Forum V: Archive
Compiled: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 08:58:02 (GMT)
From: Feb 02, 2000 To: Feb 09, 2000 Page: 4 Of: 5


Blair -:- I am an ~(ex˛) -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 07:55:01 (GMT)
__ Susan -:- English vs American spellings -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 16:19:22 (GMT)
__ __ IJ -:- English vs American spellings -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 17:32:18 (GMT)
__ __ __ Master Aaron Spelling -:- That's Master Aaron Spelling -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 17:50:29 (GMT)
__ __ __ Susan -:- And Sunset Beach! (nt) -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 17:39:11 (GMT)
__ AJW -:- I am an ~(ex˛) -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 11:00:10 (GMT)
__ __ Blair -:- Don't get me wrong here... -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 17:52:34 (GMT)
__ __ SB/Shifting -:- You are funny! -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 16:06:28 (GMT)

Roger eDrek™ -:- OF COURSE. IT'S BOB! -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 07:39:19 (GMT)
__ Roger eDrek™ -:- And until proven otherwise... -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 08:05:50 (GMT)
__ 09 -:- what do you mean by.. -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 09:24:33 (GMT)
__ __ Ms. K -:- Good post, 09 -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 17:10:53 (GMT)
__ __ Ms. K -:- P.S. re premie/ex-premie ratio -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 17:38:39 (GMT)

Haldor -:- prosecuter/persecuter -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 07:26:16 (GMT)
__ JW -:- prosecuter/persecuter -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 16:55:39 (GMT)
__ Jerry -:- Read this, Hal -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 15:01:51 (GMT)
__ __ cqg -:- and he calls it 'knowledge'! -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 20:22:08 (GMT)
__ AJW -:- Stick around Haldor -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 11:25:09 (GMT)
__ __ EdyytheHootle -:- If you had any balls... -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 12:54:18 (GMT)
__ __ __ AJW -:- Jagdeo again -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 16:12:28 (GMT)

Claire -:- am I an ex -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 07:12:38 (GMT)
__ AJW -:- am I an ex -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 10:51:41 (GMT)
__ SB -:- Which one are you? -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 16:11:48 (GMT)

Jim -:- Irreducible complexity - G? -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 03:51:22 (GMT)
__ G -:- Irreducible complexity -:- Sat, Feb 05, 2000 at 00:15:57 (GMT)
__ __ Nigel -:- to deny on faith alone... -:- Sat, Feb 05, 2000 at 06:34:33 (GMT)
__ __ __ G -:- to deny on faith alone... -:- Sat, Feb 05, 2000 at 18:58:27 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Nigel -:- to deny on faith alone... -:- Sun, Feb 06, 2000 at 16:53:55 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ G -:- Last comments I hope -:- Sun, Feb 06, 2000 at 20:52:02 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Nigel -:- Ok, and here's my last.. -:- Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 11:13:38 (GMT)
__ __ Jim -:- Just answer me something -:- Sat, Feb 05, 2000 at 01:42:31 (GMT)
__ __ __ Jim -:- A little more -:- Sat, Feb 05, 2000 at 02:18:31 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ G -:- Let's wrap this up -:- Sat, Feb 05, 2000 at 03:16:44 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Okay, I won -:- Sat, Feb 05, 2000 at 06:49:20 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- Grow up NT -:- Sat, Feb 05, 2000 at 13:44:24 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Na na na NA na (na) -:- Sat, Feb 05, 2000 at 15:53:59 (GMT)
__ __ hamzen -:- G/from below/autopoesis -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 23:25:09 (GMT)
__ __ __ G -:- G/from below/autopoesis -:- Sat, Feb 05, 2000 at 02:34:11 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ G -:- No design? -:- Sat, Feb 05, 2000 at 04:33:25 (GMT)
__ hamzen -:- Irreducible complexity - G? -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 19:05:13 (GMT)
__ __ Jim -:- Ok, Ham, I give up -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 19:09:02 (GMT)
__ __ __ hamzen -:- Ok, Ham, I give up -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 23:13:04 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Jim -:- Ok, Ham, I give up -:- Sat, Feb 05, 2000 at 01:48:41 (GMT)
__ Scott T. -:- Irreducible complexity - G? -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 06:42:04 (GMT)
__ __ hamzen -:- Irreducible complexity - G? -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 18:59:19 (GMT)
__ __ EddytheHootle -:- LET IT BE -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 17:39:05 (GMT)
__ __ __ Nigel -:- Let what be what? -:- Sun, Feb 06, 2000 at 19:56:13 (GMT)
__ __ Jim -:- What the fuck r u talking abou -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 15:09:00 (GMT)
__ __ __ Scott T. -:- What the fuck r u talking abou -:- Sat, Feb 05, 2000 at 06:18:32 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Jerry -:- What the fuck r u talking abou -:- Sat, Feb 05, 2000 at 07:48:23 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Jim -:- Thanks, Scott, I do understand -:- Sat, Feb 05, 2000 at 06:47:01 (GMT)
__ Roger eDrek™ -:- Quantum effect in nanocircuits -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 06:12:36 (GMT)
__ __ Jerry -:- Quantum effect in nanocircuits -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 17:04:35 (GMT)
__ Jim -:- FA's? oops! -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 03:54:31 (GMT)
__ __ Jesus R. Drek™ -:- I'm taking you in for PWI (nt) -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 05:06:02 (GMT)

Way -:- Sagan's Baloney Detector -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 15:42:40 (GMT)
__ Jim -:- Do you have a problem with exp -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 17:01:19 (GMT)
__ __ Way -:- Do you have a problem with exp -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 18:20:53 (GMT)
__ __ __ Jim -:- You're indiscriminate in the e -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 19:02:56 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Way -:- You're indiscriminate in the e -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 20:08:08 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Good for the goose? -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 21:10:34 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Way -:- Good for the goose? -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 23:02:00 (GMT)
__ __ Way -:- p.s. OJ over Maharaji -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 20:47:17 (GMT)
__ __ __ Susan -:- p.s. OJ over Maharaji -:- Sat, Feb 05, 2000 at 22:12:37 (GMT)

Robyn -:- Happy Birthday, MIKE!!!!!!!!!! -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 02:32:39 (GMT)
__ Nigel -:- From me too! Enjoy!!! (nt) -:- Sat, Feb 05, 2000 at 19:32:04 (GMT)
__ __ Mike -:- Thanks to you, Nigel! -:- Sun, Feb 06, 2000 at 16:42:23 (GMT)
__ Mike -:- Thanks, Robyn and Miquel -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 15:27:23 (GMT)
__ Padre Miguel -:- Happy Birthday, MIKE!!!!!!!!!! -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 03:09:24 (GMT)

JHB -:- Unsubstantiated Allegations -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 01:16:36 (GMT)
__ Mike -:- No he doesn't... -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 02:14:15 (GMT)
__ __ Roger eDrek™ -:- In India the left hand is used -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 05:08:48 (GMT)
__ __ __ AJW -:- Or maybe... -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 11:35:58 (GMT)

Powerman -:- Evil -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 00:31:27 (GMT)
__ Joey -:- Fuck off little p-boy!! -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 14:43:20 (GMT)
__ Scott T. -:- Evil -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 05:10:11 (GMT)
__ __ gerry -:- Yo Scott !!! Talk to me, baby -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 16:37:46 (GMT)
__ __ Sir Dave -:- I see no evil -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 15:48:04 (GMT)
__ __ __ cqg -:- I see no evil... hear no evil? -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 20:41:08 (GMT)
__ __ __ Joey -:- But can you see this, Sir D? -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 16:06:17 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Selene -:- But can you see this, Sir D? -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 17:22:41 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Sir Dave -:- OK, I could be wrong but -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 17:05:31 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Joey -:- OK, I could be wrong but -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 21:44:02 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ cqg -:- OK, I could be wrong but -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 21:03:27 (GMT)

YES!! -:- Evil=Maharaji=Antichrist -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 02:32:53 (GMT)
__ NO!! -:- Evil=Maharaji=ANTIHUMAN -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 14:49:22 (GMT)
__ Runamok -:- M joked about being AntiChrist -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 12:36:05 (GMT)
__ NO!! -:- Jim is the Antichrist. -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 11:46:49 (GMT)
__ Michael -:- Evil=Maharaji=Antichrist -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 03:14:40 (GMT)
__ __ Deputy Dog -:- What is the Christ? -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 21:41:21 (GMT)
__ __ __ Michael -:- What is the Christ? -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 21:57:07 (GMT)
__ __ cqg -:- Attitude=Maharaji=antichrist -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 21:10:39 (GMT)
__ __ __ Michael -:- Attitude=Maharaji=antichrist -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 21:49:40 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- The Anti-Perfect-Being -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 05:25:00 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ cqg -:- The BIG one -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 21:18:32 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Michael -:- The Anti-Perfect-Being -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 14:43:16 (GMT)
__ Mike -:- Watch it, PM! :-) -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 02:12:26 (GMT)
__ __ Harry -:- How's your rations holding out -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 07:42:08 (GMT)
__ __ Scott T. -:- Watch it, PM! :-) -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 05:41:35 (GMT)
__ __ Selene -:- Watch it, PM! :-) -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 03:46:19 (GMT)
__ __ __ Scott T. -:- Watch it, PM! :-) -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 05:45:57 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Selene -:- Watch it, PM! :-) -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 06:12:09 (GMT)
__ __ Powerman -:- Watch it, PM! :-) -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 02:37:58 (GMT)
__ __ __ Mike -:- Watch it, PM! :-) -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 15:05:22 (GMT)
__ __ __ Scott T. -:- Watch it, PM! :-) -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 05:51:07 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Powerman -:- Watch it, PM! :-) -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 06:20:26 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Robyn -:- Watch it, PM! :-) -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 02:47:01 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Powerman -:- Watch it, PM! :-) -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 05:16:10 (GMT)
__ __ __ Scott T. -:- People of the lie -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 06:01:44 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Robyn -:- People of the lie -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 15:10:06 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Powerman -:- People of the lie -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 06:26:12 (GMT)
__ __ __ Mike -:- BUT, M is Eeeeevil! (NT) -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 02:17:04 (GMT)
__ __ __ Candy -:- Oooooh, Evil! -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 01:03:59 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Robyn -:- Oooooh, Evil! -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 02:41:02 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Powerman -:- Oooooh, Evil! -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 01:07:21 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ JHB -:- Evil -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 00:41:43 (GMT)
__ __ __ Harry -:- Humour -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 00:41:11 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Mu -:- Humour -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 00:57:14 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Harry -:- The dead can dance. -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 12:30:43 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Robyn -:- The dead can dance. -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 14:30:01 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Harry -:- The dead dogs can dance. -:- Sat, Feb 05, 2000 at 09:36:56 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Robyn -:- The dead dogs can dance. -:- Sat, Feb 05, 2000 at 14:34:21 (GMT)

Haldor -:- sexsang and fornication -:- Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 23:02:08 (GMT)
__ cqg -:- but it ain't rock'n'roll ... -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 20:35:21 (GMT)
__ AJW -:- Sex, drugs and brainwashing. -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 12:16:27 (GMT)
__ Mu -:- open the pod bay door, Hal -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 00:20:11 (GMT)
__ Mike -:- ALL HAIL..... -:- Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 23:47:43 (GMT)
__ Selene -:- sexsang and fornication -:- Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 23:34:39 (GMT)

Brian -:- Another Journey -:- Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 21:15:53 (GMT)
__ cqg -:- Another Journey ...to freedom -:- Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 21:20:28 (GMT)

Brian -:- 'Journey' of the bored -:- Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 18:52:24 (GMT)
__ cqg -:- Boring people? never mind ... -:- Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 21:17:33 (GMT)
__ __ Mike -:- Jeeez, cqg... she hit this one -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 00:17:35 (GMT)

Bisham -:- He even rides a donkey -:- Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 18:03:55 (GMT)
__ Mu -:- He's a phony too... -:- Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 19:43:34 (GMT)
__ JHB -:- He even rides a donkey -:- Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 18:55:37 (GMT)
__ __ I Dunno -:- He rides his Merc up the hill -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 05:11:30 (GMT)
__ Gerry -:- He even rides my donkey -:- Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 18:29:23 (GMT)
__ __ I Dunno -:- He rides his Merc. up the hill -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 04:59:41 (GMT)
__ __ Michael -:- That was wonderful, Gerry! NT -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 03:35:01 (GMT)
__ __ Mike -:- BWAH HA HA HA HA HA! -:- Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 18:59:19 (GMT)
__ __ __ Bisham -:- You really are stupid -:- Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 21:00:49 (GMT)
__ JHB -:- I must be really stupid -:- Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 23:49:19 (GMT)
__ __ Mike -:- Don't bother -:- Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 23:54:06 (GMT)
__ Mu -:- You really are stupid -:- Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 23:03:04 (GMT)
__ __ cqg -:- Blind lead (ow! too bright) -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 19:54:50 (GMT)
__ Mike -:- You are a hate monger -:- Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 21:59:05 (GMT)
__ __ Bisham -:- Are you Don Juan? -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 13:14:29 (GMT)
__ gerry -:- M's true message -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 16:00:55 (GMT)
__ __ poulyou got it rigth -:- M's true message -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 18:14:11 (GMT)
__ Mike -:- Close, but no cigar... :-) -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 15:20:35 (GMT)
__ __ Bisham -:- Ex-Castaneda Forum? -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 17:25:37 (GMT)
__ __ __ Michael -:- Ex-Castaneda Forum? -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 22:20:24 (GMT)
__ __ __ Mike -:- Ex-Castaneda Forum? -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 18:47:01 (GMT)

Mel Bourne -:- Jim's - on 'lying machines' -:- Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 16:37:38 (GMT)
__ AJW -:- What a load of bollocks Mel -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 22:41:55 (GMT)
__ Nigel -:- & the other 3 fingers point..? -:- Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 17:43:07 (GMT)
__ __ Mel Bourne -:- & the other 3 fingers point..? -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 02:01:47 (GMT)
__ __ __ Nigel -:- Your opinion -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 11:30:32 (GMT)
__ Susan -:- my opinion on you and Jim -:- Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 17:27:46 (GMT)
__ Jean-Michel -:- Mel Blind -:- Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 17:18:09 (GMT)
__ __ Jerry -:- Mel Blind -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 01:47:27 (GMT)
__ __ Nigel -:- Well, Mel...? -:- Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 20:51:45 (GMT)
__ __ __ Mel Bourne -:- $64,000 and Well, Mel...? -:- Sat, Feb 05, 2000 at 07:39:03 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Nigel -:- And the fuzziness continues. -:- Sat, Feb 05, 2000 at 18:48:05 (GMT)
__ Dr Reich -:- Mel B --Acute Schizophrenic Ps -:- Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 17:10:02 (GMT)
__ __ do not skip this post if -:- you are a regular it is Funny! -:- Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 17:40:30 (GMT)
__ JHB -:- Jim's - on 'lying machines' -:- Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 17:00:19 (GMT)
__ Jim -:- Jim's - on 'lying machines' -:- Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 16:54:46 (GMT)
__ __ 09 -:- I agree on some points bout J. -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 10:31:12 (GMT)


Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 07:55:01 (GMT)
From: Blair
Email: drek@oz.net
To: Everyone
Subject: I am an ~(ex˛)
Message:
Who are these cult members? I always considered myself one when I was involved and the enemies I have who still hate M seem well balanced. They actually are rather special people with rare wit and high conciousness. I sponged on M's organisationą and developed an understanding that it was never his form or personality that I worshipped but my own need to make money without ever holding a real job and instead sold the dream about the inner self, the truth within.˛I'm not sure if I will ever be an ex-premie as premie means lover.I dont bow down to the physical but I still love the MONEY.

1. Note the English spelling of this word. I live in the U.K.
2. Note the lack of puncuation where I pretend to be uneducated.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 16:19:22 (GMT)
From: Susan
Email: None
To: Blair
Subject: English vs American spellings
Message:
I do not think that the spelling is probative of anything. I am American, have never been to England, ( though I would love to visit ) and I often find myself spelling things their way. I think spelling is mostly learned from reading ( not spelling lessons ) and if you read enough British literature or even British trash or texts, than it begins to shall we say...colour your spelling?

However, the use of the words bonnet, pushchair, nappy, etc do tend to lead one to believe the author is not American.

Anth the educator...what do you think of my spelling theory?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 17:32:18 (GMT)
From: IJ
Email: None
To: Susan
Subject: English vs American spellings
Message:
Didn't the Americian spelling produce Dynasty and the Love boat

IJ

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 17:50:29 (GMT)
From: Master Aaron Spelling
Email: None
To: IJ
Subject: That's Master Aaron Spelling
Message:
That's Master Aaron Spelling to you.

Can't wait for the longer subject field. I would have NT'd this baby.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 17:39:11 (GMT)
From: Susan
Email: None
To: IJ
Subject: And Sunset Beach! (nt)
Message:
nt very funny too!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 11:00:10 (GMT)
From: AJW
Email: None
To: Blair
Subject: I am an ~(ex˛)
Message:
Hi Blair,

Are you on drugs or something?

Your 'enemies' have 'rare wit' and you're only in it for the money (you were 'selling knowledge' right?) but you're still a lover.

Well, it seems to me, if you're making a good living out of it you might as well go the whole hog and declare yourself Perfect Master for the new Millenium.

There's always room for one more on top.

You just need a few followers to interpret your every action as a divine game and you're away. If they don't understand, it's their ignorance of your divinity, and if they try harder all will eventually be revealed.

Good luck in your new career.

Anth the Always on the Look Out for a New Messiah.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 17:52:34 (GMT)
From: Blair
Email: drek@oz.net
To: AJW
Subject: Don't get me wrong here...
Message:
Read this to get a better understanding of who I am.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 16:06:28 (GMT)
From: SB/Shifting
Email: None
To: AJW
Subject: You are funny!
Message:
hahaha
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 07:39:19 (GMT)
From: Roger eDrek™
Email: drek@oz.net
To: Everyone
Subject: OF COURSE. IT'S BOB!
Message:
Hey, does anybody remember Bob!? He's back! He's down below. I thought that I'd do Bob!, a long time way back favorite of ours, a favor and bring him up here into the limelight of day. Bob! is a little shy, you know. Whispering now: Also, I was encountering a technical glitch and my post wasn't taking down there.

You all know how paranoid and conspiratorial I am, but it sure seems to me that all sorts are crawling out of the woodwork lately. Everybody is doing that bogus handle thing. Me, I'm slipping up badly because I'm just using plain old Roger eDrek™ lately. Although, I've been entertaining cooking up both a premie character and a new ex-premie character and seeing where I could take it.

I gotta tell you that in my personal opinion that I find it simply amazing that about every week or so we get two new ex-premies and at least five premie types here. You think that since there are only about 3000 premies left in the west that we would have seen them all by now. Reincarnation, I guess.

Enough about me. Let's get back to Bob!

Sorry, Bob!, it's been a long time. I knew that I knew you from somewhere. Goddamn, Bob!, how have you been? Upt to your old tricks again, I see. Well, you old tiger even if we were to strip you naked of those stripes you'd still be a tiger. And, Bob!, that's what I love about you.

Here Bob! why don't you go down memory lane at my censorshop.

I don't suppose you gonna want me to restore those ***Best*** posts or yours?

Bob!, you know that I just cannot do that. I've got a reputation to try to maintain here, Bob!. I'm not like you where I can come and go and come back again with a new name and a new game. It's hard to convince one's sponsors that you're really on the job doing that kind of stuff. But, then you're on a retainer aren't you? Pretty much full reign to do as you please.

How much do they pay you Bob!? Or is this charity work?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 08:05:50 (GMT)
From: Roger eDrek™
Email: drek@oz.net
To: Roger eDrek™
Subject: And until proven otherwise...
Message:
I will hypothesize that there are at most only four premies who are regular visitors here at the Forum.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 09:24:33 (GMT)
From: 09
Email: None
To: Roger eDrek™
Subject: what do you mean by..
Message:
you are going to do BOB!. Do you mean that you were posing as him/not?

Clever as I am , I have not had my Ginko and dont know what you mean.
But I have thought I detected the lingering incense of Bob in some of the posts over the last week.

You think you have problems , I came on with a purpose built alias and sombody plagerized my alias.
Bad idea, you creepy snake whoever you are. Wait till I find out what YOUR HTML is.

As for you who regularly use the same name - or a reasonable fact simili, I can see how regulars/locals wouldnt like the practice of changing user names.
Not to explain it away, but I find myself doing it for 2 reasons.
1- I know for a fact that premies read this forum in order to monitor the sentiment among the exs, pre-exes and nonexes. Some of these I know personally and it would significantly compromise relatonships involving innocent others if they were to decipher my handle.

2- Although each one of the forum posters are very valuable for countless reasons, to this infrequent poster and sometimes lurker, the forum can seem a bit clannish . Rather than elbow my way in as a regular poster, which I am not, it is less disruptive to the conversation to insert under an alias.
The more robust posters dont take much notice, but lurkers and monitors listen to the smaller voices. From hence the bell tolls.

Amen
Lurch

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 17:10:53 (GMT)
From: Ms. K
Email: None
To: 09
Subject: Good post, 09
Message:
You wrote:
As for you who regularly use the same name - or a reasonable fact simili, I can see how regulars/locals wouldnt like the practice of changing user names.
Not to explain it away, but I find myself doing it for 2 reasons.
1- I know for a fact that premies read this forum in order to monitor the sentiment among the exs, pre-exes and nonexes. Some of these I know personally and it would significantly compromise relatonships involving innocent others if they were to decipher my handle.

I know some other people who do the same thing, for the same reason. I am not sure how many premies actually POST on the forum (I would suspect that it's more than four), but I know that a lot of them read it.

The problem with using more than one posting name is that people don't get to know you (although people 'getting to know you' can have its down side too.) I don't have time to read all the posts, so I tend to look at ones where I think the person actually is going to have something to say. This is the second post I have read from '09' that I liked - thus, I'll probably read more of '09''s posts.

You also wrote:
2- Although each one of the forum posters are very valuable for countless reasons, to this infrequent poster and sometimes lurker, the forum can seem a bit clannish . Rather than elbow my way in as a regular poster, which I am not, it is less disruptive to the conversation to insert under an alias.
The more robust posters dont take much notice, but lurkers and monitors listen to the smaller voices. From hence the bell tolls.

You're correct about the forum seeming a bit clannish, but I, for one, am always glad to hear from non-regular posters. I don't think it's disruptive at all - I don't come here because I want to talk to the same people all the time. I LIKE seeing posts from new people. Sometimes the smaller voices are the most interesting.

You wrote:
You think you have problems , I came on with a purpose built alias and sombody plagerized my alias.

Well, if this happens, scream like hell :). Or at least say something. Sometimes the people don't know that they are using someone else's posting name - especially if it's a common first name, or it's something like 'lurker'. But it's against the rules of the forum, and it's also very confusing, so hope you'll speak up in the future.

Sincerely -
Ms. K

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 17:38:39 (GMT)
From: Ms. K
Email: None
To: all
Subject: P.S. re premie/ex-premie ratio
Message:
I think there is a good reason why more premies than ex-premies show up on the forum (disregarding those premies who use multiple posting names.) Given that there are far more ex-premie than premies - who is more likely to do a web search for Maharaji and find the forum? And who is more likely to still be interested enough in the issue of Maharaji to actually post? It's gotta be premies.

I never even thought about doing a search on M until one of my ex-premie friends did it and told me about the Bob Mishler interview. And she has never posted on the forum, and probably won't. I know a lot of ex-premies in The Real World (not counting the people I have met through this forum), and NONE of them post on the forum, even if they know about it. This includes my own sister - I doubt if she's even looked at the site. I have told her about it, and she's very supportive, but when she's on-line, she is more interested in doing other things - understandably so.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 07:26:16 (GMT)
From: Haldor
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: prosecuter/persecuter
Message:
Special prosecuter Jim and co. will have as much effect in removing M as they did in removing Clinton,or wasn't that them? Anyway Bill stayed because he looks like a nice guy and many Americans feel prosperous and contented under his presidency.THE MORE ASCERBIC AND OUTRAGEOUS THE ACCUSATIONS ARE,THE LESS EFFECTIVE.Balanced people even start to empathise with the accused. Are you guys pure enough to assasinate someones personality?I agree that it does seem that you never had an experience in meditation and yes you must have wasted many years.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 16:55:39 (GMT)
From: JW
Email: None
To: Haldor
Subject: prosecuter/persecuter
Message:
Funny that you compare Maharaji to Clinton; there are several apt comparisons there (besides the sexual one), one of which is the trouble each of them has in telling the truth and refusing to accept any responsibility. Clinton only did that after he got caught and was about to be impeached. Maharaji has never done it, and probably never will, as long as premies like you don't expect him to.

But Haldor, honey, you see, nobody elected Maharaji to anything, unlike Clinton. Maharaji held himself out to be the incarnation of god on earth, promised happiness and salvation if one devoted one's life to him. He got many people to commit themselves to the houses of the forlorn, known as ashrams. He became obscenely rich in the process. When the ashrams became inconvenient and no longer as profitable, he just dumped those fellow human beings without the slightest bit of concern. He is a conspicuous consumer of every material thing the world has to offer on the backs of ordinary, sincere blokes who believed in him and trusted him.

Nobody needs to prosecute Maharaji for anything. We just need to let people know the truth about him, spread that as far and wide as possible, and it will prevent him from expanding his dwindling band of aging cult-members from the 70s, which are the core of his cult and the means for supporting his lavish lifestyle. There don't need to be wild rumors or accusations to stop him; just ex-premies telling their stories. That is quite enough, and quite appalling to most people.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 15:01:51 (GMT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Haldor
Subject: Read this, Hal
Message:
These are the words of Maharaji that JM was kind enough to share with us just to keep it in perspective what Maharaji's real interests are with regards to his devotees:

...Now this ego. Though it appears to be of little consequence, but even if a devotee is conscious of the fact -'l know,' it is akin to the devotee's crucifixion. If you are plagued with a little bit of arrogance that 'you know', you are gone. You are finished. You know nothing. Period. Again you have to turn to the Master and pray to him to give you prudence - 'Maharaji, please give me wisdom. I even don't know that as a human being I should not be egoistic. This is the problem. As a human being, I don't know how to conduct myself as a devotee. This too please teach me. Please let me know.'

Maharaji is much more interested in your devotion to HIM as your master and savior than he is in what your experience with meditation is. DON'T YOU LISTEN? Or do you only hear what you want to so he fits into your pretty picture of what you want him to be? I suggest you see him for what he is instead. That way you'll REALLY live in truth. If you want him to be your personal savior, fine. That's what he wants to be. But stop watering him and his message down. You become a liar when you do.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 20:22:08 (GMT)
From: cqg
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: and he calls it 'knowledge'!
Message:
The Maha:
'If you are plagued with a little bit of arrogance that 'you know', you are gone. You are finished. You know nothing. Period. '

...and he has the cheek to call it 'knowledge'!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 11:25:09 (GMT)
From: AJW
Email: None
To: Haldor
Subject: Stick around Haldor
Message:
Haldor,

We’ve already removed Maharaji from his throne. He’s just a fallible human being like the rest of us. It’s only you brainwashed cult members that still think he’s god almighty.

It’s weird how cult members like yourself see comments like, ‘Maharaji is an overweight, imperfect human being.’, as vicious attacks. That’s a simple, accurate description of him, with no malice in it whatsoever.

Really Haldor, you’re in a cult, and should think seriously about what you’re doing with your life.

He ain’t the Lord.

I had plenty of experiences meditating Haldor, but God doesn’t taste of snot, doesn’t sound like falling wax, look like patterns on the retina and feel like breathing. These experiences are only meaningful because of what you believe about them.

So mate, it’s time to face up to the truth about yourself. You’re not a follower of the living lord. You’re in a tacky, dead-end little religious cult, with a confused leader, in decline, becoming more reclusive and his, ‘I will establish peace on Earth’ claim looks more and more ridiculous as the years roll by.

I hope it’s not too late for you to get your life back Haldor, and stop believing all the bullshit that Rawat and his hangers on spout.

Tell me Haldor, do you have this problem, knowing in your heart he’s the Lord, but having to tell people it’s just these four techniques and he’s only a teacher and not really here with more power than Jesus, Buddha and Krishna.

Stick around Haldor. We’ll deprogram you.

Anth the Emmental

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 12:54:18 (GMT)
From: EdyytheHootle
Email: None
To: AJW
Subject: If you had any balls...
Message:
Sorry excuse the Pun....but If you claim that you were a teacher at Unity school....and all that was going on around you....(Jagdeeo )...dont you think you as a TEACHER had some bloody responsibility in all of this...Why did you keep your bloody eyes closed all the time...and dont tell me you did not KNOW...THAT IS A STUPID EXCUSE....and whats the name of this Headmaster..I knew the guy..his name slips out of my mind...you know the scottish guy with the headmaster looking wire glasses....You are all at fault as much as J was....Hey..come on admit it...
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 16:12:28 (GMT)
From: AJW
Email: None
To: EdyytheHootle
Subject: Jagdeo again
Message:
What the fuck are you talking about you big brave anonymous premie you.

You seem mad at me for some reason. Maybe your anger should be directed at your paedophile mahatma and his master.

Let me set the record straight.

Jagdeo seriously sexually abused an eight year old girl on his visit to the local commumity in Cornwall, in the 70s, in the place where Unity School used to be, but had by then closed down.

When I first heard about this, (about 20 months ago), from the victim, I was outraged. I did do something about it. If I'd have known at the time I would have done something then.

When the victim, (who I know very well) told me about it, I assumed the offense took place at the school, but the victim later told me it happened after the school closed down and I moved out. But by then Edytheprat, I didn't give a shit if I was there or not when it happend. I was simply outraged.

Since the matter became public, another of Jagdeo's victims has come forward. She wanted Maharaji to do something about it.

She asked two Mahatmas, Randy Prouty and Judy Osbourne, to tell Maharaji about Jagdeo's offences. Both of them reported back to her on Maharaji's response.

The second time he was told, he apparently told Judy, 'I'm glad it wasn't a fresh case.' Ie, he already knew about it.

So, to spell it out Edy. What we have is a religious official, using his position to sexually abuse children.

Then we have a very clear and detailed account of how this was reported, twice, to Maharaji, and we know, he did absolutely nothing about it.

So why are you getting mad at me. I found out 20 months ago and did something about it straight away.

It seems your 'Perfect Master' may have known much earlier. He was the one person in a position to do something about it and he did nothing.

I think he's the one lacking balls Edy.

And by the way Edy, now you know about it, what are you going to do?

Anth Ginn

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 07:12:38 (GMT)
From: Claire
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: am I an ex
Message:
Where are these cult members? I never considered myself one when I was involved and the friends I have who still follow M seem well balanced. They actually are rather special people with rare wit and high conciousness.Imoved on from M's organisation into an understanding that it was never his form or personality that I worshipped but my own inner self, the truth within.I'm not sure if I will ever be an ex-premie as premie means lover.I dont bow down to the physical but I still love LOVE.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 10:51:41 (GMT)
From: AJW
Email: None
To: Claire
Subject: am I an ex
Message:
Hi Claire,

Getting out of a cult doesn't happen overnight.

You asked where the cult members are. They're the ones who follow Maharaji and believe he's the living perfect master, descended from a line of perfect masters (see Maharaji's website).

They believe that the meditation he taught them is an experience of their inner life force (god is snot, patterns, breath and falling ear wax).

They easily interchange words like 'knowledge' with 'god' or 'soul'.

They give money to Maharaji to support the extravagant lifestyle of him and his hangers on.

If given the opportunity, they happily line up, pop cash in an envelope, then bow down and kiss his feet.

They find it impossible to criticise Maharaji, or anything he does.

They are afraid to examine the question, 'Am I in a cult', and will tell you all sorts of reasons why they are not. (It's just an experience. It's the 'others' who are in a cult not me. Sure it looks like the Moonies, but it's really different, honest. Etc)

There's lots more Claire, but this will do for starters.

So, going down my list, how do you rate? Are you a cult member or not?

Anth the Inquisitor.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 16:11:48 (GMT)
From: SB
Email: None
To: Clair and Balir
Subject: Which one are you?
Message:
Having fun?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 03:51:22 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: Everyone
Subject: Irreducible complexity - G?
Message:
One big problem is irreducible complexity. There has to be a massive genetic change in the creation of a complex biological system with interdependent parts. Either a gradual or sudden change poses problems for current theories.

G,

Where did you get this idea? Was it by reading Behe's book Darwin's Black Box? Have you read any of the scathing critiques its received from the scientific community? Take a look:

First, here's a Yale Biologist's review in American Scientist:

American Scientist

http://www.amsci.org/amsci/bookshelf/Leads97/Darwin97-09.html

an excerpt of which reads:

One hundred thirty-six years later, this argument makes a reappearance in Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box. Adorned this time around with the language of molecular biology, spiced up with charges of a conspiracy of scientists, masquerading as an appeal for truth and not for theology, it is nonetheless the same old thing: There cannot be design without a designer. Although I do not doubt the sincerity of the author, nor scoff at his unease with a world apparently lacking purpose, the case for intelligent design put forth in Darwin's Black Box is built on some deep misunderstandings about evolution, molecular organization and, ultimately, about the nature of scientific inquiry. Because of these misperceptions, not a blow is landed on the central, radical claim of Darwinian thinking: Biological order and design emerge from the workings of the evolutionary process and not from the hand of a designer.

This book will, no doubt, find its defenders. Those who are uneasy with a materialist explanation of the living world will welcome this attack on the Darwinian worldview. But as a practicing biologist, and a card-carrying molecular evolutionist, I cannot but find the premise of this book-that molecular discoveries have plunged a wooden stake through the heart of Darwinian logic-ludicrous. This book tells me that the field of molecular evolution has 'grown stale from a lack of viable solutions to dead end problems.' Worse yet, it appears that the endeavor 'has been moribund for decades' and that 'molecular evolution is not based on scientific authority ... the assertion of Darwinian molecular evolution is merely bluster.' And all this time I have been thinking that this is probably the golden age of evolutionary biology (although 1860 and the early years of the Modern Synthesis in the 1940s were probably not bad, either). For the first time we have molecular methods that allow the generation of massive amounts of detailed data relevant to a host of evolutionary questions. We have techniques that allow us to follow the control and expression of single genes in living organisms. We can now move genes from one species to another to test their function in a novel genetic context. Computational power now allows us to compare tens of thousands of DNA sequences to one another in search for conserved motifs, shared functions and common ancestry. We can carry out simulations of complex biological phenomena and find solutions to quantitative problems that seem to defy analytic solutions. Not bad at all, I thought.

What then is Behe's argument? The central point of Darwin's Black Box is not always easy to spot, but it appears to rely on Behe's notion of irreducible complexity. Molecular systems, defined to include both linked sets of biochemical reactions (the clotting cascade) and aspects of cellular organization (cilia and flagella), for example, are apparently 'irreducibly complex': They only work when all the pieces are in place and finely tuned. Any single component, on its own, is useless. If there is a single missing piece, the whole apparatus ceases to function, like a mousetrap without a spring. Such complex mechanisms, argues Behe, could not have arisen 'in a Darwinistic manner.' Their complexity shows an intelligent designer at work. But this is a conclusion reached only by stacking misunderstandings of the evolutionary process upon misrepresentations of the practice of evolutionary biology. I emphasize six fallacies inherent in Behe's claim, although there are many others where these came from.

and here's another biologist's review in the Boston Review:

Boston Review

http://www-polisci.mit.edu/bostonreview/br21.6/orr.html

which reads in part:

The first thing you need to understand about Behe's argument is that it's just plain wrong. It's not that he botched some stray fact about evolution, or that he doesn't know his biochemistry, but that his argument-as an argument-is fatally flawed. To see this we need to first get clear about what kinds of solutions to irreducible complexity are not open to Darwinism.

First it will do no good to suggest that all the required parts of some biochemical pathway popped up simultaneously by mutation. Although this 'solution' yields a functioning system in one fell swoop, it's so hopelessly unlikely that no Darwinian takes it seriously. As Behe rightly says, we gain nothing by replacing a problem with a miracle. Second, we might think that some of the parts of an irreducibly complex system evolved step by step for some other purpose and were then recruited wholesale to a new function. But this is also unlikely. You may as well hope that half your car's transmission will suddenly help out in the airbag department. Such things might happen very, very rarely, but they surely do not offer a general solution to irreducible complexity.

Behe's colossal mistake is that, in rejecting these possibilities, he concludes that no Darwinian solution remains. But one does. It is this: An irreducibly complex system can be built gradually by adding parts that, while initially just advantageous, become-because of later changes-essential. The logic is very simple. Some part (A) initially does some job (and not very well, perhaps). Another part (B) later gets added because it helps A. This new part isn't essential, it merely improves things. But later on, A (or something else) may change in such a way that B now becomes indispensable. This process continues as further parts get folded into the system. And at the end of the day, many parts may all be required.

The point is there's no guarantee that improvements will remain mere improvements. Indeed because later changes build on previous ones, there's every reason to think that earlier refinements might become necessary. The transformation of air bladders into lungs that allowed animals to breathe atmospheric oxygen was initially just advantageous: such beasts could explore open niches-like dry land-that were unavailable to their lung-less peers. But as evolution built on this adaptation (modifying limbs for walking, for instance), we grew thoroughly terrestrial and lungs, consequently, are no longer luxuries-they are essential. The punch-line is, I think, obvious: although this process is thoroughly Darwinian, we are often left with a system that is irreducibly complex. I'm afraid there's no room for compromise here: Behe's key claim that all the components of an irreducibly complex system 'have to be there from the beginning' is dead wrong.

More of the like can be found at:

Irreducible Complexity and Michael Behe

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 05, 2000 at 00:15:57 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Irreducible complexity
Message:
Here's a link to a comment on
Orr's review of Darwin's Black Box by the Boston Review, entitled Where's the Evidence?.

A lot of the criticism of Behe is dogmatic rhetoric, for example, 'just plain wrong'. It is incorrect to state that only those that specialize in evolutionary biology should be able to comment on evolution. Where have I heard this kind of talk before?

Simply to show that, in some cases, an intermediate form has a function does not imply that they all do. BTW, I'm not a follower of Behe and haven't read his book. It sounds like he doesn't give the theories enough credit. I'm not against them, I just think they don't paint the whole picture and I don't like extremist viewpoints.

Scott does have a point. The emergence of a necessarily complex system cannot happen any which way. The emergence itself is irreducibly complex, and that casts more doubt on the 'it happened by chance' theory.

Consider a colony of bees and the interdependencies between the following: wings, winged flight, pollonization of flowers, gathering of honey, honey as food, honey stored in hexagonal cells, etc.

Can you conceive what the intermediate stages would be between the bees' ancestors without wings and bees with wings? What would be the function of a partially developed wing? How would they gather honey, would they crawl? What would they use for food? What about the hexagonal cells, did they just suddenly appear or was there an intermediate form? What would the function of that form be? Also, suppose the formation of the wing was at first only advantageous, what other food would the bees have gathered and how would they have gathered it?

There are many symbioses in nature, in many cases, it is inconceivable what the intermediate stages would be.

The onus is on the adherents of the natural selection theory to address these problems with real evidence and details, not just expect people to accept the theory ON FAITH, because it MIGHT be true. To say that it's true because there is not a better theory is bs. In mathematics, if someone said that, they would be laughed at.

Necessary complexities do indeed pose problems and should be investigated. Strictly adhering to current theories can close the mind to new theories.

Why is it that so-called skeptics cannot entertain any skepticism of their own beliefs? Oh, I know, it's because they are facts!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 05, 2000 at 06:34:33 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: fitzroy@liverpool.ac.uk
To: G
Subject: to deny on faith alone...
Message:
The onus is on the adherents of the natural selection theory to address these problems with real evidence and details, not just expect people to accept the theory ON FAITH, because it MIGHT be true.

G: How much evidence have you taken the trouble to examine? I don't think you need a scrap of 'faith' to accept Natural Selection. The evidence is overwhelming, from the fossil record, Mendelian genetics, the structure and function of DNA, the rapid selection wars between bacteria and antibiotics, etc.
You can even see evolution in action in real time.. Try 'The Beak of the Finch' by Jonathan Weiner. Good stuff.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 05, 2000 at 18:58:27 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: to deny on faith alone...
Message:
If you would think about what I have written, I think you would see that you are twisting my words.

Let me rephrase. By 'natural selection theory' I mean the idea that random mutations and natural selection (and other purely mechanistic forces that have been conceived of) are the ONLY factors in evolution. I believe that natural selection is a significant part of evolution. I already said that, did I not? I don't view natural selection and intelligent design as being mutually exclusive. It also appears that chance plays a significant part, given all the genetic accidents that happen and the apparently random nature of mutations. I don't think it's ALL by chance nor that there is NO intelligence behind it.

Why do people think it has to be one way or the other?

Some people want to use their explanation of evolution as a weapon, as so-called scientific evidence, to advance their atheist agenda that there is no God/essence/creator/universal intelligence of any sort. While effective against the 'poof' theory (Creationism) and the notion of God as some Big Daddy with a beard up there, evolution does not imply that there is not intelligent design or that there is no 'God'. Don't tell me that Dawkins and others don't have an agenda.

I think this has be discussed enough.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 06, 2000 at 16:53:55 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: fitzroy@liverpool.ac.uk
To: G
Subject: to deny on faith alone...
Message:
Hi G,

I agree the subject has been discussed enough (at least as far as the forum is concerned) and to be fair, I probably didn't read your posts properly before jumping in, so may have misunderstood your points.

And I would agree that historical accident or 'contingency', as Gould and others describe it, played a large part in evolutionary change(eg, an entire species being wiped out by a cataclysmic event has nothing to do with its gene-level 'fitness'). Dawkins has been accused of disregarding or downplaying such factors - though he has never denied their occurance.

But, like Dawkins, I am convinced that structural change in the organism itself only happens through random gene-level mutation - an observable, explicable phenomenon - leading to varying rates of reproductive viablility. In that respect the theory is not merely plausible but both necessary and sufficient.

But I must respond to your last comment: '...evolution does not imply that there is not intelligent design or that there is no 'God'.

I think Natural Selection removes all need for a designer in the evolutionary process, ie. the theory is sufficient - at least for the presence and variety of life on Earth. If you wanted to bring intelligence or a Creator into the picture, it would have to be of the kind who kicked off the universe to start with then put his feet up with a cup of tea and took no further interest in the proceedings...

As to: 'Don't tell me that Dawkins and others don't have an agenda.'

This sounds vaguely conspiratorial. I don't see Dawkins having hidden objectives beyond examining the available evidence and explaining it to the best of his ability. His atheism appears observation-based to me, rather than his belief in Natural Selection being fuelled by his atheism. (I don't know whether that is what you are implying by 'agenda'.)

I have read Dawkins telling how as a young biology student he used to be enchanted by Teilhard de Chardin's writings, which are a kind of hybrid of evolution and mysticism centred on notions of direction and purpose (ideas he now vehemently opposes). It could even be the case that like many others, myself included, Dawkins was a reluctant atheist.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 06, 2000 at 20:52:02 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Last comments I hope
Message:
Some (hopefully) last notes:

I mention 'evolution' and you respond with 'Natural Selection'. They are not the same thing.

Regarding
'If you wanted to bring intelligence or a Creator into the picture, it would have to be of the kind who kicked off the universe to start with then put his feet up with a cup of tea and took no further interest in the proceedings...'

That is assuming there is no active guiding force. It also seems to assume an idea of a person-like Creator, one limited to being within time, as opposed to also being beyond time. The fact remains that the conditions were such that evolution could occur. Whether 'the Creator' later on fiddled with the system, I really don't know. I'm not even sure if that idea makes sense.

Another interesting subject beyond our comprehension is what was 'before' the big bang. Some eminent physicists talk about a 10-dimensional void containing nothing that was 'unstable', that the dimensions split, and we only see the dimensions of time and space. Also that time was space-like early on. Some others suggest other numbers of dimensions. Pretty baffling, how can 'nothing' be unstable? Who really knows?

As to Natural Selection being sufficient, we have a difference of opinion. It hasn't been proven. As Jim has stated in a post 'The burden of proof is on the claimant'. Many people find it very hard to believe based on observation, so by skeptical principals, the evidence for sufficiency should be extraordinary. I think a healthy degree of skeptism towards this claim is good, whether one believes in God or not.

I don't see any evidence for there not being any underlying intelligence. Even if Natural Selection were sufficient, it could be a guided process and certainly was created, i.e. came into existance. Also, eliminating the need for something doesn't prove it's nonexistance.

I'm not saying there is a conspiracy, just people believing in atheism and some of them wanting others to also believe. To some degree, I don't blame them, given the suffering caused by religion. Concepts of 'God' or 'no God' are all to some degree inaccurate as they are just concepts. Maybe it's better to throw all concepts away when it comes to the big picture.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 11:13:38 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: fitzroy@liverpool.ac.uk
To: G
Subject: Ok, and here's my last..
Message:
For people to say 'Ah, but we cannot prove there is NOT a guiding spirit behind evolutionary change - even though Natural Selection is known to occur' sounds like the child who says: 'Ah, but Santa might still deliver some of the presents, even if it is usually the parents….' Or even: 'It may be mum and dad buying the presents, but it is still Santa's spirit that guides them'. As indeed it might be Santa's spirit doing it (nothing is ever 100% proven). But you have to look at the evidence and the balance of probabilities, IMO, and not hypothesize causes the evidence does not demand.

And supposing there were a universal energy or entity whose nature was to always exist, and which was there before the Big Bang etc., it is still a huge leap of the imagination to give it human-like attributes such as intelligence, purpose, loving kindness or whatever. Intelligence came about through evolution. To ascribe intelligence to a force or being - one for which there no strong evidence - looks to me like 'man creating God in his own image'.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 05, 2000 at 01:42:31 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: G
Subject: Just answer me something
Message:
What have you read, G? How do you know what you know and what have you read? Where are you getting your ideas and terminolgy from?

Okay, that's a few things but I think you get the drift.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 05, 2000 at 02:18:31 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: A little more
Message:
First, I think it's wrong to dismiss criticism such as 'just plain wrong' as 'dogmatic rhetoric'. I say flat-earthers are just plain wrong. Am I being dogmatic? Is that rhetoric? Mo, of course not.

Second, Orr never said that only specialists should comment on a evolutionary biology. What he did say was that Behe's knowledge, compared to the specialists, appears superficial:

Now I don't pretend to know the details of Behe's education, but I do know this: he is not at home in the technical evolution literature. His book reveals that his grasp of evolution derives mostly from the pop literature (Gould, Dawkins-good stuff, but no stand-in for the real thing) and from computer searches of the scientific literature that he strangely makes a big deal of. While I have utter confidence in Behe's biochemistry, I am less confident that he can say what soft selection, or Muller's ratchet, or the Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection is-all bread and butter of evolutionary biology. It would be easy, of course, to get carried away here, and I want to emphasize that I'm not saying that outsiders can offer nothing of value (it's worth remembering that Darwin himself was trained primarily as a geologist, not a biologist). I'm simply saying that any would-be critic of Darwinism should know as much about evolution as any critic of biochemistry must know about molecules. (An idea that apparently never occurred to Free Press, who presumably will next treat us to a botanist's musings on the flat earth.)

Be fair here, G. Orr's challenge is. Either Behe does understand evolution at the depth Orr expects of someone purporting to be able to critique the theory or he doesn't. This is entirely fair comment on Orr's part.

Then, after offering your own examples of what you consider to be problems or challenges for evolutionists, you say:

There are many symbioses in nature, in many cases, it is inconceivable what the intermediate stages would be.

So again I wonder what have you read that informs you just how 'inconceivable' such intermediate stages might be. Are we dealing with G's imagination alone or are you familiar with the actual literature in the area? When did you decide that the intermediate stages were 'inconceivable'? When you, on your own, couldn't conceive of them?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 05, 2000 at 03:16:44 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Let's wrap this up
Message:
this is going nowhere.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 05, 2000 at 06:49:20 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: G
Subject: Okay, I won
Message:
but don't worry, Way can say the same thing about me as I bailed on the discussion he and I were having.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 05, 2000 at 13:44:24 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Grow up NT
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 05, 2000 at 15:53:59 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: G
Subject: Na na na NA na (na)
Message:
j
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 23:25:09 (GMT)
From: hamzen
Email: None
To: G
Subject: G/from below/autopoesis
Message:
“Ok, I'll hear you out, how does autopoeisis relate to the creation of our universe and the laws of nature? What is your understanding of autopoeisis?”

Autopoeisis is a definition of what constitutes ‘the organization of living systems”.
Systems that produce the components that are required to keep their existence going. This involves producing boundaries such as membranes around cells, which are crucial to cell production. Each part of the system is crucial, the archetypal continual feedback loop.

It leads to the inevitable conclusion that although we are living in a world that can be described and shared, we each experience the world uniquely, and that uniqueness is an inevitability because it is built into our systems because of our organisation as living beings.

Within evolutionary theory it tends toward the natural drift end of things, without denying natural selection. The basic concept of evolution, anyway crudely put, states that those living systems that survive, survive. Consequently they produce more offspring. Thus they tend to dominate. Autopoesis fits completely with the idea of evolution by natural processes of living systems over time.
The argument isn’t about evolutionary theory, it’s about the mechanics of natural selection.

Since autopoesis is about the organization of living systems it has no relevance to the creation of the universe, and it completely fits with the laws of nature. It’s radical in the sense that it is a very different angle on the way we describe systems, and see ourselves. It came out of the constructivist/second-order cybernetics/systems community.

“I said I don't THINK that autopoeisis can describe awareness. That is an intuition that I have. But I'm open, how does autopoeisis describe awareness? What is awareness? I don't think that autopoeisis can describe awareness because I believe that awareness is nonphysical.”

You don’t believe that your ability to perceive & be aware of your perception is generated or connected to your body AT ALL?
If you were to have an experience of God say, you don’t think ANY of that experience would be physical?
Some researchers recently found a spot in the brain that when activated electrically created intense feelings of cosmic love and even atheists had experiences of communing with God ?

“I am not blanking out the idea of autopoeisis, in fact, it sounds very interesting.
Do you understand how autopoeisis addresses the problems with evolutionary theories, if so, can you describe how, rather than refer me to a book?”

Describe your problems with evolutionary theories & I’d be happy to.

“On evolutionary theory:
I believe that we evolved and that mutations (at least partially random), natural selection, sexual selection, genetic mechanisms, and perhaps autopoeisis are all factors contributing to evolution, but also that there are unknown factors at work. I don't discount the theories, I just don't think they explain the whole story.
I do not take the Atheistic Oath of 'it just happened, it all happened by chance, nature didn't have us in mind, the universe created itself, the blind watchmaker, matter and energy is all there is, etc.' What is the scientific evidence for believing this philosophy? People have a right to believe this, but it is inaccurate to promote it as scientific fact. Where is the rigorous proof of it?”

Where is the scientific evidence for not believing in this theory, I’ve come across nothing yet that wasn’t riddled with flaws. Most fundamental put-downs of evolution seem to be put forward by people who seem terrified at the thought of losing the concept of God in the equation, rather than any committment to truth, since they never come up with a theory thats even remotely plausible. And why do you link evolutionary theory with atheism?

“One big problem is irreducible complexity. There has to be a massive genetic change in the creation of a complex biological system with interdependent parts. Either a gradual or sudden change poses problems for current theories. How does autopoeisis address this?”

Need more specifics. What non-random mutations? What don’t you believe was created by evolution as we know it?

“Suppose evolution at some time were somehow fully understood, would that necessarily describe everything? That sounds like a very big assumption; what are the reasonings and assumptions behind it? One assumption that I can think of is that everything is physical.
Consider an autopoeitic computer system. Such a system would have to be designed and programmed by a very intelligent person. I'm not implying that some 'person' designed the universe.”

You mean EVERYTHING? How could it describe the creation of the universe or what it’s like to fuck while on mushrooms listening to house music? An auto-poietic computer system would be one that produced its own components and boundaries, and continually renewed them, therefore we would be beyond programmers. Not sure what you mean by the last two sentences.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 05, 2000 at 02:34:11 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: hamzen
Subject: G/from below/autopoesis
Message:
The reason I brought up the apparent fine-tuning of the laws of nature is to counter the 'it all happened by chance' idea. Now, given the laws of nature, did it all happen by chance? I don't think anyone knows. My guess is not.

Where did I imply that the 'ability to perceive & be aware of your perception is generated or connected to your body' is not somewhat true? Perception is of course connected to my body, and is at least somewhat generated by my body. I am distinguishing between simple awareness itself and perception. This is an area that is poorly understood. When I experience the color red, what is happening? There is me, there is 'redness', and there are the triggers of this experience. People have some understanding of the triggers, but what about the experience itself?

Would an experience of God be partially physical? That is a good question. Yes, I would say that experiences of 'God' are mixed with physical experiences. I'd like to get into one of those experiments! Another interesting thing is that people who get knocked out by a high g-force often feel blissful when they wake up.

By not answering 'where is the rigorous proof?', I take it that you agree that there is not a rigorous proof.

In terms of problems with evolutionary theories, I've given you a link and stated one - irreducible complexity. But it sounds like you have already rejected all challenges to the rigid explanations of evolution.

Evolutionary theory in its most simple form -- we evolved -- is not atheist, I never said it is. But atheism does color the attitudes of many evolutionists. Otherwise, why is there so much opposition to the idea that there might be design in nature, even when it looks like there is? Why do you or do you consider it impossible that there could be a design element to evolution? You seem to lump people into two camps, creationists and hard-core 'evolutionists'. I am NOT a creationist. I can also conceive that they might be no design in nature and yet there could be a God.

I am not saying that there are non-random mutations vs. random mutations, but that the set of all mutations might have a pattern.

I don't think that Chopin's piano concertos, the Big Bang theory, or rocks were created by evolution. As to biological organisms on our planet, sure, I believe they evolved.

I'm referring to an object-oriented model of an autopoetic system. What I'm getting at is this, how did evolution as an autopoetic system get started in the first place? There was a context already in place.

I seems that we're not going to come to an agreement on this subject. However, it is a stimulating debate.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 05, 2000 at 04:33:25 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: hamen
Subject: No design?
Message:
When I said 'I can also conceive that they might be no design in nature and yet there could be a God.', that is only if I take the view that this world is an illusion and that 'God' is Truth, as in Buddhism.

That is my final comment on the subject.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 19:05:13 (GMT)
From: hamzen
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Irreducible complexity - G?
Message:
And that's leaving out the argument that quite often when two systems mix, the product of the two is very different, as anyone who has mixed drugs will confim.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 19:09:02 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: hamzen
Subject: Ok, Ham, I give up
Message:
What are YOU talking about now? And please, keep it simple, I'm only a lawyer.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 23:13:04 (GMT)
From: hamzen
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Ok, Ham, I give up
Message:
Hash & cider together produce a hit of a completely different type than you would guess from the ingredients.

Anything happening on the music front with you?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 05, 2000 at 01:48:41 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: hamzen
Subject: Ok, Ham, I give up
Message:
How different?

And music? Sure. Gig's next Friday and the following weekend.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 06:42:04 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Irreducible complexity - G?
Message:
Jim:

Re: Because of these misperceptions, not a blow is landed on the central, radical claim of Darwinian thinking: Biological order and design emerge from the workings of the evolutionary process and not from the hand of a designer.

You will find some form of this concept of 'emergence' in nearly all evolutionary theories. I'm not an expert on biological evolution, but do know a bit about theories of social evolution from Hayek to Dietz and the Humun Ecologists. Aside from the adherence to the concept, and the absolute insistance that it is diametrically opposed to any conception of teleology, I find little to differentiate 'emergence' from 'creation,' apart from the fact that the latter implies 20/20 vision. Besides that, I know for a fact that some of the processes Hayek refers to as 'emergent' were, in reality, fully intended consequences of a deliberate collective strategy. The 'Rule of Law' only emerged for Hayek because he wasn't actually at the meeting of the nobles as they debated and launched the concept, and didn't have the imagination to reconstruct the circumstances in his mind. He therefore, in my view, waved a magic wand over the incident.

It's harder to build a similar case against biological evolution, but there is some reason for the ubiquity of the concept of 'emergence' and the paucity of non-circular definitions for it. Emergence is, in fact, irreducible. It's obvious to a six-year-old. It is enormously ironic that the refuge of the leading edge of evolutionary theory, at the Santa Fe Institute is irreducible complexity. Let no one suggest this is a meeting of the minds, until all the contestants are dead at least 50 years!

Personally, I don't really care at this point whether things were designed or evolved. The point is that from here on, they must at least in part be designed. The failure to be self reflective about such concepts as 'emergence' demonstrates a certain determination to remain unconscious, and therefore non-responsible. Hardly the best place to start.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 18:59:19 (GMT)
From: hamzen
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Irreducible complexity - G?
Message:
Quite, couldn't agree more.

Yet I've argued the case with a number of intelligent/informed people who seem to understand AND agree with the argument, without glimpsing the implications. And it's not just in evolutionary research that it's relevant, has just as much relevance for society in a period of non-linear increasing change.

Systems thinking is still seen as an interesting irrelevance.
Late 50's/early sixties the split in the AI field between the systems/cybernetic view and the non-systems view was roughly even. Money wins, standard analytical-module research happens.
Now the whole problem of consciousness is back in the arena again, with the large increase in interest in neural nets.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 17:39:05 (GMT)
From: EddytheHootle
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: LET IT BE
Message:
I disscussed this point in an old thread here...and Jim (not sure if it was Jim H or plain vanilla Jim)...flamed it...

I believe that the Original Design..or what the Bible talks about ..the story of Adam and Eve and of creation..took place in another Domain (Pre time and Pre Space) ...in pre-creation...These original seeds of pre-creation---seeded the physical universe which then unfolded in the Darwinian way as we know it...

The Designer Designed and He Said LET IT BE.....and So IT IS....

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 06, 2000 at 19:56:13 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: fitzroy@liverpool.ac.uk
To: EddytheHootle
Subject: Let what be what?
Message:
Why do you '...believe that the Original Design..or what the Bible talks about ..the story of Adam and Eve and of creation..took place in another Domain (Pre time and Pre Space) ...in pre-creation...' ?

Just curious.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 15:09:00 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: Scott T.
Subject: What the fuck r u talking abou
Message:
t?

Sorry, Scott, but you lost me.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 05, 2000 at 06:18:32 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: What the fuck r u talking abou
Message:
Jim:

You clearly read the literature on biological evolution, but that way of thinking about problems has been applied somewhat more broadly. Doug North, for instance, won the Nobel in economics for his presentation of on evolutionary explanation for the development of the railroads. The problem is that the evolutionary arguments always get hemmed in by the same thing.

I suppose if you're only interested in the question of whether God created the universe then it looks like a religious issue, or logic versus the irrational creationsists. But I think you get a better idea of what's really going on by looking at these peripheral debates.

Let me put it this way. If this is set up as a rational science vs. irrational religion contest then it gets bogged down in highly technical stuff that obscures the weaknesses of both sides. So each believes they have some sort of monopoly on truth, when in fact they each have some sort of thought virus. Evolutionary thought has a problem--a rather big one.

Shoot. It just occurred to me that you're probably not aware of the way evolutionary arguments are used to bolster an extreme version of libertarianism. This is a much more cogent issue than whether or not God created the universe, because it will very likely determine how we govern ourselves.

So, to stumble toward some sort of conclusion... whether or not a particular group of evolutionary thinkers has enough savvy to be taken seriously depends, for me, upon whether they see the inherent weakness in their own position and are willing to openly reflect upon it. Those who aren't, have deliberatly thrown away a piece of the puzzle that may eventually prove to be critical.

Let me make it even plainer. Suppose this Forum, or series of Forums, eventually gains enough credibility that Maharaji starts to lose the vestage of his following that he relies on for financial support, has to sell his holdings to defend against legal attacks for tax evasion in the US and UK, etc. etc. The idea catches on. Scientology falls, etc. etc. People get disillusioned, but they also learn to cope with a situaton that doesn't allow a Deus Ex Machinae around every corner. Then, 200 years hence, some clever evolutionary sociologist wins a prize for declaring that the movement to topple the religious autocrats of the second millennium, 'emerged.' It was a product of evolution. Such a contention is just pretty much a dead giveaway that he hasn't a clue as to what really happened, perhaps because the electronic records of this Forum and others like it were all destroyed by some great electromagnetic disturbance. Both the Deus Ex Machinae, and the bogus concept of emergence, have something in common. They command an undeserved mystique.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 05, 2000 at 07:48:23 (GMT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: What the fuck r u talking abou
Message:
Scott,

Wouldn't our nobel prize winning sociobiologist have to have some evidence that the fall of religious autocrats 'emerged', like, from what? You don't just say it emerged and win a prize. People are going to ask what it emerged from and you'd better have some compelling evidence that it did, in fact, emerge from something.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 05, 2000 at 06:47:01 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Thanks, Scott, I do understand
Message:
but still question the tie-in. Methinks you're happily mixing the fact of biological evolution with certain metaphoric analogues.

But, I've got to go now. I'll respond further later. Thanks for clarifying that by the way.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 06:12:36 (GMT)
From: Roger eDrek™
Email: drek@oz.net
To: Jim
Subject: Quantum effect in nanocircuits
Message:
Screw that stuff! This MSNBC synopis of an article published in Thursday’s issue of the journal Nature is what's really important:

The researchers were able to manipulate individual cobalt atoms so that electron waves introduced at one point were focused and mirrored at another point — all within a “quantum corral” about 20 nanometers wide.

In the future, Eigler said, the trick may enable the creation of “nanometer-size circuits with characteristic dimensions that might be 10 to 100 atoms across.”

In the meantime take the easy way out if you want to read Jim's post.

Merge the following filters into your Proxomitron Config file to get rid of Jim's HTML that is running amok in your browser.

##
## Proxomitron Config File
##

[Patterns]
Name = '_Forum V Kill Jim's Bold'
Active = TRUE
Multi = TRUE
URL = 'www.ex-premie.org'
Limit = 50
Match = '< ( / | ) b>'

Name = '_Forum V Kill Jim's Underline'
Active = TRUE
Multi = TRUE
URL = 'www.ex-premie.org'
Limit = 50
Match = '< ( / | ) u>'

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 17:04:35 (GMT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Roger eDrek™
Subject: Quantum effect in nanocircuits
Message:
Have you read this? The Age Of Spirtual Machines. It looks like Scott might be right (if I'm reading him right). Evolution from here on in is probably going to be in our hands. The only thing DNA is going to be good for is making computers out of it, which they've actually already done on a small scale.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 03:54:31 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: Jim
Subject: FA's? oops!
Message:
Sorry about that.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 05:06:02 (GMT)
From: Jesus R. Drek™
Email: drek@oz.net
To: Jim
Subject: I'm taking you in for PWI (nt)
Message:
90 Proof
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 15:42:40 (GMT)
From: Way
Email: None
To: Jim and G
Subject: Sagan's Baloney Detector
Message:
Jim,

You're commiting one of Sagan's rhetorical fallacies:

Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit:
Common Fallacy of Rhetoric #2: argument from authority.
'Arguments from authority carry little weight.' Nothing is true just because some big shot says it is ture.

Experts constantly bad-mouth each other's theories and reputations. They often go overboard in their insults, as in the reviews you provide above. (You seem to have forgotten to supply the postitive reviews). In any case, it is always far better to go to the source than to rely on the critiques of self-styled experts.

Let G read Behe's book directly. The necessary complexity of the DNA information in even the most primitive living cells is an extremely important issue. No one can say the issue is settled.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 17:01:19 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: Way
Subject: Do you have a problem with exp
Message:
erts, Way? Because it seems like the whole issue of expertise is your major hurdle. Here's how it works in the law, at least here in Canada. Tell me if this helps.

A party can tender an expert witness in a trial so long as that person has relevant evidence to give which is beyond the knowledge base of the trier of fact (judge or jury). It's a two-stage process. First the party tenders the proposed expert and leads evidence about his or her qualifications. The other side can cross-examine the witness and may opt to challenge those qualifications. The judge has to decide if the witness has such a specialized understanding in the area in question to allow the witness to give what's called 'opinion' evidence. If the witness is qualified as an expert they're allowed to opine on the basis of facts in evidence or even hypothetical assumptions (which, of course, must be clearly stated as such).

The reason experts are allowed to give opinion evidence is because the law recognizes that there are a whole lot of areas where the common person simply lacks the knowledge to make an informed opinion. Experts are never qualified in areas where the subject matter is a fast enough read that anyone could easily graps it as well as any so-called expert. Rather, they're accepted as expert witnesses when the complexity (NOT irreducible) of the area requires lengthy study and / or experience.

Anyway, if and when a witness is qualified as an expert and testifies as such, the opposing lawyer is free to challenge their evidence in cross and also to try to minimize their expertise in argument. That is, they can go after both the authority of the opinion holder and the opinion itself. The point is that there's room for both.

Conversely, the party relying on the expert can argue not just that the opinion makes sense for various reasons but can also rely, to some extent, on the actual credentials of the expert.

And, really, when you think of it, doesn't that make sense?

Say the issue is the authorship of a document. Say X is charged with kidnapping and the state's depending on a ransom note they're attributing to X who claims that he never wrote it. The prosecutor has an expert who opines that X did in fact write the note. The defence lawyer can chip away at all of the expert's reasons and, if he's lucky, even get the best of the expert at times. In any event, he's going to argue that, despite the expert's qualifications, his own layman's view of the evidence is preferable. The state, on the other hand, is going to argue that it's only natural that the jury defer to the expert's opinion, to some extent anyway, given the specialized knowledge required to properly analyze the facts.

Now, when it comes to handwriting analysis we all might be tempted to question any purported expert in the field. After all, we might wonder, how truly rarified and complex is a graphologist's exeprtise? All they're really doing is looking at a few lines, just like you or I could. Is it really all that special a task that I have to accept their opinion on the matter?
In the realm of handwriting analysis, I think one could possibly make a good argument that sometimes the analysis is really not beyond a layman's grasp.

On the other hand, some fields are unquestionably too complex for laypeople to deeply comprehend without long study. In court, when you've got one of these subjects at issue, it's not enough to simply challenge the other side's expert. You pretty well have to get one of your own and let them battle it out. In those scenarios, once again, the alwyers argue not only their expert's conclusions but even the strength of their qualifications. It's a combination. If your expert is the recognized foremost authority in an area that's going to count to some degree. And well it should. Not that it supplants the actual analysis itself but it assists the trier of fact, again, especially when the opinion's based on complex facts or theories.

So what about evolution? How complex a field is it? Behe's a biologist. Shouldn't that fact alone make him eminently qualified to take on the 'scientific establishment'? The sad fact is, Way, that I don't think either you nor I know enough to even answer that preliminary question. However, all the guys who study evolution for a living seem to think that Behe simply doesn't know what he's talking about.

Here's Orr on Behe's qualifications. I think this criticism is completely relevant and by no means fallacious. This is not a naked appeal to authoirty but an explanation for how Behe doesbn't have the knowledge base to properly understand what he's criticising, evolutionary theory:

One of the most interesting questions about Behe's book is why he feels especially qualified to critique Darwinism. (And not just to quibble over details, but to announce that 'Darwinism is not science,' as he did in a recent letter to Commentary.)9 To a historian or electrician, Behe certainly looks qualified. He is a biologist. But it's not that simple, as can be seen by turning the tables for a moment. If I, an evolutionary biologist, were to announce that biochemistry is deeply flawed-I've shown, for instance, that enzymes are not catalysts-I doubt I'd get a listen. I surely wouldn't get a publisher. Nor would any jurist consider my ruminations worthy of attention. But Behe stars in public debates, has a fancy publisher (Free Press, a division of Simon & Schuster) and the ear of the likes of Judge Bork. Why the difference? Why is everyone an expert witness when the topic is Darwinism but not when it's biochemistry?

The answer is complicated, but a few things are clear. First, Darwinism matters. Many people will inevitably have questions about Darwinism because many people will inevitably think about it. By comparison, I doubt many Sunday school classes get worked up over enzyme kinetics. Second-and this has more to do with attacks from scientists such as Behe's-there's a striking asymmetry in molecular versus evolutionary education in American universities. Although many science, and all biology, students are required to endure molecular courses, evolution-even introductory evolution-is often an elective. The reason is simple: biochemistry and cell biology get Junior into med school, evolution doesn't. Consequently, many professional scientists know surprisingly little about evolution.

Now I don't pretend to know the details of Behe's education, but I do know this: he is not at home in the technical evolution literature. His book reveals that his grasp of evolution derives mostly from the pop literature (Gould, Dawkins-good stuff, but no stand-in for the real thing) and from computer searches of the scientific literature that he strangely makes a big deal of. While I have utter confidence in Behe's biochemistry, I am less confident that he can say what soft selection, or Muller's ratchet, or the Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection is-all bread and butter of evolutionary biology. It would be easy, of course, to get carried away here, and I want to emphasize that I'm not saying that outsiders can offer nothing of value (it's worth remembering that Darwin himself was trained primarily as a geologist, not a biologist). I'm simply saying that any would-be critic of Darwinism should know as much about evolution as any critic of biochemistry must know about molecules. (An idea that apparently never occurred to Free Press, who presumably will next treat us to a botanist's musings on the flat earth.)

Finally, Behe and others may feel obliged to sling mud Darwin's way because they suspect evolutionary biologists won't do so. Evolutionists are widely perceived as uncritical ideologues, devoted to suppressing all doubt about evolution. It's easy to see how this impression arose: evolutionists, after all, spend most of their public lives defending Darwin against endlessly recycled creationist arguments. So of course we appear hide-bound reactionaries. (So would physicists if the theory of gravity were dragged into court every other year.) But the truth is, I think, quite different. It would be fatuous to deny that scientists can be intellectually conservative or prone to hero-worship. And it would be equally absurd to suggest that evolutionists have resolved every major problem facing us; many remain. But the fact is that, as in any science, evolutionists often sharply disagree. And, as in any science, these disagreements sometimes concern fundamentals. In the 1930s, for example, Sewall Wright championed the role of 'genetic drift' in evolution. Parting with accepted wisdom, he argued that random changes in the genetic composition of populations-not natural selection-account for many of the differences we see between species. More recently, Motoo Kimura championed the neutral theory, arguing that a good deal of evolution at the molecular level does not reflect natural selection. Here were overt attempts to circumscribe the role of selection. And the attempts were largely successful: Wright and Kimura were not hooted down, gagged or shot. Instead genetic drift and the neutral theory are now enshrined in every evolution text.

So when the Christian Right tries to tell you that evolutionists instinctively circle the wagons whenever anyone dares question the Darwinian status quo, you should ask yourself why Wright and Kimura got through, but Behe not. The answer is, I think, straightforward: Wright and Kimura knew what they were talking about.

What do you think?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 18:20:53 (GMT)
From: Way
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Do you have a problem with exp
Message:
Jim,

You ask if I have a problem with experts. And boy oh boy do I have a problem with experts! And you give the example of the law which is precisely where I have the most problem. I attended part of the OJ trial in person, and I routinely read the newspaper accounts of various high-profile trials, and I watch Court TV regularly. Subsequently, I have lost all faith in American jurisprudence and the times that I am called for jury duty I always decline the invitation because I do not want to hear one more defense lawyer trying to mislead a jury or one more so-called expert testifying exactly opposite to what the other side's expert has just testified to.

I personally don't know much about the situation in Canada, or any other countries, but I pretty much despair of finding much justice in this world. The governor of Illinois just last week suspended all executions in that State because there have recently been 12 people on Illinois' death row exonerated from their crimes, partly due to the new DNA testing now available. 12 innocent people condemned to death! In one State!

The only thing worse than a paid expert at a criminal trial is an expert in evolution who has all the explanations for how life began on this planet. Those people are just as bad, in my personal opinion, as Rawat and the rest of the gurus of this world.

Who the hell is Orr? You might at least give his credentials. By the way, did you notice he mentions the work being done that he describes as 'overt attempts to circumscribe selection' and 'largely successful'? Why are there legitimate scientists still working to circumscribe the existing theory?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 19:02:56 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: Way
Subject: You're indiscriminate in the e
Message:
xtreme, Way.

I watched the O.J. trial too. I, too, was extremely frustrated that the jury was naive enough to fall for some of the defence's molehill-to-mountain strategies. Not that it was the defense's fault for trying. But Ito was too weak and the jury too dumb. So what?

And as for the systemic corruption in the Illinois courts, what's your point? That now that this has been exposed maybe we shouldn't have a justice system. With all due respect, Way, you strike me as one of those sideline pontificators who smugly points his finger as if to say 'See? See? What'd I tell you?' -- easy -- but who doesn't have anything really better to offer. But then again, maybe I'm wrong. If I am I owe you an apology. Tell me, oh great master of jurisprudence, how should Illinois operate its criminal justice system? I'm sure you've got some excellent ideas that none of the players have ever thought of.

But as for the topic at hand, the fact is, without experts actually doing the work in the various fields of science we wouldn't have any of it. And yes, the stuff's far too complicated for a layperson to simply pick up on a fast read and be equipped to go toe-to-toe with them. The best you can do is get your own experts and watch them fight!

That's what I've done with Behe. Hey, he might not be the right kind of biologist to look for state-of-the-art understanding of evolution but he's a lot more biologist than you or I are. On the other hand, however, there are a whole bunch of biologists who study evolution sepcifically. These are the guys you really want to talk to. And they all say Behe simply doesn't know what he's talking about. Now if you think you're in a position to show them where they're all wrong go ahead. Personally, I'd say you'd be making a fool of yourself.

But, Way, with all due respect, you're already making a fool of yourself. Comments like:

The only thing worse than a paid expert at a criminal trial is an expert in evolution who has all the explanations for how life began on this planet. Those people are just as bad, in my personal opinion, as Rawat and the rest of the gurus of this world.

suggests that you're simply not up to the task of really considering this subject. You sound like a very arrogant man comfortable in your ignorance. 'All those scientists thinking they know this or that? Fuck 'em. They're all slimey, stupid or both.' Yeah, sure, Way, you tell us.

It's funny how you end your post:

Who the hell is Orr? You might at least give his credentials. By the way, did you notice he mentions the work being done that he describes as 'overt attempts to circumscribe selection' and 'largely successful'? Why are there legitimate scientists still working to circumscribe the existing theory?

Who's Orr? I guess I assumed you'd read my first post here, the one you answered. Orr's a biologist who wrote the review on Behe's book. What's funny is how you keep snarling out these questions in your haughty tone. You decry the entire field but you obviously don't understand the first thing about it. Really, are you in any position to comment on how Kimura or Wright's work has affected evolutionary theory. Here's a blurb on the former. Why don't you quickly read it and jump back in telling me again exactly how they're all idiots. Come on, this shouldn't take more than a few seconds, I'd imagine:

Motoo Kimura, a Japanese biologist, theorized that most variations found in populations were selectively neutral. His neutral theory, formulated in 1968, described rates of evolution and levels of polymorphism solely in terms of mutation and genetic drift (his 'molecular clock'). He concluded that mutations are normally neutral, and more often deleterious than advantageous, but that phenotypic evolution is still due to advantageous mutations. The neutral theory did not deny that natural selection acted on natural populations; but it claimed that the majority of natural variation were transient polymorphisms of neutral alleles. Selection did not act frequently or strongly enough to influence rates of evolution or levels of polymorphism. The neutral theory predicted constancy of DNA change by generation, and measured constancy was by year. His theory has come under much opposition by mainstream evolutionists. His theory was originally published in the magazine Nature under the title Evolutionary rate at the molecular level. He wrote a book in 1983 titled The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution.

Why don't you tell us how it all sorted out between Kimura and the rest (apparently it did -- but then you must already know that. Right?)

Face it, Way, you don't really know what you're talking about! Hey, man, guess what? Neither do I! We're the same in taht regard. The only difference is I'm interested in learning.

Well, I couldn't leave this post off without commenting, please forgive me, on your utter hypocrisy. You sneer at the notion of experts yet you think you've got one of your own in Behe, don't you? Well?


Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 20:08:08 (GMT)
From: Way
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: You're indiscriminate in the e
Message:
Jim,

You do make one point that I can agree with (at last). Before I get to that 'good' point, let me defend myself a little first. I do wish you would stick to the subject matter, rather than resort continuously to personal insults. It's really boring. Sagan does not even bother to mention personal insults as one of the fallacies of rhetoric, because it is so beneath any serious discussion.

You didn't really answer my question about Orr at all. I did read your first post, and know that he is a biologist. My question was, what are his credentials? Is he a micro-biologist like Behe, and with better credentials than Behe, so that we should accept his published work over Behe's? You are the one that is offering up experts, not me. I do not hypocritically claim Behe as my expert. Never have. All I've ever thought about Behe is that he presents a fascinating theory that makes good sence and which remains to be tested, just as he says it does.

I take offense at your remark that you are interested in learning but I am not. We wouldn't be having this discussion if that were the case.

And another characterisation of me that can't stand is that I decry the entire field of evolution. You horribly misstate my position, (another rhetorical fallacy). There is much in the field of evolution that I accept.

As for Kimura, your new citation contradicts what Orr just had to say about him. Orr said Kimura's work is accepted and textbook-worthy and your latest blurb say his work has come under much opposition by mainstream evolutionists. Which one is right? Where you ever got the idea that evolutionists are largely in agreement with each other, I will never know.

I think that Kimura grossly understates the fact about mutations being most often either neutral or deleterious rather than advantageous. He says that phenotypic evolution is still due to those rare advantageous mutations. Since 1968, the latest research is against him on that point.

As for your one 'good' criticism that I agree with: you say that I denounce the use of all experts indiscriminantly and offer no other solution, either for science or in the law. I plead guilty to your charge. I am aware that we have to work within our systems, imperfect as they are, and it is true that I have not worked out a better system, just as you say. It is unfair of me to make such sweeping generalizations and easy critical comments from the sidelines. However, I do have a few ideas about how jurisprudence could proceed more fairly. I don't have total faith in my ideas but that is a different subject matter and might make a good thread someday.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 21:10:34 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: Way
Subject: Good for the goose?
Message:
Way,

Anyone reading your post above in isolation would be forgiven for thinking that you were yet another reasonble person I was going off on. Good work.

However ... you are, in fact, the same guy who posted this earlier today, aren't you?:

The only thing worse than a paid expert at a criminal trial is an expert in evolution who has all the explanations for how life began on this planet. Those people are just as bad, in my personal opinion, as Rawat and the rest of the gurus of this world.

I've already told you I admire scientists in general for the work they do -- better yet, I admire science. Yet you debase the discussion yourself with this needless vitriol. So did I bite the hook? Sure. Were you fishing? You bet.

You really have no defence against the hypocrisy charge vis-a-vis your reliance on Behe. In particular, I think you're splitting invisible hairs when you say:

I do not hypocritically claim Behe as my expert. Never have. All I've ever thought about Behe is that he presents a fascinating theory that makes good sence and which remains to be tested, just as he says it does.

Ah, I see. Your point is that you understand all that Behe says and that, peer to peer, his theories simply appeal to you more than his critics'. Is that it? Tell me, then, how does his 'fascinating theory' make sense in the face of massive expert criticism he's received for everything from ignorance of the subject matter, bad reasoning and questionable practise (publishing his work without any peer review whatsoever)?

You say you're interested in learning too but can I remind you of something you once told me, Way? You said that you will never accept the idea that life developed without the aid of intelligent design. Remember that? Well what if the truth just happens to fall squarely in your forbidden zone? You've already stated your committment to never acquiesce. Have you changed your mind or is that still your view?

I'm more than happy to continue to talk about all the nuances of the subject but, first, I think I'm enittled to know if you're a possible buyer or just a lookie-loo. Hm?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 23:02:00 (GMT)
From: Way
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Good for the goose?
Message:
Well, this is going on a bit too long, but I guess I will defend my position yet again in response to the particulars of your latest post.

My vitriolic attack on 'experts on evolution' was not meant to apply to scientists in general, or to science as a whole, or even to evolutionists; only to 'evolution experts who claim to have all the answers' including how life began on earth, which remains a gigantic unknown. I stand by my statement that these particular science gurus are just as full of themselves and deluded as the spiritual gurus. I have a great deal of respect for authentic scientists, valid hypotheses, and the pursuit of knowledge by rational thought. You seem to have misread my statement, but my words were precisely the ones I meant. Perhaps I should attempt to soften my word choice since you time and again find my tone overbearing.

Where have I come even close to claiming to be a peer of Behe's? Or to even understand him fully? Again, I am at a loss as to how to express my own ideas to assure that you don't misinterpret them, and then restate them for me in ways that I never intended.

As for my stance that living matter must arise and develop by some willfull power, it is true as I have said before, that I cannot imagine ever being convinced otherwise. To suppose that all the vast information of DNA has come about by luck and purposeless forces is against every observation and understanding that I have experienced in my short life.

If the truth turns out to be that I am all wrong and my own consciousness is just a temporary byproduct of blind forces, then I will be dead and quite unable to acquise before I could congratulate Mr. Darwin on his victory. But even then I think I would say, if it were granted that I could say one thing: 'go take your view of life and cram it, because I'm not interested in being a part of that kind of life. I'm better off dead.'

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 20:47:17 (GMT)
From: Way
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: p.s. OJ over Maharaji
Message:
I definitely got sweeped up in the OJ craze. I visited LA more than usual during that time, to take in the trial. Through a friend at work, I met Yvonne (eventually known by all at the trials), and she showed me how to get a public seat. During the first day of the Long Beach 1996 program, I got up at 4 am, got my lottery number at the Santa Monica courthouse and got a seat right behind OJ's sister and niece. I had planned to leave early that afternoon to drive over to Long Beach to hear my guru, but the testimony was too interesting that day. Al Collings took the stand and lied through his teeth (at least he squirmed while he was doing it, in contrast to OJ).

Come to think of it, I was often a bad devotee at programs, often leaving the program cite for alternate adventures. They usually paid off, too. I once cruised a public bathroom on the beach right behind the Fountainbleau, (kindof by accident). I met a man and we actually fooled around right there on the beach. Afterwards we talked and discovered we were both premies!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 05, 2000 at 22:12:37 (GMT)
From: Susan
Email: None
To: Way Cool
Subject: p.s. OJ over Maharaji
Message:
More OJ stories!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 02:32:39 (GMT)
From: Robyn
Email: None
To: Mike
Subject: Happy Birthday, MIKE!!!!!!!!!!
Message:
Dear Birthday boy,
Well, I got Katie's email. The one night hotmail was down and I took a break from the forum! The day isn't gone yet though. I have been a terrible Birthday Goddess now for a long time. I didn't even have you in my book which I never remember to look at anyway! Your in it now though honey so next year I can REALLY space it out! :) I know you had a great day, well you have more of it left then me. You have people, people who love you so I know they made your day special.
Happy Birthday Mike. :)
Love ya,
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 05, 2000 at 19:32:04 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: fitzroy@liverpool.ac.uk
To: Robyn
Subject: From me too! Enjoy!!! (nt)
Message:
happybirthdaytoyou...
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 06, 2000 at 16:42:23 (GMT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Thanks to you, Nigel!
Message:
Nigel: Thanks. Funny, I don't 'feel' any older..... a bit wiser, but NOT older. he he he :-)

BTW, good to see you posting again, too! :-)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 15:27:23 (GMT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: Robyn
Subject: Thanks, Robyn and Miquel
Message:
Thank you. I just commented to bisham that there is longevity in my family, so as of today, I'm 1 year shy of the halfway point in my physical life (with 98 years being the minimum any of my grandparents or great grandparents lived). SO..... I'm feeling pretty good..... he he he :-) I hope that longevity stuff rubs off onto my genes...... he he he :-) I actually like it here (on earth)! It has its ups and downs, but all-in-all a great experience.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 03:09:24 (GMT)
From: Padre Miguel
Email: None
To: Robyn
Subject: Happy Birthday, MIKE!!!!!!!!!!
Message:
ˇFeliz cumplea ańo, mi amigo!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 01:16:36 (GMT)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Unsubstantiated Allegations
Message:
I have no evidence of the truth of any of the following:-

Maharaji is intending to retire from the guru business.

The IRS are currently investigating EV and M's finances and will shortly be bringing charges of financial mismanagement.

Jagdeo is being extradited from South Africa to face charges of sexual abuse in England.

The UK Charity Commission are considering striking Elen Vital from the list of registered charities.

Donations to Divine Light Mission made after DLM ceased in the UK are being investigated by the Inland Revenue.

Guru Maharaj Ji wanks with his left hand.

John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 02:14:15 (GMT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: JHB
Subject: No he doesn't...
Message:
Monica pulls his wank for him! :-)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 05:08:48 (GMT)
From: Roger eDrek™
Email: drek@oz.net
To: Mike
Subject: In India the left hand is used
Message:
for wiping only. And, we're talking about a nation that has yet to discover toilet paper.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 11:35:58 (GMT)
From: AJW
Email: None
To: Roger eDrek™
Subject: Or maybe...
Message:
...or maybe a nation that has discovered washing it off is better than spreading it around with a piece of paper.

Anth the Never Forgets to Wipe His Arse
(It's free, hygenic and considerate to others).

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 00:31:27 (GMT)
From: Powerman
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Evil
Message:
Down below Sir Dave demonstrated some understanding for the big fat tub of Lard. Jim countered that Tubbo was actually evil but Dave argued that his bad actions were motivated by paranoia

Naturally I looked up the definition of evil:

1 a : morally reprehensible : SINFUL, WICKED b : arising from actual or imputed
bad character or conduct
2 a archaic : INFERIOR b : causing discomfort or repulsion : OFFENSIVE c :
DISAGREEABLE
3 a : causing harm : PERNICIOUS b : marked by misfortune :
UNLUCKY

Under these definitions BM can indeed be classified as evil. But isn't evil reserved for the worst of the worse?

If Guru is evil then just how evil is he? Where would you place him among these demons:

Hitler
Nixon
Pinochet
Bill Gates
Ronald Reagan
Roy Cohn
Margaret Thatcher
Ferdinand Marcos
Khmer Rouge
P.W. Bottha
Pol Pot

According to new-age author M. Scott Peck, evil is the desire and action to break another person's spirit. Certainly, intent must be taken into account but actions must also carry out the intent.
So... did maharaji truly reach the level of worst of the worse?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 14:43:20 (GMT)
From: Joey
Email: None
To: Powerman
Subject: Fuck off little p-boy!!
Message:
Under these definitions BM can indeed be classified as evil. But isn't evil reserved for the worst of the worse?

Excellent starting point little p-puddle, and NO, evil does not necessarily have to be reserved for the worst of the worst only. It exists in varying shades and varying degrees, as you yourself imply with your next question.

If Guru is evil then just how evil is he?

However the list of evil doers that you offer us in order to determine the extent and degree of m's evilness is totally inappropriate. It can be argued that your list consists for the most part of political tyrants, and one corporate tyrant (Bill Gates) thrown in for good measure. This simply isn't his peer group.

Now here's the list of demons that Mj belongs on:

L. Ron Hubbard
Sun Yung Moon
Maharishi Mahesh Yogi
Muhktanand
Kip Mckean
John Roger Hinkins
David Koresh
Jim Jones
Sri Chimnoy
Satpal
Sai Baba

NOW if we take a look at M. Scott Peck's definition of evil as

'the desire and action to break another person's spirit,' then there can be no doubt that M is evil both in his intent AND in carrying out the action. Ask the people who attended those ashram meeting with m in the early 80's if he wasn't trying to break their spirits to one of total surrender to their ashramee existence only to turn around one or two years later and tell them all, 'No more ashram, you gotta leave!'

Finally little p-brain you close with this question:

So... did maharaji truly reach the level of worst of the worse?

Well it depends in whose life? Ask the question to a survivor of the holocaust, and the answer will be 'no'...that there could be no worse evil than Hitler that could come into their life.
But ask the question to the family of any of the premies who committed suicide as a direct result of their involvement with m, and they might certainly not hesitate to answer,'YES, MAHARAJI DEFINITELY HAS REACHED THE LEVEL OF THE WORST OF THE WORST'

And he's definitely the worst of the worst that I've experienced in my own.


Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 05:10:11 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Powerman
Subject: Evil
Message:
PM:

Two of those definitions denote a pretty watered down conception of evil. Like having a cold is evil, or getting sideswiped in the parking lot. By that definition we're all probably evil, at some time or other. When I think of evil in the classic sense, Maharaji is not the first thing that pops into my mind. What has happened to the notion of 'justice' over the past couple of decades looks more like evil to me. But, in the sense that any and all of it is related to an uncontrollable sleazy/oily discharge, Maha is pretty evil. At what point does a little loose debris become an avalanche?

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 16:37:46 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Yo Scott !!! Talk to me, baby
Message:
What has happened to the notion of 'justice' over the past couple of decades looks more like evil to me.

At the risk of insulting someone (something I would NEVER do) I have to admit that discussing RawRat gets a little dry for me at times, but THIS topic, tickles my pickle big time.

Have you read Richard Maybury's Whatever Happened to Justice?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 15:48:04 (GMT)
From: Sir Dave
Email: david@xyzx.freeserve.co.uk
To: Scott T.
Subject: I see no evil
Message:
Evil, no. A person who has taken things too far and is unaware of the consequences or oblivious of those consequences; yes.

It is not his motivation to do harm to people. That would be the definition of evil. It has been his motivation to feather his own nest, have lots of supportive devotees and get their appreciation.

Wrong - yes. Deluded - yes. Evil - no.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 20:41:08 (GMT)
From: cqg
Email: None
To: Sir Dave
Subject: I see no evil... hear no evil?
Message:
Dave, you say: 'It is not his motivation to do harm to people'.

With respect, how can you know what ANY human's motivation is?

I feel what I feel, and no-one knows exactly how that feels - other than me.

Your years of devotion to him seem to have implanted a very deep bias. A subtle one, but it's still there.

How do I know? I have it too. - maybe something to do with pride.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 16:06:17 (GMT)
From: Joey
Email: None
To: Sir Dave
Subject: But can you see this, Sir D?
Message:
Do you want to hold onto your principles? Do you know what's going to happen to you? I'll tell you what's going to happen to you. Your ship's going to sink. You want to hold onto your principles?? Do you want to know whats going to happen? I'll tell you what's going to happen! YOU ARE GOING TO DIE!!

m in Montreal, May/98

PS: SIR D,

I only wish you could have seen the bullying look on m's face as he spoke these words. I believe you just might have seen the same evil I did.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 17:22:41 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: Joey
Subject: But can you see this, Sir D?
Message:
I wonder if the intent could be judgeded as becoming more evil as time went on. The seventies were so bizarre anyway. And M was so young it's hard to say. But for a man in his late 30's to sit in front of an audience and discount the imprtance of something like saving for a retirement fund or planningt the future for your family, etc. (while he is steadily amassing his own substantial wealth) that seems evil to me considering he knows how much influence he has over his audience.
And the rant in Montreal you just quoted. That didn't come from a little kid.

Although there is a LOT of crossover on this forum and this is not a blanket statement - I do notice that people who have left more recently have seen a lot more of the recent corruption first hand, of course.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 17:05:31 (GMT)
From: Sir Dave
Email: david@xyzx.freeserve.co.uk
To: Joey
Subject: OK, I could be wrong but
Message:
But why did he say that stuff? What was the motivation behind it? Was he deluded and did he think he was saying the right thing for the people listening? (Remember he thinks he's the master).

I get the feeling that Maharaji actually believes he's doing and saying the right things and he can't understand why people aren't more appreciative. I consider him dangerous, just like a child with a gun is dangerous. He shoots his mouth off and is unaware of how wrong he is.

For example, on the LOTU video the press guy is talking very sincerely to Maharaji and Maharaji just blasts him and talks over his head. He shows that he's incapable of understanding other people.

He is dangerous because he's deluded and so confident in his delusions that he makes some people believe him. Yeah, Maharaji's dangerous alright but he thinks he's doing the right thing and that's the rub - he'll never understand why we are so against him.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 21:44:02 (GMT)
From: Joey
Email: None
To: Sir Dave
Subject: OK, I could be wrong but
Message:
Ya know Sir D, M once said, 'You can only love that which is truly loveable.' And I would like to say this for the whole world to hear, that you Sir Dave are ABSOLUTELY TRULY LOVEABLE, more or less. And I DO love you...like a brother! But will you give me a break already!?!

For example, on the LOTU video...

No, no, no Sir D! Forget about the 16 year old little brat appearing in the LOTU video. The 'principle' quote that I submitted for your consideration was spoken by a 41 year old man, who was fully cognisant of what he was saying. And I believe he was saying it as a warning to those premies who had objections, based on principle, to certain aspects of the cult, although premies wouldn't go as far as calling it a cult. It was his way of bullying those premies who had become 'critical' into silence, on the threat that if they hung onto their principles their ship would sink, or even worse, they would die. This was a sick fuck of a cult leader, DELIBERATELY implanting cult phobias in the minds of innocent people, in order to stifle their criticism!

You also wrote:

He is dangerous because he's deluded and so confident in his delusions that he makes some people believe him. Yeah, Maharaji's dangerous alright but he thinks he's doing the right thing and that's the rub - he'll never understand why we are so against him

Not to compare Maharaji's evil to anyone else's,and not to compare Hitler's evil to anyone else's either... but didn't Hitler also believe he was doing the right thing?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 21:03:27 (GMT)
From: cqg
Email: None
To: Sir Dave
Subject: OK, I could be wrong but
Message:
Dave, again, you don't KNOW that 'he thinks he's doing the right thing' ...

..though you apparently would prefer to think well of him (- or at least better of him.)

I wonder if trying to give him the benefit of the doubt is, at this late stage of the 'game', a sign of fuzzy wishful-thinking, and/or the sign of a man who believes in the potential of human goodness and 'redemption' come what may.

Remember, he hasn't yet accepted responsibility for his past actions.

Repentence before reconciliation, say I (for what it's worth.)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 02:32:53 (GMT)
From: YES!!
Email: None
To: all
Subject: Evil=Maharaji=Antichrist
Message:
He's the Antichrist!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 14:49:22 (GMT)
From: NO!!
Email: None
To: YES!!
Subject: Evil=Maharaji=ANTIHUMAN
Message:
He doesn't have to be the anti-christ you turkey.
It's enough that he's anti-human!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 12:36:05 (GMT)
From: Runamok
Email: None
To: YES!!
Subject: M joked about being AntiChrist
Message:
at that muddy Florida festival around 77 and I always forget the name of it.

He was going something like 'what if I am the Anti-Christ.? Suppose I am?' The idea he was trying to inspire was that if 'He' was then the AC would be worth following. Premies were laughing about it. What truly deluded moments!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 11:46:49 (GMT)
From: NO!!
Email: None
To: YES!!
Subject: Jim is the Antichrist.
Message:
Jim is the antichrist.

It is common knowledge on this site. We've seen the contract.

He holds the position for 12 months and has an option for a further 12 month renewal.

He's then allowed to propose a successor, who stands in an election alongside three other candidates nominated by the Board of Directors of Ex-Premie.Org, plus one candidate from the Forum, and one produced from a black magic ceremony (that's how I got nominated last year).

Anyway, it's all in the minutes if you want to read them. I think they're online at the House of Drek somewhere.

So, it's official, and now you know.

Melissa, handmaiden of the horned one.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 03:14:40 (GMT)
From: Michael
Email: None
To: YES!!
Subject: Evil=Maharaji=Antichrist
Message:
Antichrist is not a person but an attitude, and attitude which is antichristian. M is a lot of things: a fraud, a liar, a materialist, and a greedy guy, but he is not anymore the antichrist than others who post on this site.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 21:41:21 (GMT)
From: Deputy Dog
Email: None
To: Michael
Subject: What is the Christ?
Message:
Jesus replied: 'I tell you most solemnly, before Abraham ever was, I AM.'

John 8: 58
Jerusalem Bible

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 21:57:07 (GMT)
From: Michael
Email: None
To: Deputy Dog
Subject: What is the Christ?
Message:
So, Dog, what is your point? You quoted this verse before. When read in context it appears to be a reference to the second Person of the Trinity. Do you somehow believe that it has something to do with eyeball squeezing? I think in a past discussion (or attempt at discussion; you tend to toss Bible verses and then move to another subject) I had mentioned that Christ is Greek for Messiah, which means 'Annointed One.' I remember pointing out that to Isaiah, the emperor Cyrus was Messiah. Where are you going with this?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 21:10:39 (GMT)
From: cqg
Email: None
To: Michael
Subject: Attitude=Maharaji=antichrist
Message:
Michael, you say of the Maha: 'he is not anymore the antichrist than others who post on this site'

That doesn't make him pro either.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 21:49:40 (GMT)
From: Michael
Email: None
To: cqg
Subject: Attitude=Maharaji=antichrist
Message:
I agree, that doesn't make him pro, but since many Biblical Literalists and Fundamentalist Christians think that Antichrist is one person, I am simply pointing out that M is not that person, since there IS no single person who is Antichrist. I am not defending M in any way; I simply would not do that.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 05:25:00 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Michael
Subject: The Anti-Perfect-Being
Message:
Michael:

I am not sure that 'anti-Christian' captures all, or even most, of what is meant by the term 'Antichrist.' The notion that it is a state of mind or an attitude is a recent novelty. In Christian literature it has always meant a person, in the same sense that an 'antihero' is a person that contests the validity of the concept of a hero. I suppose it is even possible to argue that an Antichrist exists even if you don't happen to feel that there's such a thing as Christ. He contests the validity of anything that is not cynical and exploitive. Maha probably is an antichrist, in the *little* sense of the term. I just can't bring myself to see a single thing big about the guy, even in the sense of the big bad wolf. More like a skulking weasel. He's the anti-Golden Retriever.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 21:18:32 (GMT)
From: cqg
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: The BIG one
Message:
How about he's the big detour sign that sends true seekers off the path and into the depths of keeping his wallet full?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 14:43:16 (GMT)
From: Michael
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: The Anti-Perfect-Being
Message:
Scott, the earliest use of the term anti-christ is that in I John 2:18. The term 'Antichrist' was coined by the Johannine Christians, meaning 'opponent of Christ.' So, it would be an attitude AND a person, but, as one can see in the passage, not just one person but many.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 02:12:26 (GMT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: Powerman
Subject: Watch it, PM! :-)
Message:
PM: Ronald Reagan does NOT belong in this group. The fact that you don't like conservatives doesn't make him evil. By that yardstick, I could put Clinton in the same boat as Stalin and Lenin, since they were ultra-leftists..... Obviously, Clinton (even though I serious dislike the guy and his liberal leanings) doesn't belong in this category. Stalin and Lenin were evil, Clinton's just stupid (IMO)..... there IS a difference. :-)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 07:42:08 (GMT)
From: Harry
Email: None
To: Mike
Subject: How's your rations holding out
Message:
Are you serious when you call Clinton an ultra leftist? We're in real trouble if that's as left as it gets. In Australia or England he would probably just scrape in as 'new Labour' and that ain't left at all, but somewhere in a grey nowhere land in the middle.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 05:41:35 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Mike
Subject: Watch it, PM! :-)
Message:
Mike:

As regards Bill: He is neither an ultra-leftist nor is he stupid. I don't like him much, but concluded fairly early that he is the only President in my lifetime who I am certain is more intelligent than I. I can't think of any ultra-leftists in US politics, though there are probably a few on the fringe. If you held someone like Jesse Jackson, for instance, up to any serious Social Democrat in Canada, the UK or the Continent, you'd see what I mean. These people only sound 'leftist' because we have such a narrow range of the spectrum represented in US politics. A bit concerned about what's happening in Austria at the moment, though.

Sorry about getting off topic. I agree that neither Reagan nor Clinton are evil in the *large* sense. But then, there may not be any evil that starts large. To my mind both men started trends that I'd call evil. But neither trend will prove to be long lasting, I think. I hope.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 03:46:19 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: Mike
Subject: Watch it, PM! :-)
Message:
Mike I always like to throw my liberal friends into a tailspin by telling them I voted for Ronnie one term. And we are looking at Mcain this year, though he dowsn't have a chance I don't think.
It's funny cause I usually vote democrat and do have strong liberal tendencies as if I have to say that!
But sometines I just have to laugh at it all.
So I couldn't help but notice (ahem) you and are are about a week apart in bdays. Have a good one you convervative old fart.
Were you able to decode that stuff? Semd me email.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 05:45:57 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Selene
Subject: Watch it, PM! :-)
Message:
Selene:

Re: And we are looking at Mcain this year, though he dowsn't have a chance I don't think.

It's funny. Although I agree that McCain doesn't stand a snowball's chance, for some reason he's the only one I can actually imagine as President. Spooky.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 06:12:09 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Watch it, PM! :-)
Message:
Yes I wasn't even looking at him. That is why when I finally did it meant something. He did a lot for arizona, so it helps to be informed that way, for me, being here. It *is* spooky isn't it?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 02:37:58 (GMT)
From: Powerman
Email: None
To: Mike
Subject: Watch it, PM! :-)
Message:
I disagree with this. I've never heard anyone express that Clinton is evil. People have said he's selfish, stupid, and incompetent, and no one would make that big a fuss if he was on those lists. But many people think Reagan was evil and it isn't because he's conservative but because the appearance of his uncaring was so overwhelming.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 15:05:22 (GMT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: Powerman
Subject: Watch it, PM! :-)
Message:
PM: You'll have to take my word for this, but you couldn't be more wrong on the issue of Reagan's feelings toward the people of this country. I had the priviledge of working rather closely with the white house during his years (I was in the military). He knew me by my first name and I had a chance to speak with him often. He absolutely loved this country and the people in it! Of course, the military loved him too because he made it possible for us to do our jobs. Just before his tenure, we couldn't sail ships, fly airplanes and drive tanks due to lack of spare parts. We actually couldn't send a relief oiler (ship) to the med because it was broke. The oiler that was on station had to stay for MANY more months, until a relief ship could be sent..... Needless to say, the spouses of those sailors weren't very happy. This is only one example.... I could name MANY more! The helicopter crash in Iran was a direct result of lack of parts (sand shields for the air intakes)!

After Reagan became president, THAT nonsense stopped (and YES, it cost alot of money to fix, since it had been ignored for so long by the 'other' guy). Let us not forget that the primary responsibility of the US government is the defense of the country.

Again, you'll have to trust me on this one! I wasn't a 'best friend' or anything like that, but I can tell you from first hand experience, there wasn't an evil bone in his body. He was a very kind, intelligent and eloquent man who cared alot for his country (his military, in particular). Not a bad idea for the Commander-in-Chief, no? :-)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 05:51:07 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Powerman
Subject: Watch it, PM! :-)
Message:
PM:

Believe me, there are plenty of people who think Clinton is evil. What do you think is behind the financing of the Bush campaign? This is one reason that campaign reeks of futility. You'd better get your ear to the ground. You're missing half the show!

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 06:20:26 (GMT)
From: Powerman
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Watch it, PM! :-)
Message:
I believe the Christian right sees Clinton as corrupt or immoral but not evil. Their complaints against him stem from what they see as his moral bankruptcy but not from his lack of compassion or intent to cause suffering. I got my ear as close to the ground as I can get it. What did I miss? Where? Who said what? When?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 02:47:01 (GMT)
From: Robyn
Email: None
To: Powerman
Subject: Watch it, PM! :-)
Message:
When I read this earlier, I thought it was out there, comparing M to Hitler but thinking about it, the word evil and how it relates to M, I thought, a parent who abuses their child and acts appropriately in the rest of their lives is still evil to that child so it doesn't have to be the scope of Hitler or a serial killer but can be that treatment of evil to anyone. I may qualify as evil under that description so I'd say definitely M would. I don't think he was 'evil' to everyone then or now but he has been evil to some, a significant amount.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 05:16:10 (GMT)
From: Powerman
Email: None
To: Robyn
Subject: Watch it, PM! :-)
Message:
I think the thing is, that everyone has some degree of malice in them. But some word has to be reserved for the very worst a person can be. A person who abuses their child isn't as bad as someone who brings the same abuse to an entire orphanage. And someone who beats their child isn't as bad as someone who murders their child.

The very worst a person can be is evil. There isn't any stronger word to connote badness. So my question really was: How evil is maharaji? and where does he rank among others who would widely be considered evil?

M. Scott Peck, in his book, People of the Lie, proposed that evil isn't measured by the quantity of damage a person causes or even the quantity and quality of damage (as it's usually known, i.e. violence or conventional tragedy) a person intends to cause, but rather their intent to break or destroy even one person's spirit. He separated that feature from the usual one's that would put someone like Hitler at the forefront of evil.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 06:01:44 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Powerman
Subject: People of the lie
Message:
PM:

If we go by M. Scott Peck's definition then I don't see Maharaji as evil. I've known a few people who'd fit Peck's description and can't imagine that Maha is motivated by anything of the sort. He's just someone who happened to find himself at the font of a parade, and is now doing everything he can to keep the fad from dying out completely.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 15:10:06 (GMT)
From: Robyn
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: People of the lie
Message:
Dear Scott,
Hey, how are you? :) I also loved your description of M just finding himself the leader of a parade, perfect! :) If I don't look at the issue from the micro level, by which I believe he is evil, for destroying even one person's spirit but on the macro level he doesn't make the cut. To even consider him, gives him to much power. What was that movie with Dustin Hoffmen where he was slow and a gardener but somehow stumbled into being taken seriously and as an important person by 'important' people, kind of the same type of thing.
Maybe a group of gurus thought of collectively, which seems valid to me thinking of the guru way of life in India, then he could be a small part of a larger system of evil.
Please notice my attempted use of commas, I think of you when I do. :)
Love,
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 06:26:12 (GMT)
From: Powerman
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: People of the lie
Message:
Very good explanation, Scott. I like that.

He's just someone who happened to find himself at the font of a parade, and is now doing everything he can to keep the fad from dying out completely.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 02:17:04 (GMT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: Powerman
Subject: BUT, M is Eeeeevil! (NT)
Message:
he he he :-)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 01:03:59 (GMT)
From: Candy
Email: None
To: Powerman
Subject: Oooooh, Evil!
Message:
Where do the following people fit on your list?

Trini Lopez
Roseann
Calvin Coolidge
Steve Guttenberg
Martha Stewart
The Singing Nun
The Flying Nun
Nun of the Above
Calista Flockhart
Gary Coleman
Julia Child
Ollie North

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 02:41:02 (GMT)
From: Robyn
Email: None
To: Candy
Subject: Oooooh, Evil!
Message:
Dear Candy,
I think Rosanne is most definitely the most evil on this list. :)
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 01:07:21 (GMT)
From: Powerman
Email: None
To: Candy
Subject: Oooooh, Evil!
Message:
Well, Ollie North is pretty evil, and Martha Stewart slips in just under the line. Gary Coleman is definitely not evil at all.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 00:41:43 (GMT)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: Powerman
Subject: Evil
Message:
I think he makes the charts.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 00:41:11 (GMT)
From: Harry
Email: None
To: Powerman
Subject: Humour
Message:
Good one mate. Had me goin' there for a minute. That's the thing about irony; it's ironic.
I think your hit list should have included the Pope and maybe Mary Poppins too, but hey.
H
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 00:57:14 (GMT)
From: Mu
Email: None
To: Harry
Subject: Humour
Message:
Yes! Anything that takes us away from our divine purpose is EVIL! AH..HAHAHA..hahahaha We're ALL EVIL HAH...HAH..hahahaha!!!!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 12:30:43 (GMT)
From: Harry
Email: None
To: Mu
Subject: The dead can dance.
Message:
Listen here Mu, I don't think you're taking this seriously. We're talking evil here, don't ya know. I once had impure thoughts about my sister (and maybe yours too), so I know I'm evil and forever damned.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 14:30:01 (GMT)
From: Robyn
Email: None
To: Harry
Subject: The dead can dance.
Message:
Hey Harry,
Do you know that is the name of a band? Very good too. Another one Jessica turned me on too.
Love,
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 05, 2000 at 09:36:56 (GMT)
From: Harry
Email: None
To: Robyn
Subject: The dead dogs can dance.
Message:
Hi Robyn, yeah, I just taped some of their music this week. Great name hey. Shane left his CD's here and there's a few DCD.
C ya
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 05, 2000 at 14:34:21 (GMT)
From: Robyn
Email: None
To: Harry
Subject: The dead dogs can dance.
Message:
Dear Harry,
That is great, that you know about Dead Can Dance but you freaked me out putting that dogs in there! I wouldn't have been surprized if you'd typed cats :), but dogs! :|
Love,
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 23:02:08 (GMT)
From: Haldor
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: sexsang and fornication
Message:
I think this guru is so cool. Whats wrong with sexual promiscuity(among devotees),a little boozing and pot smoking. anyone who thinks that money,luxurious automobiles,fine residences is not compatible with divinity is living in some very boring christian type concept.There have been many great teachers amongst the none orthodox traditions who have indulged in every worldly pleasure and still inspired people towards self realisation.'To be great is to be misunderstood',said Carl Jung.We judge great beings from our boring, self pitying limited little perspectives.Have some appreciation for those who do not come to fulfill the worlds expectations. Thank God for eccentric divine masters,maybe they can teach us how to liberate ourselves from boring dross and negative self destructive patterns.Take responsibility for your own decisions in life-get a life and enjoy now.20 years ago was twenty years ago. HALDOR
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 20:35:21 (GMT)
From: cqg
Email: None
To: Haldor
Subject: but it ain't rock'n'roll ...
Message:
Haldor, you say: 'There have been many great teachers amongst the none orthodox traditions who have indulged in every worldly pleasure and still inspired people towards self realisation.'

Sure, I used to follow Rajneesh. I guess he impelled me toward 'self-realisation'.

What is NOT cool is that we have yet to see a teacher (perhaps with the exception of Krishnamurti) who inspires seekers to be FREE OF THE 'MASTER'.

And I've come to learn that a major part of 'self-realisation' (for me) means being independent of people who would set themselves up as so-called 'masters' over us.

And what's the payoff for the Maha? Ask yourself.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 12:16:27 (GMT)
From: AJW
Email: None
To: Haldor
Subject: Sex, drugs and brainwashing.
Message:
You say what's wrong with a bit of sex, drugs, rock'n'roll'?

Nothing of course. But Haldor, that's not what we're debating here.

Here's a few questions for you.

What's wrong with mindlessly worshipping and following another human being?

What's wrong with somebody claiming to be the Messiah, and saying they will 'Establish Peace on Earth', then quietly forgetting he said it and ending up living an incredibly wealthy lifestyle instead? ('Eccentric divine master' my arse.)

What's wrong with people lining up, putting cash in an envelope, and kissing someone's feet?

What's wrong with thinking God tastes like snot?

What's wrong with suspending all your rational, natural, judgement and wisdom, when thinking about one particular person, their actions, organisation and lifestyle?

What's wrong with travelling 2,000 miles to hear somebody give a talk, coming out, unable to remember anything, but convinced it was fantastic.

What's wrong with believing somebody is God almighty walking around in a human body in all his glory, when they're not?

I could go on Haldor, but you get my drift.

Premies like you say anything to convince people the cult is 'normal' and everyone and everything is ok. But it's bullshit, Haldor, because we both know that underneath this pathetic veneer, there's this millionaire chubby bloke who thinks he's the Living Perfect Master (like Jesus and Buddha) and this dwindling bunch of followers, like you Haldor, who still believe him.

All this, 'great being', 'divine masters' stuff, 'liberating you from your boring, dross, self destructive patterns' is utter bollocks Haldor.

You've got your head so far up your arse you can't tell a scripture from a standing order.

EARTH CALLING HALDOR. YOU'RE IN A CULT.

Don't believe me? I can prove it.

Write down the ten main characteristics of a religious cult whose followers worship a useless master.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA.

Anth the Psychological Sadist.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 00:20:11 (GMT)
From: Mu
Email: None
To: Haldor
Subject: open the pod bay door, Hal
Message:
Gotta be bullshit, satire don't stink so bad.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 23:47:43 (GMT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: Haldor
Subject: ALL HAIL.....
Message:
ALL HAIL CAPTAIN HALDOR..

Keeper of the holy wisdom

Flyer of saucers; awaiting the next comet-spaceship to lead us home.

Resident of Urantia; at the edge of Morontia

Warrior of the Calagastia revolution in Satania

Friend of Van and ....uhhhh whatshername.... you know!

Member of the Reserve Corp of Destiny

A Brilliant Shining Star of Nebadon

Finaliter extraordinaire

YES... HAIL CAPTAIN HALDOR and, of course, get a life and move on (now THAT was original....where have we heard those words before....)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 23:34:39 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: Haldor
Subject: sexsang and fornication
Message:
That is so stupid. Why should anyone help make him rich?
Exactly what self realization did he teach ? I've yet to see what he tought any oneelse either except a shitload of hypocricy at best. Worse yet was guilt and confusion. and I aint talking 70's I say it in the 90's. Blind refusal to look at onesself in the mirror.

I am thinking your post was a joke so I'll give it the benefit of the doubt. If so, there are a lot of community college creative writing classes, just in case the guru didn't impart his get rich quick lessons to you Haldon, oh I mean Haldor.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 21:15:53 (GMT)
From: Brian
Email: brian@ex-premie.org
To: Everyone
Subject: Another Journey
Message:
They're pouring in. That's 2 so far today. Which only proves that all things DO indeed happen in 3's. Or in 2's. Or 1's.

Steve Mulley has added his Journeys Entry and his White Pages entry.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 21:20:28 (GMT)
From: cqg
Email: None
To: Brian
Subject: Another Journey ...to freedom
Message:
Yo!

And since when did enlightenment require attachment to ANY master?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 18:52:24 (GMT)
From: Brian
Email: brian@ex-premie.org
To: Everyone
Subject: 'Journey' of the bored
Message:
This came in the site email today. There was no name provided, so I'm posting it here instead of with the 'other' Journeys entries.

Dear ex premies organisation,
I was very interested to find and read all the journeys similar to mine. I won't go into much detail as space is limited. I entered in 1972 aged 18 and left in 1992. I have experienced a feeling of being abandoned by God, the universe Maharaji. Much of my youth was spent in celibacy and poverty. When I returned to society it was a struggle to find a financial basis in life. However I do not invalidate any experience in life. I made my choices and accept the consequences. I feel that M has gone through many changes as I have. He was a child and acted accordingly. Perhaps he has had difficulties in life, relationship problems etc. who hasn't? I experienced what he talks about within. I did get blissed out, joyful, felt contentment, sometimes got blasted into cosmic consciousness. Why did I stop being a follower? Because it all became too tame in trying to reach the boring people.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 21:17:33 (GMT)
From: cqg
Email: None
To: Brian
Subject: Boring people? never mind ...
Message:
Recommend this site to the new arrival.

P.S. It will help. Honest

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 00:17:35 (GMT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: cqg
Subject: Jeeez, cqg... she hit this one
Message:
cqg: RIGHT ON THE HEAD..... The entire list was great, but number 5 is GREAT, to wit:

'5. Desensitization, so that things that once have troubled them no longer do (for example, learning that money collected from fund-raising is supporting the leader's lavish lifestyle rather than the cause for which it was given, or seeing children badly abused or even killed.)'

Talk about hitting it, almost verbatim! I wonder if this doctor has had contact with premies!

Definitely a good link!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 18:03:55 (GMT)
From: Bisham
Email: None
To: Saul
Subject: He even rides a donkey
Message:
Hello Saul my good friend. Well now the passover is complete , I send you my greetings and my wishes on your new enterprise as the master reader in the temple of ninava.

Well have you heard the news about this 'so called new Jewish Rabi or master..they call him'....he is not comfortable like all of us walking on foot....he actually rides a donkey...yes would you believe it a donkey.....now...I tell you...where does he get the silver coins from to buy a donkey....you know how much a donkey costs....3 and a half silver dirhams.

They say he cleverly speaks to his followers in tongues and put them in trances and they coff up all their material positions, including mirah, gold and silver coins and silk and woven wool....yes woven wool...would you believe it..you know how much a wool garment costs now days...well with prices going up every day..and these wretched Roman fat arses...They come here and tell us what to do...why dont they go where they come from..

If this master had any sense..he would help us get the romans out of here instead of preaching this stuff about the kingdom of heaven and where to find it....and getting his deciples to wash his feet with precious ointment..yes precious ointment..would you believe it...just imagine that would keep my family alive for six months....we need war and revolution here..not turning the other cheek...

Take the word of your friend Bisham.....we have to do somthing about this so called master...he is confusing our sheep and leading them astray...and he preaches love and peace and turn the other cheek....no one wants to fight the romans anymore...well Saul ...what a wretched age we live in ...hey...

But Now we have these new tabernacles...and we can spread the written word quickly...we will fix this pseudo-master and show him where to put his words...Yah...and we will get our sheep back and get these bloody romans out of here

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 19:43:34 (GMT)
From: Mu
Email: None
To: Bisham
Subject: He's a phony too...
Message:
Well, Bisham, so Jesus is just another phony too! Glad to hear it! Alive or dead a con is a con is a con.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 18:55:37 (GMT)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: Bisham
Subject: He even rides a donkey
Message:
Bisham,

You are a pathetic, brainless, witless, paedophile protector. Why not just sell everything you have, fly to Malibu, give it all to Maharaji, and prostrate yourself at the gates to his land?

Actually, I remember a story of a devotee doing something like that, you know just waiting beside the road outside M's house every day, all day. After a while, premies asked M what they should do with this guy, and M answered that he should be asked to move into an ashram. I wonder what happened to the guy after the ashrams were closed? And I wonder what M would do with such a devotee today?

John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 05:11:30 (GMT)
From: I Dunno
Email: None
To: JHB
Subject: He rides his Merc up the hill
Message:
Dear JHB,

As recently as '93 I think it was when the renovations were taking place at the Res, there were 'hoverers' that had given up all their worldly posessions to hover around the hill in Malibu.
If they were lucky they would be called to do some trench-digging or something. One lady had sold her house in the U.K. another guy was living in his truck. He's back in the premie community doing nothing much. These people were looked upon with distain by M as kind of groupies (not gopis) but he never said anything to them as if they didn't exist. There were quite a few others like them there - ones who didn't really have any specific service to do like the pams.

They must have felt really unloved I would think
as M drove up and down the hill in his Merc.

What do you think?

I. Dunno

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 18:29:23 (GMT)
From: Gerry
Email: None
To: Bisham
Subject: He even rides my donkey
Message:
Hello Saul my good friend. Well now the passover(sic) is complete ,(sic) I send you my greetings and my wishes on your new enterprise as the master reader in the temple of ninava (sic).

Well have you heard the news about this 'so called new Jewish Rabi(sic) or master.. (sic)they call him'.... (sic)he is not comfortable like all of us walking on foot....(sic)he actually rides a donkey...(sic)yes would you believe it a donkey.....(sic)now...(sic)I tell you...(sic)where does he get the silver coins from to buy a donkey....(sic)you know how much a donkey costs....(sic)and a half silver dirhams(sic).

They say he cleverly speaks to his followers in tongues and put them in trances and they coff(sic) up all their material positions(sic), including mirah(sic), gold and silver coins and silk and woven wool....(sic)yes woven wool...(sic)would you believe it..(sic)you know how much a wool garment costs now days...(sic)well with prices going up every day..(sic)and these
wretched Roman fat arses...They come here and tell us what to do...(sic)why dont(sic) they go(sic) where they come from..(sic)

If this master had any sense..(sic)he would help us get the romans out of here instead of preaching this stuff about the kingdom of heaven and where to find it....(sic)and getting his
deciples(sic) to wash his feet with precious ointment..(sic)yes precious ointment..(sic)would you believe it...(sic)just imagine that would keep my family alive for six months....(sic)we need war and revolution here..(sic)not turning the other cheek...(sic)

Take the word of your friend Bisham.....(sic)we have to do somthing about this so called master...(sic)he is confusing our sheep and leading them astray...(sic)and he preaches love and
peace and turn the other cheek....(sic)no one wants to fight the romans(sic) anymore...(sic)well Saul...(sic)what a wretched age we live in ...(sic)hey...(sic) But Now(sic) we have these new tabernacles...(sic)and we can spread the written word quickly...(sic)we will fix this pseudo-master and show him where to put his words...(sic)Yah(sic)...(sic)and we will get our sheep back and get these bloody romans(sic) out of here(sic)

Dear Einstine...

I think I git it....Gooberaji is kinda lik Jesis and we are those wicket guys like Saul of Tarsiz.. who prosecuts the true master of the..... day and say bad words of hin becuse we is bad... and cant understood that Jesis (Maharaji)... is really hear for us and the dunkey deal is... kinda lik M's big jet airoplain for him not a donkey, right?

And and and....new tabernucles is really...computers, right?..Hey........an this is really... a modern day parabel for us...right? I git It.... !!!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 04:59:41 (GMT)
From: I Dunno
Email: None
To: Gerry
Subject: He rides his Merc. up the hill
Message:
To Whoever,

As recently as 93 I think it was, when premies were going to Malibu to do service in renovating M's palace, there were premies 'who had given up everything' and were hovering around the Res. One lady had sold her house in Britain to come. Another guy was living in a truck and is now back in the premie community doing nothing much. They certainly weren't the only ones doing this kind of thing at the time. I know 'hoverers' were looked upon with distain as kind of groupies but m never says anything to them - he just pretended they didn't exist. They must have felt awfully unloved I would think.

I Dunno

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 03:35:01 (GMT)
From: Michael
Email: None
To: Gerry
Subject: That was wonderful, Gerry! NT
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 18:59:19 (GMT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: Gerry
Subject: BWAH HA HA HA HA HA!
Message:
Gerry: WELL DONE!!!!

Bisham: You are just an idiot! If you are trying to compare the lifestyle of Jesus to the ludicrously opulent lifestyle of M and say they are anything even close to similar, you are just brain dead! Let's see what else we ca compare: (1) Jesus never asked for money under the guise of a 'project' and then cancelled the project; (2) Jesus never asked for money; (3) Jesus didn't teach K techniques; (4) Jesus taught that taking care of the poor and unfortunate (and giving THEM your money/help) was better than taking care of him. Shall we go on? NO, I didn't think so, because you are absolutely convinced that M is Jesus-incarnate and no simple FACTS are going to convince you otherwise. But, please continue with your rediculous assertion so that any potential 'aspirants' can see that you guys are as wacko and brainwashed as you sound.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 21:00:49 (GMT)
From: Bisham
Email: None
To: Mike
Subject: You really are stupid
Message:
You are crazy...obssessed with hate for M...

My post does not asscoiate M with Jesus...nor does it put M at the same level of Jesus...far be it...

What the post is about is the condition that we all as human beings find ourselves in...whether we lived 2000 years ago, or now...we are still wrestling with the same doubts and searches etc..

Siddharta split from Buddha...because he figured out that Buddha was not for him...and he would do just as well in being a ferryman...

Gerry...nearly got the point..but you guys...seem to have a MAJOR mental Block right now....Like you have really Reversed Engineer yourselves from what you were 10-20 years ago to what you are now....gone totally the opposite way...

Just to reemphasise the point again...I aint comparing M with Jesus....no way....far from it...my regard and love for Jesus is of the highest....

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 23:49:19 (GMT)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: Bisham
Subject: I must be really stupid
Message:
Bisham said.

My post does not asscoiate M with Jesus...nor does it put M at the same level of Jesus...far be it...

Hey Bishbosh, I must be really stupid because I can't think of any other interpretation of your post. Please, please, please, explain what you really meant by it.

John the stupid.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 23:54:06 (GMT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: JHB
Subject: Don't bother
Message:
John: He's lying! You're interpretation was the only one and, since he got blasted for it, he tried to make up some 'deep meaning' for the post. Sure, sure...Yeah, right......
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 23:03:04 (GMT)
From: Mu
Email: None
To: Bisham
Subject: You really are stupid
Message:
You wrote:
my regard and love for Jesus is of the highest....

That was as obvious as your reference to Saul. Still, Jesus was and is a con job too!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 19:54:50 (GMT)
From: cqg
Email: None
To: Mu
Subject: Blind lead (ow! too bright)
Message:
Mu, you say: 'Jesus was and is a con job too!

Nah, that's just the legacy his premies left him.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 21:59:05 (GMT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: Bisham
Subject: You are a hate monger
Message:
B: Nowhere, but nowhere have I stated that I hate anyone. You folks are the absolute funniest, though. Since you can't make an argument in defense of M, you go about making stupid statements like, 'you are ALL full of hate.....' etc, etc, etc ad nauseum. You think that you are unique and have some take on M that we haven't seen, yet..... You are wrong! Past the first week I spent on this forum, I haven't seen ANYTHING original coming from premies or any of those that speak highly of the supreme fraud of the universe.

Again, I ask the question, of what use are techniques coming from someone that has NEVER been where he claims to have been? Would you accept hiking directions in the GRand Canyon from someone that hadn't hiked there? Then why would you accept ANYTHING from a fraud that claims to be in THAT PLACE, yet amply displays that he is not? I call THAT stupid! Anything that he has to say is a total and complete waste and will, just like those fake hiking instructions, very likely send you off on a path to nowhere or, worse yet, further away from your goal than you were 10 or 20 years ago.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 13:14:29 (GMT)
From: Bisham
Email: None
To: Mike
Subject: Are you Don Juan?
Message:
Mike you seem to have had some major revelations in the Grand Canyon...are you by any chance Don Juan.......
Listen...what you call a terrorist somebody else calls a freedom fighter..look at that arse'ole Araft...was he not some kind of schmutz...was he not the guy who authorised all these hijackings and killings of inocent tourists...what the hell is that guy doing meeting up with old Bill...

We live in a funny world.....so what were you thinking 10 years ago...why are you thinking different now.....What are our thoughts...how much do you think they worth...2 cents....why did you think 10 years ago or whenever it was that M was it....

Reminds me of this story which u all know here...the king and his dream.....dont wana tell it to you..u might have a sudden attack and destroy your PC :-)

KEEP ON TRUCKING......
BE HERE RIGHT NOW
LOVE IS IN AN AMEOBA
ITS COOL TO MAKE MONEY
BUT KNOW THAT WE AINT GONA BE HERE IN 20 years from now.....
Each one of us gona be six feet under somewhere on this revolving ball....
And who the hell is gona think of you....
Maybe one or two
And what a waste our life has been...
Just a flash of light in Eternity
And few fossilised bones in the graveyard...
And few 1000 years from now..
They will dig your bones and say...oh he was from this micro age...wow...werent these guys really dumm.....
So.....take a deep breath and live....
Know what the hell brought you here
Know where the hell you are gona go to
And all the rest in between is shit
Lovers and Love is all blown away in one breath...
Love is an illusion for the weak...
Its nothing but emotions and dependency...
Let your spirit Rise high up...
Let your Spirit Reach Eternity
Look at the NightSky....And see your Spirit in the Stars...
Is that where you wana be....
Or do ya wana be Fossilised bones in some dusty old Mueseum..

Love to ya ALL

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 16:00:55 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Bisham
Subject: M's true message
Message:
Know what the hell brought you here
Know where the hell you are gona go to
And all the rest in between is shit

So don't think about education, jobs, making a contribution (to society--not goober) raising children, loving your neighbor...it's all shit and in this life one should focus on the Master of our Time and his wants and his needs...everything else is just shit.

And

Love is an illusion for the weak...
Its nothing but emotions and dependency...

Unless that love is directed to the Lotus Feet of the Perfect One the Golden Child of our Dreams...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 18:14:11 (GMT)
From: poulyou got it rigth
Email: www persson eee
To: gerry
Subject: M's true message
Message:
are you sure
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 15:20:35 (GMT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: Bisham
Subject: Close, but no cigar... :-)
Message:
B: Just kidding, no I am not Don Juan. There was no such character, by the way. Carlos Castaneda made it up. I knew that when I first read the book. Not only is his understanding of Yaqui ways very ephemeral (at best), most of the stuff is wrong. The yaqui's are a VERY private people who wouldn't permit ANY outsider into their midst during ANY sacred ceremonies (much less actually teach them). It is somewhat likely that the ceremonies will 'die with them,' if their nation ever disappears (a distinct possibility, since there are so few of them). Sorry, but the book is pure bull. Castaneda HAD to make it up because he was doing anthropological research for his thesis and wasn't getting anywhere with the Yaqui's.

Now as to your other assertion, 'BUT KNOW THAT WE AINT GONA BE HERE IN 20 years from now.....' I disagree most strongly. I plan on being here alot longer than 20 more years! Genetically speaking, I do have some basis for this..... All of my grandparents and great-grandparents have lived 98 years or longer. That means my physical life is about half complete! he he he :-)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 17:25:37 (GMT)
From: Bisham
Email: None
To: Mike
Subject: Ex-Castaneda Forum?
Message:
MIKE ...you telling me that all this Castaneda Stuff is BULLS.....well I never....his books have really meant alot to 1000's ...

Perhaps you shoud start the Ex-Castaneda Forum....why not....

IS this your own assertion...or are you in the Know with the Yaqui's...
A Friend of mine got a real stone pipe from them...I understand that it is very rare they give a stone pipe to a whiteman..mainly the shitty wooden stuff..

Oh and good luck for the next mellenium...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 22:20:24 (GMT)
From: Michael
Email: None
To: Bisham
Subject: Ex-Castaneda Forum?
Message:
Bisham, do you mean that this is the first time you have heard that Castandeda was a fraud? Didn't you even suspect such things while reading his stuff? I mean, really, how probable was most of that? Of course he made it up, and this was all exposed even before he died. You really must keep up!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 18:47:01 (GMT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: Bisham
Subject: Ex-Castaneda Forum?
Message:
B: I don't make a big deal about it, but I am considered 'native,' lakota to be specific. My great-grandmother was lakota and she taught me all that she knew prior to her death. She lived to be well over 100 years, so that's how I came to know her so well. Anyway, to answer your question, yes, I am 'in the know.'

My post was not to make the Yaqui's seem unfriendly, they are not! But, like any native culture, they value their ceremonies because those ceremonies define them as a unique people and they are all considered secret. They do not share those ceremonies with outsiders, for the most part. The lakota sun ceremony is a perfect example. Another would be hopi ceremonies.... they don't share ANY of them anymore. Visitors used to be permitted to watch, but the disrespect shown put an end to that back in the 30's.

Like the cheap knock-off trinkets, what you've seen are 'made for public' rather than the real thing. The material in castaneda's book is a knock-off! In several areas, it's actually pretty funny.

As far as I knew, it was fairly common knowledge that castaneda's book was bull, especially here in the southwest. It was 'pegged' here, right away. But it does make a great novel, doesn't it?

BTW, you statement about '1000's' was really funny! :-)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 16:37:38 (GMT)
From: Mel Bourne
Email: mbvictoria@hotmail.com
To: Everyone
Subject: Jim's - on 'lying machines'
Message:
Hi all

Jim stated to Deputy Dog in a thread below that I am a bad represenative of a human being, so I will take this opportunity to respond. I will quote from Jim’s post in italics.

Mel has posted here for a long, long time

True

. He's denied the obvious truth about the cult and its history at every turn.

Untrue…. firstly what Jim understands as “obvious truth”and what my understanding are totally different.

Jim’s “obvious truth” is based on his passionate (obsessive?) hatred of Maharaji and everything he stands for. His hatred stems from a perception that he was betrayed by Maharaji and that the sincerity of his former dedication was abused. He, unfortunately, cannot help but see Maharaji as an ”evil being” and his organisation as a manipulative cult. He attempts to substantiate his “obvious truth” by using his formidable intellect to propogate malicious rumour, personal slur and character assassination, primarily directed at Maharaji, but also directed at anyone who disagrees with him. I have no doubt that Jim was a total devotional fanatic in his ashram days, and tragically, is equally fanatical these days with his anti Maharji tirades.

To me, there is another “obvious truth”.that isn’t based on a fanatical devotion for or against Maharaji or the history of any “cult” or organisation. It’s based on the experience of Knowledge practiced over a long period of time. This practice has been mercifully exempt from the devotional rigours that Jim obviously felt were important for his “spiritual progress”, but a conviction has steadily grown over the years as to the quality and value of this experience in my life. This conviction is strong (probably as intense as Jim’s), but unlike Jim, it is not based on any emotional personality obsession (positive then negative).

For example, show him a quote like:

Who is Guru? The highest manifestation of God is Guru. So when Guru is here, God is here, to whom will you give your devotion?

and he'll deny its obvious import (i.e. that m claimed he was God)

Untrue

I have never made the denial that Jim has claimed, and I challenge him to give a quote where I have. What I have said is that I consider to “theological debate” on Maharaji’s “divinity” to be of limited consequence (even a waste of time), because people will have always differing views and opinions on the matter and that these views and opinions neither enhance nor lessen the experience of Knowledge. I have also pointed out to Jim that these quotes he trots out are over 20 maybe 30 years old and are quite orthodox in the context of the Indian tradition from which Maharaji came. He entirely ignores the fact Maharaji doesn’t make any such claims these days.

Jim’s real concern of course is whether I personally believe these claims or not and I although I ‘ve told him on many occassions that I don’t , he finds it difficult to believe me (obviously based on his latent premie concept of “how can a premie not beleive in the LORD?”) and then promptly brands me a liar.

For me Maharaji was correct when he explained the potential of Knowledge and the profoundness of the experience, so I have respect for him on this basis (despite the sneering tones that Jim and others on this site take delight in. making when someone confides postive feelings for Maharaji)

Mel in real life might be swell, swell fellow but here he's a lying machine. Respect? I never said I'd respect such a person. I'm disgusted by such a person, to tell you the truth

Is Jim is entitled to make an opinion of me based on my comments on this forum? Do my views here diminish me as a human being? I would hope not!

I think it extremely sad that he can let honest but deeply personal differences of opinion pollute his perception of someone that he really doesn’t personally know to the point of calling them a “lying machine”. His disgust is based on the extremeness of his own views and the mandatory requirement that all intelligent and rational people should agree with them. This smacks of bigotry and a hatred so deep rooted that it can only diminish the respect that people may have for him (including mine) Jim obviously has an inablity to be genuinely open minded and free thinking and feels extremely threatened by views that differ from his own.

Could a premie be honest? Of course. But will they? Apparently not if they want to stay a premie for more than few minutes. See, the anti-m arguments are so overwhelming and irrefutable that premies can't answer m's critics and their consciences at the same time. Premies have no scruples when it comes to defending m. They act like Mel and that's unacceptable.

I agree that the anti m arguments are overwhelming, but not one of them can, fortunately, denigrate the experience of Knowledge, whatever Maharaji’s alleged behaviour or the volume of verbiage from Jim devoted to it. The experience of Knowledge isn’t affected by Maharaji’s behaviour any more than it is by Jim’s or mine. Jim’s also wrong when he says that a premie can’t answer Maharaji’s critics and their conciences at the same time, because it’s only Jim’s rule that Maharaji’s personality and alleged flaws should be used to judge the entirety of what he’s about. Premies feel that there is another dimension to the equation -the quality and experience of Knowledge. Maharaji is responsible for his own behaviour, and will ultimately stand or fall on that, so there is not an issue of premie conscience here, what have they got to be guilty about in relation to Maharaji? For me the “defence “ is all about is the experience of Knowledge and the right to simply acknowledge that Maharaji was the agency that put me in touch with it irrespective of whatever apparent moral indignation and annoyance Jim may have on the issue.

In finishing, Jim really doesn’t have the “obvious truth” in relation to Maharaji, and I think anyone who is reading this is very foolish if they think he has. In my view, it seems that he missed the very fundamental message relating to Knowledge. I doubt that he ever really understood the value and importance of that very simple act of meditation. He seems more concerned with the importance of his opinion and the undisputed acceptance of it by every body else.

Am I right, Jim?

Mel

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 22:41:55 (GMT)
From: AJW
Email: None
To: Mel Bourne
Subject: What a load of bollocks Mel
Message:
...really Mel, you usually do much better than this.

Jim's only teasing you you know.

Anth the Knows a Pile of Crap When He Sees It

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 17:43:07 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: fitzroy@redcrow.demon.co.uk
To: Mel Bourne
Subject: & the other 3 fingers point..?
Message:
Mel, you have started a brand new thread for one purpose only, namely, to attack Jim, yet accuse him of being only interested in 'personal slur and character assassination'.

Then you write: I think it extremely sad that he can let honest but deeply personal differences of opinion pollute his perception of someone that he really doesn’t personally know to the point of calling them a “lying machine”.

And in the next sentence you call him a 'bigot' with a 'deep rooted hatred...'

