post here who come off as such angry and bitter old farts. Sanctimony is one thing but visciousness and meanness are just so vile. Either they think that being complete pricks to people is somehow effective, or more likely; they really are just bitter angry old farts. Would these people talk to other people the way they sometimes do here if they were face to face with them? I'll take shp's posts over some of those obnoxious pukey ones any day! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, May 05, 1999 at 16:54:30 (EDT)
From: Jerry Email: None To: biff Subject: Crippled souls Message: Biff, Interesting that you should disagree with the 'crippled souls' part because on reconsideration I think I could have worded it differently. If a premie is a crippled soul, Maharaji made him/her that way by making that person dependent on the cruthches he's handing out, not because that person is really crippled. Maharaji just makes you feel you are without him. Only when you leave him behind can you find out whether or not you can make it without him. I don't think there's anybody who went back after becoming an ex. I doubt there's anyone who didn't realize they could do just fine, better even, without him. It's just a matter of seeing that you can. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, May 05, 1999 at 10:54:20 (EDT)
From: Mary m Email: None To: Jim Subject: Why Shp is a broken person Message: Hi Jim, If there is a consensus to throw SHP out then the X/3 forum is nothing but a cyber playground not a place for ex-premies and premies to voice their concerns, hurts, and sundry life experiences. We were all PREMIES at some point in our lives. Some ex-premies made a decisive decision to sever their relationship with M, for others the process was more of an evolution away from M. he is never going to change. Never! I've learned in life never to say 'Never'! Brian, if a consensus is reached to throw SHP out by blocking him from posting here please do the same for me. Mary M Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, May 05, 1999 at 11:55:07 (EDT)
From: bb Email: None To: Mary m Subject: Shp is person Message: Since I mentioned the pulling the plug option, I will retract it. You ever lived with people that were abusive and deaf? They need a crescendo of feedback to get them to go 'uh, is there a problem with my behaviour?' The innocent pose masks the abusive behaviour. It is not the issue of different ideas that bugs me, it is the behaviour. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, May 05, 1999 at 12:48:08 (EDT)
From: Mary M Email: None To: bb Subject: Shp is person Message: Hi bb, You ever lived with people that were abusive and deaf? They need a crescendo of feedback to get them to go 'uh, is there a problem with my behaviour?' I really appreciate your response particularly the analogy above. I think we've all gone through a deaf phase in our life. I'm the type of person that tries to listen to 'constructive criticism' and examine whether or not I've been 'abusive'. If so, I try my best to admit I have a problem and seek reconciliation with those I've been abusive to and finally work on changing that behaviour. I'll need to read through SHP's posts again before I can respond about his behaviours. who knows? Maybe some people need hearing aids;-) Luv, Mary M Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, May 05, 1999 at 13:59:24 (EDT)
From: Denise Email: None To: Mary M Subject: Peoples' Response to SHP Message: When people are playing games or exhibiting a behavior you don't like, ignore it and it will eventually go away, esp. if someone is seeking approval from you. It may escalate for a while to test your limits, but will eventually be extinguished. Same for pets. Basic behaviorism. Re: intense anger directed toward another, my impression is that when one sees something in someone else that is a very disliked part of themselves or an unresolved issue they need to deal with, they tend to project that anger onto the other in an inappropriately strong manner. Also, sometimes people have unresolved issues from past relationships that they displace into present ones and to an outsider the reaction may appear inappropriately strong. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, May 05, 1999 at 14:04:17 (EDT)
From: Denise Email: None To: Y'all Subject: In Addition... Message: The net seems to be an especially furtile ground for projecting onto others, as one can not see the person or know very much about them which leads people to fill in the blanks using people they know or have known as models or easily stereotype a person based on their words and responses. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, May 05, 1999 at 17:31:53 (EDT)
From: Xan Email: None To: Denise Subject: In Addition... Message: I am nodding my head in agreement, Denise. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, May 05, 1999 at 19:08:09 (EDT)
