Ex-Premie.Org

Forum III Archive # 50

From: Jun 2, 1999

To: Jun 8, 1999

Page: 5 Of: 5


Jean-Michel -:- Brainwashing techniques -:- Wed, Jun 02, 1999 at 05:16:46 (EDT)
__AJW -:- Brainwashing techniques -:- Wed, Jun 02, 1999 at 06:46:34 (EDT)
____Victoria -:- Brainwashing techniques -:- Wed, Jun 02, 1999 at 08:47:42 (EDT)
____Rob -:- Brainwashing techniques -:- Wed, Jun 02, 1999 at 17:41:22 (EDT)
______AJW -:- Brainwashing techniques -:- Wed, Jun 02, 1999 at 18:07:17 (EDT)
________Rob -:- ibid -:- Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 01:07:28 (EDT)
__________Gerry -:- You're a worm -:- Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 11:09:52 (EDT)
__________AJW -:- I bid £2.50 -:- Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 12:02:39 (EDT)
________Sandra -:- Brainwashing techniques -:- Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 16:34:55 (EDT)
______Gail -:- Brainwashing techniques -:- Wed, Jun 02, 1999 at 18:12:54 (EDT)
________Rob -:- From the heart -:- Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 01:49:52 (EDT)
______Jim -:- You got that right -:- Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 00:22:28 (EDT)
________Rob -:- to Jim & AJW -:- Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 01:52:38 (EDT)
__________AJimW -:- to Jim & AJW -:- Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 11:36:53 (EDT)
____________Jim -:- to Jim & AJW -:- Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 15:44:44 (EDT)
______________KB -:- to Jim & AJW -:- Fri, Jun 04, 1999 at 01:51:31 (EDT)
______________AJW -:- to Jim & AJW -:- Fri, Jun 04, 1999 at 04:35:00 (EDT)
____JW -:- Brainwashing techniques -:- Wed, Jun 02, 1999 at 23:10:47 (EDT)
__Diz -:- Brainwashing techniques -:- Wed, Jun 02, 1999 at 08:43:35 (EDT)
____barney -:- Brainwashing techniques -:- Wed, Jun 02, 1999 at 14:09:39 (EDT)
______Liz -:- Brainwashing techniques -:- Wed, Jun 02, 1999 at 14:24:09 (EDT)
____Rob -:- Brainwashing techniques -:- Wed, Jun 02, 1999 at 17:44:51 (EDT)
______Helen -:- What's yer beef, Rob? -:- Wed, Jun 02, 1999 at 23:30:27 (EDT)
________Liz -:- What's yer beef, Rob? -:- Wed, Jun 02, 1999 at 23:39:46 (EDT)
__________Liz -:- Addendum -:- Wed, Jun 02, 1999 at 23:41:58 (EDT)
____________Rob -:- Addendum -:- Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 02:01:02 (EDT)
______________Liz -:- Addendum -:- Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 13:03:53 (EDT)
________Rob -:- What's yer beef, Rob? -:- Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 00:41:16 (EDT)
__________Jim -:- More of this halfway shit? -:- Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 00:46:09 (EDT)
____________Rob -:- More of this halfway shit? -:- Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 02:03:00 (EDT)
______________Jim -:- Fuck you, Rob -:- Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 19:04:13 (EDT)
________________Prize Central -:- You have just won one million -:- Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 22:51:00 (EDT)
__________________Canned Laugh Dept. -:- BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAHAHAHA -:- Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 22:56:07 (EDT)
__________________Jim -:- That's funny -:- Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 23:53:28 (EDT)
____________________Mw -:- yes it was -:- Fri, Jun 04, 1999 at 07:19:12 (EDT)
____________________Prize Central/Canned Yuks -:- These shots are not little or -:- Fri, Jun 04, 1999 at 09:06:27 (EDT)
______________________Jim -:- Hey, that's even funnier -:- Fri, Jun 04, 1999 at 11:43:28 (EDT)
________________cp -:- Fuck you, Rob -:- Fri, Jun 04, 1999 at 22:48:36 (EDT)
__________barney and the Police -:- I'll be watching you -:- Fri, Jun 04, 1999 at 14:24:13 (EDT)
__gerry -:- Brainwashing techniques -:- Wed, Jun 02, 1999 at 10:44:30 (EDT)
____Happy -:- Brainwashing techniques -:- Wed, Jun 02, 1999 at 12:54:28 (EDT)
______Happy -:- one more thing -:- Wed, Jun 02, 1999 at 13:56:01 (EDT)
________RT -:- diss the associates of M -:- Wed, Jun 02, 1999 at 17:03:37 (EDT)
__________Happy -:- diss the associates of M -:- Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 09:27:27 (EDT)
____Liz -:- Forsooth -:- Wed, Jun 02, 1999 at 15:51:40 (EDT)
______Katie -:- Liz: Gerry and JW -:- Wed, Jun 02, 1999 at 18:32:16 (EDT)
________Gail -:- We brainwashed ourselves, too -:- Wed, Jun 02, 1999 at 18:51:07 (EDT)
________Gerry -:- Liz, Katie JW -:- Wed, Jun 02, 1999 at 19:20:26 (EDT)
______JW -:- Forsooth -:- Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 13:38:47 (EDT)
________gerry -:- Forsooth -:- Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 14:35:44 (EDT)
__________JW -:- Forsooth -:- Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 14:58:42 (EDT)
____________gerry -:- No names, no cuss words -:- Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 15:54:04 (EDT)
____________Mike -:- Hi JW.....just for fun -:- Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 16:10:30 (EDT)
______________JW -:- Hi JW.....just for fun -:- Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 16:27:01 (EDT)
________________Gerry -:- tsk, tsk tsk, JW -:- Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 16:57:00 (EDT)
__________________JW -:- You are an idiot -:- Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 17:19:39 (EDT)
____________________gerry -:- You are an idiot -:- Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 17:58:55 (EDT)
______________________Gail -:- Gentlemen's Duel: Take 10 -:- Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 22:47:03 (EDT)
________________________Mike -:- Sorry Gail -:- Fri, Jun 04, 1999 at 08:59:41 (EDT)
__________________________Gail -:- Sorry Gail -:- Fri, Jun 04, 1999 at 11:00:26 (EDT)
____________________________Mike -:- You are NOT -:- Fri, Jun 04, 1999 at 12:59:02 (EDT)
______________________JW -:- You are an idiot -:- Fri, Jun 04, 1999 at 13:59:51 (EDT)
________________________Gerry (k/g v1.3) -:- You are an idiot -:- Fri, Jun 04, 1999 at 14:50:07 (EDT)
____________________Mike -:- Hold on JW -:- Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 18:08:41 (EDT)
______________________JW -:- Hold on Mike -:- Fri, Jun 04, 1999 at 14:14:23 (EDT)
________________________Mike -:- OK -:- Fri, Jun 04, 1999 at 14:53:40 (EDT)
__________________________Roger E. Drek -:- nice post! -:- Fri, Jun 04, 1999 at 15:30:23 (EDT)
____________________________Mike -:- Thanks! -:- Fri, Jun 04, 1999 at 18:20:11 (EDT)
__________________________Katie -:- estimated numbers? -:- Fri, Jun 04, 1999 at 15:55:40 (EDT)
____________________________Mike -:- The Source -:- Fri, Jun 04, 1999 at 18:08:45 (EDT)
______________________________Katie -:- The Source -:- Fri, Jun 04, 1999 at 18:31:31 (EDT)
__________________Jim -:- Gerry, you're a jerk -:- Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 18:54:22 (EDT)
____________________Pot -:- Gerry, you're a jerk -:- Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 19:01:27 (EDT)
______________________Jim -:- Gerry, you're a jerk -:- Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 19:08:02 (EDT)
________________________Gerry -:- Gerry, you're a jerk -:- Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 19:20:13 (EDT)
__________________________Jim -:- Gerry, you're a jerk -:- Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 19:40:27 (EDT)
____________________________gerry -:- Mind if I change the subject -:- Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 19:54:14 (EDT)
______________________________JW -:- Mind if I change the subject -:- Fri, Jun 04, 1999 at 13:51:32 (EDT)
________________________________Gerry (k/g v1.2) -:- Mind if I change the subject -:- Fri, Jun 04, 1999 at 14:21:41 (EDT)
__________________________________JW -:- Mind if I change the subject -:- Fri, Jun 04, 1999 at 15:03:37 (EDT)
________________Mike -:- Hi JW.....just for fun -:- Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 17:46:49 (EDT)
__________________JW -:- Hi JW.....just for fun -:- Fri, Jun 04, 1999 at 14:25:44 (EDT)
____________________Mike -:- Some points -:- Fri, Jun 04, 1999 at 15:12:39 (EDT)
______________________JW -:- Some points -:- Fri, Jun 04, 1999 at 16:31:21 (EDT)
______________Jim -:- Bullshit, Mike -:- Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 16:48:12 (EDT)
________________Mike -:- Nuh, uh! -:- Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 17:58:15 (EDT)
__________________Jim -:- Nope -:- Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 18:15:17 (EDT)
____________________Mike -:- Jim, you didn't address -:- Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 19:23:33 (EDT)
______________________Jim -:- briefly (before my nap) -:- Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 20:15:59 (EDT)
________________________Abortion is Murder -:- so are dui killings. nt -:- Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 21:39:18 (EDT)
________________________Mike -:- I love ya, man! -:- Fri, Jun 04, 1999 at 10:28:24 (EDT)
__________________________Jim -:- I love ya, man! -:- Fri, Jun 04, 1999 at 11:36:55 (EDT)
____________________________Mike -:- Good ones and accurate, too -:- Fri, Jun 04, 1999 at 12:46:42 (EDT)
______________________________JW -:- No Absolutes -:- Fri, Jun 04, 1999 at 16:22:00 (EDT)
______________________________Katie -:- My personal feelings - a rant -:- Fri, Jun 04, 1999 at 18:16:29 (EDT)
________________________________JW -:- My personal feelings - a rant -:- Fri, Jun 04, 1999 at 19:23:50 (EDT)
__Nil -:- Brainwashing techniques -:- Wed, Jun 02, 1999 at 22:03:35 (EDT)
____Mike -:- Ok, how about it? -:- Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 15:35:37 (EDT)
____Powerman -:- Yeah, how about -:- Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 16:36:36 (EDT)
______Nil -:- Yeah, how about -:- Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 20:18:26 (EDT)
________Powerman -:- Yeah, how about -:- Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 20:54:05 (EDT)
__________Nil -:- Yeah, how about -:- Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 21:33:20 (EDT)
____________Powerman -:- says, 'Wrong again, Nil' -:- Fri, Jun 04, 1999 at 00:48:42 (EDT)
______________Nil -:- says, 'Wrong again, Nil' -:- Fri, Jun 04, 1999 at 10:33:38 (EDT)
________________Powerman -:- says, 'Pondscum is cheap' -:- Fri, Jun 04, 1999 at 13:45:36 (EDT)
__Keith -:- Brainwashing techniques -:- Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 03:04:05 (EDT)
____Powerman -:- God, -:- Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 16:59:04 (EDT)

Date: Wed, Jun 02, 1999 at 05:16:46 (EDT)
From: Jean-Michel
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Brainwashing techniques
Message:
I'd like to try making the list of the 'technical' brainwashing techniques used inside EV.

Like :

- the huge lights used to illuminate M when he's giving satsang.
- the hypnotic 'incredibly wonderful' videos that take you to 'that place'.
- the setup of the stage where he sits.

Any others?

I'd love to discuss that issue with psychologists.
About the long-term effects, the damage to the brain, etc.

Anybody having ideas about this?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Wed, Jun 02, 1999 at 06:46:34 (EDT)
From: AJW
Email: None
To: Jean-Michel
Subject: Brainwashing techniques
Message:
Bonjour Jean-Michel,

There's a good section on brainwashing in 'What to do when your Guru Sues You'. at www.sideaway.demon.co.uk.life102

It seems that to brainwash someone you just need to tell them the same thing over and over again, until they eventually believe it.

When I read about this in the above tome, my mind shot back to the hours and hours, sitting in the satsang room, being told that 'knowledge was god' and 'the lord had come'.

It's ok though, it seems to wear off after about 27 years.

a bientot

anton le brainwashed
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Wed, Jun 02, 1999 at 08:47:42 (EDT)
From: Victoria
Email: None
To: AJW
Subject: Brainwashing techniques
Message:
Dear Anth the Wonderful,

Yes, hours and hours, sitting in the satsang room, being told that 'knowledge was god' and 'the lord had come'. -- I remember that too. I also remember being told that I didn't have to believe anything or agree with anything...just come to satsang, just be there and see what happens...just come with an open heart. Then of course, there was the part about, leave no room for doubt in your mind.

Love,
Victoria
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Wed, Jun 02, 1999 at 17:41:22 (EDT)
From: Rob
Email: None
To: AJW
Subject: Brainwashing techniques
Message:
It seems that to brainwash someone you just need to tell them the same thing over and over again, until they eventually believe it.

Like 'Maharaji is a fraud, premies are cowards, it's all about money, Knowledge is all in the imagination, God doesn't exist...', perhaps?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Wed, Jun 02, 1999 at 18:07:17 (EDT)
From: AJW
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: Brainwashing techniques
Message:
Rob,

You can't seriously compare the brainwashing that went on in satsang in the 70s the lively, free discussion and debate that goes on here.

We sat, night after night, hour after hour, listening to premie after premie telling how wonderful this inner experience was, and how beautiful the living lord was. There was never any debate, discussion, or dissent. This was 'the mind'.

As regards your points,

1. I don't think Maharaji is a fraud. If you read my 'Journey' you'll see I think he's a victim, like you and me Rob.

2. I don't think premies are cowards. My wife, and many of my close friends are premies, and I love them dearly. Some of the best, kindest people I've met in life have been premies.

3. It's not all about money. A lot of it is though. (Otherwise, what's 'fundraising' all about Rob? That's about money isn't it?

4.I don't believe 'Knowledge' is all in the imagination. For me it was a very real experience. Not, however, an experience of God, more patterns, breath, falling wax and snot.

5. Of course God exists Rob. Who do you think made the universe?

So, you think I've been brainwashed or what?

Anth
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 01:07:28 (EDT)
From: Rob
Email: None
To: AJW
Subject: ibid
Message:
Don't take me too seriously tonite, I'm feeling a bit rambunctious. How-ev-errrr,

We sat, night after night, hour after hour, listening to premie after premie telling how wonderful this inner experience was, and how beautiful the living lord was.

And were you one of those premies who were up there, describing your inner experience? Did you talk about patterns, breath, falling wax and snot?

There was never any debate, discussion, or dissent. This was 'the mind'.

No, that was the accepted structure of the meetings. How else would a person feel comfortable expressing something so personal and intangible?

I don't think premies are cowards...It's not all about money....I don't believe 'Knowledge' is all in the imagination.

I wasn't suggesting that everyone here does, I was paraphrasing some of the more repetetive comments because I do believe that the suggested equation: key phrase x 1000 = brainwashing could equally apply here if valid.

..fundraising' all about Rob? That's about money isn't it?

Yes it is - Anth, isn't it? - fundraising happens to raise money to pay for the halls, audio-visuals, travelling etc etc so Maharaji can make Knowledge available to everyone in the world who wants it.

Of course God exists Rob. Who do you think made the universe?

You better ask Jim that. Or Way.

So, you think I've been brainwashed or what?

No, I think you've lost touch with a very beautiful experience within you. And I think you know it.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 11:09:52 (EDT)
From: Gerry
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: You're a worm
Message:
I wasn't suggesting that everyone here does, I was paraphrasing some of the more repetetive comments because I do believe that the suggested equation: key phrase x 1000 = brainwashing could equally apply here if valid.

You can't have it both ways Rob.

Certainly, it is a well establish FACT that repetition is an effective tool for mind control. What is said here doesn't qualify. We don't send out videos, have programs, etc, nor is one person doing the repetition.

blah blah blah. Man if you can't see this clearly, it's because your are brainwashed. end of story, and I'm getting sick of this debate, mainly because of fools like you. Adios. I won't be reading or answering any more of your inane posts.

Or anyone's for that matter, for a while. I'm off to the woods for a respite from the world and its insanity.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 12:02:39 (EDT)
From: AJW
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: I bid £2.50
Message:
Hi Rob,

thanks for your thoughtful response.

You're quite right. I didn't talk about breath, snot and patterns in satsang. I told everyone that the Lord had come, and the way to recognise him was by the inner experience, which they could have, free of charge, once they were ‘prepared’, which meant sitting through hours and hours of being told the same thing over and over until you believed it. Then you were ready.

You said fundraising is to pay for halls, audio visual, travelling, etc. I take it the etc refers to the millions spent on residences and all the paraphanelia that goes along with them, supporting MJs extravagant personal lifestyle.

But what really interested me was your comment that I have lost touch with a beautiful experience within me. Hang on while I practice the second technique. (Pause, center, breath, focus).

Yes, it’s still there Rob. But guess what, it’s not all it’s cracked up to be. It’s only incredibly beautiful if you believe all the stuff you’re told about it- it’s god, it’s perfect peace, it’s indescribable etc.

Hang on, let me try the fourth technique.

Sorry to report, all I’m getting is snot, (all I ever got).

Part of the brainwashing, or conditioning that goes on before you receive knowledge, is to make you believe that what you experience is god. If you believe all this, of course it’s beautiful.

But when you get out of the group, and away from all the reinforcement telling you what you’re experiencing is soooooooooo… beautiful, you learn to call 'snot' snot, not god.

By the way Rob, what’s your definition of a cult?

Anth.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 16:34:55 (EDT)
From: Sandra
Email: None
To: AJW
Subject: Brainwashing techniques
Message:
Hi AJW,

I don't think you've been brainwashed. You seem to be an intelligent, interesting chap. However, if you believe knowledge is 'falling wax and snot,' I'd venture to say that you really have missed something enormously satisfying and precious. Not that it doesn't slot in remarkably well with your drip, drip, drip theme.

Sandra
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Wed, Jun 02, 1999 at 18:12:54 (EDT)
From: Gail
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: Brainwashing techniques
Message:
That isn't quite true, Rob. I first came here on June 9, 1998. I was mortified by what the ex-premies were saying. I couldn't believe they could trash the Lord like that. What had he ever done to them?

By June 11, I was posting. It didn't take to long to realize that the whole thing didn't work for me. The more I read books such as The Guru Papers and others, the deeper the sickening feeling in my stomach. I had been complaining about the revisions and skulking/secrecy for years. I couldn't figure out why things weren't growing or why things weren't open.

I was really scared to even read here initially. After all, I knew MJ didn't want premies reading here; he said so. Nobody made me read this stuff; I was facinated and couldn't stop. Why were people from the top, such as Jean-Michel, making these statements. Why had so many left? I could have shut off my computer anywhere along the way, but I didn't. I wanted to know for once and for all if it MJ was the Lord or not. The evidence clearly indicates that he's not, so I have graduated from his school.

I stayed involved for so long because I had to. The whole thing had long since lost its lustre, but MJ was the Lord. I couldn't turn my back on MJ; how could I refuse my Lord even though I didn't want to play anymore. I had no choice but to do what God wanted. I believed everything MJ ever said, just like you. You know who he is to you--God incarnate.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 01:49:52 (EDT)
From: Rob
Email: None
To: Gail
Subject: From the heart
Message:
Gail,

There is no 'evidence' here on the Forum, one way or another. Only opinions, expressions of personal feelings, conversations, arguments, supportiveness, humour and, I think, a lot of love.

If tangible evidence were available on how to recognize God, or even what God is, this whole thing would have been sorted out thousands of years ago. There would be no need for religions, religious wars, persecution, inquisitions, Second, Third or Twentieth Comings.

But does that mean God does not exist? To those here with a scientific leaning, yes it does. Does that mean they are right?
Well does it, Gail?

Remember we're talking about tangible evidence. How about intangible? How about what you feel in your heart?

You want to know what I feel? Truly? I feel the presence of my Creator, right here within my heart, right now. I feel him around me, protecting and sustaining. Can I prove it? No. Should I have to? Well no, actually.

Look, if I proved to you that God existed, would you automatically start to feel what I'm feeling now? I seriously doubt it. You would have to make your own connection. So where does Maharaji fit in the picture? He can help you establish that connection, but only if you let him.

If you don't want to let him, fine, maybe someone else can help you get there. Maybe someone on this Forum can. Hey, go with whatever works for you, and I hope from the bottom of my heart that you find what you need to make you happy. I do, Gail, this isn't about intellectual one-upmanship, not now. I reserve that for the boneheads who want to do mental gymnastics with me.

I can't explain the past, I really can't, even though I was there. Things have changed, they'll change again. Yes, there are some things kept confidential, because there have always been individuals who want to destroy M's work. Hey, someone tries to invade your house, you build a wall, you post guards. What's the big mystery?

I know you don't beleive in Maharaji anymore, but do you still believe in God? If you do, then ask him from the depth of your heart to guide you to someone who really can help you, and see what happens. If God doesn't exist, like I said before, who's going to know you just was talking to yourself?

love, Rob.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 00:22:28 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: You got that right
Message:
Maharaji is a fraud, premies are cowards, it's all about money, Knowledge is all in the imagination, God doesn't exist

M is a fraud. Either that or the

LORD OF THE UNIVERSE

. Take your pick.

Premies are cowards. They once were heralded for their unflinching desire to know the truth. Now they're committed to a philosophy and lifestyle and are afraid to examine it openly.

It isn't quite all about money. It's also about unearned adulation and weird shit no one may ever be able to map out. But as far as money goes, do you actually think Maharaji would continue carrying his 'message' to the world if the only way he could do so was at his own personal expense? If it ultimately impovershed him? Forced him to get a job as a busboy in that Mexican restaurant on PCH at Trancas (can't remember the name)? Just so he could turn one more person on to his beautiful gift?

Knowledge is all in the imagination.

And no, Rob, there is no God. No scintilla of proof of one anyway.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 01:52:38 (EDT)
From: Rob
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: to Jim & AJW
Message:
I'd love to see you two argue this one out!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 11:36:53 (EDT)
From: AJimW
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: to Jim & AJW
Message:
Rob,

didn't you know that Jim and AJW are the same person, me. I've got a personality disorder thats a kind of heavy duty case of 'Can't make my mind up'. Arguing with myself would only make it worse.

Anyway, why should I have to agree with myself all the time.

Jim the Anth
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 15:44:44 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: AJimW
Subject: to Jim & AJW
Message:
Sorry, don't know what got into me.

Rob, there are atheist exes as well as believers. More than one way to skin a cat, especially a fat one.

Now, if what you really want to see is a debate over the existence of God, I'm sorry, you're a little late. We've had that argument. God lost.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Fri, Jun 04, 1999 at 01:51:31 (EDT)
From: KB
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: to Jim & AJW
Message:
Now Jimmie, you claim victory too soon.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Fri, Jun 04, 1999 at 04:35:00 (EDT)
From: AJW
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: to Jim & AJW
Message:
Hi Jim,

He didn't actually lose, he just didn't show up and was disqualified. He was down the pub playing pool with me and my mates, we got a bit pissed and he forgot all about it.

He would have won if he'd been there.

Anth the Faithfull
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Wed, Jun 02, 1999 at 23:10:47 (EDT)
From: JW
Email: None
To: AJW
Subject: Brainwashing techniques
Message:
I think that's true about saying things over and over, but since M only utters about two complete thoughts in a 45-minute speil, he can't do much else except say it over and over. Two thoughts that might appear in one 'satsang' repeated endlessly might be:

1. It's within you; and
2. It's so beautiful

By just repeating that over and over with long pauses in between and throwing in a Kabir story or a joke or two, that about does it.

But really, I think the way to brainwash someone is to tell them something they really want to believe. I mean who wouldn't want to believe that there is total peace and happiness right inside you, that you can experience any time, and that it will make you completely happy, meaning your otherwise mundane existence isn't all that important,, and also that there is this all-powerful being who loves and cares for you all the time? Who wouldn't want to believe that?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Wed, Jun 02, 1999 at 08:43:35 (EDT)
From: Diz
Email: None
To: Jean-Michel
Subject: Brainwashing techniques
Message:
Hi J-M

I guess we could get into a discussion similar to the one below on cults about what exactly is 'brain-washing'. But if it means things that soften you up so's someone else's ideas will just slip into your head...

The pre-video (and pre-event?) music and nature scenes have to be part of it. JW also once pointed out something about the rhythm with which MJ speaks.

Something that really used to soften me up was the good cop/bad cop routine (both sides played by MJ) at 'events'. Classic example was the Kissimee programs, where we were told what absolute dead-beats we were for a few days, and then given a dose of dancing etc. The relief was so great, I just fell into his arms. He used to do this routine a lot at programs, don't know about now with K-lite. He also did it over a longer timespan, putting the heat on for 'true devotion' for a few years, then letting it off again eg 'enjoying life'.

What about simply the fact that he talked, you listened? No discussion, very few opportunities for questions. And when there were opportunities, it was questions, or positive comments (that's one in itself), no 'negative' comments allowed.

Then there were all the messages about how you couldn't trust your mind, how if you had questions it proved you hadn't been 'going inside' enough, how people with questions were crazy...

I know some people count meditation itself as a 'softening up' technique. I don't know about this one myself.

Diz
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Wed, Jun 02, 1999 at 14:09:39 (EDT)
From: barney
Email: None
To: Diz
Subject: Brainwashing techniques
Message:
Yes, the good cop/bad cop is a familiar theme.

It sure seemed to me that a weekend program starting Friday night would always start with Maharaji being pissed off and firing off his darts after, of course, welcoming everyone.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Wed, Jun 02, 1999 at 14:24:09 (EDT)
From: Liz
Email: None
To: All
Subject: Brainwashing techniques
Message:
I have come across many Christians that are very certain that meditation is bad because it makes people susceptable to brain-washing. I always poo-pooed the idea but maybe there's something in it. Of course many of these people are brainwashed too and they don't know it.

By the way, Mr. Nowhere Man - POO POO to you!

Liz
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Wed, Jun 02, 1999 at 17:44:51 (EDT)
From: Rob
Email: None
To: Diz
Subject: Brainwashing techniques
Message:
The pre-video (and pre-event?) music and nature scenes have to be part of it. JW also once pointed out something about the rhythm with which MJ speaks. >/i>

That's on a par with 'playing Stairway to Heaven backwards', isn't it? Remember that?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Wed, Jun 02, 1999 at 23:30:27 (EDT)
From: Helen
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: What's yer beef, Rob?
Message:
Seems like it bothers you a lot that we're criticizing and analyzing your guru's methods. You still believe that M is some kind of innocent, just going along for the ride? You don't think there's something calculating in what he does? I think one can analyze and criticize without being paranoid about it. What's wrong with it, Rob? What's wrong with critically analyzing a guy who told us he was the Lord, would take us from darkness to light if we'd all just surrender, etc. ?

It's fun to use our brains & discuss this with one another. We never could when we were premies. This is our space where we can throw these ideas around. Maybe it's you who is making it into too much of a big deal. We've all gotten on with our lives, (most of us) we just like to come here and banter about this stuff. It's interesting to us. Is that ok with you?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Wed, Jun 02, 1999 at 23:39:46 (EDT)
From: Liz
Email: None
To: Helen
Subject: What's yer beef, Rob?
Message:
Way to go Helen! She's right isn't she Rob. We weren't allowed to talk about it.. I get shivers up my backbone just thinking about it.

Liz
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Wed, Jun 02, 1999 at 23:41:58 (EDT)
From: Liz
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: Addendum
Message:
You did the Communication Course didn't you? Inhibited/stopped communication FEELS awful.

Love Liz
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 02:01:02 (EDT)
From: Rob
Email: None
To: Liz
Subject: Addendum
Message:
Yep. 'OT 0' wasn't it. or was that 'OT 1' Can't remember.

Tell you what though, I don't ever get riled when people insult me or threaten me, which is useful in my line of work.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 13:03:53 (EDT)
From: Liz
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: Addendum
Message:
That must be because of the bull-baiting. What is your line of work if you don't mind me asking?

Curious,

Liz
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 00:41:16 (EDT)
From: Rob
Email: None
To: Helen
Subject: What's yer beef, Rob?
Message:
Sure it's OK with me Helen.

Anything wrong with a bit of healthy banter? Isn't it fun to have someone to argue with, who isn't guaranteed to take you viewpoint on the bigger issues?

You know, any time he wishes, Barney can block me and all the other 'known' premies from entering the site. He knows the ISP of every poster. You can make it your own private space.

Who knows, maybe that's in his master plan. I know I'm in under suffrance, which is why I try to be reasonably courteous and inject a little humour into my insults!

Aside from the outright verbal diarrhea which does go on, I don't think it's necessarily unhealthy for any of us to have our ideas and beliefs challenged, and I am speaking for myself, too.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 00:46:09 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: More of this halfway shit?
Message:
Aside from the outright verbal diarrhea which does go on, I don't think it's necessarily unhealthy for any of us to have our ideas and beliefs challenged, and I am speaking for myself, too.

Rob,

What's the good of having your ideas challenged if you don't let those challenges open your mind to fresh, honest and, most importantly, unrestricted examination? Like, how challenged are you, for example, when you draw a safe line in the sand around Maharaji's words and announce your policy that you simply won't comment on them?

I think you're wrestling with how to do this. I can only suggest that you take the high road. The open road. Not (for all you old Deadheads) the Golden Road to Unlimited Devotion.

Now I really do have to go.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 02:03:00 (EDT)
From: Rob
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: More of this halfway shit?
Message:
Give it a rest, mate.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 19:04:13 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: Fuck you, Rob
Message:
Give it a rest, mate.

Don't tell me what to think or talk about. I pointed out to you that it's hypocritical to advocate open discussion that challenges opinions while simultaneously roping off all challenging subject areas. If this is all you can say in reply I'd say I struck a nerve. Maybe you're not quite as ready for this as you thought you were. Huh?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 22:51:00 (EDT)
From: Prize Central
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: You have just won one million
Message:
funny money dollars!!!!!

That last 'fuck you' you posted marked
the one millionth 'fuck you' (or it seems so)
and you can take this funny money and go get some
more scotch with it.
Scotch makes you bold, vulgar and loose-tongued,
doesn't it?

If you weren't so pathetic this would be funny.

Q: What does Jim say when he is either mentally challenged, drunk, or tired?
A: Something with 'fuck' in it directed at a premie.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 22:56:07 (EDT)
From: Canned Laugh Dept.
Email: None
To: Audio Central
Subject: BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAHAHAHA
Message:
BWA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
BWA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 23:53:28 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Prize Central
Subject: That's funny
Message:
Thanks for the laugh. It must be great to be anonymous here. Little cheap shots. Peeps. Little, bitty, peeps.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Fri, Jun 04, 1999 at 07:19:12 (EDT)
From: Mw
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: yes it was
Message:
funny
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Fri, Jun 04, 1999 at 09:06:27 (EDT)
From: Prize Central/Canned Yuks
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: These shots are not little or
Message:
cheap. You must have me confused with......YOU!!!!!

And by the way PEEP PEEP PEEP, ASSHOLE!

AS FOR ANONYMITY,
YOU KNOW WHO I AM AND I KNOW WHO YOU ARE.
NAMES HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Fri, Jun 04, 1999 at 11:43:28 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Prize Central/Canned Yuks
Subject: Hey, that's even funnier
Message:
AS FOR ANONYMITY,
YOU KNOW WHO I AM AND I KNOW WHO YOU ARE.
NAMES HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.

Another completely retarded premie speaks out. We should collect these.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Fri, Jun 04, 1999 at 22:48:36 (EDT)
From: cp
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Fuck you, Rob
Message:
ccording to my experience the 'give it a rest mate' of 'Robs came as you struck a nerve.

This comment is a means to gain time while he goes off and collects his wits and knowledge dogma.
Jim, would you read my 'missconceptions' above and tell me if you consider any of those topics as roped off from you perspective.

What I amen is that I can see you have a very keen and developed sense for human behavior.

But as much as I like how you converse, sometimes I wince when you wander off into these side topics.

Cant give instances.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Fri, Jun 04, 1999 at 14:24:13 (EDT)
From: barney and the Police
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: I'll be watching you
Message:
Rob,

So far you're doing ok and I have not even considered blocking you out of the Forum. I did mention my concerns with certain technology that is surreptitious by nature.

The Forum is open to anyone who abides by the general rules of not threatening anyone, posting under one name (exceptions allowed for satirical purposes), and not constantly attempting to disrupt via posts that have no content.

While many people disagree with you, your posting is valid and a welcome contribution.

Post on!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Wed, Jun 02, 1999 at 10:44:30 (EDT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Jean-Michel
Subject: Brainwashing techniques
Message:
The darshan tunnel thingy is right out of the book. Also the s-l-o-w pace of his speech and the repetition, repetition, repetition. And the pressure/release technique Diz and Anton are alluding to is a biggie, a very big one, indeed.

For the old-timers, the old music (without lyrics, of course) is a huge trigger for well established programming.

I'll bet he uses much more sophisticated methods now. Ones he learned from ''consultants.'' I'm not even going to mention them publicly, in case he hasn't figured them out.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Wed, Jun 02, 1999 at 12:54:28 (EDT)
From: Happy
Email: None
To: Jean-Michel
Subject: Brainwashing techniques
Message:
Would be an idea to have a real good, professional hypnotist analysing videos. To get an opinion from a skilled outsider. That might fill in the picture.

But clearly, certain things like his choice of words, the sound of his voice, his eyes, etc. develop into hypnotic triggers. Hypnotists often use a sign, like a snap, or a specific word, as hypnotic triggers, to get their subjects into trance more easily a second or a third time, or multiple times - like, once they are hypnotised for the first time, the guy says, 'when you hear this word in the future, you will fall into sleep', or 'when I touch your shoulder, or snap my fingers, you will fall asleep'. The same way, my guess is, certain words, movements, acts, develop into hypnotic triggers. Like the tone of M's voice when it goes into pitch, his talk about 'THAT experience, THIS life', etc, referring to a special experience which the pwiks immediately 'remember' and recreate in their minds into something sooo beautiful, so-so beautiful. Not to mention the solemn act of kissing his feet... which sended people into trance just like that. Or, 'holy breath'. Clearly, M is a hypnotist, but only if you believe in his powers. Otherwise, it is just - nonsense.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Wed, Jun 02, 1999 at 13:56:01 (EDT)
From: Happy
Email: None
To: Jean-Michel
Subject: one more thing
Message:
It just came into my mind, there's a really good book by John F. Schumaker, 'The corruption of reality: A unified theory of religion, hypnosis, and psychopathology.' It tries to explain all three from the standpoint of dissociation theory, which is pretty popular within psychology today.

The normal, healthy way of the brain to function, to think, is to connect by association. Now, during certain circumstances, like when people use psychological defence mechanisms, the brain dissociates instead of associating. The existence of dissociation can be easily understood from an evolutionary point of view - dissociation was a way to avoid mental pain. (Painful) connections which should be made aren't made, but avoided.

Dissociation also occurs when people get into hypnotic trance, and in severe cases, multiple personalities are created. It explains how so called 'possession' occurs, and also religious experiences.

Schumaker says, in religious brainwashing, the brain is first cheated from its normal, associative functioning and dissociated into a trance-like state, and then exposed to suggestions with religious content. First dissociation, then suggestion. I think it is a fascinating book, which makes sense to me.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Wed, Jun 02, 1999 at 17:03:37 (EDT)
From: RT
Email: omm
To: Happy
Subject: diss the associates of M
Message:
thanks, you give good book reports, Happy. That explains a lot.
Teach: the 'Mind' is painful, get distance with Knowledge, achieve an alpha state, repeat the program, reward with a Holy Sock.

RT
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 09:27:27 (EDT)
From: Happy
Email: None
To: RT
Subject: diss the associates of M
Message:
right, RT
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Wed, Jun 02, 1999 at 15:51:40 (EDT)
From: Liz
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: Forsooth
Message:
Did I get this right. Down below under Intellectual Dis/Honesty am I correct in believing that you don't give J.W. any credibility?

Sincerely,

Liz
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Wed, Jun 02, 1999 at 18:32:16 (EDT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Liz
Subject: Liz: Gerry and JW
Message:
Hi Liz - I've corresponded with both JW and Gerry, and have met and spent some time with JW twice in the 'real world'. I can't speak for either of them, but, from what I have observed on the forum, they disagree *vehemently* about U.S. and world politics. However, I don't think Gerry has ever called any of JW's statements about his experiences with Maharaji into question (and vice versa).

Take care -
Katie
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Wed, Jun 02, 1999 at 18:51:07 (EDT)
From: Gail
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: We brainwashed ourselves, too
Message:
Did you ever notice, when comparing notes about MJ's satsang, how one person would hear one thing and another premie wouldn't? I often faded in and out. If I didn't hear a particular line, it didn't affect me (selective hearing).

Everything we hear is subject to interpretation, and we created some commandments of our own depending upon our personal filters. We repeated the programming to ourselves everyday. We prayed to MJ for help. We wanted to be the best devotees we could be (BTW, I am the reincarnation of Arjuna). We obsessed about him. WE talked about him every chance we could.

Sure, he suggested we do it, but we helped a lot. We had his pictures plastered everywhere. I can remember sticking a MJ button on the steering wheel. Not a day goes by that I don't think about MJ.

Let's face it. Part of us loved believing he was God.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Wed, Jun 02, 1999 at 19:20:26 (EDT)
From: Gerry
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Liz, Katie JW
Message:
Thanks Katie, I would say you are correct in your assessment. I didn't want to start anything (although I kinda did.) JW is right on about the cult, for sure.

Liz, I didn't reply because I hadn't quite figured out what to say. I must admit to somewhat of a knee jerk reaction to JW's world view, and that's my problemo, not his.