It sounds to me as if your perceptions may be more than a teensy bit polluted by differences of personal opinion, here...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 02:01:47 (GMT)
From: Mel Bourne
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: & the other 3 fingers point..?
Message:
Nigel

Mel, you have started a brand new thread for one purpose only, namely, to attack Jim, yet accuse him of being only interested in 'personal slur and character assassination'.

Incorrect, Nigel, I was simply responding to what is obviously a personal attack directed at me by Jim in his post to Deputy Dog, and as far as Maharaji and premies are concerned he is only interested in 'personal slur and character assassination'.

Have you heard him say anything positive in relation to premies or Maharaji? If you or anyone else have read his sneering derisive comments about premie contributions to pro Maharaji web sites you would realise that what I have said is undeniably true.

Anyway, his finger was pointing first and has been for years (along with other peoples, of course), at premies and Maharaji. So go and lecture him with your rehashed 70's premie 'three finger' philosophy. Geez! What hypocrisy!

Mel

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 11:30:32 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: fitzroy@liverpool.ac.uk
To: Mel Bourne
Subject: Your opinion
Message:
Mel,

I have no interest in your opinion of Jim or of any other ex. But if you were only 'responding' to Jim, you could have done it just as well in the (easily) still-active thread concerned. Instead you start a new thread addressed to 'everyone' to share a personal gripe. This behaviour is irritating even when exes do it, but from a Maharaji apologist it becomes an abuse of the forum (IMO). Premies, remember, have no need to come here and get offended. They could use the time to 'practice Knowledge'.

I do, however, find your defences of Maharaji fascinating and wish you wouldn't absent yourself from discussions when the questions get harder. (Try 'the $64,000 metaphor' or 'Well, Mel', below.)

Nigel

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 17:27:46 (GMT)
From: Susan
Email: None
To: Mel Bourne
Subject: my opinion on you and Jim
Message:
Mel,

I agree with Jim. I think you deny the obvious. Or, you say that the experience of meditation is so overwhelmingly wonderful that the obvious doesn't matter. I read some of your posts because write better than the average premie. But you still seem like you have your head in the sand to me. Why do you read what we have to say anyway?

On Jim, I have disagreed with Jim about numerous things many times. Guess what? He doesn't give a hoot and neither do I. I have told him that I thought he was going to far, I have told him I do not think evolution is all he thinks it is. I have told him that despite it all I believe there may well be a God. I disagreed about posting premies home adresses, I disagreed about posting Marolyn's letter. When you are not in a cult, you can disagree and you don't have to sit in the back row!

I do not care as much as some about whether this cult still has members or not. I do not care that much if you are one of them. I think it is a sad waste of a human life but not the worst waste of a human life that exists on the planet. There are indeed many, much worse things in the world. But this thing is personal for us because it happened to us, or we foolishly fell for it. So I do care about speaking what I believe is the truth about the cult. And I am not going to stop unless I feel like I want to.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 17:18:09 (GMT)
From: Jean-Michel
Email: None
To: Mel Bourne
Subject: Mel Blind
Message:
Here's what Prem Rawat said in 1990, 1991 and 1992, unedited versions.

Recent Satsang in India

I've heard him say the same sort of stuff at the Mauritius participation meeting in July or August 1996.

I wonder if there is a transcript or some unofficial tape of this meeting ....
I've watched the edited video of the meeting, 20 mn long or so (when the meeting was about 85 minutes long), and the whole interesting stuff was of course cut off.

ANY non premie reading this would tell you that a person uttering that sort of stuff thinks he's god himself.

PRINT these satsangs, show them to friends, and ask them what THEY think!

Would you dare doing this?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 01:47:27 (GMT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Jean-Michel
Subject: Mel Blind
Message:
...Now this ego. Though it appears to be of little consequence, but even if a devotee is conscious of the fact -'l know,' it is akin to the devotee's crucifixion. If you are plagued with a little bit of arrogance that 'you know', you are gone. You are finished. You know nothing. Period. Again you have to turn to the Master and pray to him to give you prudence - 'Maharaji, please give me wisdom. I even don't know that as a human being I should not be egoistic. This is the problem. As a human being, I don't know how to conduct myself as a devotee. This too please teach me. Please let me know.'

Just a meditation teacher, huh? Sounds to me like somebody who thinks he's the living end. 'Oh gugu Maji, please teach me. Please help this lil weasel to become enlightened.' Yeah right. What have you got to say about this, Mel? What's Maharaji trying to say here? He's giving himself a rather big pat on the back, wouldn't you say. He seems to be asking for an awful lot of devotion for a guy who's just supposed to be your channel for some meditation techniques that 'work'. Why would he talk like this if that's all he was? Don't kid yourself, Mel. You know damn well that what Maharaji wants is your full devotion and absolute humility, no questions asked. Is he worth it? Not in my book.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 20:51:45 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: fitzroy@liverpool.ac.uk
To: Jean-Michel
Subject: Well, Mel...?
Message:
JM has made you a reasonable challenge.

How would you feel about showing your friends this one:

'As has been said…'A devotee does not worry about anything, except the experience of Knowledge.'...'When the perfect Master is there to take care of you, you have nothing to worry about.

All the powers of prosperity and success are ready to serve you and you are free from all bondages.'.. This is such a world in which there is darkness everywhere. And that darkness devours a man. It runs after man to eat him up. And man loses his wits. He becomes heartless.... But if you have trust within you and really [know?] the Master is there - the Perfect Master - to take care of you, and if you actually have trust and faith in your heart then there is absolutely nothing to worry about.'

...and then reassuring your mates he is just this meditation teacher whose views about meditation you happen to concur with..?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 05, 2000 at 07:39:03 (GMT)
From: Mel Bourne
Email: mbvictoria@hotmail.com
To: Nigel
Subject: $64,000 and Well, Mel...?
Message:
Nigel

In response to the $64,000 metaphor….….. Mel, but has Maharaji brought you from death to immortality?

Not in my practical experience to date. I’m mean I haven’t died yet, so I don’t know. Even in a “metaphorical” sense I don’t know, but maybe if you define the breath as the “life force” and that this life force is “immortal” in the sense that it handed down from generation to generation by the process of procreation, birth etc, then yes I am in contact with something that seems to be immortal (as we all are although we may not recognise it as such). However, I have no way of knowing whether I will continue to experience or be concious of this “Immortality” after death, I guess I will have to wait and see, won’t I?. This is not something I speculate on though, because people have many strong feelings on the issue of “life after death”, I personally have doubts about an ongoing conciousness, but who knows.

In response to your “Well Mel” post

Personally I wouldn’t be comfortable showing my friends the quote that you have posted. The way that Maharaji is communicating in that quote is clearly in a more traditional Rhadasoami context and is quite alien to the “Western” framework. It would be interesting to know how old this quote is or whether it is from a translation of more recent satsang delivered for Indian devotees.

I do, however, accept that Maharaji communicates in this way even though I have difficulty in really understanding it or assimilating it into my own cultural framework. This isn’t really an issue for me, though, as I explained in my opening post....

For me Maharaji was correct when he explained the potential of Knowledge and the profoundness of the experience, so I have respect for him on this basis

Mel

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 05, 2000 at 18:48:05 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: fitzroy@liverpool.ac.uk
To: Mel Bourne
Subject: And the fuzziness continues.
Message:
Mel, you wrote:


In response to the $64,000 metaphor….….. Mel, but has Maharaji brought you from death to immortality?

Not in my practical experience to date. I’m mean I haven’t died yet, so I don’t know[1]. Even in a “metaphorical” sense I don’t know, but maybe if you define the breath as the “life force” and that this life force is “immortal” in the sense that it handed down from generation to generation by the process of procreation, birth etc, then yes I am in contact with something that seems to be immortal (as we all are although we may not recognise it as such)[2]. However, I have no way of knowing whether I will continue to experience or be concious of this “Immortality” after death, I guess I will have to wait and see, won’t I?. This is not something I speculate on though, because people have many strong feelings on the issue of “life after death”, I personally have doubts about an ongoing conciousness, but who knows[3].

In response to your “Well Mel” post

Personally I wouldn’t be comfortable showing my friends the quote that you have posted. The way that Maharaji is communicating in that quote is clearly in a more traditional Rhadasoami context and is quite alien to the “Western” framework. It would be interesting to know how old this quote is or whether it is from a translation of more recent satsang delivered for Indian devotees[4].

I do, however, accept that Maharaji communicates in this way even though I have difficulty in really understanding it or assimilating it into my own cultural framework. This isn’t really an issue for me, though, as I explained in my opening post....

For me Maharaji was correct when he explained the potential of Knowledge and the profoundness of the experience, so I have respect for him on this basis[5]


>
Mel, I would like to take you up on the points numbered above.

(1) Absolutely! And the fourth son of Hans Singh Rawat has not yet died so he doesn't know either, does he? Millions would sacrifice the things they hold most dear for a guarantee of eternity. Prem made that guarantee on numerous occasions. He became fabulously wealthy. I see these facts as connected.

(2) This, to me, is an absurd and antiquated conceptualisation, but similar to those I recall trying to square with common sense when I was into books like The Autobiography of a Yogi. Mel, as I am sure you are aware, breathing is a process, not a force. We know what is inhaled and what is exhaled; how a certain balance of gaseous molecules keeps the blood oxygenated and how the wrong balance will kill us rather quickly. Even as a metaphor, the prana hypothesis no longer makes the starting blocks. (My pancreas, spleen and genitals are no less necessary, no less handed down, and no less the 'life force' than is my respiratory system.)

But more seriously: what on earth can you mean by 'something that seems to be immortal'? Wouldn't one have to be acquainted with immortality in the first place to even make the comparison? And this is no idle nit-picking: this kind of statement gets right to the heart of the 'as if' factor because Prem's addresses do not employ expressions like 'seems' or 'as if'. When he speaks of 'that energy' which is our 'inner connection with the master', he plays it for real. And surely he has to, to maintain his following. (Imagine if he were to say one day ' I happen to know these four simple meditation techniques so - hey! - why don't I just publish them for free on the web alongside my personal endorsement and inspirational thoughts..?)

The literal, or 'spiritual' interpretation of Prem's words requires magical thinking. The metaphorical interpretation does not. This is why I regard the question important enough to keep banging away at it.

(3) So perhaps Prem, too, should become sensitive to these 'strong feelings', no?

(4) The quote is from the 1990's. (J-M's site provides chapter and verse.)

Please spare us the 'Radhasoami' rationale. Indian culture may be more superstitious than ours but that is poor justification for a meditation teacher (whose children, of course, had the best of western educations) to prey on those superstitions with an assumed divinity. Irrespective of cultural factors, I would say the following statements are self-evident:

Either one has to pray to the 'Living Lord' to receive 'his Grace' and experience 'Knowledge' or one does not.

Either the practice of 'Knowledge' will change your life such that ' all the powers of prosperity and success are ready to serve you and you are free from all bondages...', or it does not. (A huge slice of magical thinking there, wouldn't you say?)

Either Prem keeps schtumm about the necessity of devotion to the master in the West or he throws it in unnecessarily when addressing an audience in the East.

These deliberate manipulations have more the ring of a financial consultant's recommendations - or those of a political spin-doctor - than an honest desire to impart the truth as he sees it. In the same speech he raises the issues of reincarnation and rebirth. He is, of course, well aware that his audience shares these beliefs. In such a context his claims to carry the personal 'Grace' or 'power' to deliver his devotees from death itself cannot be viewed as a figure of speech. So either Prem is being deeply cynical (because he does not believe his own claims), or he is profoundly deluded (because he does believe them).

(5) It is my impression that Maharaji goes out of his way never to explain anything - because he cannot. Plenty of claims, assertions and warnings, for sure; all those constant reminders of his own importance to the meditating student. But explanations… wherever did you hear any?

Nigel

(Reply if you like, but I don't think I have anything more to add.)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 17:10:02 (GMT)
From: Dr Reich
Email: None
To: All
Subject: Mel B --Acute Schizophrenic Ps
Message:
chosis (Vat's vid der small subject box?)

The patient was a white, male premie who came to therapy because of severe anxiety attacks and restlessness accompanied by almost uncontrollable homicidal urges. These were primarily directed towards Jim Heller and had intensified in the past month. His anxiety first began after several heavy bouts of prolonged meditation. He was given tranquilizers, which gave him moderate relief. Although he had been very conscientious and had high goals in life, he began feeling totally alienated from society and gradually lost all his ideals. Continued heavy meditating brought out his paranoia and made him belligerent and socially obnoxious, and threatened by fears of erective impotence. He began smoking marijuana to relieve his anxiety and help his sex drive. Potency was vital to him, and he attempted to over-come feelings of inadequacy by behaving sadistically toward his forum partners with either fantasied or actual beatings. He didn't realized that underneath his apparent gullibility there was a great deal of anxiety.

One month prior to my seeing him, his anxiety attacks, as well as his sadistic urges during meditation, suddenly increased in both intensity and frequency. One night, after meditating, he began retching violently. This was the onset of a further intensification of his sadistic impulses and he had insomnia and constant nightmares.  He could not concentrate, was afraid of strangling Mr Heller, and felt that he was going insane. He consulted a psychiatrist who gave him tranquilizers and recommended that he be hospitalized because of his homicidal tendencies towards Mr Heller.

It was at this time that I first saw him. On the initial interview, he appeared extremely tense and frightened. Biophysical examination revealed that he was unathletic in build and had a very low energy level. The musculature of the face, scalp, and head was severely contracted. His occiput, especially the deep musculature was very tender, and his face was pale.

Subjectively, the patient felt a generalized tightness in his head, which was especially severe on the left side. He complained that his forehead and eyes felt numb. Little armor was present in the lower segments including his pelvis, however, and he had a very strong pelvic reflex.  

He had difficulty thinking clearly. His past history was unremarkable except that he had had surgery for strabismus in the left eye as a child. He was amblyopic in this eye.

On the couch, he appeared terrified, tense, and ready to explode. When I asked him what he thought of Jim Heller, he became bristly and antagonistic, immediately venting his negative criticism. He saw him as being 'authoritarian.' He thought he was 'cold' and 'superior.' This gradually led to a violent outburst of rage with hitting and kicking the couch. He strangled a towel and shouted at an imaginary Jim Heller, and then at his guru and his guru's brother.. This rage produced momentary relief and alternated with a feeling of pressure and clamping down in his head.

My impression was that this patient was on the verge of psychosis because of the emergence of uncontrollable sadistic impulses to over-come his deep fears regarding Jim Heller. I emphasized that it was crucial to restrict his murderous impulses to therapy and told him that I could agree to treat him only if he assured me that he would contact me immediately if he could not control these impulses. He agreed. I also told him to continue taking tranquilizers whenever he felt homicidal or in danger of losing control.

By the second session, he appeared somewhat quieter. He reported an improvement in potency. Mobilization of his tense occiput produced deep breathing. He 'saw' his guru's hand coming to pick him up. Then his father's face became superimposed on hers. He became acutely fearful that he might be a homosexual. His pelvis began to writhe. In an attempt to overcome these feelings, a strong outburst of sadistic impulses followed. He shouted 'Stop it, Jim!' as he hit his head and pelvis violently on the couch.

(to be continued)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 17:40:30 (GMT)
From: do not skip this post if
Email: None
To: all
Subject: you are a regular it is Funny!
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 17:00:19 (GMT)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: Mel Bourne
Subject: Jim's - on 'lying machines'
Message:
Mel,

Why are you singling out Jim for special attention. Pretty much all of us here have similar views on Maharaji. You say:-

I agree that the anti m arguments are overwhelming, but not one of them can, fortunately, denigrate the experience of Knowledge, whatever Maharaji’s alleged behaviour...

Then why not separate the two for a moment? He teaches meditation techniques that have a positive effect for some people. But they have next to nothing to do with Maharaji, so why give him any credit??? Did you read the thread where some academic (David Lane perhaps?) taught the meditation techniques to a class full of students, none of whom had any prior preparation, and yet half of them had significant experiences from the practice.

So the arguments against Maharaji are overwhelming. What exactly are the arguments for Maharaji? And why does he keep asking me for money?

And regarding his claims to divinity, Jean-Michel's site has quotes as recent as 1990. You cannot dismiss these as theological discussions.

John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 16:54:46 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: Mel Bourne
Subject: Jim's - on 'lying machines'
Message:
Well I've only got a moment before I have to go. Maybe that's best. I'll try to be succinct.

People deserve blame or credit based on their integrity. I spent eight years of my life as a premie and I'm not prepared to let anyone whitewash that extreme cult experience. You, Mel, are a cult member who shamelessly clings to this pathetic, rent curtain of spiritual philosophy even as it crumples around you. You do not bring good faith to this discussion and anyone who's watched you over time here knows this. Thus you deserve no respect. Why pretend to think otherwise?

Look at it this way, Mel: if and when you ever leave the cult you'll look back on your own performance here with every bit as much disdain as I do. You're just not there yet.

'You look at Christ, for instance. And he came and was Perfect Master. According to the belief, he had enough power that after he was crucified, he came back. So, you think twice about this and you figure, if somebody has got a power -- and it was incredible as to be able to to be crucified and them come back again -- you can definitely figure out that he must ahve the power to sort of take the whole Earth and jiggle it once in a plastic bag. Give it a little twist, all us teensy-weensy things go falling into this palstic bag. He opens it up and says, 'Listen, you thing in there. Realize the purpose of your life, aim of your life. This is it. Period.'

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 10:31:12 (GMT)
From: 09
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: I agree on some points bout J.
Message:
But is that the point?
I consider him often obnoxious and way off base in the way he barbs in with personal bigotry.
And his athiest rap is a laugh.

BUT his main intent is in common with most exes- to highlight and irradicate the cult brainwashing.

Trouble is for you Mel is that exs dont have a dogma or set of statutes to stick to. We are all free spirts.
It doesnt help your case much to take issue with Jim just because it is easy to because he singles you out.

Jim is obvious. He is obbsessive and an easy mark for your pro M justifications/

I think that loboring on what M said in the past is generally a waste of time. Unless it is seen in context with how the latest propaganda has been modified to PC jargon.

Some research into the propaganda of US multinationals would sound alot like M rap today. Nice user friendly vocabulary - with our best interests in mind.

M can act innocent on stage and summon up his clear eyed charm and say phrases like 'Keep in Touch' - but what does that mean.
It means that via the premie pyramid structure, the message is loud an clear-'Keep in Touch' means get plugged into the mindset.
The 'show your appreciation' mindset. It is not like M infers on stage. He does not mean that he advocates just meditating and feeling thankfull as you play with your children.
He means hang around long enough to get vaccinated with the virus of devotion to him and what it (by the way) means to his mission.

There is about as much freedom in this free gift of knowledge as there is in a golden cage.

And the cage is M's supposed Monopoly as the source of Grace and the techniques.- and therein lies the booby trap of 'staying in tough' and 'show you appreciation'.

You know what turned it for me Mel? I was at a program and I saw alot that I really dint want to admit I could see.

But when that fool actually said 'When you die, think of me' I just about threw up.
I knew for a fact he was a Maniac. Have you ever spent time in a hospice Mel? Have you been around people dying? Have you ever died yourself?
If you have done these things , you would know that for M to say such a thing is the Messiah Complex of the Millenium.

He leads a sheltered life. and knows nothing about the realities of the glorius human spirit.

He needs to continue regurgitating his Hindi stuff in quasi American psycospeak because it brings him an INCOME in the guise of a MISSION.

But what am I saying! why thats how half the world has Macdonalds
because a handfull of missionaries decided to improve the poor souls lot.

And THAT is the ripoff

Mel dont pat yourself on the back cause you see that Jim is a ego maniac. There is no credit in seeing that .
Rather concern yourself with the moral questions about this TeleBingo preacher you support.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index