From: bb Email: None To: Xan Subject: In Addition... Message: Dont fergit, we have been with Shp for quite a long time, he arrived here long before you three, so, it isn't just the recent posts that are bringing up this response Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, May 05, 1999 at 21:52:12 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Denise Subject: New age myth, Denise Message: Re: intense anger directed toward another, my impression is that when one sees something in someone else that is a very disliked part of themselves or an unresolved issue they need to deal with, they tend to project that anger onto the other in an inappropriately strong manner. Also, sometimes people have unresolved issues from past relationships that they displace into present ones and to an outsider the reaction may appear inappropriately strong. Denise, This is ridiculous. First, I think your 'impression' is really nothing more than a retread pop psychology cliche that offers the immediate satisfaction of junk food without any real substance. One likes to wrap one's mind around a formula that seems to indicate some insight but, in reality, it's not too helpful. This 'projection' thing, while sometimes true I'm sure, is often bandied around like that. The fact is I've never played the role of the simpleton clown like Shp has. My anger at him is not a function of my fear of latent Shp impulses. I don't suffer from Shpophobia and, I repeat, I'm not a closet Shp. There are other bases for anger and frustration, you know? You've never tried discussing things with Shp so Shp's never tried your patience. Go ahead, give it a shot and tell us how it goes. Just be sure to not be really attacking the little Shp in yourself or, alternatively, the little Denise in Shp. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, May 05, 1999 at 22:24:51 (EDT)
From: g's mom Email: None To: Jim Subject: New age myth, Denise Message: But Jim, does it seem off base to you that your disgust at premies may come from disgust at yourself for falling for the trip. I know I see my own premie rationalizations in what they say. What were you like as a premie Jim? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, May 05, 1999 at 23:01:07 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: g's mom Subject: New age myth, Denise Message: G, Yeah it seems off-base. I was a regular premie and all that but I never lied about who Maharaji supposedly was, what I thought his role in the world was or even how evil the mind was. If someone had asked me if I thought the mind was dangerous I would have said 'of course' and I can't imagine ever coming to a place like this. If I did come here, though, I can't imagine getting into conversations only to lie. Really, being here at all is compeltely anethmatic to the faith I tried to cultivate. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, May 06, 1999 at 00:15:44 (EDT)
From: g's mom Email: None To: Jim Subject: New age myth, Denise Message: I was just curious. No way I would have come here as a premie either. I woulda thought it was the incarnation of mind. I would have felt SO sorry ofr my poor guru having to put up with this. But I would have peeked every once and awhile and read the posts. But I tended to not say flat out that my guru was god to non premies. Like the premies who post here. Thought I was so clever too. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, May 07, 1999 at 16:55:20 (EDT)
From: Denise Email: None To: Jim Subject: Gosh Darnit!... Message: I guess I must've wasted those 6 years of college on new age theory! Did they have new age in the early 1900's when some of the theory stated originated? Not only that, but the state I practice in must have poor credentialing criteria to call me an Advanced Clincal Practitioner! I guess it's back to the drawing board for me! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, May 07, 1999 at 17:15:07 (EDT)
From: Helen Email: None To: Denise Subject: Gosh Darnit!... Message: That's right Denise, projection and transference do not exist! They are new agey concepts. Just kiddin with you. I knew what you were referring to and I think there is some truth in it. Although sometime a jerk is a jerk and it has nothing to do with the perceiver. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, May 07, 1999 at 16:16:34 (EDT)
From: Liz Email: None To: All Subject: New age myth, Denise Message: Hi All, I have to agree with Jim for once. That new-age myth about seeing your own faults in others is a load of crap intended to introvert a person and load them with guilt. Since I've stopped 'practicing' and 'introverting' I neither see the faults in others or myself like I did when I was big-time introverted by Mirage's grace. My advice for what it's worth is just concentrate on enjoying life and try not to hurt others. Love, Liz Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, May 05, 1999 at 10:59:17 (EDT)