JW, I don't doubt your sincerity, just your facts (on worldly matters) e.g. gas prices and Sanger's ''thousands of cults.'' I do wish you could admit to a little fallibility once in a while. You seem too *perfect*
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 13:38:47 (EDT)
From: JW
Email: joger02@aol.com
To: Liz
Subject: Forsooth
Message:
Hello Liz. Regarding my credibility, my 'world view' and my opinions, I stand by them, see no reason to back down from them, and when I am wrong about something I have admitted it. I frankly couldn't care less what Gerry thinks of my 'world view' and, as I have said repeatedly, I have no idea why my opinions make him insane at which point he often throws a tantrum. As he said, that is his 'problemo.' It's one of life's great mysteries.

The post about 'intellectual dishonesty' has fallen over to the inactive, but this was the statement I was responding to:

As for the whole Lord thing - I dont quite know what to say about it. I don't think I even quite understand what 'the Lord' means. Much like I don't understand what 'God' means. In any context I understand those words today, MJ is neither of those. Whatever I was thinking of 25 years ago - its all evolved. Or changed. Or whatever.

I still maintain that this is an intellectually dishonest statement, but as I also said, I don't think the author is doing it intentionally. I reacted to it because it is a kind of 'fuzzy thinking' that I have seen repeatedly among premies when it comes to looking at Maharaji and the cult objectively and in letting Maharaji conveniently off the hook for any responsiblity. It's also one of Jim's 'premie defenses' that Roger has posted on his site-- the idea that one just doesn't know what certain words mean, and one just isn't sure about how one feels, and besides, it has all 'changed' anyway, ending with sublime vagueness like ('or whatever.') I think it's sloppy thinking -- an avoidance of objective analysis and can be used to avoid attributing any responsiblity or fault at the feet of the former Lord of the Universe.

The author said I should re-read what he or she said, which I did, and I have exactly the same reaction and stand by my comments but I'm sorry if the author didn't like what I said. Anyone is free to disagree, of course, and Gerry, as is his wont, I guess for lack of anything better to do and as part of his campaign to save the world from my opinions, used the author'c comments to imply I don't discuss things honestly which anyone who has spent any time on this forum will tell you, has no validity except in Gerry's childish mind.

Regarding Linda Smith, all I can say is what she told me, which I believe because she is someone I trusted, and she was in a position to know. I have heard confirming reports about the drinking and adulteries from other premies, one in particular who I also believe was in a position to know, but that person didn't want to be identified on the forum and so I haven't talked about it and won't unless that person says it's okay. Linda made no comments to me about keeping confidential anything she said. As I said, she was pissed at Maharaji at the time and seemed quite interested in getting the truth about M's personal life out. By the way, another ex-premie heard the same comments from her the same time I did, so that person could confirm my memory.

Liz, if you have any comments or concerns about anything I have said, please feel free to email me if you don't want to comment here.

JW
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 14:35:44 (EDT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: Forsooth
Message:
Mr Perfect:

You were wrong about gas prices, you were wrong about M. Sanger and the ''thousands '' of cults. Face it: you can't admit it when you are wrong. Now THAT'S childish. And it does shoot your credibility. When you are wrong, you run away.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 14:58:42 (EDT)
From: JW
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: Forsooth
Message:
Hey, Gerry, I haven't run anywhere and I wasn't wrong about gas prices in Northern CA or about Singer (It's 'Singer' not 'Sanger.') I quoted the newspaper article showing that gas prices in N CA were the highest in history. No? Singer has studied cults for over 30 years. She has counseled people out of cults for that whole time and has written extensively on the subject. I think it's reasonable to assume she has studied thousands of cult. Maybe it was only hundreds of cults, geez, what the hell difference does it make to the point under discussion, I mean except to your mission to get me on something, anything, no matter how irrelevent or stupid? I do enjoy the attention, Gerry, but you really shouldn't.

By the way, I'm sure you will love this. Isn't it great that the Congress passed some gun control laws? But only after they were first defeated and then a bunch of republicans looked at the poll numbers, crossed over, and voted for it. It's amazing what the murders of some white suburban kids will do. Here is a poem in honor of the event:

POST-LITTLETON GUN VOTE IN THE SENATE

When the guns became the issue of the day,
Republicans, as is their custom, put
Their party right behind the NRA,
And shot themselves quite badly in the foot.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 15:54:04 (EDT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: No names, no cuss words
Message:
Jeepers creepers, JW, you are not correct on the gas prices! Pardon my spelling of Sanger, er, Singer. When I'm wrong, I admit it! I can't remember you doing this. Maybe that's because you're never wrong?!?

Loved the poem's sentiments. The meter kinda sucks, though.

Here's one for ya: Caught on video: NATO truck at Littleton minutes after the bullets started flying...

Also a video was made in 1997 which appeared to be a ''dry run'' of the incident. One of the kids involved (in the video) was the son of the man who is chief of the FBI in that area. This man is a trained psychologist! Mind control? Shades of the Manchurian Candidate? Is this a plot to disarm Americans? Stay tuned you conspiracy buffs!

Now really, I'm outta here for a few days. I know you'll miss my attention, but as one of the greatest actors in history said, ''I'll be back!''
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 16:10:30 (EDT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: Hi JW.....just for fun
Message:
JW: Two things..... (1) Let's hope they (either party) never roll-over so easily on any other rights as they have on this one. (2) A federal district court judge (for the first time in history) has ruled (and set a precedent)......the right to keep and bear arms IS an individual (not collective) right. I can get the citation/court reporter if you are interested.

By the way, remember our discussion (a while back) concerning the ease of building and planting bombs? You said they would not be used because they were too hard to make and too hard to plant. Well..... those littleton kids didn't need guns, considering the amount of recovered explosives. I thank 'whoever' that they didn't have bombs as their 'primary' device. If they had, there would have been very few survivors. In fact, given the amounts, they could have levelled the whole school several times over. They already had them planted and the bombs were armed; they just didn't bother setting them off.

As I said before (and unfortunately these kids proved), JW, people will keep killing people with ANY device at their disposal until WE get off our dead butts. WE MUST DEMAND that the 'abusers' of ANYTHING that can be called a weapon are put in prison and kept there until they are greybeards (or dead, take your pick). Oh yeah, this crime falls into the category of which you spoke....these people 'knew' each other and that is the way the stats will read, even though it's not exactly accurate to put them in the same category as family squabbles.

On a side note: Clinton's idea concerning 'background checks' for gunpowder is a total political 'show.' Oklahoma used fertilizer..... That's what most of them use because it is easy to acquire and MUCH more powerful and easier to work with than gunpowder. Even so, the actual components for gunpowder (all three of them are READILY available) are VERY easy to acquire and mix (with little danger while the mixture is wet). So what next? Shall we register plumbing (the basic ingredient in a pipe bomb)???????

I know I'm opening a can o' worms, but I haven't done that in a while...... :-)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 16:27:01 (EDT)
From: JW
Email: None
To: Mike
Subject: Hi JW.....just for fun
Message:
Oh come on, Mike. The tide is running against you. Even the NRA is trying to run for cover these days. People are fed up with the fact that we are awash in 300,000,000 guns, especially handguns, and that the deaths are spreading to the suburbs where we thought we were safe.

Even the very conservative Weekly Standard, Wm Buckley, et al. had an editorial recently saying conservatives should get behind gun control and the banning of handguns because it was a dead loser for the right to be associated with the NRA. The editorial also said that the bearing arms amendment refers to the need to arm MILITIAS, which it does, and it doesn't apply to an individual right, despite what that ONE federal judge might have said. This was the WEEKLY STANDARD Mike, not Mother Jones. I'm sure that judge was appointed by Reagan. Come on, if the right to bear arms was absolute, like you suggest, all the gun control laws we already have would be unconstitutional, and the courts have upheld them.

Mike, the bombs in Littleton actually support my point. It's very hard to kill the person you want to kill with a bomb, and they are difficult to make, unless, like these kids, you develop and maintain some kind of neo-nazi movement and zeal to make them. Notice that NO ONE was killed by those bombs. They are innacurate, unreliable, and difficult to build and use -- certainly a lot more difficult than getting a gun. The guns did all the killing in Littleton, not the bombs. Perhaps the only good thing that came out of those killings is the groundswell for better gun control laws.

If gun control laws don't work, why do countries who have them have murder rates that are TINY in comparison to ours? Why?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 16:57:00 (EDT)
From: Gerry
Email: None
To: all espcially Liz
Subject: tsk, tsk tsk, JW
Message:
From Handgun Control, Inc., a very pro gun control lobby:

There are approximately 192 million privately owned firearms in the U.S. -- 65 million of which are handguns.

From JW who most certainly DOES make up his facts and figures as he goes!

People are fed up with the fact that we are awash in 300,000,000 guns, especially handguns, and that the deaths are spreading to the suburbs where we thought we were safe..

See what I mean?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 17:19:39 (EDT)
From: JW
Email: None
To: Gerry
Subject: You are an idiot
Message:
Gerry, you really are an idiot.

The 300 million figure is what was raised in Congress in passing those laws it refers to the estimate of TOTAL guns in circulation, whether PRIVATELY OWNED or not. The 200 million are those that people have licenses to own. Those are the guns we have records for. There are also millions of illegal and stolen guns in this country, which aren't OWNED by anyone -- meaning they don't have licenses to own them. Do you think drug dealers are the licensed owners of their guns?

Fuck you Gerry. I am sick of this infantile charade of claiming every statement I make is a lie. Grow up. Fuck you royally.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 17:58:55 (EDT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: You are an idiot
Message:
The 300 million figure is what was raised in Congress in passing those laws it refers to the estimate of TOTAL guns in circulation, whether PRIVATELY OWNED or not. The 200 million are those that people have licenses to own.Those are the guns we have records for. There are also millions of illegal and stolen guns in this country, which aren't OWNED by anyone -- meaning they don't have licenses to own them. Do you think drug dealers are the licensed owners of their guns?

No JW, this is wrong. You don't register rifles or shotguns. There are 65 million handguns in this country. HC Inc. made no distinction between registered and non-registered handguns. I would guess that these estimates include stolen guns which were at one time presumably registered or at least recorded by the manufacturers. Doesn't it make sense they would estimate the TOTAL number of handguns legal, illegal, stolen or what ever, to bolster their case?

Fuck you Gerry. I am sick of this infantile charade of claiming every statement I make is a lie. Grow up. Fuck you royally.

Fat chance, but this is a good example of what I'm saying. No way do I claim every statement you make is a lie. See the above thread as evidence.

So who's throwing the tantrum now?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 22:47:03 (EDT)
From: Gail
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: Gentlemen's Duel: Take 10
Message:
pace, turn around and fire. Come on, guys. I thought we were here to take shots at the wonderful world of K, not each other. One of the only good things about Canada (the welfare, socialist, taxed-to-death, mostly cold, passive, colourless country it is) is the fact that only the criminal and the cops tote guns here.

Each of us is crazy enough to shoot at one time or another, so I think it is best not to have the means.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Fri, Jun 04, 1999 at 08:59:41 (EDT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: Gail
Subject: Sorry Gail
Message:
I have to disagree here. Each of us is NOT crazy enough to shoot at each other under any circumstances. That is especially true if you include ME in the term 'us.' I have just a little mental/moral discipline in my body and wouldn't even consider it. However, I would if it were self-defense, as is my right if someone is trying to take my right to life away. Before I do that, though, there are ALOT of other things that I can do to protect myself, depending on the actual circumstances.

To me, the very height of hyprocrisy is manifest in people like Teddy Kennedy, whose bodyguard was arrested and convicted of possessing an illegal firearm in Washington, DC. When questioned, Teddy said his bodyguard was only trying to do his job. I SEE..... if YOUR life is in danger, then it's ok for you to carry illegal arms, but if MINE is in danger, screw ME??????? If the elitist liberals such as Teddy Kennedy (who think their lives are more important than mine or anyone else's) think gun-control is so important and that guns don't save many more lives than they take, then they should be the FIRST to voluntarily disarm and take their chances with the criminal element, just like they expect the everyday citizen to do......Yeah, right!

Let me change an old saying, 'If guns are outlawed, only politicians (and hollywood stars) will have them!' NOW, THERE'S a scary thought! (In this country, at least).
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Fri, Jun 04, 1999 at 11:00:26 (EDT)
From: Gail
Email: None
To: Mike
Subject: Sorry Gail
Message:
Please excuse my ignorance. I'm a dumb Canadian. I'm trapped behind this border due to 50 cents on the Yankee dollar and no gun to protect myself when I hit Detroit.

PS Those illegal US guns are showing up in Canada!

:)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Fri, Jun 04, 1999 at 12:59:02 (EDT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: Gail
Subject: You are NOT
Message:
Gail: You may be Canadian, but I seriously doubt the 'dumb' or 'ignorant' parts.....he he he. The particular firearm in question (in the Teddy Kennedy example) was a FULLY-automatic MAC 10. That is a small, pistol-sized, 9mm weapon. Fully automatic weapons must be registered and the person possessing them must have permission from the BATF as well as filling out a bunch of paperwork and supplying fingerprints for a thorough and time consumming backgroud check. His bodyguard had done NONE of the above.

I doubt that many full-auto weapons end up in Canada. There aren't that many of them. Just an interesting tidbit..... Legally-owned full-auto weapons have NEVER been used in ANY crime (since 1932, when the rules went into effect). Despite what the media says, semi-autos are NOT full-autos.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Fri, Jun 04, 1999 at 13:59:51 (EDT)
From: JW
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: You are an idiot
Message:
Fuck you again Gerry. The point is you aren't interesting in even discussing the subject. You are so fixated on ME and some demented desire to make me look bad that you do that instead. I've already addressed the Singer issue, which is, again irrelevent to the discussions and only relevent to your demented fixation on me. I think she HAS studied thousands of cults and I explained why. But if she has only studied hundreds and not thousands, what the hell difference does it make? She's still the world's authority on the issue and so her opinion is relevent.

For the record, the testimony in Congress about how man guns there are in the US was that there is MORE THAN ONE gun for EVERY person in the US. There are MORE THAN 275,000,000 people in the US so the 300,000,000 number isn't off the wall. Moreoever, once again you idiot, what the HELL difference does it make to the issue if there are ONLY 200,000,000 guns in the US? That's plenty. It's irrelevent to the discussion, which you aren't interested in, as you are only interested in this bizarre competition with me. So, fuck you. Frankly Gerry, I think you ought to get some counseling about this as your 'problemo'. It's really sick.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Fri, Jun 04, 1999 at 14:50:07 (EDT)
From: Gerry (k/g v1.3)
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: You are an idiot
Message:
I agree San, er Singer is an authority on cults, but thousands? Yes she is relevant.

Yeah, what the diff, give or take a hunnerd million, or so. Hey facts is facts, right?

So what'll it be? Cognitive, gestalt, psychoanalysis? Hey I know, I'll call Dr Reich!

PS All those fuck you's are starting to make me breath heavy. If we are gonna get close you should at least say happy birthday to me...
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 18:08:41 (EDT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: Hold on JW
Message:
JW: You are probably using the wrong terminology, but there is no such thing as a 'license' to own a firearm (federally speaking, of course). All firearms have serial numbers and those numbers are ALL reported to BATF (for permanent records) when they are manufactured. The BATF KNOWS exactly how many firearms have been produced and they KNOW exactly how many were ever sold. The 300 million figure is not correct according to their figures. Whether stolen or not, they KNOW how many have been produced and ever sold (whether stolen or not). Sorry, but the whitehouse is inflating the numbers, if that is actually what they said.

It's kinda like the 60 thousand criminals figure that was bandied about during that press conference in the garden. Yes, there were 60 thousand 'hits,' but most of them (over 59,500) were FALSE hits. Out of those that were TRUE hits, NOT ONE has been prosecuted for trying to purchase a firearm illegally (a MAJOR felony - 20 years mandatory!). Why haven't they been prosecuted? There are 20 thousand gun laws on the books.....if they were prosecuted to the fullest, do you think it might help? I DO!

By the way, I've entered into a suit to sue the car companies for not putting anti-drunk-driver technology (available for over 40 years) into cars. That's incredible negligence on their part. I think the unit should be set so that you have to 'blow' every thirty minutes or your engine shuts itself off. Hey, if it works for guns, then I'm a shoe-in! YES....IT's A RED HERRING! he he he :-)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Fri, Jun 04, 1999 at 14:14:23 (EDT)
From: JW
Email: None
To: Mike
Subject: Hold on Mike
Message:
: You are probably using the wrong terminology, but there is no such thing as a 'license' to own a firearm (federally speaking, of course). All firearms have serial numbers and those numbers are ALL reported to BATF (for permanent records) when they are manufactured

By 'licensed' I mean purchasing a gun from a licensed gun dealer. At least in California, a licensed gun dealer has to report the guns sold, after doing the background check, but they don't have to report who bought the gun. I understand that gun shows are an exception and that dealers at gun shows don't have to be licensed or do the background checks. I understand that the recent legislation will partly plug that loophole.

The 300 million figure is not correct according to their figures. Whether stolen or not, they KNOW how many have been produced and ever sold (whether stolen or not). Sorry, but the whitehouse is inflating the numbers, if that is actually what they said.

I noted above where the figure came from -- it came from the estimate that there are more than one gun for every American. And what about guns manufactured overseas, Mike? And by the way, how many guns have been manufactured in the US? But really, whether it's 200,000,000 or 300,000,000 it's kind of irrelevent, don't you think? There are still lots and lots of them, no matter what number you use.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Fri, Jun 04, 1999 at 14:53:40 (EDT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: OK
Message:
JW: Ok, I'm glad you understood that (concerning licensing). I used to be a FFL (federal firearms license) holder and built/tuned/sold high-end target weapons for the olympic shooters and other competitions. To complete the picture, weapons that are manufactured overseas MUST have unique serial numbers, just like those manufactured here. Those numbers are reported to BATF prior to the entry of the firearm into the US. Now, if you are referring to illegally imported/smuggled weapons, then it kind of makes my case. I truely believe that you could stop making firearms here and it wouldn't make the slightest difference in availability (to anyone that wanted one). It would raise the cost, so that only the 'elite' could have one, but I think Spike Lee would be able to get his (to add to the ones he likely already owns). Sorry, after that unbelievable statement that came out of his ignorant face, I'd call him a liar if he told me that he doesn't own a firearm (he's too important, doncha know).

Anyway, you might think that 200 or 300 million is alot, but again I have to draw a parallel with cars. How many of those have been manufactured or imported. Considering the current US population, 300 million wouldn't be considered 'flooding' the streets with guns. Additionally, many collectors, like myself, actually own several. Remember too, that not so long ago there wasn't this heavy social stigma placed on law-abiding gun owners, so many households had them.

The one thing that strikes me funny is that while I was a youngster here in AZ (from elementary thru early college days), never once did ANY student shoot another, despite the readily available firearms. Every kid I knew had firearms in their houses (usually for hunting season) and ALL of them were behind flimsy glass display cases. YET, no deaths.... why? Well, one difference that I've noticed is that kids here were trained at an early age on the PROPER use and care of firearms (e.g. never point at another person, only shoot when you are sure it's ok, range training, etc). That doesn't happen much anymore and here we have deaths.....connection???? Well, using what you said in your shamless-thread, hiding info from kids, rather than taking the lead and teaching our children the right way, has and will have a negative effect (IMHO).

That is, by the way, the major mission of the NRA.....training for everyone. Their training products are used by every organization (police, military, hunter education, etc) in the US. I don't think 'we' (NRA membership and leadership) can be easily portrayed as the boogie-men that the media and some others seem intent to do. The NRA DOES want laws that make sense and that are ENFORCABLE and actually ENFORCED (without fail, excuse or argument). You won't find the slightest argument on those terms. Just as a matter of perspective, I PERSONALLY wrote two of the many firearms training/safety manuals that are currently in use. I am a High-Master (in target competition) and have been an NRA Police Firearms (and many other disciplines) instructor for many years. So I do have a pretty good feel for what the folks in headquarters think and why. I really AM the NRA and it is nothing like what is portrayed in the media, because I am NOT!

Anyway, JW, this once again was a good discussion. I really do understand everyone's worry concerning the needless deaths and the incredible harm senseless violence has done. I just don't think gun control is going to be the panacea that the media and HCI think it will be. In the meantime, we will have given up a constitutional right (at what cost?) without exploring the REAL reasons for violence in this country. Violence is an 'act', not an inanimate 'object.'
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Fri, Jun 04, 1999 at 15:30:23 (EDT)
From: Roger E. Drek
Email: None
To: Mike
Subject: nice post!
Message:
Mike, you cease to amaze me!

I'm a bit on the fence on the issue, although I have guns myself and like having one around in the crappy neighborhood that I live in. I mean, I live alone and if there's ever gonna be another person here that I didn't let in the door there's gonna be some lead flying. And I like target shooting and plinking. It is a skilled sport just like darts or golf.

I agree with you that training makes a big difference. Unfortunately the only training I received was as a Boy Scout on the range at camp. Still, even with that small limited training so many years ago I have a basic understanding like never point the weapon at a human being.

I've said this before where I heard someone on talk radio where the speaker was calling arcade games (which he said that the military uses in addition to standard range training) weapons trainers where you learn to aim and fire at people. He also stated that ex-military and ex-police had a very low incidence of murder with weapons due to a number of factors including the proper training.

IMO, the answer to this problem is most likely multi-faceted including some prudent gun control and the strict enforcement of existing laws.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Fri, Jun 04, 1999 at 18:20:11 (EDT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: Roger E. Drek
Subject: Thanks!
Message:
Roger: ANY training is better than no training. Damn, I wouldn't give my car keys to my kid without it! In fact, I think professional driver's ed should be required before receiving a license. None of this dad/mom teaching the kid their bad habits! Obviously, that would go over like a lead balloon.

Yes, concerning my police and military training, as well as my being an instructor. It was VERY difficult to 'practice' aiming at another human being. I think it would be interesting to investigate if it has gotten easier for THIS generation (in other words, have the violent games precluded the need for training in this particular aspect). If it has, then I think we can point at the culprit!!!

The problem with the word 'prudent' is that there are a range of definitions. I agree....instant background checks are GREAT! It is a good idea and it does work. The problem I have is that when they get a good 'hit,' they don't prosecute. The cops aren't there immediately to bend this guy over the counter and take them into custody on a MAJOR felony charge. That makes it look like the only purpose of the background check is to inconvenience the 'honest' citizen....that pisses me off, quite frankly.

Anyway, thanks for the response, but I do have a question: Why do I CEASE to amaze you?????? he he he gotcha
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Fri, Jun 04, 1999 at 15:55:40 (EDT)
From: Katie
Email: mishkat@gateway.net
To: Mike, Gerry, JW
Subject: estimated numbers?
Message:
Hi you guys -
I just wanted to relate my PERSONAL experience with numbers and statistics. (I'm not going to venture to make a comment on the number of guns, or number of cults, or whatever. JW, I did enjoy your use of the 'awash in guns' metaphor again - too bad Mickey didn't do his little comedy riff on it again. And Mike, I DO think the country is 'awash in cars' - I live on the outskirts of a big city so maybe that's why.)

Anyway, it's been my experience as a researcher and editor, that when some reasonably reputable source quotes a number for ANYTHING that is hard to determine - whether it be cults, cars, or guns - it's picked up and used by other reputable sources. I think it's because these numbers are very hard to determine empirically (think of US census data, for example - they use estimates and extrapolations as well, even though they do a lot of actual counting). Thus I can see how JW, Gerry, and Mike could come up with different estimates for numbers of guns in the US - all from credible sources, who probably got the numbers from other 'credible' sources. I do think that these numbers should be attributed to the orginal source so people who are interested can check out how they were determined, but this doesn't often happen.

Just my 2 cents -
Katie

Just my 2 cents.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Fri, Jun 04, 1999 at 18:08:45 (EDT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: The Source
Message:
Katie: It is the job of the BATF to keep track (since a very long time ago) of all serial numbers on all firearms manufactured or imported into the US. They do this very effectively. It's an absolute requirement and has been for many years. Target arms that I built had to be reported, even though the 'receiver' portion of the firearm had been serialized by its manufacturer. Once it's made 'whole' they need to know about it, too. Their stats can be trusted when it comes to this particular number. As was mentioned, if you are talking about illegal imports, then the numbers may be skewed a little. Personally, I don't think it's much because there is no large black market (in other words, you can already buy them legally, why would you waste your time on the black market?)

Now, there's an interesting point.....what do you think will happen if handguns (or any other legal firearms) are banned? A new and very dangerous black market could easily arise. It would be just like prohibition. We ALL know how effective THAT was. Just because america isn't producing, won't stop foreign manufacturers.....it'll just make their product in more demand. Remember, I'm not talking the european or canadian mindset here, I'm talking about the u.s. and the people that inhabit it. We don't take too kindly to the government telling us we can't do or have something.....it's not our style, despite what the media or politicians say.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Fri, Jun 04, 1999 at 18:31:31 (EDT)
From: Katie
Email: mishkat@gateway.net
To: Mike
Subject: The Source
Message:
Hi Mike -
Actually I wasn't saying that I disbelieved your numbers, I was just trying to say that JW could have also gotten his number from a reputable source - as per my own experience with 'numbers'. As for my thoughts about handguns, you can see my post below. I do know that Americans don't take 'kindly' to governmental authority - I just wish that most of them were as responsible as you were.

Love,
Katie
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 18:54:22 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Gerry
Subject: Gerry, you're a jerk
Message:
From JW who most certainly DOES make up his facts and figures as he goes!

There you go again! Do you know where Joe got this stat from? Did you when you accused him of 'certainly' making it up? What right do you have of accusing him of making it up -- lying, in other words -- otherwise?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 19:01:27 (EDT)
From: Pot
Email: None
To: Kettle
Subject: Gerry, you're a jerk
Message:
Do you know where Joe got this stat from?

Probably from the same place he got the ''fact'' abut the '' thousands'' of cults Singer studied.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 19:08:02 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Pot
Subject: Gerry, you're a jerk
Message:
Probably from the same place he got the ''fact'' abut the '' thousands'' of cults Singer studied.

Which is where? Do you know? See, my whole problem with Gerry is that he does shit like this. He doesn't know that Joe made it up, so why does he pretend he does? I just don't get it.
Is he trying to be an asshole? Is that it?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 19:20:13 (EDT)
From: Gerry
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Gerry, you're a jerk
Message:
Look at it this way: From the comments nmw or whoever made, it was obvious Singer didn't even come close to studying ''thousands'' of cults. So where did he get this ''fact?'' Was this incorrectly reported somewhere? Hardly. Therefore, the most obvious and simplest explanation is he made it up.

If you or anyone can show me it was reported anywhere that Singer examined thousands of cults, I will apologize and kiss his lotus ass in public.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 19:40:27 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Gerry
Subject: Gerry, you're a jerk
Message:
Look at it this way: From the comments nmw or whoever made, it was obvious Singer didn't even come close to studying ''thousands'' of cults. So where did he get this ''fact?'' Was this incorrectly reported somewhere? Hardly. Therefore, the most obvious and simplest explanation is he made it up.
If you or anyone can show me it was reported anywhere that Singer examined thousands of cults, I will apologize and kiss his lotus ass in public.

So, shoot first, interrogate later? Sorry, Gerry, I think you realy do have some sort of really weird competition thing with Joe. It doesn't look good on you, that's for sure.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 19:54:14 (EDT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Mind if I change the subject
Message:
title. My weird competion thing is that I think he tosses out numbers and the like without really checking first. Sorta like shoot first and investigate the facts later. Hey maybe we're old rivals from the middle ages or something. I'll check the Akashic records and get back to you.

You did know I can Remote View, didn't you ? And yes boys and girls, I'm watching you...

Really I'm not so concerned about my image here. It's all in fun, right? And nobody's perfect (well except you-know-who) Hell I'll admit it. I'm in love with the guy and I trying to worm my way into his heart.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Fri, Jun 04, 1999 at 13:51:32 (EDT)
From: JW
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: Mind if I change the subject
Message:
Really I'm not so concerned about my image here.

Oh really? I think most of us have gathered that. Really, Gerry, you ought to have a little more self respect.

Hell I'll admit it. I'm in love with the guy and I trying to worm my way into his heart.

You wish.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Fri, Jun 04, 1999 at 14:21:41 (EDT)
From: Gerry (k/g v1.2)
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: Mind if I change the subject
Message:
Well at least we're talking so there's always hope :-)

Really, Gerry, you ought to have a little more self respect.

How does one do that, btw?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Fri, Jun 04, 1999 at 15:03:37 (EDT)
From: JW
Email: None
To: Gerry (k/g v1.2)
Subject: Mind if I change the subject
Message:
Well at least we're talking so there's always hope :-)

Believe me Gerry, sometimes there really isn't any hope. I think this is one of those times.

I don't know how to tell anyone to have self-respect. I just think it's a really attractive quality and it's a lot easier to have self respect if you engender respect from other people by your interactions with them. It's kind of like a symbiotic relationship.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 17:46:49 (EDT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: Hi JW.....just for fun
Message:
Well, JW, the NRA isn't a lobby group, it's an organization of over 3 million law-abiding gun owners. Yes, law-abiding....If you have EVER been a criminal, you cannot join. Yes, they do background checks and will sue if you lie (they haven't lost a case, yet). The NRA isn't 'running for cover' at all. I don't know where you got that, but it's dead wrong! In fact, the NRA (us) are suing the Justice Department (as I write this) for illegally keeping personal info concerning gun purchasers in DIRECT and FLAGRANT violation of the law that set it up. Not exactly running, is it? Maybe the tide in San Francisco is changing, but most states are enacting more Concealed Carry/Right-to-Carry laws AND they are passing laws to recognize each other's carry permits. Now, for some facts: Right-to-Carry states have, across the board, the LOWEST violent crime rates (per capita). Why do you think that is, JW? By the way, before you ask, there are now 33 right-to-carry states. Not exactly a minority opinion, is it?

Second, the fact that it IS an individual right (it DID set the precedent), doesn't mean that gun-control (e.g. background checks and such) are unconstitutional. It DID mean that a guy who was prohibited from purchasing, owning and possessing a firearm, due to a criminal charge that was never proven, had his 'individual right' restored, contrary to the direct desires of the Clinton Administration and Justice Department. And NO, JW, it has NEVER been interpreted 'officially' to mean MILITIAS.....NEVER. That was my whole point....This was the very first ruling of any kind on that issue....the Very First and Only! I don't know how it can be emphasized any stronger than that. The Clinton Admin admitted defeat and is not planning to take it to the Supreme Court. THAT is a fact and matter of record. If they did take it to the supreme court, the ruling would be upheld (according to several respected constitutional types). YOu might try reading the federalist papers. The founding fathers were quite clear in their personal letters and official correspondence on this issue. They absolutely meant for it to be an individual right and they say so over and over again. The Weekly Standard is NOT a court reporter. It's just a few 'opinions,' made by some educated people who AREN'T Federal Judges or constitutional experts. The Reagan appointee argument is a typical red-herring JW and you know it. NO, as a matter of fact, this judge was appointed by the Clinton Administration, sorry!

What makes you think that everyone was hurt/killed by guns? JW, you are wrong....the girl that was hit by a 'nine bullets' was actually hit by nine pieces of shrapnel from a bomb, according to the very surgeon that removed the debris. Only their extreme surgical skill permitted this girl to live. She was VERY badly hurt. Additionally, READ the reports. Most of the bombs were not set off. They weren't faulty, they just weren't set off. If there had been 'no guns' they WOULD have been set off, of that I have absolutely NO DOUBT whatsoever. Do you actually believe these kids really cared who they killed, in addition to those they wanted to kill? There is NOTHING in the evidence to indicate this. They were mass murderers....period! If you want to teach kids respect for life, banning firearms won't do it. What will do it is to TEACH them respect for life. 'I' was taught respect for life and so were you. Neither of us is a mass murderer. I could hand you a handgun and I fully expect that you wouldn't shoot me with it, JW. Nor would it go off by itself....it's not alive.....Sorry, I had to say that....too many people seem to think that we have to be 'protected' from guns. Well, I looked out into the street and I have yet to see a gun walking down a sidewalk without being in the control of a HUMAN!

What, about this case, made you think that bombs are hard to make? There were MANY found and any kid that takes chemistry knows how to make some very effective explosives. They are NOT hard to make, they are extremely easy to make. JW, you forget that this is something that I KNOW! Remember, I've spent the better part of my adult life in the military. One of the things that you learn about is how to 'adapt' when your weapons are useless. This isn't 'special' knowledge or even 'secret' knowledge. It's simple chemistry and every high school kid learns about it. Trust me, I've been there and I do know what I'm talking about on this issue, in particular.

One last thing, there are NOT 300,000,000 guns in this country. Check the BATF for the official figures, they have them. There are, however, 85 million gun owners. Now this is interesting, why are 85 million people being held hostage for what less than a thousandth of one percent do? Is there any other field where so few affect the lives of so many (in temrs of loss of rights)?

Here's MY red herring: I think IDEAS are the MOST dangerous thing of all. The founding fathers NEVER meant for the first amendment to cover pornography, for instance! They never intended that right to cover alot of things that it has covered. So, I think we should look into it and tighten up the definitions......Not really, but i hope you get my point! I don't care what the 'public' wants when it comes to the constitution. Most of the public has never read it, recited it or could even identify it if it was sitting in front of them. Our courts are where it is to be interpreted, NOT in a poll. So there......

Are we having fun? I AM! ;-)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Fri, Jun 04, 1999 at 14:25:44 (EDT)
From: JW
Email: None
To: Mike
Subject: Hi JW.....just for fun
Message:
Well, JW, the NRA isn't a lobby group

Are you nuts, the NRA is one of the LARGEST contributers to political campaigns in the whole country. They also spend tons of money on advertising AGAINST candidates they want to defeat. That's why getting gun legislation has been so hard to do, because the NRA targets candidates who sway from their political positions. Maybe they aren't a registered lobby group, but so what? I am not talking about the rank and file members. I'm talking about Charlton Heston and that guy Bourgious or whatever his name is and the leadership. I'm sure the NRA does some good stuff, but I think the NRA should be condemned for the way they have opposed even the tiniest control of guns. That's why the NRA's standing among the public is so low, especially right now.

Mike, again regarding the bombs, I think your point is absurd. If somebody gets into a heated argument with a spouse and is so angry they want to kill them, they are not going to stop and build a bomb. But if they have a gun they might just pick it up and use is. This is just common sense, Mike.

And at Littleton, note again that no one was killed by bombs and the reports were that they killers TRIED to get a bomb to go off and couldn't do it -- so they shot themselves.

Plus it's a lot harder to conceal a bomb and sometimes they go off killing the person who wants to use it. Even the IRA, which is EXPERT when it comes to bombs, has has had that happen on several occasions.

I really do feel I need to be protected from guns. I think that's quite reasonable. I am not condeming all gun owners. But I do think handguns should be banned. They are not used for hunting -- they are for the purpose of killing people.

I don't know what you mean about ideas. I think ideas are not in and of themselves dangerous. It's much more dangerous to try to repress them.

JW
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Fri, Jun 04, 1999 at 15:12:39 (EDT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: Some points
Message:
JW: You are right.....'If somebody gets into a heated argument with a spouse and is so angry they want to kill them, they are not going to stop and build a bomb.' Instead they will stab their spouse 44 times with a knife, hold their head underwater until they're dead and then claim they were sleep walking! It's happening RIGHT NOW, RIGHT HERE! It's not a red-herring, it's a fact and it's being tried right here and now in AZ. Spouse killing is WAY too easy to accomplish with or without guns!

The reports concerning the viability of the bombs in littleton were premature and incorrect according to police reports. The bomb squad guys had a few things to say about the bombs.

To people that are intent on a suicide mission, what difference does it make that the bomb goes off while they are holding it? The marines in lebanon might disagree with your take on this.

Bombs are VERY concealable, JW. Here, go to the hardware store and buy a six inch section of plumbing and two endcaps. Tape an electronic stove-timer on it and put it in your pocket or in your pants.....tada! Concealed!

I understand your feeling about handguns, but you are incorrect on one point: They ARE used for hunting and special hunting seasons are set aside in many states. In those hunts handguns are the ONLY permissible firearm (it is MUCH more challenging and requires MUCH more stalking skill). Yes, I have taken a deer with a .357 magnum and a .44 magnum. They are quite effective, but the stalk is more demanding to get within range (less that 100 yards). The fact that they were originally designed to be close-in weapons doesn't mean that that is all they will ever be nor does it mean that MOST are used to kill people. MOST handguns (99.997 percent, to be exact. Source BATF/FBI) have NEVER been used to commit crimes or shoot people. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of cars and other mechanical contrivances. When I get out on the road I cannot, under any circumstances, think for a single moment that 99.997 percent of all cars headed my way have safe drivers aboard.....not even close! In fact, 10 percent of all drivers headed my way are DRUNK, according to NSC stats. The stats just don't support the hoopla about handguns, but they sure do when it comes to bad/drunk driving.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Fri, Jun 04, 1999 at 16:31:21 (EDT)
From: JW
Email: None
To: Mike
Subject: Some points
Message:
' Instead they will stab their spouse 44 times with a knife, hold their head underwater until they're dead and then claim they were sleep walking! It's happening RIGHT NOW, RIGHT HERE! It's not a red-herring, it's a fact and it's being tried right here and now in AZ. Spouse killing is WAY too easy to accomplish with or without guns!

Sorry Mike, you are REALLY reaching here. It IS a red-herring. It just defies common sense to say that people will just resort to crude methods like stabbing if there is no gun, but if they do, it IS only common sense that it is a whole lot less likely that the victim will die. Stabbing someone 44 times takes quite a while. Shooting ONCE only takes a couple of seconds. Plus you can't stab someone anonyously from a distance, which you can with a gun.

To people that are intent on a suicide mission, what difference does it make that the bomb goes off while they are holding it? The marines in lebanon might disagree with your take on this.

Irrelevent, Mike. If you are talking about the PLO or the IRA it's one thing. I'm talking about ordinary people, not part of some paramilitary organization, they are acting on their own, killing other people.

Again, the comparison about cars is specious. Maybe we should have better control over drunk drivers. But that's another discussion. It makes no sense to say that because we have deaths by car we shouldn't do anything about the thousands of deaths by handguns in this country.

Mike, politically, I think the NRA would be better off engaging in a discussion of reasonable gun control laws. The knee-jerk reaction that any limitation is some kind of slippery slop to total banning of all guns is just paranoia. As is is, the NRA is getting more marginalized in the minds of most people because of the absolutist, purist positions on this issue.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 16:48:12 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Mike
Subject: Bullshit, Mike
Message:
As I said before (and unfortunately these kids proved), JW, people will keep killing people with ANY device at their disposal until WE get off our dead butts.

Mike, this is sheer fooly. I'm sorry. I love you, bud, but this blind, irrational denial of the inherent menace guns pose to any civilized society really bugs me. The fact, is people will keep hurting people, not necesarily, killing them, no matter what. Nothing you can do on ro off your butt's going to make much difference.

In Canada we had a copycat Littleton. You might ahve heard of it. An alienated youth in an Albertan school kills one other kid an, I think, wounds one too. Alberta is farm country and the ranchers there have guns. Rifles. That's how this kid had access to one, they're not so uncommon in that province.

There are four largely agrarian provinces in Canada where guns aren't so rare in the countryside. Alberta's one. These are the four provinces with the largest per capita youth murder rates without question. All gun related.

It would be pretty well impossible for a kid in Canada to put together an arsenal like we've seen in the states. So we're never going to have those kinds of bloodbaths. As for these other, smaller shootings? Just depends on gun availability.

Oh yeah, kids knife other kids once in a while. Big fucking deal. Rarely do these ever lead to death.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 17:58:15 (EDT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Nuh, uh!
Message:
Jim: Sorry, I forgot you were out there..... you darned Canadians! I know you will read my post to JW, so I won't bother repeating it (it was pretty long). There IS one part that you should be aware of and is public record:

The part about right-to-carry states is a fact and very well documented down here. There is less (by a huge margin) violent crime in right-to-carry states (on a per capita basis). The recent major declines in violent crimes have come mostly from those very states, as well. There's a reason. The streets are not safe for a violent criminal in right-to-carry states. Case in point: A police officer was killed by an illegal alien here, but before he could get away, a witness (who had a concealed carry permit) shot the criminal. Unfortunately, he wasn't on the scene swiftly enough to save the cop's life. But, he has received two citations for heroism here. He put his life on the line to 'try' to save the cop. He couldn't have done this had he been in a place that denies access to firearms by law-abiding individuals. Criminals will ALWAYS find a way to get guns. A gun ban will do no good, in that regard. All gun bans do is make the streets safe for CRIMINALS! My opinion, but right-to-carry states prove my point quite nicely.

Sorry, but I venture to say that the copycat crime in canada is just the tip of the iceburg. I hope I'm wrong, but I think you guys are going to see more violence, too. If it isn't guns, it will be something else.

Anywho.....as usual, I'm a voice of one on this issue....he he he. It's ok, I was in the military when everyone was calling us baby-killers....I can take the heat he he he!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 18:15:17 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Mike
Subject: Nope
Message:
Mike,

Your story about the cop and the alien doesn't help you at all, in my opinion. First, why does the guy have a gone to begin with? He's in the states, that's why. Guns are everywhere. You might find this ahrd to believe, but there just aren't that many up here. When they do show up they're usually stolen from the states and smuggled up. That's a difficult and legally treacherous course of action. Most people, law-abiding or not, don't bother. Believe me, it's rare.

Second, so the guy kills a cop and some civilian shoots him. And that's a good thing? Was there any cross-fire? Was the civilian sure he had the right guy? Is it even possible that the alien shot the cop in self-defense? (Shit happens.)

No, that story doesn't impress me at all. It ounds like you're just so goddammed acclimatized to living in a gun culture you just can't see it.

He couldn't have done this had he been in a place that denies access to firearms by law-abiding individuals. Criminals will ALWAYS find a way to get guns. A gun ban will do no good, in that regard. All gun bans do is make the streets safe for CRIMINALS!

Mike, this is something else I've noticed so much in you gun advocates. The false polarization of society into 'criminals' and 'law-abiding citizens'. This is a really false dichotomy. Sure, there are some central-casting committed career criminals but there a lot more people who sporadically do crimes, whether it be shooting up their school, murdering their husband or just beating their wife that one and only time. This propoganda you've bought into is NRA bullshit as far as I'm concerned.

Criminals will ALWAYS find a way to get guns. A gun ban will do no good, in that regard. All gun bans do is make the streets safe for CRIMINALS!

Well, this is absolutely untrue. I know. I'm a criminal lawyer in a country where guns are obtainable but only with difficulty. Most people, even 'criminals', don't bother.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 19:23:33 (EDT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Jim, you didn't address
Message:
the right-to-carry states. Sorry, but these are the facts. Right-to-carry states have lower (MUCH LOWER) crime rates than states that don't have right-to-carry. That applies to 33 states and it is a fact. The crime statistics don't lie.

The guy didn't endanger anyone other than the criminal. In right-to-carry states, there is a training program that goes along with it. Shoot...no shoot situations are part of the training. This guys was righteous all the way. NO, the alien was a bad guy with a VERY long sheet. It was, by his own admission, a setup. They (a form of mexican mafia that is present here) wanted this particular cop dead due to a drug bust that he made. They executed this cop and the civilian did the right thing. By the way, he was an eye witness, but could not get into position to defend the cop without possibly injuring others, until it was too late for the cop. NO, this was a righteous shoot and the guy did the right thing....period! The Chief of Police, here, called him a hero (in those words).

By the way, if you remember from our telephone conversation, I was a sworn deputy in virginia for quite some time. I had my life saved by an armed citizen........ THAT is a FIRST HAND FACT, and it isn't that rare, either. Talk to the street cops down here and they will tell you. Again, according to FBI and other stats, 3 million crimes are STOPPED every year by armed citizens (usually without firing a single shot).

There IS a dichotomy, Jim. I am a law-abiding citizen. Yes, I've made mistakes and I'm not perfect, but I have NEVER pulled a gun on someone while committing a crime....NEVER! Obviously, I HAVE pulled a gun on someone while in the military and while doing my deputy duty. There is ONE HELL OF A DIFFERENCE between me and even occasional criminals that DO pull guns on people. There sure as heck is a HUGE difference between me and any violent criminal. Sorry, but I don't buy the 'environment' explanation or any other explanation for their behavior. I've lived thru some pretty nasty times, too. BUT, I NEVER EVEN CONSIDERED a violent crime as an 'out' from my problems.....Yeah, there's a huge difference between violent criminals and you/me....A gulf separates them from us and, as I said, I don't buy any 'excuse' for their behavior.

This may sound patronizing, but it is NOT maent to be: I understand that, as a lawyer, it's your job to find mitigating circumstances and explanations/excuses for the behavior of the people that you defend.....if you didn't, I would call you a poor lawyer. It's your job! BUT, that doesn't mean that I agree with excuse-finding. I think too many people actually 'believe' those excuses, rather than seeing them for what they are....a way to escape responsibility for an action. In my opinion, that's all the gun-control advocates are doing.....blaming a machine for the ACT of the person wielding it! It's an 'excuse' for the irresponsible and reprehensible behavior of the VERY FEW! When you have a country with 85 million people that possess and properly use that machine and a few thousand that don't, you don't throw out the machine. You throw the culprits in jail or put them on death row where they belong. There are alot more murderous drunk drivers on the road (and many more resultant deaths per year) than gun-wielders, yet you don't hear ANYONE suggesting that 'I' be held accountable for THEIR action. NO, the blame is put where it belongs....on the individual that committed the act. Just to be fair, Jim, I believe that if a drunk driver kills someone, it is premeditated....they thought about drinking and driving before the act and KNEW what could result. The death penalty applies if they kill anyone in the process. I feel the same about crimes committed with ANY weapon.

Hey, at least I'm fair.... :-)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 20:15:59 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Mike
Subject: briefly (before my nap)
Message:
I'm dragging after being out late last night. But Mike, here what I think about carry/conceal states. Given the crazy proliferation of guns in your country, there might indeed be a safety strategy along those lines. You well might diminish crime that way. But, that's only given the awful tragedy of the current situation. What you're talking about is really just taking one step further away from civilization, as far as I'm concerned. We'd have a lot less crime, as well, if everyone was deputized -- formally or not. Crazy scene though. I sure wouldn't want to be part of it.

I believe that if a drunk driver kills someone, it is premeditated....they thought about drinking and driving before the act and KNEW what could result.

Sorry, Mike, this is nonsense. Leave the semantic juggling act to the premies, okay? You and I can actually change our minds about things. If you want to call a drunk driver who kills someone a murderer you're going to have to rewrite the dictionary on 'premeditation'. You might also want to take the word 'accident' out of the police report. Sorry, Mike, it just doesn't fit. It's rhetorical fluff. Like calling abortion murder.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 21:39:18 (EDT)
From: Abortion is Murder
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: so are dui killings. nt
Message:
so sayeth the leagal beagle Gerry
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Fri, Jun 04, 1999 at 10:28:24 (EDT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: I love ya, man!
Message:
Jim: Well, I calls it the way I sees it. That's all I can do. As you know, the US Constitution is the book by which I play (and swore to). I take it pretty seriously and I take perceived 'threats' to it as quite serious (as I swore to do, as well). I believe in every single 'right' that is mentioned within it, to the very depth of my ...ahem... soul, if you will. I perceive its eventual destruction through the process of whittling away at those 'rights' that are, let's say, 'inconvenient.' Once they are gone, there is nothing to stop the rest from being ridden rough-shod. I think many people have taken free-speech to mean WAY too much, but that doesn't mean I would condone the twisting of its meaning to suit the times. There are two things that go hand-in-hand, 'rights' and 'responsibilities.' You can't have one without the other and they are both PERSONAL. There is no inanimate device mentioned in the constitution that is meant to take the 'heat' for irresponsible/criminal human behavior. The founders never blamed a 'thing' for human misdeeds. No, they made their intent clear by placing provisions for the stripping of individual rights upon a felony conviction. They blamed the 'responsible party' in no uncertain terms; by the removal of the most important thing....their individual rights. This, in my humble opinion, should be a permanent condition for convicted violent felons, in particular. No voting, no right to free speech, no protection from unreasonable search and seizure....nothing!

Call me old-fashioned, I won't be offended. :-)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Fri, Jun 04, 1999 at 11:36:55 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Mike
Subject: I love ya, man!
Message:
Call me old-fashioned, I won't be offended

How about simplistic? Does that work? Mike, the Constitution isn't the 10 commandments and, even if it were, it never came with an eternal interpretation guide. Just a bunch of guys put it together. I'm more interested in the real world. All of my points maintain. Guns are an absolute danger -- that 'absolute' in the sense of that's what they're for, 'danger'.

'Criminality' on the other hand, is far from an absolute state of being.

Let me ask you something. Do you think that Americans will continue to have the same kind of proliferation of guns two hundred yeras from now? Or even one hundred? What kinds of guns will those be? Just imagine.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Fri, Jun 04, 1999 at 12:46:42 (EDT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Good ones and accurate, too
Message:
Jim: Actually, you ARE speaking in absolutes. You say that guns are an absolute danger and that is ALL they are intended to do. Not true. Many more firearms are used for recreational purposes every year than have EVER been used to commit a crime. Whether that recreation is target shooting or hunting, matters not because both are ethical and legal pursuits. The fact that golf CLUBS used to be weapons (for cavemen) doesn't mean that they are weapons forever more (even though they are used that way on occassion, even today). The fact remains that there are MANY more pursuits (with firearms) that have nothing to do with killing/maiming human beings. Firearms are not EVIL unless you make them that way (by using them incorrectly). Again, PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY and the resultant punishment if abused. Firearms are not an ABSOLUTE anything. I, once again, could make the same statement about cars. They kill and maim many times more people every year than guns, by a HUGE margin. Therefore, using that same logic, they are an ABSOLUTE danger. Non-professional people should NEVER be allowed to own or operate one because they might get drunk or get pissed and run someone over. Cars are EVIL!

Don't say that cars aren't designed with 'danger' in mind..... Look at the damned advertisements! If they were designed to be non-dangerous, there wouldn't be a car on the road that had more than about 50 horsepower (all that's needed to get up to 55mph). They wouldn't ADVERTISE them as POWERFUL.... thus enticing people to buy POWER and SPEED (capable of much higher speeds than allowed on ANY highway or road, in fact). Cars ARE designed to be dangerous! Car manufacturers don't give a hoot, or they would have already put available technology to work to prevent people from driving drunk and they would put 'governors' on the engines to prevent going faster than 55 (or how about 25mph for non-professionals, since they are not properly trained).... period!

Simplistic thinking? NO, the concept that I'm trying to get across is one of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. Violent criminals ARE TOTALLY RESPONSIBLE for their actions....period! You can't pawn their actions off on an inanimate object. Objects are what they are. It's the moron that abuses the object that is to blame, yet they don't even get prosecuted these days or, when they do, the punishment doesn't even come close to fitting the crime....not even close.

By the way, the Constitution IS the ten commandments for this country. It's the very device I swore allegiance to. Unlike every other country on this planet, the military swears allegiance to an idea (the constitution), not a human (no matter what the rank or social standing). The military DOES NOT swear allegiance to the president. As far as he is concerned, the military will follow his orders and the orders of those appointed above the person 'swearing in.' That is a huge difference: IF the president orders the military to take an unconstitutional action, the military is required to NOT ACT on that order and, in fact, can incarcerate the president (since he would then be an enemy of the constitution). Would that actually happen? I can only hope it would under those circumstances (hopefully, it will never require testing). So yes, the constitution IS my holy grail. I swore allegiance to it (and the ideals that it represents) and to protect it against all enemies, foreign and domestic. As a retired military person, the oath still holds legal sway, too. I am still required to protect it and I'm still subject to the UCMJ and the Manual of Courts Martial..... for the rest of my life.

That's about it.... I still luv ya, man! :-)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Fri, Jun 04, 1999 at 16:22:00 (EDT)
From: JW
Email: None
To: Mike
Subject: No Absolutes
Message:
Many more firearms are used for recreational purposes every year than have EVER been used to commit a crime.

Sure they are, but they are so lethal it only takes a small percentage to kill an awful lot of people. I am not in favor of outlawing all guns. I think people should be able to have guns for recreational purposes. But, not automatic or semi-automatic guns, no handguns, they should be licensed, everyone who owns one should be required to have training, they have to be locked up, with child safety locks mandatory, and gun owners should be held liable for negligence for letting others get access to their guns. To use you car analogy, we at least require drivers to be licensed and we hold car owners liable for negligent entrustment. We should do at least the same for gun owners. Nevertheless, I think the rest of your comparision of guns to cars is very bogus.

By the way, the Constitution IS the ten commandments for this country.

Come on, Mike. Need I remind you that our constitution was written to specifically legalize slavery and that it forbade any limitations on slavery for the first 20 years of the country? Need I remind you that women were considered NOT citizens when the constitution was written? It's a living document, Mike, and it has to be interpreted and/or amended to deal with current conditions. It certainly isn't an absolute. If it were, we'd be in really bad shape.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Fri, Jun 04, 1999 at 18:16:29 (EDT)
From: Katie
Email: mishkat@gateway.net
To: Mike
Subject: My personal feelings - a rant
Message:
Dear Mike -
(It's nice not to be the forum editor any more cause I can post off-topic posts without feeling guilty...snicker)

If all gun owners (and lifetime NRA members) were like you, then I'd say more power to ya. I do respect your attitude towards guns, and I can understand why you feel this way. However, I personally HATE guns, and I won't have one in my house, and here's why:

My father (now dead) was a lifetime member of the NRA, and had a LOT of guns - I'd say over 30 guns, including a semi-automatic and so forth. He was vehement about gun control - he hated it. He did a bit of hunting (quail and grouse) but mostly did target shooting (over and over and over). He also drank to excess. Although he was usually an extremely responsible person (with a high government security clearance and so forth), he, at least once, fired a gun right past my brother's head. He wasn't a good enough shot to make this not dangerous, by the way. My brother is lucky to be alive, in my opinion.

I also had a female friend who owned a .44 pistol for her own protection. She had three sons - high school and elementary age. Although she THOUGHT she'd hidden her gun very well, one of her high school age kids found it, started showing it to his friends while she was at work, and one of these friends ended up taking it to school with him. Nothing happened - the kid was just showing off and never got caught, but I'm sure you can imagine what MIGHT have happened.

When I lived in Missouri, I lived in a small town, and there were two fatal shootings of teenagers by other teenagers during the five years I lived there, plus several cases of kids bringing guns to school to show off (I am not sure, but I think there is a vote this year to make Missouri a 'right-to-carry' state. Anyway, I lived in a relatively rural area so lots of people had guns around.)

After both the fatal shootings, the kids who killed the other kids were extremely remorseful. I honestly believe that they WERE remorseful - how many kids really understand that 'DEAD means DEAD'! I think that there is an outrageous amount of modeling of violent behavior on TV and in movies - people get shot and killed so much that it seems unreal to these kids. I know that this isn't the fault of guns, but the fact is that it's really easy for kids to get their hands on guns. Although I know that you're an extremely responsible gun owner, the fact is that many people who APPEAR to be responsible, but are not ALWAYS responsible, are able to buy guns (for example my father, and my female friend. Also, my stepmother asked my brother for my father's .357 Magnum after he died as 'protection'. Do you think she can really USE that gun? No. And she has children and grandchildren who could easily get access to it - she's not the world's most together person.)

Anyway, Mike, I do understand where you're coming from, but I just wanted to say my piece here. I feel strongly about this issue based on personal experience.

Take care (and drop me a line sometime!)
Love,
Katie
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Fri, Jun 04, 1999 at 19:23:50 (EDT)
From: JW
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: My personal feelings - a rant
Message:
Thanks Katie.

I have a brother-in-law who is a lot like Mike in the sense that he is very careful about his guns and is trained to use them. But he was in a hunting accident in which his own nephew accidently shot him. He lost most of his sight in one eye and actually had a gun designed so that he could still hunt using the other eye. The nephew was really distraught over the incident, really much more distraught than my brother in law was.

By the way, my brother in law has terminated his membership in the NRA because he doesn't think the leadership represents his interests. He is really in favor of limiting gun ownership to people who are really trained to use them.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Wed, Jun 02, 1999 at 22:03:35 (EDT)
From: Nil
Email: None
To: Jean-Michel
Subject: Brainwashing techniques
Message:
How about:

- speaking the truth
- making your heart feel good
- demonstrating a profound wisdom about life

...terrible, terrible things!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 15:35:37 (EDT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: Nil
Subject: Ok, how about it?
Message:
Nil: Ok, how about it?

- Speak some truth: Did M declare himself to be greater than GOD at any time during his tenure as perfect master?

- My heart already feels GREAT, how about yours? Remember #1 above (e.g. speak some truth)

- Demonstrating a profound wisdom about life: So give us some of that profound wisdom. What profound wisdom? Has he explained the actual methods used to begin life? After all, he is the LOTU, he should KNOW! Or has he said something like, 'those who speak do not know and those that know do not speak.....' OH, how profound.... It's called illogical/irrational thinking, not 'profound.' Tell me, if he has imparted this 'profound wisdom' on any premie, why is it that, as a group, they DO NOTHING to help end real human suffering? Even Jesus was said to have fed people when they were hungry and there was no food.....Where is M's demonstration of his overwhelming humanity? (Again, remember rule #1 above).
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 16:36:36 (EDT)
From: Powerman
Email: None
To: Nil
Subject: Yeah, how about
Message:
speaking the truth, you fucking liar. Your guru is retarded. Just read that crap he spoke this week. What a joke. Bwhahahahahahaha.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 20:18:26 (EDT)
From: Nil
Email: None
To: Powerman
Subject: Yeah, how about
Message:
speaking the truth, you fucking liar. Your guru is retarded. Just read that crap he spoke this week. What a joke. Bwhahahahahahaha.

You are a fine representation of what a liberated mind can produce Powerman. So if I leave Knowledge can I hope to:
- have nothing to say short of a cheap shot?
- be able to call people I've never had any interaction with a 'fucking liar'?
- be able to have intelligent statements like, 'Your guru is retarded' effortlessly role off my tongue?
- be able to replicate a meniacal comic-book laugh in cyberspace?

Gee, I'd drop this whole Knowledge thing in a heart-beat if I could turn out like you.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 20:54:05 (EDT)
From: Powerman
Email: None
To: Nil
Subject: Yeah, how about
Message:
You're a sorry little sheep, Nil. As long as you follow that little septic-tank guru, you don't stand a chance. Little lists with pseudo-intelligent statements won't help you. Your fat fuck guru lied. He cheated. Anyone who's been there, and isn't lying to themselves, knows.

Why don't you come off it? You're embarrassed by those stupid, sacharrine websites. You're embarrased by how dumb you sound. You're embarrassed by those yuppie fools with the phony smiles who mindlessly listen to that drivel that comes out of the fat fraud's mouth. And you're REALLY embarrassed by those ridiculous videos. Come on, say you're not. Say there's anything redeeming in those idiotic videos. Your guru's an imbecile, and you're an imbecile for following him. Case closed. You're outta here, you fucking buffoon.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 21:33:20 (EDT)
From: Nil
Email: None
To: Powerman
Subject: Yeah, how about
Message:
Why don't you come off it? You're embarrassed by those stupid, sacharrine websites. You're embarrased by how dumb you sound. You're embarrassed by those yuppie fools with the phony smiles who mindlessly listen to that drivel that comes out of the fat fraud's mouth. And you're REALLY embarrassed by those ridiculous videos. Come on, say you're not. Say there's anything redeeming in those idiotic videos. Your guru's an imbecile, and you're an imbecile for following him. Case closed. You're outta here, you fucking buffoon.
I'm not the least bit embarrassed by what he does and I love listening to him speak. The only phoney smiles that I've ever seen are from people like yourself who never did have an experience, so they tried to mimic others just to fit in with the crowd; they finally got tired of the lark and revolted but weren't smart or honest enough to see it was their own foolishness that they were revolting against. No asshole, my experience, as well as my smile is for real.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Fri, Jun 04, 1999 at 00:48:42 (EDT)
From: Powerman
Email: None
To: Nil
Subject: says, 'Wrong again, Nil'
Message:
Nil, look, I hate to disappoint you. I did have an experience. I... oh, never mind, you'll find out. You poor sucker. Good luck.

You know, it's like being a train, and you're driving along, and you see all these other trains that drove off the tracks. And they're all smashed up, and... oh, never mind.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Fri, Jun 04, 1999 at 10:33:38 (EDT)
From: Nil
Email: None
To: Powerman
Subject: says, 'Wrong again, Nil'
Message:
You're a Powerhouse of intellectual thought. No... I'm just pulling your leg. Your an idiot. Fuck off.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Fri, Jun 04, 1999 at 13:45:36 (EDT)
From: Powerman
Email: None
To: Nil
Subject: says, 'Pondscum is cheap'
Message:
No, Nil, I'm not an idiot. But I won't engage with your lies. Your guru has nothing, is nothing, and will drop hard when we're through with our legal actions.

It's sad, because then you'll have no choice, but to admit to yourself you were duped.

No, Nil, I won't say you're idiot. But you're doing something very dumb. Ah, well, all will be forgiven when it's over. Good luck, pal.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 03:04:05 (EDT)
From: Keith
Email: None
To: Jean-Michel
Subject: Brainwashing techniques
Message:
All material existence has 'effects' .
You are a walking talking effects presentation. The clothes you where. The words you use. The shape of your nose. Even nature is an effects presentation. But personally I am more focused on 'content'. Should we judge each other by how we look?
I am not a premie now. No way. I am no longer needing to be a groupie. But I will not see into the effects of that which I am not aligned with or comfortable with my own negative associations.
We are all brainwashed anyway. Society as it is ...is a huge brainwashing mechanism. Jean michel....if you were really de-programmmed you would not need to evaluate others the way you do. Maharaji only brainwashes those who are brain washable. But who is to say who is and who is not brainwashed? Is Jean-Michel not brainwashed too? Forget Maharaji for one moment. Is not Knowledge at least pertaining to an experience that is trans-brainwashed? But how can anything be expressed without some packaging?
Bye for now. Keith
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 16:59:04 (EDT)
From: Powerman
Email: None
To: Keith
Subject: God,
Message:
Keith, you're pathetic. You couldn't think your way out of a paper bag.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index