From: g's mom Email: None To: Jim Subject: Why Shp is a broken person Message: Hi Jim. Yeah, I think it is a mistake to call people things like fuckface. Up until recently I never even read any SHP posts. I would always skip the threads. Generally, I find arguing with premies boring and predictable. Well, the first time I argued with CD it was fun, but it tends to become repetitive and pointless. Very much like your list of defenses. If you read my post to SHP, you will see he did not really answer what I was saying because premies who are here trying to defend the guru really have no defense, as we well know, and we know the arguments because we once made them ourselves. But what I do not get, is if people hate SHP so much, is why they do not just stop reading his posts? Or, if it is just premie drivel, why respond? I can see responding to the Jagdeo thing as he did. Obviously, I was a premie myself the first time I tried to tell the guru. It isn't inconsistant. What would be a change is if he realizes Rawat is NEVER going to respond and that Rawat really did let this happen and see that he really is a self centered creep who is using the premies for his own gain. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, May 05, 1999 at 11:24:57 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: g's mom Subject: You're all right Message: Maybe it's a matter of selective focus. Of course arguing with Shp is stupid. Of course he's no better or worse than any of the other premies who post here. Sure, he's a bit more insidious in some ways but then he's less in others. And of course there's no point losing one's cool .... it's just that, I really do get so disappointed by these assholes. Hey, maybe it's an infantile indulgence, maybe it's gilded with my own self-righteousness, but I just hate the denial. So, meanwhile, that exchange I was talking about with that other premie ... she's now come back and accused me of misrepresenting everything she's said, misunderstanding, putting her in boxes... excuse me while I tell her to fuck off. :) Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, May 05, 1999 at 11:49:15 (EDT)
From: Jean-Michel Email: None To: Jim Subject: Why? Message: I really do get so disappointed by these assholes. What would you expect from them? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, May 05, 1999 at 11:56:07 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Jean-Michel Subject: Why? Message: I'm not sure. Rationality? An acknowledgement of our common past? Something like that. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, May 05, 1999 at 12:27:28 (EDT)
From: Jean-Michel Email: None To: Jim Subject: Why? Message: and be friend with them? I also feel something like this. Maybe this is what's so difficult, and maybe I never will - in my own way. Is part of the grieving process? We've lost these people/friends, lots of friends we loved, and can't actually accept it? This is still very strong in me. Maybe everyone of us reacts his own way to it.... That really makes me feel sad when I think about, specially when I think about some friends I'd love to see again, be friend with them again, and I know I can't and might very well never be able too! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, May 05, 1999 at 12:40:19 (EDT)
From: Jean-Michel Email: None To: Jim Subject: Loved ones' loss Message: I feel a bit like I've lost (on another planet) friends I loved. You and I have lost people we loved. And there is definitely someone responsible for this. I can't go back there. Some might come one day, and I can't count on it. And what's special about it, is that these people are not actually dead. I'd like to help them, do something to help them. I think I've already done a lot. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, May 05, 1999 at 13:17:47 (EDT)
From: G's mom Email: None To: Jim Subject: premies Message: In a way Jim, the fact that you do take the time to argue with them shows them more respect than I show them. I give up, in my mind it is just not worth the effort. I too know that somewhere in there a rationale mind lurks in all but the truly mentally ill premies but see it as futile to try to get them to think. Despite the fact you resort to things like fuckface, you at least acknowledge a real person lies within the premie suit. I think it actually speaks well of you that you try. I always wonder if most of the premies who post are at all like I was when I was a premie. I am fairly sure I would NEVER have posted. I would perhaps have lurked though. What do you think you would have done, in your hardest of hard core days, would you have punched up ex-premie.org? Would you have argued with Jim? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, May 05, 1999 at 13:25:26 (EDT)
From: g's mom Email: None To: all Subject: premies- do you post to them? Message: This is what I do- if I see a ray of hope that someone is thinking for themselves I may post to them. Like Denise, or SHP re: Jagdeo. But why talk to a Catweasel or a Keith, or SHP if he totally discounts an arguement with one of the tried and true premie defenses...he never said he was god, that is just your perception, the experience is all that matters...or whatever other thing we embarrassingly said a zillion times ourselves in our own day. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |