Forum V: Archive
Compiled: Mon, May 29, 2000 at 21:15:42 (GMT)
From: May 19, 2000 To: May 27, 2000 Page: 5 Of: 5


B -:- How does brainwashing happen? -:- Sat, May 20, 2000 at 23:50:30 (GMT)
__ Scott T. -:- How does brainwashing happen? -:- Tues, May 23, 2000 at 14:22:28 (GMT)
__ __ Scott T. -:- Oops, sorry. -:- Tues, May 23, 2000 at 14:32:06 (GMT)
__ JW -:- Brainwashing -- hate that word..... -:- Mon, May 22, 2000 at 19:00:03 (GMT)
__ __ Monmot -:- Brainwashing -- really thought reform/mind control -:- Mon, May 22, 2000 at 19:31:51 (GMT)
__ __ __ JW -:- Thanks, Hassen is right on....in my opinion....nt -:- Mon, May 22, 2000 at 20:04:51 (GMT)
__ AJW -:- How does brainwashing happen? -:- Mon, May 22, 2000 at 08:00:26 (GMT)
__ __ B -:- How does brainwashing happen? -:- Mon, May 22, 2000 at 08:36:18 (GMT)
__ __ __ AJW -:- Once bitten twice shy. -:- Mon, May 22, 2000 at 12:27:08 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ B -:- Once bitten once realizing (hopefully) -:- Mon, May 22, 2000 at 15:36:53 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ AJW -:- Once bitten once realizing (hopefully) -:- Tues, May 23, 2000 at 08:10:39 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ cq -:- Back to your bus-stop B-gorrah? (nt) -:- Mon, May 22, 2000 at 18:48:38 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ cq -:- Bus-stop Buddha - Loved the parable! (nt) -:- Mon, May 22, 2000 at 13:12:40 (GMT)
__ raina -:- isn't 'blacklisting' brainwashing's cousin -:- Mon, May 22, 2000 at 06:06:13 (GMT)
__ __ Jim -:- What a stupid thing to say, Raina! -:- Mon, May 22, 2000 at 17:02:48 (GMT)
__ Powerman -:- How does brainwashing happen? -:- Sun, May 21, 2000 at 16:22:02 (GMT)
__ __ B -:- Does brainwashing happen here? -:- Sun, May 21, 2000 at 20:54:48 (GMT)
__ __ __ raina -:- wonderfully put -:- Tues, May 23, 2000 at 05:02:40 (GMT)
__ __ __ Powerman -:- Does brainwashing happen here? -:- Sun, May 21, 2000 at 21:44:37 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ B -:- Does brainwashing happen here? -:- Mon, May 22, 2000 at 08:14:17 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Powerman -:- Does brainwashing happen here? -:- Mon, May 22, 2000 at 14:58:31 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ B -:- Does brainwashing happen here? -:- Mon, May 22, 2000 at 15:49:39 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Gregg -:- The Case of the Mysterious Vanishing Premie 'B' -:- Mon, May 22, 2000 at 03:44:03 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ B -:- The Case of the Vanishing EX-Premies -:- Mon, May 22, 2000 at 09:22:57 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Gregg -:- OK, B, you're on. -:- Mon, May 22, 2000 at 14:33:20 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ B -:- OK, B, you're on. -:- Mon, May 22, 2000 at 15:15:58 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- YOU ARE SO STUPID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! -:- Mon, May 22, 2000 at 17:01:13 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Gregg -:- Wrong. Bye. nt -:- Mon, May 22, 2000 at 16:33:38 (GMT)
__ __ __ Selene -:- I have a comment - you are a male I'll bet -:- Sun, May 21, 2000 at 21:10:31 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ B -:- Yes I am a male -:- Mon, May 22, 2000 at 08:31:14 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Selene -:- This site does NOT have cult qualities -:- Tues, May 23, 2000 at 03:54:12 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ raina -:- Send yo munny now! yewa gedding weepy! -:- Tues, May 23, 2000 at 05:45:16 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Selene -:- he doesn't have a leg to stand on -:- Tues, May 23, 2000 at 15:21:51 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Selene -:- oh an ps my name is Selene not Susan -:- Tues, May 23, 2000 at 04:24:14 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- More than that, you're an idiot -:- Mon, May 22, 2000 at 08:43:04 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ B -:- May be we are in the same club -:- Mon, May 22, 2000 at 08:59:46 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Yeah, well I don't trust you -:- Mon, May 22, 2000 at 16:45:18 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ b -:- Yeah, well I don't trust you -:- Mon, May 22, 2000 at 17:07:03 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Fine but only if you don't come back -:- Mon, May 22, 2000 at 18:28:52 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Powerman -:- I have a comment - you are a male I'll bet -:- Sun, May 21, 2000 at 21:58:24 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Selene -:- my take was to make us look at the forum -:- Sun, May 21, 2000 at 22:09:13 (GMT)
__ Nigel -:- Happens like this... -:- Sun, May 21, 2000 at 12:31:29 (GMT)
__ __ G -:- Dawkins -The Blind Bookwriter -:- Mon, May 22, 2000 at 00:14:31 (GMT)
__ __ __ Scott T. -:- Dawkins -The Blind Bookwriter -:- Tues, May 23, 2000 at 14:37:38 (GMT)
__ __ __ Nigel -:- I've had a bad day and someone has to pay!! -:- Mon, May 22, 2000 at 21:28:56 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ G -:- Dawkins' state of mind, his biomorphs -:- Wed, May 24, 2000 at 01:51:24 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ G -:- Dawkins' errors of omission, unstated assumptions -:- Wed, May 24, 2000 at 01:05:52 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ G -:- and more to come (nt) -:- Wed, May 24, 2000 at 01:52:40 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Here's a ha'penny. -:- Tues, May 23, 2000 at 15:46:59 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ gerry -:- Thank you for that Nigel, and -:- Tues, May 23, 2000 at 14:37:11 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ G -:- A Dawkins quote re the Catholic religion -:- Tues, May 23, 2000 at 02:16:42 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- A Dawkins quote re the Catholic religion -:- Tues, May 23, 2000 at 15:59:18 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Helen -:- A Dawkins quote re the Catholic religion -:- Wed, May 24, 2000 at 02:24:51 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- A Dawkins quote re the Catholic religion -:- Wed, May 24, 2000 at 16:16:45 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Nigel -:- Social value -:- Wed, May 24, 2000 at 14:33:02 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Helen -:- Nige, Scott, G -:- Wed, May 24, 2000 at 21:01:00 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- Do whatever good for its own sake -:- Wed, May 24, 2000 at 18:19:43 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Religion and social value -:- Wed, May 24, 2000 at 16:42:16 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Religion and social value - addendum -:- Wed, May 24, 2000 at 16:54:51 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ G -:- commentary on quote from atheistic religion site -:- Tues, May 23, 2000 at 02:41:41 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- How thick can you be? -:- Tues, May 23, 2000 at 02:59:00 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- True, his opponents also distort words -:- Tues, May 23, 2000 at 15:45:56 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- The 'atheistic religion' site is a parody (nt) -:- Tues, May 23, 2000 at 02:48:36 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- But this is a real atheistic religion site -:- Tues, May 23, 2000 at 18:35:51 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Jim -:- G doesn't deserve the time -:- Mon, May 22, 2000 at 21:48:15 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ G -:- a telling admission -:- Wed, May 24, 2000 at 02:06:34 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Wrong! -:- Wed, May 24, 2000 at 02:32:13 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! -:- Wed, May 24, 2000 at 17:11:49 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Come off it, G -:- Thurs, May 25, 2000 at 02:32:55 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- Come off what? -:- Thurs, May 25, 2000 at 03:31:43 (GMT)
__ __ __ Jim -:- Your protest is a pathetic joke, G -:- Mon, May 22, 2000 at 01:13:15 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ gerry -:- Thoughtful analysis, G -:- Mon, May 22, 2000 at 02:13:48 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ G -:- about Dawkins -:- Mon, May 22, 2000 at 02:40:44 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ G -:- A weak response -:- Mon, May 22, 2000 at 02:01:33 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- No, you missed you own joke -:- Mon, May 22, 2000 at 03:52:06 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- You can stop laughing, Mr. Hyena -:- Tues, May 23, 2000 at 01:53:22 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- Excellent response, G -:- Tues, May 23, 2000 at 14:03:05 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Hey, if you've got Gerry on side you must be right -:- Tues, May 23, 2000 at 15:46:26 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joey -:- Hey, if you've got Gerry on side you must be right -:- Tues, May 23, 2000 at 16:44:16 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Selene -:- all right Joey -:- Tues, May 23, 2000 at 18:22:33 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- Hey, if you've got Gerry on side you must be right -:- Tues, May 23, 2000 at 17:26:37 (GMT)
__ __ Angry -:- Happens like this./Thanks, Nigel(NT).. -:- Sun, May 21, 2000 at 15:19:54 (GMT)
__ __ Terry McCann -:- To wash you need one...Plain out of luck Nigel!! -:- Sun, May 21, 2000 at 15:15:43 (GMT)
__ __ __ raina -:- JIM! Sumbuddy's being mean to Nige again!!!! -:- Sun, May 21, 2000 at 15:47:12 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Jim -:- So long as it isn't you, Raina, who cares? -:- Sun, May 21, 2000 at 18:46:53 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ raina -:- no capiche -:- Sun, May 21, 2000 at 21:08:04 (GMT)
__ Daneane -:- I dunno... -:- Sun, May 21, 2000 at 02:37:25 (GMT)
__ Selene -:- A subjective answer -:- Sun, May 21, 2000 at 01:39:48 (GMT)
__ __ raina -:- do you think -:- Sun, May 21, 2000 at 05:52:19 (GMT)
__ __ __ Selene -:- geez!! well of course *I* would think that -:- Sun, May 21, 2000 at 05:55:06 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ raina -:- geez!! well of course *I* would think that -:- Sun, May 21, 2000 at 06:16:05 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Selene -:- I'm glad someone had fun last night -:- Sun, May 21, 2000 at 06:33:36 (GMT)
__ henrik -:- How does brainwashing happen? -:- Sun, May 21, 2000 at 00:34:14 (GMT)

Henrik -:- The answer to AWJ 's question -:- Sat, May 20, 2000 at 23:39:08 (GMT)
__ AJW -:- The answer to AWJ 's question -:- Mon, May 22, 2000 at 08:04:50 (GMT)

Ged -:- Office 2000 says I'm the new lord of the universe! -:- Sat, May 20, 2000 at 23:00:44 (GMT)
__ Stonor -:- Godd, I mean God, make it Gad, no that's Good Ged! -:- Sun, May 21, 2000 at 01:22:52 (GMT)
__ __ Stonor -:- And before Katie Geds it . . . -:- Sun, May 21, 2000 at 01:42:58 (GMT)
__ __ __ God (ged) -:- And before Katie Geds it . . . -:- Sun, May 21, 2000 at 12:55:53 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ AJW -:- And before Katie Geds it . . . -:- Mon, May 22, 2000 at 08:09:06 (GMT)

Jim -:- I'd like to hear Vicky's side of the story -:- Sat, May 20, 2000 at 22:03:59 (GMT)
__ AJW -:- I hope... -:- Mon, May 22, 2000 at 14:17:18 (GMT)
__ __ cq -:- Better! - Read Vicki's own post below! (nt) -:- Mon, May 22, 2000 at 14:43:15 (GMT)
__ Nigel -:- Are ELK still into the 'creative' editing? -:- Sun, May 21, 2000 at 11:34:24 (GMT)
__ Vicky -:- My side -:- Sun, May 21, 2000 at 00:19:18 (GMT)
__ __ Scott T. -:- My side -:- Tues, May 23, 2000 at 12:27:52 (GMT)
__ __ cq -:- Powerful picture! - De-programming visualised! -:- Mon, May 22, 2000 at 13:26:31 (GMT)
__ __ paul -:- My side -:- Sun, May 21, 2000 at 00:35:57 (GMT)

Non - Devotee -:- The joy of K -:- Sat, May 20, 2000 at 13:37:23 (GMT)
__ Daneane -:- aaaaarrrrrgggghhhhhhh! -:- Sat, May 20, 2000 at 13:49:03 (GMT)

Jean-Michel -:- Hey, look what Yahoo's done! -:- Sat, May 20, 2000 at 07:54:59 (GMT)
__ Daneane -:- Congrats J-M -:- Sat, May 20, 2000 at 13:41:32 (GMT)
__ Robyn -:- Hey, look what Yahoo's done! -:- Sat, May 20, 2000 at 10:40:27 (GMT)
__ __ henrik -:- searching -:- Sat, May 20, 2000 at 12:20:07 (GMT)
__ __ __ henrik -:- oh, and another thing -:- Sat, May 20, 2000 at 12:23:42 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Robyn -:- oh, and another thing -:- Sat, May 20, 2000 at 17:46:07 (GMT)

henrik -:- Elanoholic Anon and on and on..... -:- Sat, May 20, 2000 at 00:38:20 (GMT)
__ Nigel -:- The 'real' content of those tapes... -:- Sat, May 20, 2000 at 08:19:36 (GMT)
__ Daneane -:- Confused -:- Sat, May 20, 2000 at 01:05:44 (GMT)
__ __ Henrik -:- Confused -:- Sat, May 20, 2000 at 01:22:49 (GMT)
__ __ __ Nigel -:- Too subtle by half.. -:- Sun, May 21, 2000 at 11:40:15 (GMT)
__ __ __ Daneane -:- Had a feeling... -:- Sat, May 20, 2000 at 01:47:38 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Had a feeling... -:- Tues, May 23, 2000 at 13:21:53 (GMT)

JW -:- Internal Images (ot) -:- Fri, May 19, 2000 at 23:45:35 (GMT)
__ Katie -:- Internal Images (ot) -:- Sat, May 20, 2000 at 16:57:20 (GMT)
__ __ Stonor -:- Internal Images (ot) -:- Sun, May 21, 2000 at 02:12:20 (GMT)
__ __ JW -:- Pictures -:- Sat, May 20, 2000 at 19:57:41 (GMT)
__ Monmot -:- Internal Images (ot) -:- Sat, May 20, 2000 at 05:42:40 (GMT)
__ __ JW -:- Internal Images (ot) -:- Sat, May 20, 2000 at 19:54:48 (GMT)
__ Robyn -:- Internal Images (ot) -:- Sat, May 20, 2000 at 03:50:15 (GMT)
__ __ Scott T. -:- Internal Images (ot) -:- Sun, May 21, 2000 at 06:32:41 (GMT)
__ __ __ Robyn -:- Internal Images (ot) -:- Sun, May 21, 2000 at 15:46:17 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Internal Images (ot) -:- Mon, May 22, 2000 at 00:47:45 (GMT)
__ __ JW -:- Internal Images (ot) -:- Sat, May 20, 2000 at 20:03:56 (GMT)
__ __ __ Stonor -:- Internal Images (ot) -:- Sun, May 21, 2000 at 02:17:40 (GMT)
__ __ __ gerry -:- Hey if they don't, I will -:- Sat, May 20, 2000 at 23:28:45 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ JW -:- Is it the beer and wine that got you? ::))nt -:- Sun, May 21, 2000 at 01:53:25 (GMT)
__ Jethro -:- Remember,,, -:- Sat, May 20, 2000 at 03:40:44 (GMT)
__ Scott T. -:- Internal Images (ot) -:- Sat, May 20, 2000 at 02:29:21 (GMT)
__ Marianne -:- Internal Images (ot) -:- Sat, May 20, 2000 at 00:05:21 (GMT)
__ Powerman -:- Internal Images (ot) -:- Sat, May 20, 2000 at 00:01:50 (GMT)
__ __ JW -:- Internal Images (ot) -:- Sat, May 20, 2000 at 19:48:39 (GMT)
__ __ __ Scott T. -:- Internal Images (ot) -:- Mon, May 22, 2000 at 04:14:46 (GMT)
__ __ Powerman -:- Oh yeah... -:- Sat, May 20, 2000 at 00:09:32 (GMT)
__ __ __ Scott -:- Oh yeah... -:- Sat, May 20, 2000 at 02:48:48 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Powerman -:- Oh yeah... -:- Sat, May 20, 2000 at 04:23:39 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Oh yeah... -:- Sun, May 21, 2000 at 03:21:00 (GMT)
__ Elaine -:- Susan/Helen don't read above post -:- Sat, May 20, 2000 at 00:01:32 (GMT)

leaning towards satpal... -:- is there a way?... -:- Fri, May 19, 2000 at 22:26:04 (GMT)

Elaine -:- Moonie's -:- Fri, May 19, 2000 at 22:15:33 (GMT)
__ Elaine -:- Well no one knows much about Moonie's really (nt -:- Mon, May 22, 2000 at 19:18:10 (GMT)
__ JW -:- Moonie's -:- Sun, May 21, 2000 at 18:05:48 (GMT)
__ __ Elaine -:- Moonie's/Thanks,JW -:- Mon, May 22, 2000 at 02:59:15 (GMT)
__ __ __ JW -:- Moonie's/Thanks,JW -:- Mon, May 22, 2000 at 16:57:33 (GMT)
__ Angry -:- There's abuse in that cult too! -:- Sat, May 20, 2000 at 18:50:23 (GMT)
__ Powerman -:- Moonie's -:- Fri, May 19, 2000 at 23:13:31 (GMT)
__ __ Elaine -:- Moonie's -:- Fri, May 19, 2000 at 23:23:52 (GMT)
__ __ __ Gregg -:- Moonie's -:- Sat, May 20, 2000 at 17:27:41 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Elaine -:- A Moonie walks up to you on the street.. -:- Sat, May 20, 2000 at 17:49:39 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Gregg -:- Cults R Us -:- Mon, May 22, 2000 at 03:56:24 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Elaine -:- Gregg - yes,but... -:- Mon, May 22, 2000 at 15:09:00 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Powerman -:- A Moonie walks up to you on the street.. -:- Sat, May 20, 2000 at 18:42:38 (GMT)

jondon -:- devinelovemission.org -:- Fri, May 19, 2000 at 21:10:50 (GMT)


Date: Sat, May 20, 2000 at 23:50:30 (GMT)
From: B
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: How does brainwashing happen?
Message:
Any suggestions?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 23, 2000 at 14:22:28 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: B
Subject: How does brainwashing happen?
Message:
B:

Where do you live? There's a brain laundry on Rt. 1 near College Park, MD but I don't know of any national chains.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 23, 2000 at 14:32:06 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Oops, sorry.
Message:
I thought you said 'Where does brainwashing happen?' I gather you intend a do-it-yourself project? I'd advise against that, frankly. Some of those stains are really stubborn, and if you make a mistake you might just make things worse.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 22, 2000 at 19:00:03 (GMT)
From: JW
Email: None
To: B
Subject: Brainwashing -- hate that word.....
Message:
I think it's a very innacurate term, also very loaded and pejorative. Remember when Romney, as a presidential candidate, went to Vietnam and said he was 'brainwashed' by the US military? It was such a negative term that it killed his presidential chances.

Most people think it takes some kind of Manchurian Candidate kind of indoctrination to be 'brainwashed.' It doesn't. It depends on how 'willing' the person is to be convinced to believe something. With many of us, at least for me, when I first heard about Guru Mahraraj Ji, I thought it was a crock, but when I met premies, I liked them, thought they might have something I wanted, and I was attracted to the 'save the world' message Guru Maharaj Ji was giving then, but has since abandoned.

So, I WANTED it to be true, and after listening for a while to people telling me how wonderful knowledge was and how it would solve my problems and make me happy, I was pretty easily convinced. I was invested in it, and I developed defense mechanisms (many supplied by the cult, like not leaving room for doubt, faith, mind, etc.,) to keep from looking at, or questioning the beliefs that a premie had. That really is brainwashing, programming, or whatever you want to call it, but it's a characteristic of cults, and certainly of many premies, as we all know.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 22, 2000 at 19:31:51 (GMT)
From: Monmot
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: Brainwashing -- really thought reform/mind control
Message:
Here's what Steve Hassan says in his new book, and I think it's dead on, and it speaks to what JW has posted above:

'For me, some of the key differences between 'brainwashing' and mind control, or thought reform, are as follows: The term 'brainwashing' is often associated in people's minds with overly coercive behaviors, exemplified by the image of a prisoner at the hands of abusive jailers. At the beginning of a 'brainwashing' process, the subject looks at the 'agents of influence' as the 'enemy,' and is forced to comply with them.

With mind control, the 'agents of influence' are viewed as friends or mentors, which cause people to lower their defenses, making them more vulnerable to manipulation. The key to mind control's success lies in its subtlety, the way it promotes the 'illusion of control.' The individual believes he is 'making his own choices,' when in fact he has been been socially influenced to disconnect his own critical mind and decision-making capacity. In other words, he believes that he has freely chosen to surrender his free will to God or to a leader or ideology. When one steps back and objectively evaluates the vast amount of social influence used to get him to 'surrender,' the degree of manipulation becomes very obvious.'

___________

I saw Hassan speak yesterday and, off the top of my head, two of the things I remember which stood out is that you can tell a cult by its attitude toward 'information control.' The other thing he mentioned is that the internet has facilitated many people out of cults, mainly because information is so easily accessed, and beyond the scope of a cult's 'information control.'

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 22, 2000 at 20:04:51 (GMT)
From: JW
Email: None
To: Monmot
Subject: Thanks, Hassen is right on....in my opinion....nt
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 22, 2000 at 08:00:26 (GMT)
From: AJW
Email: None
To: B
Subject: How does brainwashing happen?
Message:
Hi B,

Apparently it's quite simple.

You tell someone something over and over again, and if you tell them enought times, they believe it.

It worked on me.

Anth the Disinfected

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 22, 2000 at 08:36:18 (GMT)
From: B
Email: None
To: AJW
Subject: How does brainwashing happen?
Message:
Hi Anth, (the may be not so disinfected as he thinks.)

I agree with you, but beware, it might work on you again.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 22, 2000 at 12:27:08 (GMT)
From: AJW
Email: None
To: B
Subject: Once bitten twice shy.
Message:
No way B,

Life looks very different from outside the cult. It's like you're waiting at a bus stop for ages and ages, and the bus never comes along. Then an old lady passes by and tells you, the bus stop is redundant. The buses go from the new stop round the corner. You walk round the corner and catch a bus within five minutes.

You're never going to go back and wait at the old stop again, just to check to see if maybe a bus will come along after all. You go round the corner where there's a bus every five minutes.

(Maybe one day you see someone standing at the redundant stop, and tell them about the one round the corner, and how you wasted time doing exactly what they're doing. And they smile and say, 'Brother, if you'd only had more faith, and a bit more patience, a bus would have come.'

I've grown up a bit now B. I no longer believe I'm a disciple of the living lord. I've done my time in the cult. I'm not looking for anything in life and I love my freedom. I'm more likely to organise an expedition to the South Pole than I am to get involved in another cranky guru trip. And I hate the cold.

I hope you get out of the cult one day too ( you are a premie aren't you B?)

Anth the one bitten.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 22, 2000 at 15:36:53 (GMT)
From: B
Email: None
To: AJW
Subject: Once bitten once realizing (hopefully)
Message:
Hi Anth
I am leaving out of here finally as I understand it is a total waste of energy and time.

The experience to participate in the Forum has sometimes been fun, sometimes nasty.

I have a hard time to understand why intelligent people like yourself spend so much time and energy to be negative. But anyway it is none of my business. If anything I wanted to express some opinions, and hopefully question some of the attitudes happening here, which of course has not been very popular.

I imagine there are better things to do in life than to go to the pole, wait for a bus that is not coming or to spend hours everyday behind a computer, reading and writing about things for more or less idealistic purposes.
Anyway, I wish you a good life.

Bye B

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 23, 2000 at 08:10:39 (GMT)
From: AJW
Email: None
To: B
Subject: Once bitten once realizing (hopefully)
Message:
Bye B,

Have fun in the cult.

Anth the negative ion

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 22, 2000 at 18:48:38 (GMT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: B
Subject: Back to your bus-stop B-gorrah? (nt)
Message:
Back to your bus-stop B-gorrah? (nt)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 22, 2000 at 13:12:40 (GMT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: AJW
Subject: Bus-stop Buddha - Loved the parable! (nt)
Message:
Bus-stop Buddha! Loved the parable (nt)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 22, 2000 at 06:06:13 (GMT)
From: raina
Email: None
To: B
Subject: isn't 'blacklisting' brainwashing's cousin
Message:
d'ya know?
has anyone ever felt they'd been blacklisted in some way?
maybe not as obvious as political blacklisting in the 50s but of course it still goes on in all sorts of ways, from kindergaarten to the grave.....
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 22, 2000 at 17:02:48 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: raina
Subject: What a stupid thing to say, Raina!
Message:
Got any others?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, May 21, 2000 at 16:22:02 (GMT)
From: Powerman
Email: None
To: B
Subject: How does brainwashing happen?
Message:
Brainwashing happens by manipulating a person's mind to believe things radically different than before. The most extreme form of brainwashing happens when a person is held physically captive and their survival is tied to adopting new beliefs. A series of rewards and punishments connected to a person's well-being can confuse and weaken their character to the point of abandoning what they previously considered to be true.

A classic example of brainwashing is when a person is forced to submit to stimuli that triggers emotional responses, and is designed to change a person's loyalty. Supposedly any person is fragile enough that if brainwashed properly, they can be led to believe almost anything.

More subtle forms of brainwashing include hearing something often enough that it is considered to be true, or appealing to a person's deep psychological motivation. Advertising is an example of subtle brainwashing.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, May 21, 2000 at 20:54:48 (GMT)
From: B
Email: None
To: Powerman
Subject: Does brainwashing happen here?
Message:
Thanks Powerman.
You gave the only straight answer that was not infuenced by programming. Surprise!

When brainwashing might happen in interaction, reading or listening, and the efficencey of brainwashing is dependent on how many times a person is exposed to a certain belief / thought / concept, do you consider any chance that people here at the Forum may be victim of extremely efficient brainwashing and programming?

The most crucial level of brainwashing, is in my opinion when a person after being exposed to the same message over and over again, starts him / herself to express the same thoughtpattern with his own words.

That is my opinion, any comments?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 23, 2000 at 05:02:40 (GMT)
From: raina
Email: None
To: B
Subject: wonderfully put
Message:
this is excatly how i feel
and why i don't trust people
but do feel sorry for them (us)
definately us
and purposely believe 'clarity'
to be a purely a laissez-faire entity

any thoughts?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, May 21, 2000 at 21:44:37 (GMT)
From: Powerman
Email: None
To: B
Subject: Does brainwashing happen here?
Message:
I think brainwashing can happen anywhere and anytime a person doesn't think for themselves. Of course there are different levels of brainwashing and the stakes can be anywhere from very high to almost nil. The most crucial level of brainwashing happens when one's integrity, dignity and ideals are compromised as a result, particularly when a person sacrifices one's self in favor of another.

To the extent that thinking for oneself is encouraged here on the Forum, I don't think there is any brainwashing. Peer pressure will happen anywhere there's a group, and any group with a common cause, experience or belief will tend to repeat a theme.

Considering this is a venue for people who used to follow a guru who claimed to be the Lord, and who claimed to impart the same experience as Jesus, it isn't surprising there's little tolerance for premies' ideas. I don't think anyone here is being conned to the slightest extent. The reward for going along with the party line here is almost undetectable, whereas bucking whatever little system there is around here can get quite a rise out of people.

Personally I don't trust societies of any kind, even little tiny ones. But comparing this small group of ex-premies to a cult is inaccurate to say the least.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 22, 2000 at 08:14:17 (GMT)
From: B
Email: None
To: Powerman
Subject: Does brainwashing happen here?
Message:
Hi Powerman
I would say,it would not surprise me if a sosiological survey soon were published about the cults of the new age = net cults.

A while ago I had shares in a company. This company was dicussed at a stockforum. After some time, those who posted there acted like a cult. By accident I found out that the whole thing was a fraud. So instead of the expected 10 or 100 times rise, the share dropped with 90 %. The funny thing was that when I and another guy, posted our posts, we were treated and ridiculed in the same manner premies are treated here.

The thing was that those shareholders, exposed themselves to the viuw of the 'cult' several times a day. It seems like even when the facts were presented, the shareholders kind of had lost their ability to perform a rational thought. Even when posts were obiously full of lies, the cult shareholders swollow it as the absolute truth.

I wrote that in my opinion (and take it just as that) you were the only one able to answer my simple question without seeing it through the 'glasses' of an ex-premie.

A few times, posts here are fake, it might be posts from people pretending to be premies, friends of premies, Maharaji or his family. It it also happening posts, not only based in lies, but breaking the existing laws, concerning libel, copyrights and defamations. The morality among the ex-premies, is that this is OK. Nobody seems to care. It seems like the more 'ex-premie attitude' you have, the greater status of a hero you will get. The same kind of thing happended in the stockforum.

I think this might be called brainwashing, and that the Forum is like a tool to develop programmed ways of thinking. But as I said, it is just my opinion.

You wrote; 'To the extent that thinking for oneself is encouraged here on the Forum, I don't think there is any brainwashing'
I would say different thinking is not accepted here. If this is brainwashing or not, is a matter of opinion.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 22, 2000 at 14:58:31 (GMT)
From: Powerman
Email: None
To: B
Subject: Does brainwashing happen here?
Message:
A cult has specific qualities that are found in Maharaji's group that aren't found here...

1. A leader revered as a divine messenger.
2. Unquestioning faith in that leader and his message.
3. The suspension of rational thought to understand the leader and his message.
4. Abandonment of all discussion within the cult pertaining to the validity of the leader and his message.
5. A mystical belief in the connection between alligning oneself with the leader and his message, and good fortune in one's life.
6. Rationalization that bad fortune in one's life is the result of not properly alligning oneself with the leader and his message.
7. Belief that the leader has magical powers.
8. Belief that the leader became chosen through a mystical process.
9. Irrational fear that disavowing oneself from the leader and his group will sever one's relation to God.
10. Feelings of superiority towards others who have different faiths, beliefs and philosophies.
11. Feelings of being more connected to the leader and his group than one's own family and friends.
12. Irrational belief that following the cult's principles will solve all personal problems.
13. Disconnection from emotions and emotional expression.
14. A special language that validates the cult's beliefs but requires no verification.
15. Belief that you have a special secret.
16. Any mention of the phrase 'You can't describe it.'

B,
The ex-premie Forum isn't a cult in any way and it's participants aren't cult members in any way. Repetition of a common theme in a group or club doesn't necessarily qualify as a cult.

Groups and clubs with members who take on leadership roles don't necessarily qualify as a cult. Same with groups and clubs that have a common belief.

The major ingredients for a cult are missing here but they aren't missing in Maharaji and his followers... divinity, a panacea, an ultimate authority beyond question, worship, no discussion and debate about the central beliefs, magical thinking, feelings of superiority over ordinary people, overwhelming fear of leaving, disconnection from emotions and their expression, and abandonment of rational thought.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 22, 2000 at 15:49:39 (GMT)
From: B
Email: None
To: Powerman
Subject: Does brainwashing happen here?
Message:
Hi Powerman
Äs I am leaving, I dont bother to quote the definition of a cult in my dictionary or old textbook, or the leading contemporay sociologist definitons of cult behaviour. (I have done it before with none or evasive response)

So just lets say, we agree about that premies form the typical behaviour of a cultmember, we disagree about the behaviour of expremies.

Bye
B

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 22, 2000 at 03:44:03 (GMT)
From: Gregg
Email: None
To: Powerman
Subject: The Case of the Mysterious Vanishing Premie 'B'
Message:
Hey, here's something new (said ex-premie Gregg, sarcastically).

A premie post criticizes the forum (calling us a cult...oh, that's new, said ex-premie Gregg, sarcastically), and then a rational ex-premie (in this case, Powerman) posts a calm and cogent response.

One day, given this scenario, we will see a reasoned and impassioned defense of the original post. But not today. Or any day. Hit and run. If premies can argue, discuss, debate, or even think, they must do it somewhere else. They sure can't here.

By the way, disciplines of other religions, like Christianity or Tibetan Buddhism or Hinduism can and do debate at length on behalf of or within their theological realm. What does it say about EVholics that they cannot do as much (asked ex-premie Gregg, rhetorically)?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 22, 2000 at 09:22:57 (GMT)
From: B
Email: None
To: Gregg
Subject: The Case of the Vanishing EX-Premies
Message:
Hi Gregg
You wrote: 'If premies can argue, discuss, debate, or even think, they must do it somewhere else. They sure can't here.

By the way, disciplines of other religions, like Christianity or Tibetan Buddhism or Hinduism can and do debate at length on behalf of or within their theological realm. What does it say about EVholics that they cannot do as much (asked ex-premie Gregg, rhetorically)? '

So the question is; can expremies argue, discuss, debate, or even think without the 'ex-premie glasses'?

And what does that say about Forumholics if they cannot do as much (asked B, rhetorically)?

Luckily,or unluckily posts dissapear so it does not show how evasive expremies are in general. But why waste time and energy?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 22, 2000 at 14:33:20 (GMT)
From: Gregg
Email: None
To: B
Subject: OK, B, you're on.
Message:
All right, B, let's leave the word 'cult' out of it. Answer this question: if you were to take a dozen premies and a dozen Forum ex-premies, which group do you think would have the most common ground spiritually?

In case you have disappeared, let me answer for you.

One group would contain a couple of atheists, a few meditators, maybe a Buddhist and a Christian. And a few undecideds.

The other group would agree, for the most part, that a certain Master has been the most significant spiritual figure in their life, having revealed a certain esoteric knowledge to them.

You could make a case for EV not being a cult. They don't prescribe/proscribe lifestyle choices to the extent that most cults do. But...this forum a cult? Please.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 22, 2000 at 15:15:58 (GMT)
From: B
Email: None
To: Gregg
Subject: OK, B, you're on.
Message:
Hi Gregg,
I will leave, but things just happen to be a matter of opinion.

I never said that premies is not a cult. They are. But Knowledge is not a cult in itself.
Other groups of people is also regarded as cult, i.e. people believing that Elvis is alive. I also mentioned some stockowners who behaved like a cult in a sociological point of viuw. (I was not the one who called them that)

The common thing about cultmembers , is that they in some sense have a certain common belief in something. So if you share that common belief, and participate active to reinforce that belief, in my opinion will show if you are a cultmember or not. A person who took no side, would be regarded as an outsider of the group.
Right or wrong, that is just my understanding of the word cult.
Bye B

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 22, 2000 at 17:01:13 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: B
Subject: YOU ARE SO STUPID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Message:
The common thing about cultmembers , is that they in some sense have a certain common belief in something.

What a stupid fool you are! Listen, idiot, here's a little lesson in logic you should have learned when you were, say, eight years old:

'If x, then y' does NOT mean that If y then x'

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 22, 2000 at 16:33:38 (GMT)
From: Gregg
Email: None
To: B
Subject: Wrong. Bye. nt
Message:
x
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, May 21, 2000 at 21:10:31 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: B
Subject: I have a comment - you are a male I'll bet
Message:
Why do I think this?
Because I gave a sincere and as I said, subjective heartfelt response based on personal experience. Which you chose to ignore.
I say this because you say Powerman is the only one to give a staight answer not based on programming.
Irregardless, I'll answer you. Yes I do think this place can have
it's own influence. Certain personas here are very aggressive and insist on making a point, at any cost. It tends to intimidate and color the views of others. And can create a certain tone.
If one let's it happen. However my experience has been that because there is freedom of expression here that bias doesn't really have the impact that it would in the case of a cult such as Maharaji's. Not even close. Because people aren't stupid and people can choose their own way.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 22, 2000 at 08:31:14 (GMT)
From: B
Email: None
To: Selene
Subject: Yes I am a male
Message:
Sorry Susan, i tried to explain my viuws in a post to Powerman.

I appreciate your answer though.

Anyway, even if it is not in the line of the thinking that happens here, I think it is a irony that an 'anti cult', might develop to a cult with even stronger 'cult qualities' than the original cult.

But this phenomen is not new. Historically, I think the name cults first were used to descibe a group of persons that broke away from a church.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 23, 2000 at 03:54:12 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: B
Subject: This site does NOT have cult qualities
Message:
remotely similar to Maharaji's cult. That is ridiculous. I'd be the first one to point it out if it did. I've posted one-liners here, half-jokingly READ HALF about recreating the experience, etc. (to which I got no response ha). This is bound to happen. On any forum actually. But there is NO way you can make that kind of comparison.
The fact that everything is out in the open give proof to the fact that people like you can come here and take pot shots like this. Where have you been? Do you have full disclosure to where you 'contributions' to Elan Vital and Maharaji are going? Do you care? Do you even wonder what is going on behind the scenes?
What basis do you make these claims about ex-premie.org upon? and I have read your other posts and don't see it yet.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 23, 2000 at 05:45:16 (GMT)
From: raina
Email: None
To: Selene
Subject: Send yo munny now! yewa gedding weepy!
Message:
he was making sense and then the whole 'stronger-tha the original cult'
thing just doesn't make sense...the same maybe....but not even....making he's
just fuggin wid us?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 23, 2000 at 15:21:51 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: raina
Subject: he doesn't have a leg to stand on
Message:
well I hope he does for his sake, two for that matter.
I mean, we were THERE. very recently. He triggered recent memories, just got me going.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 23, 2000 at 04:24:14 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: Selene
Subject: oh an ps my name is Selene not Susan
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 22, 2000 at 08:43:04 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: B
Subject: More than that, you're an idiot
Message:
Bjorn,

You're in a cult. You follow a classic cult leader, one who actually claimed to be God and the Saviour of Mankind. Nothing could be clearer.

Now, in a silly, silly attempt to deflect criticism you allege that we ex-premies are in a cult of our own. You realize, of course, that no one but another premie would agree with you? That is, the world at large, if they ever bothered to check in here, would find you ludicrous.

You don't think so? Bring your kids by for a chat. Let them see what daddy thinks. Not pretty, huh?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 22, 2000 at 08:59:46 (GMT)
From: B
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: May be we are in the same club
Message:
Hi Jim
My kids are not premies. They have never been to programs after they became 8 years old.

I told them about what is going on here. We had a good laugh.

Your posts, are quite easy to predict. I wonder why?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 22, 2000 at 16:45:18 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: B
Subject: Yeah, well I don't trust you
Message:
Forget about telling your kids, bring them here. Let them see how dad's mind works. Go on, I dare you.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 22, 2000 at 17:07:03 (GMT)
From: b
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Yeah, well I don't trust you
Message:
Hi Jim

I will leave here, see no reason to argue.
If you trust me or not, I don't care. Just wanted to say bye bye

B

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 22, 2000 at 18:28:52 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: b
Subject: Fine but only if you don't come back
Message:
Bjorn,

This excuse only works once. But you've doen this before and you know it. Get lost, then. Fine. But stay away.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, May 21, 2000 at 21:58:24 (GMT)
From: Powerman
Email: None
To: Selene
Subject: I have a comment - you are a male I'll bet
Message:
You have a good point, Selene. I should change my name to Powerperson.

Not surprisingly, everyone but me did relate their answer in some way to a cult. After all this is an ex-cult forum. Of course, to say this means everyone's answer was 'influenced by programming' is ridiculous.

But I have a feeling Mr. B is getting at something. I wonder what it is?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, May 21, 2000 at 22:09:13 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: Powerman
Subject: my take was to make us look at the forum
Message:
I mean look at our dynamics.
I may be off here. I'm sure you will get an answer before I will though!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, May 21, 2000 at 12:31:29 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: fitzroy@liverpool.ac.uk
To: B
Subject: Happens like this...
Message:
Hi B,

For want of a better definition I would say brainwashing starts to happen whenever a person is persuaded to accept the irrational without question - a suspension of critical thinking. It happens in everyday life, sure, but in a cult such suspension becomes the norm rather than the exception.

Maybe the above definition would also include religious indoctrination of all colours (and in my opinion, it should!) But it's a matter of degree: accepting extraordinary claims about ordinary human beings such as M, Moon or Hubbard are just the extreme examples, since close scrutiny of those people would easily expose their ordinariness. Belief systems which deal only with the afterlife are impossible to falsify - so it's harder to make an accusation of 'brainwashing' stick.

But I don't think there are any special processes involved - just normal social interactions. Dawkins in 'Unweaving the Rainbow' gives a good account of why believing whatever we're told has crucial survival value for young children. Failure to develop adequate critical faculties probably explains why this susceptibility survives into adulthood. But, as I said, just my opinion.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 22, 2000 at 00:14:31 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Dawkins -The Blind Bookwriter
Message:
Maybe the above definition would also include materialistic indoctrination.

I've read some of Dawkins' books ('The Selfish Gene' and 'The Blind Watchmaker'). IMO, he uses some deceptive persuasion techniques himself (knowingly, I don't know).

For example:
. repeating the same thing over and over
. repeated use of the word 'we' and 'must'
. bait-and-switch tactics, like starting off describing a theory as speculation and then later acting like it's fact
. circular reasoning, using the assumption of non-design in his arguments that supposedly show non-design
. shifting definitions of words like 'evolution'
. unstated assumptions
. absurd analogies, like his 'biomorphs'
. repeated use of loaded words like 'random' and 'by chance'

On one page, he does state what he means by 'random', as in 'random' mutation. He means unguided. So why don't people just say unguided mutations? They can't get away with it, that's why, so they say 'random' mutations instead, which sounds more scientific. When has this claim of 'randomness' ever been proven?

As to an afterlife, who really knows? We don't even know what's going on here. We don't really know what physical energy is, what awareness is, or what our qualitative experiences are. We don't know why there is anything at all. Oops, now here I go repeatedly using 'we'!

So what is 'Unweaving the Rainbow' about, abandon all hope?

Keep in mind that Dawkins went to Catholic school (correct?). So I wonder about his sanity, given what he went through. I think he's got an axe to grind.

That's my opinion.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 23, 2000 at 14:37:38 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: G
Subject: Dawkins -The Blind Bookwriter
Message:
G:

Gosh, that's very well put. Very concise and on topic. Thanks.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 22, 2000 at 21:28:56 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: fitzroy@liverpool.ac.uk
To: G
Subject: I've had a bad day and someone has to pay!!
Message:
G:

First point: the power of natural selection as a theory is in no way dependent on Dawkins' qualities as a writer or polemicist, but since you've carried the discussion in that direction I’ll take the bait and deal point by point with what I think are pretty weak criticisms...

Maybe the above definition would also include materialistic indoctrination.

My definition of brainwashing as stated would include no such thing. I referred to ‘accepting the irrational', and to accepting it 'without question'. Scientific materialism is scrupulously rational (as was Darwin himself) and its methods the antithesis of 'accepting without question'.

I've read some of Dawkins' books ('The Selfish Gene' and 'The Blind Watchmaker'). IMO, he uses some deceptive persuasion techniques himself (knowingly, I don't know).

He certainly uses 'persuasion techniques' - the best one being good evidence. But persuasion is what arguing is all about, otherwise why else? 'Deception' is another matter and an unwarranted accusation if based on nothing more than your examples below.

For example:
. repeating the same thing over and over

When writing popular science (as opposed to papers for journal publication) you need to frequently restate your central premises for the benefit of readers who are slow on the uptake. Dawkins is misread and misrepresented badly enough as it is.

. repeated use of the word 'we' and 'must'

I think you are splitting hairs, here. This is standard vocabulary for presenting a formal argument. Everybody uses it, including Dawkins' critics. 'Given x we must accept y...'; 'Given we have an intelligent designer we must assume the HIV virus is an intelligent design'.


. bait-and-switch tactics, like starting off describing a theory as speculation and then later acting like it's fact

I don't know what you mean here (or I do know what you mean but don't see it happening in either of the books you cited.) Can you be more specific? If the 'argument from non-design' is mere 'speculation' (though Dawkins wouldn't regard it as such) then Watchmaker serves to show it as informed speculation rather than a belief system grounded in faith or dogma.

. circular reasoning, using the assumption of non-design in his arguments that supposedly show non-design

Dawkins' makes non-design his starting assumption and the first chapter of Blind Watchmaker explains why. It is no more than the principle of 'Occam's Razor', or parsimony: don't call unnecessary entities into your arguments until the evidence compels you. Or don't explain something known (the existence of life on Earth) by calling in an unknown (an invisible designer). Or - more applicable in this case - don't explain one complex system by invoking an entity that would have to be even more complex and for which we have no evidence, unless, of course, the observed complexity is irreducible. But circular reasoning? No way. It is the scientific evidence based on observations of the natural world rather than his own starting assumption that Dawkins uses to support non-design. (Unless you can identify the chapters where he does what you imply...)
Creationist reasoning is circular by definition - but that's another discussion.


. shifting definitions of words like 'evolution'

Dawkins means Darwinian selection: descent with variation, selective pressure of the environment leading to differential rates of reproductive success. In what other sense has Dawkins ever used the term?

. unstated assumptions

And that was an unstated criticism.

. absurd analogies, like his 'biomorphs'

Why are biomorphs absurd? They would be absurd if Dawkins suggested they were living entities in their own right. But as an example of the way descent with variation can easily give the impression of design, they do a pretty efficient job. I see no 'deceptive persuasion technique'.


. repeated use of loaded words like 'random' and 'by chance'

On one page, he does state what he means by 'random', as in 'random' mutation. He means unguided. So why don't people just say unguided mutations? They can't get away with it, that's why, so they say 'random' mutations instead, which sounds more scientific. When has this claim of 'randomness' ever been proven?

That is a feeble criticism (IMO). There is nothing 'loaded' about either of those terms. Of course you cannot 'prove' randomness but you can demonstrate non-randomness in specific cases by measuring the statistical deviation from a null (or 'normal') distribution in the occurance of mutations in a gene pool or within individual organisms. In this sense, the word has a valid meaning, ie. showing no apparent causal relationship or organising principle. 'Guided' (directed, organised) would be loaded through invoking an active agent. Similarly, 'unguided' - which you suggest nobody would get away with - would still bring in a designer as a sort of 'ghost at the feast' - which is why 'random' is certainly better until you have established your case. 'Unguidedness' may be Dawkins' starting assumption as well as his conclusion, but randomness is an observable phenomenon that even a ‘Creation scientist’ would recognise, and thus 'random' is a better working term when presenting your evidence.

As to an afterlife, who really knows? We don't even know what's
going on here. We don't really know what physical energy is, what
awareness is, or what our qualitative experiences are. We don't know
why there is anything at all. Oops, now here I go repeatedly using
'we'!

By all means do use the 'we' word; it is the 'why' word which is unnecessary for explaining the existence of life-forms. Again, it is about calling in unnecessary entities. For example, awareness is the product of a living, waking brain - and exists nowhere else that we know about. Brains may not yet be fully understood but they only happen in life-forms. Natural selection accounts for the evolution of life-forms. (Besides which, Dawkins never set out to explain consciousness, physical energy or qualitative experience so you can hardly fault him for failing to do so.)

My own point about the afterlife was merely to say it is harder to make the accusation of brainwashing stick when you cannot falsify the belief in question.

So what is 'Unweaving the Rainbow' about, abandon all hope?

No, it is about appreciating the beauty of the natural world. But since when did good science writing depend on the provision of hope?

Keep in mind that Dawkins went to Catholic school (correct?). So I
wonder about his sanity, given what he went through. I think he's
got an axe to grind.

Catholic school? Abandon all hope? I have no idea, but I think this is an insulting criticism of somebody you don't know much about. It is also the cheapest kind of attack (IMO) to make unwarranted assumptions about a person's motivation when you have inadequate grounds for dismissing their arguments. It would be unfortunate if others reading this started to doubt Dawkins’ sanity without having read any of his books (IMO, of course)

Dawkins also studied and researched under Von Frisch. More likely he is motivated by a passionate love of uncovering the truth than any revenge fantasy against his Papal Infallibleness.

That's my opinion.

Ditto.

(Sorry, G, if sounded at all abrasive - it wasn't my intention, but I care about this stuff because it goes to the core of everything I now believe - and things I came to believe very reluctantly at first. Nowadays I just get tired of reading arguments that no longer hold water for me, almost to the same extent I get pissed off with Maharaji apologists. If you and I were talking in the pub you’d see I was good-humoured right through, if somewhat animated! :-)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 24, 2000 at 01:51:24 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Dawkins' state of mind, his biomorphs
Message:
Consider the following quote from Dawkins regarding his playing with his 'biomorph' computer program. (from 'The Blind Watchmaker', pp. 59-60):

'When I wrote the program, I never thought that it would evolve anything more than a variety of tree-like shapes. I had hoped for weeping willows, ... I can't remember exactly when in the sequence it first began to dawn on me that an evolved resemblance to something like an insect was possible. With a wild surmise, I began to breed, generation after generation, from whichever child looked most like an insect. My incredulity grew in parallel with the evolving resemblance. ... Admittedly they have eight legs like a spider, instead of six like an insect, but even so! I cannot conceal from you my feeling of exultation as I first watched these exquisite creatures emerging before my eyes. I distinctly heard the triumphal opening chords of Also sprach Zarathustra (the '2001 theme') in my mind. I couldn't eat, and that night 'my' insects swarmed behind my eyelids as I tried to sleep.'

I really wonder about this guy. Insects swarming behind his eyelids. Yikes.

Actually, the resemblance that he saw was illusory. He projected the idea of an insect onto some of these odd two-dimensional shapes that to him looked like an insect. Consider your post above; we sometimes see meanings or resemblances where there are none. For example, in Rorschach blots or in clouds ('Methinks it is like a weasel.') Well, clouds are not like weasels, Rorschach blots are just blots, and his 'biomorphs' are just odd looking 2D shapes that he himself guided (intelligent agent, you do think he's intelligent, don't you?). Again, who wrote the program?

Flimsy impressions are not enough. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You've said that before, haven't you?


Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 24, 2000 at 01:05:52 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Dawkins' errors of omission, unstated assumptions
Message:
In 'The Blind Watchmaker', Dawkins first says the following (bold emphasis mine), in which he ironically agrees with Behe:

'We may say that a living body or organ is well designed if it has attributes that an intelligent and knowledgeable engineer might have built into it in order to achieve some sensible purpose, such as flying, swimming, seeing, eating, reproducing, or more generally promoting the survival and replication of the organism's genes. It is not necessary to suppose that the design of a body or organ is the best that an engineer could conceive of. ... But any engineer can recognize an object that has been designed, even poorly designed, for a purpose, and he can usually work out what that purpose is just by looking at the structure of the object. ...'

Later, and here's the switch, he tries to show evidence of overall non-design by pointing out supposed flaws, thus contradicting himself. One of the 'flaws' concerns the human eye. There is actually good evidence that what he points out, our inverted retina, is actually necessary for the proper functioning of the eye (see below).

He is what Dawkins writes:

'My second example of an evolutionary progression that didn't happen because of disadvantageous intermediates, even though it might ultimately have turned out better if it had, concerns the retina of our eyes (and all other vertebrates). Like any nerve, the optic nerve is a trunk cable, a bundle of separate 'insulated' wires, in this case about three million of them. Each ... leads from one cell in the retina to the brain. ... They are gathered together from all over the retina into a single bundle, which is the optic nerve ...

Any engineer would naturally assume that the photocells would point towards the light, with their wires leading backwards towards the brain. He would laugh at any suggestion that the photocells might point away from the light, with their wires departing on the side nearest the light. Yet this is exactly what happens ... The wire has to travel over the surface of the retina, to a point where it dives through a hole in the retina (the so-called 'blind spot') to join the optic nerve. ... the light, instead of being granted an unrestricted passage to the photocells, has to pass through a forest of connecting wires, presumably suffering at least some attenuation and distortion (actually not much but, still, it is the principle of the thing that would offend any tidy-minded engineer. I don't know the exact explanation for this strange state of affairs. ...'

There are numerous important details Dawkins leaves out (extracted from the web page referenced below):

. The rod and cone layer and all eight layers in front of it are virtually transparent to light.
. The retinal pigment epithelium (RPF, in back) produces substances which combat the damaging chemical by-products of light radiation.
. The RPF plays an essential part sustaining the photoreceptors. This includes recycling and metabolising their products, thereby renewing them in the face of continual wear from light bombardment.
. The photoreceptors thus need to be in intimate contact with the RPF, which is opaque.
. The RPF needs to be in intimate contact with the choroid (also opaque) both to satisfy its nutritional requirements and to prevent (by means of the heat sink effect of its massive blood flow) overheating of the retina from focused light.
. If our eyes were wired Dawkins' so-called 'right way', these two opaque layers would be in the way of light going to the photoreceptors which would leave us blind!
. The central retina is permeated with xanthophyll pigment which filters and absorbs damaging short-wavelength visible light. In this region of the retina, xanthophyll permeates all layers of the neurosensory retina (rod and code layer and the eight layers in front).
. ‘Our retinal blind spots rarely cause any difficulty’ a quote from Williams

So the inverted retina is needed for protection against light-induced damage.

The 'bad design' argument is debunked in detail at the following web page:

Is Our ‘Inverted’ Retina Really ‘Bad Design’?

The inverted retina, far from being evidence of non-design, is actually evidence of good design. It is also further evidence of irreducible complexity. Dawkins would be wise to stop his hysterical laughter.

Here are unstated assumptions in Dawkins' argument:
. Either God 'poofs' living creatures into existence fully formed or evolution happens in a totally materialistic manner and there is no Creator.
. Either everything is designed or nothing is designed.
. 'Imperfect' design is evidence of non-design (contradicting the first quote)

Showing evidence of 'imperfect' design is not evidence of non-design. It could well be that the Creator 'plays by the rules' and makes the best of evolution, that mutations as a whole are guided but that there are constraints. The Creator need not violate the laws of nature to guide evolution, the Creator could guide evolution via mutations and natural selection. Or maybe the Creator set things in motion then just let things happen, warts and all. That, btw, was Darwins' viewpoint. I think - when it comes to the eye - there was more than unguided mutations and blind selection going on.

More to come.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 24, 2000 at 01:52:40 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: all
Subject: and more to come (nt)
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 23, 2000 at 15:46:59 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Here's a ha'penny.
Message:
Nige:

My definition of brainwashing as stated would include no such thing. I referred to ‘accepting the irrational', and to accepting it 'without question'. Scientific materialism is scrupulously rational (as was Darwin himself) and its methods the antithesis of 'accepting without question'.

I'm not all that convinced. What are Euclidean 'points, lines and planes?' Most scientific materialism relies on mathematical concepts of questionable validity. At least, I haven't seen any serious question of the validity of those concepts as a whole in a few hundred years, though hyperbolic geometry managed to question the parallel lines postulate.
You can't be too scrupulously rational or you start encountering scruples.

In this sense, the word has a valid meaning, ie. showing no apparent causal relationship or organising principle.

It would be a great relief to me if statistics were that definitive. I'm glad you qualified the statement with the word 'apparent.' What non-significance shows is that there is no organizing principle within the considered model or at a particular level of resolution. Demonstrating that you have an exhaustive model or that you've encompassed all relevant levels of resolution is another matter.
This isn't to say that I think rationality is inherently problematic. But I do suspect that we have an insufficiently broad definition of rationality. This is, ultimately, a question of method... and a pretty hot one to boot.

By all means do use the 'we' word; it is the 'why' word which is unnecessary for explaining the existence of life-forms.

I think the 'we' part was a joke. I have a small problem with your turning G's 'why' question into some sort of advocacy for the notion of 'ultimate purpose.' I believe he was simply restating, in lay terms, the supremely relevant philosophical question: 'Why is there something rather than nothing?'

No, it is about appreciating the beauty of the natural world. But since when did good science writing depend on the provision of hope?

And since when did appreciating the beauty of the natural world depend on unweaving the rainbow?

It is also the cheapest kind of attack (IMO) to make unwarranted assumptions about a person's motivation when you have inadequate grounds for dismissing their arguments.

I think that was a joke. Perhaps you could try re-weaving your sense of humor. Clearly Dawkins is sane. He married Dr. Who's fetching assistant didn't he?

More likely he is motivated by a passionate love of uncovering the truth than any revenge fantasy against his Papal Infallibleness.
You clearly have no appreciation for the revenge lurking in the hearts of reformed Catholics. ;-) On a more sober note, scientists frequently have very mundane motivations. At least that's what Watson says in 'The Double Helix.' Maybe he was just being literary.

Just for the sake of transparency, I think G does an excellent job of recounting the reservations many of us have of Dawkins' work... and especially the depth of significance he himself attaches to it. Someone once said that if the only tool you have is a hammer then every problem looks like a nail. To some degree at least, this observation applies to Dawkins. Still, I'm not too worried about people being brainwashed by reading The Blind Watchmaker. If nothing else it's a good example of scientific argumentation, that probably does not ascend, or perhaps even pretend, to infallibility. It is enough to enjoy it for what it is. Hope you have a better day tomorrow. Go for a bike ride, or a row on the Thames (avoid the storm sluices).

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 23, 2000 at 14:37:11 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Thank you for that Nigel, and
Message:
that was a beautiful piece of work. Your hard work and education are certainly showing benefits.

It's difficult to throw off the conditioning of religion and 'spirituality' and replace these belief systems with the cool, clear rationality of science. I'm still working on it.

Jim has me(and IMO, many others here) SO turned off to Dawkins and evolutionary science that I feel the 'battle' becomes more pointed towards fending off Jim's abusive and combative 'argument' style rather than getting at the truth. It wouldn't be so bad if he had more than a mere glimmer of what the fuck he's talking about, but under these circumstances it becomes intolerable.

Again, thanks. Maybe I'll give Dawkins another whirl. And I truly hope to someday have that 'good natured' discussion with you at an English pub.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 23, 2000 at 02:16:42 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: A Dawkins quote re the Catholic religion
Message:
'I do think the Roman Catholic religion is a disease of the mind which has a particular epidemiology similar to that of a virus... Religion is a terrific meme. That's right. But that doesn't make it true and I care about what's true. Smallpox virus is a terrfic virus. It does its job magnificently well. That doesn't mean that it's a good thing. It doesn't mean that I don't want to see it stamped out.' -R. Dawkins, Skeptic vol 3, no 4, 1995

He doesn't have an axe to grind?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 23, 2000 at 15:59:18 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: G
Subject: A Dawkins quote re the Catholic religion
Message:
G:

Yikes! Ah well, I suppose it's approprate for the anti-religionists to have an advocate that's at least as passionate as the religionists. There are plenty of viruses to go around.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 24, 2000 at 02:24:51 (GMT)
From: Helen
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: A Dawkins quote re the Catholic religion
Message:
Hey Scott and G,
Pardon me for interrupting but since I've met you both I am going to chime in here. I really can't stand the sort of religion bashing that Dawkins engages in in that quote, although his metaphor was pretty funny. I have yet to see the advantages of atheism. I can't see the sociological benefits of atheism, maybe someone here could point them out to me.

Okay, I'll let the big brains argue this out.Hope you are both well.
Helen

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 24, 2000 at 16:16:45 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Helen
Subject: A Dawkins quote re the Catholic religion
Message:
Helen:

I don't know that there's been any research into the sociological benefits of atheism, but as you know there are a lot of benefits to religion: (lower crime and divorce rates, higher 'social capital' etc.). The only problem is that people don't, as a rule, really establish faith based on the perceived social benefit of religion. I know some have, but that's rather rare. Unitarians are, of course, one of the obvious exceptions.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 24, 2000 at 14:33:02 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: fitzroy@liverpool.ac.uk
To: Helen
Subject: Social value
Message:
Hi Helen,

Regarding your question: I have yet to see the advantages of atheism. I can't see the sociological benefits of atheism, maybe someone here could point them out to me.

For me this is a kind of upside-down way of looking at it. Mightn't it make more sense to start with the question: 'What has social value?'

My choices would include all activities which provide food to the starving, education to the illiterate, an end to torture and child cruelty, productive employment for those who need it and universal peace, harmony and understanding between races etc. etc... (In this, my list would pretty well match up with anybody else's - regardless of belief system.)

And having drawn up your list, then ask the question 'Is it necessary to believe in God to involve yourself in any of the above activities?'

Certainly there are all sorts of religion-based action groups involved in worthwhile projects, but I don't see the necessity for faith to do whatever good for its own sake. (In some ways a humanist involving themselves in any of the above is less open to the charge that they're only laying up treasures for themselves in the hereafter..!)

In themseleves, I don't see either belief or non-belief as having social value. Much good and much harm have come about from BOTH religious and secular political systems and individuals; but in the final analysis you'd probably agree with me that it is actions which speak louder than words.

I am an atheist not because I don't want to believe in God, but because I can't believe in God, even if I wanted to.
But for me there are many advantages - probably too many to list right now - but just being able to draw up your own moral code, take responsibility for your own choices, create your own world view and answer to nobody else can give you a wonderful sense of freedom - especially when you've had a religious upbringing followed by a mad cult episode...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 24, 2000 at 21:01:00 (GMT)
From: Helen
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Nige, Scott, G
Message:
Nige, That was a great post and I appreciate your ability to renumerate your value system without getting huffy. I think you are right that I approach this in an upside down way.

I think you have a clearly thought out value system that answers the important questions, IMO. Unfortunately a lot of folks, religious or not, never contemplate such questions.

I think atheism, as a philosophy is not something I can sink my teeth into, whereas humanism *is*. TO merely describe oneself as an 'atheist,' or as 'religious,' doesn't really answer any of the important sociological questions at all, does it?

Nigel, I guess I am more like you than unlike you, except for the fact that I can't *NOT* beleive in God. Believe me, I have tried, but it goes counter to my nature.

I agree with you that terrible things have been done in the name of Christ, etc (and as Scott brought up, these things most often occur where 'God' has a static definition). In Karen Armstrong's book 'A History of God,' her last chapter basically outlines why she beleives we need God, but she adds the caveat that only a non-static image of God will be useful for taking people through to the next millenium. Only with this non-static idea can Jews, Muslems and Christians come to the table together.

Some kind of dialogue on this subject has to take place for sure, as the world is changing so rapidly, the science fiction of yesterday is today's headlines. Ethical issues come up in medicine all the time, for example using tissue from aborted fetuses to repair spinal cord injuries, etc.

To add to the dialogue I can renumerate the advantages to me for having faith--greater meaning to my life, greater health and happiness (I think that recovery from illness in people of faith is quicker, according to some study I read), more impetus to do what my conscience dictates (yes, guilt is not always a bad thing).

I have been watching a mini-series with my daughter on Jesus, we taped it and are watching it bit by bit. The Unitarian notion of Jesus as allegory or metaphor definitely enables me to help my daughter digest the miracles etc. I have this tremendous appreciation of the Jesus story without all the crap so often associated with it. The story just fills me with hope for some crazy reason, even though I know so many people raised Christian who have totally been ruined for all time (understandably) by their religious upbringings.

I've had so many experiences of feeling comforted by the idea of God, for example at my sister-in-law's memorial service less than a month ago, where we were all just completely racked with grief. Even my husband, the agnostic, found the idea of GInny being embraced by a loving Jesus (which the minister described with such conviction) to be comforting, and neither of us are even Christians! But that's what Ginny beleived, and it brought us great comfort. Her eyes were shining at the time of death and she communicated that she saw angels. To me, I choose to focus on this rather than the fact that my sister in law's life was cut down way too early. I don't think this makes me complacent--god no, whatever we can do to support breast cancer research and eradicate this terrible disease, I am all for it. I guess I tend to hold the Jewish notion that God doesn't make all these terrible things go away, but comforts us when these terrible things happen. I have experienced that even during times in my life when I doubted with all my mind and heart that God existed.

Perhaps it is a matter of wanting to beleive in God. Part of me recognizes that there may be no God on any objective reality level yet this idea of 'God' is always with me. I guess it makes my life better not worse, so I don't see the harm in it. Just as your humanism makes your life better and has advantages to you. I just don't see the big whoop where one belief system has to be shared by all. I like the fact that we are all different, it makes sense that our approaches to the religion question will vary based on our temperaments, thinking styles, experiences.

I guess this is way off topic, but I do hope that premies who are lurking about can come away from here with a sense of the varieties of religious experience, (to quote William james) of cult survivors, that we're not all cookie cutters who all came to the same conclusions post-Maharaji. Anyway, that's all for now,
Love and kisses to your labrador
Helen

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 24, 2000 at 18:19:43 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Do whatever good for its own sake
Message:

'do whatever good for its own sake'

'it is actions which speak louder than words'

'being able to draw up your own moral code, take responsibility for your own choices, create your own world view and answer to nobody else can give you a wonderful sense of freedom'

Well said.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 24, 2000 at 16:42:16 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Religion and social value
Message:
Nigel:

And having drawn up your list, then ask the question 'Is it necessary to believe in God to involve yourself in any of the above activities?

Pretty obvious you're a psychologist rather than a sociologist. I'm not prepared to quote chapter and verse, but there is a *lot* of literature on both the benefits and liabilities of religion. For the most part both are real and there's always a tradeoff. Japan is the most irreligious industrialized country on earth, but they seem to have a lot of social capital, low crime, etc. Of course, I wouldn't exactly describe Japan as a society devoted to atheism either. On the other side, the US is probably the most relgious country (next to Ireland), but has one of the highest crime rates.

However, if you look at crime and lack of social capital specifically it is not the people with religion that are the source. It is, rather, the disconnect between the state and religion. It is ironic that countries that at one time had strong centralized religion also usually have high levels of statism, and this tends to hold down the crime rate and increase social capital. I think this is in direct contradiction to Dawkin's claims about religion in general and Catholicism in particular, but it also (ironically) explains his aversion to religion.

The relevant function involves the relationship between religion and the state, and often with religion itself in an atrophied condition. This situation may have begun to catch up with us though, since crime rates and divorce rates in some of these statist countries has begun to rise precipitously. Ireland (not N. Ireland) is a good example of a country that is both statist and religious, and retains a low crime rate and high social capital... but relatively modest levels of innovation and economic growth. It's a sort of special case that's illustrative of how we got where we are.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 24, 2000 at 16:54:51 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Religion and social value - addendum
Message:
Nigel:

I should add that the sort of individual activity you (rightly) label as beneficial bolongs to a class that sociologists call 'associational ties.' It is another one of those ironies that the US has the highest level of associational ties (by far) while it also has the highest level of religiosity and the highest crime and divorce rates. Nothing is simple any more.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 23, 2000 at 02:41:41 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: All
Subject: commentary on quote from atheistic religion site
Message:
The above quote is from the following web page

Richard Dawkins

from the atheistic religion web site www.unbelief.com

Here is the commentary:

'We appreciate Dawkins ability to remove all emotion from his xian bashing. Just 'stamp them out', yeah! What a guy! What a compassionate, tolerant statement from an open-minded person. Hey, forget separation of church and state; who needs separation when we can have elimination! Reminds me of another person who lived in Germany during the WWII era. Its good to know that rational, unbiased people like Dawkins can take the torch and march it on into the 21st century. The IPF approves of Dawkins objective logic, which is totally free from presuppositions and personal bias.'

Totally disgusting.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 23, 2000 at 02:59:00 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: G
Subject: How thick can you be?
Message:
Q: Is wanting to 'stamp out' religion the same as wanting to 'stamp out' religious people?

A: No, of course not.

Q: Is this not obvious?

A: Yes.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 23, 2000 at 15:45:56 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: True, his opponents also distort words
Message:
I agree, this shows how opponents in an argument often distort each other's words. As I pointed out, this is a parody site.

However, '... I ... want to stamp it out' is unnecessarily combative and has a feeling of violence. Fanaticism and intolerance is not good and left unchecked can lead to disasterous results. Dawkins is irresponsible in using this kind of language. There have been cases of atheists persecuting religious people and vica versa. It is important that people treat each other in a civil manner.

Here's a question for you:

If you were in charge of selecting science teachers for a university or the staff for a scientific research project, would you ask candidates about their philosophical beliefs? Why or why not?

Personally, I am for tolerance, as I implied by my post regarding Einstein defending Bertrand Russell. The thing is, it has to go both way. There have been cases where the situation was reversed.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 23, 2000 at 02:48:36 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: all
Subject: The 'atheistic religion' site is a parody (nt)
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 23, 2000 at 18:35:51 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: all
Subject: But this is a real atheistic religion site
Message:
Check this out:

The Church of Virus

Here is their Saint Darwin adoration page where he is described as a 'memetic engineer':

Saint Darwin

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 22, 2000 at 21:48:15 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: G doesn't deserve the time
Message:
Nigel,

Even if I could write such a thorough response to G (which I'm sure I couldn't, having no where near your understanding of the issues, I'm sure), I wouldn't. He doesn't deserve it. His completely uncalled for, pompous derision precludes any real discussion. We're talking 'spiritual', Nige. Don't forget it. G thinks he 'knows' something and that which he knows is so profound and enlightening it's given him eyes to see the intellecutal and moral shortcomings of snakes like Dawkins. You might be good-humoured sitting around the table but I'm not sure I would be.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 24, 2000 at 02:06:34 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: a telling admission
Message:
You admit the following about yourself to Nigel:

'I couldn't, having no where near your understanding of the issues, I'm sure.'

If you don't have a good understanding of the issues, why are you so emotionally insistant that you are right? Do you have some kind of sixth sense or something? You just know you're right?

Why is there anything at all?

Why does a rainbow's shape conform to mathematical equations? Where do the equations come from? Why do the different colors look the way they do?

You're just like me, in the end just a guy with a few questions about what's going on, why we're here, how we got here, where we're going, etc. The difference is, you think you know all the answers.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 24, 2000 at 02:32:13 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: G
Subject: Wrong!
Message:
Big difference between me and you, G, is that I'm no expert in the field but I respect the players. You don't. You're the guy who's alleging that Dawkins is either shifty or stupid (i.e. given to illogical arguments), remember? See, I think Dawkins is way cool, not because of any 'sixth sense' but because I've read a number of his books, and a lot of his interviews, essays and commentarys. Yes, I get angry when I see someone like you rise up so pompously -- and yes, that's the word, I'm sticking with it -- trying to slag Dawkins just because you can't handle the implications of evolution.

You can't have it both ways, G. Either you side with the creationists who necessarily think that the scientific establishment is dumb or confused (read 'dumb') or you don't. Personally, I find that attitude offensive whether in you or anyone else.

And what's your real argument anyway? Isn't it nothing but an appeal to ignorance? We don't have all the pieces of the evolutionary puzzle yet so maybe they never came in the box to begin with and maybe, just maybe, the whole thing will turn out to be God's lovely handiwork and we can send the puzzle back unfinished? Dream on! Like it or not, evolutionary theory is completing the picture at break-neck speed. Darwin discovered the mechanism of evolution just over a hundred years ago and look how much we've learned about it since then. And all the findings cut into religion's turf, never the other way around. It doesn't take a genius to predict how this race will finish. My money's on science and fuck the old spiritual traditions that were simply marking time for all those centuries. Fuck them all. They're useless as far as I'm concerned.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 24, 2000 at 17:11:49 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!
Message:
I respect the players. You don't

Wrong, you only respect some of the players. I listen to what the various sides have to say, and there are more than two sides.

you can't handle the implications of evolution

Wrong. Actually, it's you who can't handle the implications of evolution (not your very specific definition and viewpoint). Let's just suppose there actually WERE many advantageous intermediate forms that led up to the various forms of eyes that emerged not once, but many times independently. What does that really imply? Think about it for a change. Use your brain. Do I need to help you out with this one?

Either you side with the creationists who necessarily think that the scientific establishment is dumb or confused (read 'dumb') or you don't.

Wrong. I do not side with the creationists, and simply not agreeing with materialism doesn't make one a creationist.

We don't have all the pieces of the evolutionary puzzle yet

Correct. That's my point.

maybe they never came in the box to begin with

That hasn't been determined. My guess is that essentially they did, but that - to me - suggests a far greater intelligence than the 'poof' theory. Also, I don't assume that I know much about 'the box'. You seem to have a particular little concept in your little head of what 'the box' is. You also seem to think that your little concept is an accurate representation of, no, actually IS 'the box'. That arrogant attitude is not shared by the most brilliant scientists of all time.

the whole thing will turn out to be God's lovely handiwork and we can send the puzzle back unfinished?

I don't advocate that scientists should throw up their hands, simplistically say 'God did it' and stop inquiring into the workings of nature. I implied nothing of the sort. Again, you are under the false impression that it must be that either 1) there is an 'all-powerful God' that controls everything, that everything is simply due to His magic and is beyond our grasp, or 2) the other extreme, materialism, Matter is all there is, Matter is god, there is no intelligence or anything else behind nature, it's all due to meaningless 'Chance' (when it really gets down to it). That is your unproven extremist viewpoint.

never the other way around

Wrong. The more we find out about Nature, the more ingenious complexity is revealed. Occam's Razor, as you said yourself, is not a statement about the way the world really is. In fact, the world turns out to be much more complicated than people could have imagined. These complexities, while sometimes there are simple principles involved, cannot be reduced in an evolutionary manner to absolute nothingness. Something that is simple is far different than nothing, there is still a degree of complexity involved. As Newton said, 'nothing comes from nothing'. That is a self-evident truth. I would go further: by definition, there is no such thing as nothing.

As for Adam and Eve, the Garden of Eden, the Flood, the young earth theory, eternal hell, and the Bible being the Word of God, I never believed any of that anyway, so you're barking up the wrong tree. I agree with Darwin, the concept of an eternal hell is a damnable belief.

As to appealing to ignorance, isn't that what you are doing? Our ignorance leaves open the possibility of some unknown replicator(s) predating the first cell, numerous unknown intermediate forms, who knows how many unknown other universes, and some unknown means by which awareness and qualia can be explained in physical terms. So maybe, just maybe, you're right. You have a great deal of faith in your unknowns.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, May 25, 2000 at 02:32:55 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: G
Subject: Come off it, G
Message:
I do not side with the creationists, and simply not agreeing with materialism doesn't make one a creationist.

You're making me laugh again. Do you believe in Intelligent Design or not? Yes = Creationism. No two ways about it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, May 25, 2000 at 03:31:43 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Come off what?
Message:
Yes, I believe in Intelligent Design. No, that is not the same as Creationism. I challenge you to show that they are equivalent.

Here are some definitions of creationism from the www.trueorigin.org glossary page. I do not believe in these views. The biblical view is the one referred to by 'Creationism' with a capital C.

1) general—the view that a creator brought the universe, its contents, and its inhabitants into being and into order from literally nothing (as opposed to the view that matter is either eternal or the result of a spontaneous self-creating process);
[a false dichotomy IMO]

2) biblical—the view that the Creator is none other than the Creator-God whose nature and purpose in creation and history is revealed in the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures (the Bible), including His initial acts of creation as indicated in a straightforward reading of the Creation Week account in Genesis and corroborated in the balance of the Bible;

3) scientific—the view that empirical science is fully capable of corroborating either or both general and biblical creationism viewpoints (described above), and which serves as the basis for scientific endeavors with that end in mind.

Intelligent Design theory does not imply the above.

You have a problem with inappropriate, uncontrollable laughter.

Do you think something can come from nothing? IMO, that's magical thinking and I don't believe it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 22, 2000 at 01:13:15 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: G
Subject: Your protest is a pathetic joke, G
Message:
Very, very funny watching you spit and sputter in the face of science. Ha ha ha. Yes, here's G again, sqwuaking about 'circular reasoning', piercing the veil of shifty, no-good 'materialism'. And just look at these guys! Caught saying 'random' when, as G has so cleverly deduced, he really means 'unguided'. And all those 'we's?

'Throw the bum out!', eh G? I think you got him this time.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 22, 2000 at 02:13:48 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: G
Subject: Thoughtful analysis, G
Message:
I really like that you took the time to read these books yourself instead of relying on hearsay or second hand regurgitation.

And never mind Jim. You've just kicked his favourite hobby horse and one would have thought it was a land mind instead of an opinion. This sentence is particularly sarcastic, insulting and distorted:

Caught saying 'random' when, as G has so cleverly deduced, he really means 'unguided'.

Of course, you 'deduced' no such thing. The author himself stated it clearly. Jim is in classic knee-jerk defense mode when someone disagrees with him or his heroes. Somehow they 'validate' him, as he is still reeling from his guru cult trip, and he needs the authority of 'experts'.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 22, 2000 at 02:40:44 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: about Dawkins
Message:
There is a lot of interesting information in the two Dawkins books that I read. I agree with him on certain things, it's the overall non-design concept that I don't agree with.

I certainly don't think that Dawkins is evil, especially considering the following quotes from 'The Selfish Gene':

'We, alone on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish relicators.'

'I am not advocating a morality based on evolution.'

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 22, 2000 at 02:01:33 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: A weak response
Message:
I'm glad you found that amusing.

You resort to empty sarcasm and insults because you don't know what else to say. Again you equate 'science' with materialism, they are not the same. This is another example of a shifting definition and misuse of a word.

See the above quotes from Charles Darwin. I don't think he would have appreciated how Dawkins has used his theory to promote absolute materialism.

So what do you think of Dawkins' biomorphs? Do you really think they are in any way like living creatures?

They don't have any functions, don't move, don't look like insects, and are just simple two-dimensional shapes. Futhermore, Dawkins, an intelligent agent, wrote the program and guided the evolutionary process. So much for showing non-design.

What about the origin of the first cell? Do you believe in this bizarre 'living clay' theory?

What scientific evidence is there that there was any replicator before the first cell?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 22, 2000 at 03:52:06 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: G
Subject: No, you missed you own joke
Message:
I don't laugh because I don't know what else to say. I laugh because you're being very funny about this. I'm struck by your haughtiness more than anything. You know, we've had this discussion before. G thinks straight and talks straight because G is a man of honour. Slimy, stupid 'materialist' so-called 'scientists' like Dawkins, on the other hand, are deceitful, muddled worms. Remember doing this before? Remember how you ended up retracting most, if not all, of your blusterous complaint? In the end, you were just another guy with a few questions about evolution. No different than me except for you have a really, really hard time considering its implications for your pet 'spirituality'.

So you want a more detailed, substantive response? Sure.

It matters not what Darwin himself might have thought or not thought about how evolutionary theory has advanced since his time. This isn't a personality cult, it's science. Darwinism has grown leaps and bounds since Darwin's time and he would have to study its advance (albeit on his own initial world-changing foundation) just like any other student of science. Would he appreciate Dawkins' view of it all? Of course he would. Darwin would deal with the evidence, just like all the other real players in the field (not religious squatters like Behe, etc.). He'd be amazed at the discovery of DNA and completely excited by the way this and other related discoveries enhance, not threaten, the basic model of random mutation and natural selection. And if he didn't, he'd marginalize himself for the sake of some sacred cow like God.

Do I think Dawkins' biomorphs are in any way like real living creatures? Yes and no. I think they serve a useful heuristic role and are quite ingenious in that respect. Dawkins isn't trying to re-create life and you know that. He's trying to make a point about the essential mechanism of evolutionary replication. Too bad for you you can't appreciate it. As for Dawkins writing the program ... well I guess it depends on how much of a fool you want to make of yourself, doesn't it? Dawkins' model, like many others in this field of science and others, does indeed have an element of randomness notwithstanding that the model itself was designed. If you think that's not possible I guess all the stupid so-called scientists who think they're able to structure models that test for randomness in various ways are in for a rude awakening whenever G gets around to setting them straight. Thank God for your sharp eye on this one!

And the origin of the first cell? Do I think that Dawkins' hypothetical musings aren't simply bizarre? Short answer: how the fuck would I know? I'm not a scientist and I'm certainly not G! I'll leave these great questions to people like you who can really take science to the mat for jerking our chain if and when we let them. Do me a favour, Genius, you hash it out with those guys for me, okay? Whoever wins let me know because, what can I tell you, I'm a mere layman. But good work, G. Keep those assholes on their toes, will you?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 23, 2000 at 01:53:22 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: You can stop laughing, Mr. Hyena
Message:

I don't laugh because I don't know what else to say. I laugh because you're being very funny about this. I'm struck by your haughtiness more than anything.

The first two statements are just an expression of your emotional feelings of superiority and derisive contempt. You like to express your feelings.
You think I'm haughty simply because I dare to challenge your opinions and beliefs.

You know, we've had this discussion before.

What is this, deja vu?

G thinks straight and talks straight because G is a man of honour.

Why do you hide like a coward behind sarcasm? Why these thinly veiled insults?

Slimy, stupid 'materialist' so-called 'scientists' like Dawkins, on the other hand, are deceitful, muddled worms.

Dawkins is a biologist, biologists are scientists, therefore Dawkins is a scientist. Duh. I never said that Dawkins is not a scientist, which is what you are implying by saying so-called 'scientists'. Also, I never said he was slimy, stupid, or a worm. I do think that he does engage in some deceitful (maybe simply self-deceiving) practices in his writing and that on some issues he is muddled. By quoting 'materialist', are you implying that he is not a materialist? He sure seems like one to me.

Remember doing this before?

That is not a question, that is a false accusation.

Remember how you ended up retracting most, if not all, of your blusterous complaint?

Talk about false memories. Here, you continue with this low tactic, hiding an accusation behind a question. The fact is, I did nothing of the sort and there was no blusterous complaint.

In the end, you were just another guy with a few questions about evolution.

Another false rendition of what happened.

No different than me except for you have a really, really hard time considering its implications for your pet 'spirituality'.

Wrong, I do not share your viewpoints regarding evolution and for very good rational reasons. I have considered what your materialism - using evolution as a crutch - implies, if it (materialism) were true. It implies that there is no spirituality, which is what you hinted at by pet 'spirituality'. Evolution does not imply materialism, so your statement is meaningless.

So you want a more detailed, substantive response? Sure.

Well, so far you've said nothing of substance, so let's see what's next.

It matters not what Darwin himself might have thought or not thought about how evolutionary theory has advanced since his time.

You herald him as a champion of the materialistic movement, despite that fact that he never was an atheist. I was referring to Dawkins' materialism, not evolutionary theory.

This isn't a personality cult, it's science.

Dawkins' materialism is not science.
Check this out:

Saint Charles

You've seen this before, haven't you? Yes, a web page revering Darwin as a 'Virian Saint', complete with a strange yellow halo around his head.

Darwinism has grown leaps and bounds since Darwin's time and he would have to study its advance (albeit on his own initial world-changing foundation) just like any other student of science.

True

Would he appreciate Dawkins' view of it all? Of course he would.

If you carefully read what Darwin wrote, it's clear that he would not.

Darwin would deal with the evidence, just like all the other real players in the field (not religious squatters like Behe, etc.).

Oh, so now you are the one passing judgement about who's a 'real' scientist. You think Behe is not being 'real' about being a scientist. Being religious does not lessen the credentials of a scientist, you are absolutely wrong about that. Behe is a professional biochemist who made some very valid points about evolution. Like it or not, irreducible complexity is a subject that needs to be addressed.

He'd be amazed at the discovery of DNA and completely excited by the way this and other related discoveries enhance, not threaten, the basic model of random mutation and natural selection. And if he didn't, he'd marginalize himself for the sake of some sacred cow like God.

Yes he would, they do enhance the model of mutation and natural selection. Darwin would probably hold to his premise of unguided mutations at a micro-level. He might not on a macro-level, given the complexities that have been revealed. Either way, that would not make him a materialist, he believed in an intelligent First Cause that did not intervene once setting things in motion. The concept of chance appealed to him because it resolved the problem of suffering and evil. If he knew the complexity of the cell and the fine-tuning of the laws of physics, it most likely would strengthen his belief in designed laws.

Do I think Dawkins' biomorphs are in any way like real living creatures? Yes and no. I think they serve a useful heuristic role and are quite ingenious in that respect.

Heuristic, big word, it could mean 'Of or relating to a usually speculative formulation serving as a guide in the investigation or solution of a problem' or 'Of, relating to, or constituting an educational method in which learning takes place through discoveries that result from investigations made by the student.'
Well, I agree that it is speculative. Educational? That depends on what you mean. Maybe you mean this: 'You have to become an advocate and use the tricks of the advocate's trade.' (Dawkins, p.xiv)

Dawkins isn't trying to re-create life and you know that. He's trying to make a point about the essential mechanism of evolutionary replication. Too bad for you you can't appreciate it.

I didn't say he was, the thing is, he doesn't even create complexity, nothing that even remotely models life. I understand the theoretical mechanism involved. He gives the impression that he was doing more than just trying - not very well - to make a point about it. He was actually presenting this as a demonstrative model of how random mutation and natural selection could account for evolution. After giving this impression, he eventually admits: 'We now have a much more realistic model of evolution than the monkeys typing Shakespeare gave us. But the biomorph model is still deficient. It shows us the power of cumulative selection to generate an almost endless variety of quasi-biological form, but it uses artificial selection, not natural selection. The human eye does the selecting.' In actuality, his model was totally off the mark.

As for Dawkins writing the program ... well I guess it depends on how much of a fool you want to make of yourself, doesn't it?

That is the typical abusive language that you use.

Dawkins' model, like many others in this field of science and others, does indeed have an element of randomness notwithstanding that the model itself was designed.

If has an element of pseudo-randomness (nothing negative implied) in a statistical sense. So what? What does that say about whether the universe in general was designed or whether mutations were guided? Yes indeed, the model was designed, think about it. And what do other models have to do with this? Besides, there was artificial selection going on, so it doesn't matter how much randomness there was.

If you think that's not possible I guess all the stupid so-called scientists who think they're able to structure models that test for randomness in various ways are in for a rude awakening whenever G gets around to setting them straight. Thank God for your sharp eye on this one!

What are you talking about? Test for randomness? That's not what Dawkins was doing. You really should stop with these dirty argumentative tactics, namely false accusations and sarcasm. I did not say anything against science. You know, scientists regularly criticize each other's work, that's part of how science works. Scientists should welcome criticism, but you think that your hero is beyond reproach.

And the origin of the first cell? Do I think that Dawkins' hypothetical musings aren't simply bizarre? Short answer: how the fuck would I know? I'm not a scientist and I'm certainly not G! I'll leave these great questions to people like you who can really take science to the mat for jerking our chain if and when we let them. Do me a favour, Genius, you hash it out with those guys for me, okay? Whoever wins let me know because, what can I tell you, I'm a mere layman. But good work, G. Keep those assholes on their toes, will you?

First you don't answer my question, then you ONCE AGAIN falsely accuse me of being against science, putting words like 'asshole' in my mouth. I'm not wrestling with science. Your sarcasm is TRULY tiresome.

My point is that since Dawkins doesn't have a clue about the origin of the first cell, the subtitle of his Blind Watchmaker book - How the evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design - is totally unsubstantiated and misleading.
There is no evidence that the first cell evolved, that is presumed only because of a prior assumption of non-design.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 23, 2000 at 14:03:05 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: G
Subject: Excellent response, G
Message:
And well stated and thought out. Truly a pleasure to read. Not only is your understanding of the subject matter strong (probably much stronger and more studied than Jim's by a long, long shot) but you dealt beautifully with Jim's sarcastic, abusive, divisive and indeed tiring tirades.

You have to understand that the only thing this guy (Heller) has going for him is the learned ability to argue combatively. He rarely has anything of substance to say, and as we can all observe, wears his emotions on his sleeve and can not resist the compulsion to lash out contemptuously at anyone with whom he diagrees. And the funny thing about it, is he rarely knows what the fuck he's talking about, but his training as a defense lawyer allows him way too much 'authority' and 'expertise.'

Jimmy is just a wounded little boy running around popping his big mouth off at anyone he can, at every opportunity. It's truly embarrassing to be part of the same 'cyber community' as he.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 23, 2000 at 15:46:26 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: Hey, if you've got Gerry on side you must be right
Message:
That's pretty formidable support, I'm sure. Gerry's reasoned opinions have become legendary around here. Yes, indeed.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 23, 2000 at 16:44:16 (GMT)
From: Joey
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Hey, if you've got Gerry on side you must be right
Message:
You're darn right!

As a matter of fact, his post is right on. And I know of several people who I`ve brought to these pages so they could observe your behavior, and they had exactly the same thing to say about you, as Gerry. You bet there are MANY who would agree with gerry 100%!

In fact, all one has to do is reread your exchange with G and they would know that gerry is right.

As he said, you truly are an embarrassment here!

And before I go, you little legal jerk off artist...you can leave even more abusive, violent in tone messages on my voice mail...they`re really fun to pass around!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 23, 2000 at 18:22:33 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: Joey
Subject: all right Joey
Message:
love you :)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 23, 2000 at 17:26:37 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Joey
Subject: Hey, if you've got Gerry on side you must be right
Message:
Thanks Joey, I appreciate that.

And before I go, you little legal jerk off artist...you can leave even more abusive, violent in tone messages on my voice mail...they`re really fun to pass around!

God I wish he'd do this to me. Perhaps the Canadian Bar would be interested. This jerk-off ought to be washing dishes in a restaurant instead of defending people in court.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, May 21, 2000 at 15:19:54 (GMT)
From: Angry
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Happens like this./Thanks, Nigel(NT)..
Message:
skunk
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, May 21, 2000 at 15:15:43 (GMT)
From: Terry McCann
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: To wash you need one...Plain out of luck Nigel!!
Message:
ujhgyfgf
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, May 21, 2000 at 15:47:12 (GMT)
From: raina
Email: None
To: Terry McCann
Subject: JIM! Sumbuddy's being mean to Nige again!!!!
Message:
sorry to rat on ya ter?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, May 21, 2000 at 18:46:53 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: raina
Subject: So long as it isn't you, Raina, who cares?
Message:
Raina,

Why would I care if someone picks on Nigel? He's a big boy and is more than able to take care of himself. But if you even think of attacking him again, watch out! We're talking serious double standards. Capiche?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, May 21, 2000 at 21:08:04 (GMT)
From: raina
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: no capiche
Message:
ya that's right Jim i was being serious.
One of my alternate personalities is this
tattle-tale asshole who really relies on
your explanation of things in order to concoct
a response for elaine's personal TV show.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, May 21, 2000 at 02:37:25 (GMT)
From: Daneane
Email: None
To: B
Subject: I dunno...
Message:
but ask me over and over and over and over and then maybe it will come to me.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, May 21, 2000 at 01:39:48 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: B
Subject: A subjective answer
Message:
Who are you looking to brainwash? (just kidding)
-----------
First there has to be the right setting. A vulnerability in the subject. A deep need to believe or a need to fill a void.
And a desperate hope that this external person or group can do this for the person. Enough so that one will ignore any obvious doubts or warning signs. I'm still working out this one!
When I received 'knowledge' I was handed a piece of paper with instructions to 'NEVER LEAVE ROOM FOR DOUBT IN YOUR MIND'

Later, constant reinforcement from peers and from those considered to be your teachers or somehow higher in rank or evolvement than you are. While losing touch with the other part of one's life. Family, former friends, becomes less important and one loses touch with them.

And special incentives like moving up in the ranks and being admired and looked highly upon by others if you get closer to those who are higher up, etc... all the while losing touch with the outer world.
It seems so obvious and simple but it can be so insidious.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, May 21, 2000 at 05:52:19 (GMT)
From: raina
Email: None
To: Selene
Subject: do you think
Message:
it may be that altering one's own states of mind(s)
with vodka for example, could be considered self-brainwashing?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, May 21, 2000 at 05:55:06 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: raina
Subject: geez!! well of course *I* would think that
Message:
or it could be a form of self un brainwashing. depends how you look at it. Why do you ask?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, May 21, 2000 at 06:16:05 (GMT)
From: raina
Email: None
To: Selene
Subject: geez!! well of course *I* would think that
Message:
cause it seemed like a fun thought of course! (and true!)

i met Pete Seeger last night......i couldn't resist...i had to hug him....

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, May 21, 2000 at 06:33:36 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: raina
Subject: I'm glad someone had fun last night
Message:
I've been sunk in hormonal and cooincidental full mood funk.
Shouldn't be here at this time. Thinking about all the guru stuff
and how it all came to pass and what is what and all.
being over serious. And angry.
Give someone a hug for me. I can't stand touching anyone right now. I know I should know who Pete Seeger is. and no, no vodka. That isn't why.
ick. I can't even stand listening to my self.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, May 21, 2000 at 00:34:14 (GMT)
From: henrik
Email: None
To: B
Subject: How does brainwashing happen?
Message:
It depends on whether you prefer the biological or non-biological approach , either way I failed the Maharaji doorstep challenge

Henrik ,

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, May 20, 2000 at 23:39:08 (GMT)
From: Henrik
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: The answer to AWJ 's question
Message:
AWJ asks the question that no premie seems to want to answer.
What is the difference between a Moonie and a Premie?
The answers is obvious :
A moonie is about showing your arsehole and a premie is about talking through it.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 22, 2000 at 08:04:50 (GMT)
From: AJW
Email: None
To: Henrik
Subject: The answer to AWJ 's question
Message:
Hi Henrik,

Talking through it, and disappearing up it (in search of inner peace perhaps).

I think that's the best answer yet Henrik.

Are you Scottish?

Anth the Half Irish

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, May 20, 2000 at 23:00:44 (GMT)
From: Ged
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Office 2000 says I'm the new lord of the universe!
Message:
Move over Maharaji , I just put a document through microsoft office 2000 spellchecker and when it got to my name it changed it to God .
Can I have my own cult now ? send guilt ridden cheques to Ged@massive.con
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, May 21, 2000 at 01:22:52 (GMT)
From: Stonor
Email: None
To: Ged
Subject: Godd, I mean God, make it Gad, no that's Good Ged!
Message:
I've rarely bothered to put anything I write through spell check - it takes too long!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, May 21, 2000 at 01:42:58 (GMT)
From: Stonor
Email: None
To: Ged
Subject: And before Katie Geds it . . .
Message:
And before Katie Geds it . . . I'm sure you're aware that 'Ged' is the main character in the first book, The Wizard of Earthsea, of the Earthsea Trilogy, by Ursula Leguinn? It's great summer reading if you come across it.

Stonor

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, May 21, 2000 at 12:55:53 (GMT)
From: God (ged)
Email: None
To: Stonor
Subject: And before Katie Geds it . . .
Message:
Yeah , I have read it , in fact I got it as a present from AWJ years ago for the reason that the main character had the same name as me.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 22, 2000 at 08:09:06 (GMT)
From: AJW
Email: None
To: God (ged)
Subject: And before Katie Geds it . . .
Message:
Ged le Red,

So that's what happened to it.

When am I going to get it back then?

Anth the Where's Me Library Gone.

ps Are you still on the run?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, May 20, 2000 at 22:03:59 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: I'd like to hear Vicky's side of the story
Message:
From ELK:

Gloria Bianco

At Glastonbury Well

From Wells, Someset, UK

I had gone to the well at Glastonbury to get my weekly water supply, and I met someone I hadn't seen for nearly 30 years.

The last time I met Vicky was in a Notting Hill flat in September 1971. On that occasion we both received Knowledge. In fact, we had sat right next to each other.

In those days, we had both been waiting for Knowledge at the same time and had become comrades in the attempt to 'persuade' an instructor to give us Knowledge. Weeks after receiving it, we flew off to India for three months in Maharaji's ashram with a jumbo-jet full of other people who had recently received Knowledge.

Even though it was nearly 30 years ago, I still remembered her name, although I don't remember seeing her in the intervening years. We sat by the well as our containers filled from the very slow running spout (I always feel very ancient fetching my water), We swopped news and she was very interested to hear of my recent visits to India although she said she wasn't into 'that' anymore. I was so pleased to see her and I remembered those days waiting for Knowledge and the excitement - what innocent enthusiasm! My container had filled and it was time to go, then I remembered the audio tape in the back of the glove compartment in my car and I said to her ' I would like to give you something' I handed her the tape . She gave me a broad smile.

The tape I gave her was the New York public event, I had liked it so much I bought a spare copy - thinking what a nice gift it would make. And it had been in the glove compartment of my car for over a year. But after 30 years that did not seem like such a very long time...


Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 22, 2000 at 14:17:18 (GMT)
From: AJW
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: I hope...
Message:
...that her friend by the well made good use of the tape, and recorded some 'Death Metal' or 'Hardcore House' over the quasi-hindu-waffle.

Anth the Head Banger

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 22, 2000 at 14:43:15 (GMT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: AJW
Subject: Better! - Read Vicki's own post below! (nt)
Message:
Better! - Read Vicki's own post below! (nt)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, May 21, 2000 at 11:34:24 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: fitzroy@liverpool.ac.uk
To: Jim
Subject: Are ELK still into the 'creative' editing?
Message:
Gloria apparently wrote:

In those days, we had both been waiting for Knowledge at the same time and had become comrades in the attempt to 'persuade' an instructor to give us Knowledge.

She is talking about 1971. Shouldn't that sentence read: 'In those days, we had both been waiting for Knowledge at the same time and had become comrades... ..repeatedly begging a Mahatma to grant us Knowledge by prostrating our wretched, unworthy forms at his feet and promising to dedicate our lives in the craven service of the Living Perfect Master'?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, May 21, 2000 at 00:19:18 (GMT)
From: Vicky
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: My side
Message:
Gathering water, usually a fun chore, was today lessened by the appearance of a person from my past, I've tried to forget. I remember Gloria from so many years ago when we were hopelessly entwined in the pursuit of some other 'answer' called knowledge. We did foolish blind thing after foolish blind thing...and all for what? Meditation techniques and utter subservience to that little Indian man.

How lucky for me it didn't take me as long to forget about knowledge as it did to finally get it. What a let down after waiting so long. What a tarnish on the innocent enthusiasm I had in those days.

At least she gave me a tape of the old guru. It' was a pleasure to run down the rode and pull out all the tape from the case. It was so beautiful to see the tape rolling along behind me, stretching off and away. Such a relief to shatter the empty plastic between a rock and my shoe. Kicking that habit...even after thirty years...it felt so good to smash it to bits.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 23, 2000 at 12:27:52 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Vicky
Subject: My side
Message:
Vicky:

You don't have running water in the UK? Somehow, this is unexpectedly quaint.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 22, 2000 at 13:26:31 (GMT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: Vicky
Subject: Powerful picture! - De-programming visualised!
Message:
Powerful picture! - De-programming visualised!

'It was a pleasure to run down the road and pull out all the tape from the case. It was so beautiful to see the tape rolling along behind me, stretching off and away. Such a relief to shatter the empty plastic between a rock and my shoe. Kicking that habit...even after thirty years...it felt so good to smash it to bits. '


Thank you Vicky, reading your description there felt really therapeutic (and I left only 25 years ago!)

Liberating!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, May 21, 2000 at 00:35:57 (GMT)
From: paul
Email: None
To: Vicky
Subject: My side
Message:
You go girl!!!!!!!!!!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, May 20, 2000 at 13:37:23 (GMT)
From: Non - Devotee
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: The joy of K
Message:

My life truly began

Anny Kuo-ning Chen
- Taipei, Taiwan (Anny was the first person to receive Knowledge from Taiwan)

I began looking for Truth when I was a teenager. I studied many religions, books, arts, and listened to music. I thought I understood something by doing these things but I was not satisfied. I could not keep the moment of joy and experience the beauty in my daily life and I was longing for a freedom inside.

Interpretation: I was nuts, needed a psychologist but I joined a cult instead because I needed freedom within and without.

Although many teachers taught good theories on life, I could see that they could not practically keep themselves in a happy state in their own life. I realised that concepts cannot bring me true happiness and I longed to have a practical way to be free from my mind.

Now my mind is truly concentrated in a new idea: Knowledge. I have new concepts!!

I met an old friend in Germany in 1975 and he told me about his experience of this Knowledge and Maharaji. I was very inspired by his expression of his own fresh experience of practicing this Knowledge, instead of repeating words from a book or the concepts of a philosopher. I could see he had found a valuable teacher. Then, I began to prepare for Knowledge and I received Knowledge on April 12, 1975. Since then, I feel my life truly began and I can be myself, be in stillness, be in harmony, and be in Love and happiness.

My friend didn't repeat words from a book, no, he repeated the words of the Master....new vocabulary, you know...

When I was preparing for Knowledge in 1975, I had only one tape of Maharaji's talks given to me by my German friend. I listened to it again and again, almost 8 hours a day for 7 days before I left for Paris to ask for Knowledge. The more I listened, the deeper my understanding grew until I reached a stage where I wanted to live my life in a true understanding of myself. So, I went to Paris to attend a Knowledge session.

...and I was brainwashed: I wanted to receive Knowledge....The curiosity was killing me....

Receiving Knowledge was the deepest experience of truth that I can never compare to anything else in this world. Because this Knowledge is an experience of my life and in that experience I find wisdom and love inside.

I know... it doesn't look like it!

Maharaji as a teacher always leads me back to the original experience and insight into Knowledge. He always reminds me to concentrate and awaken to the enjoyment and fulfillment inside, to experience the love and freedom within.

Insight into K, yes....that is what he does.... He also has to continously repeat to me that I need him, because I forget. Why? Because I do not need him!!

NUTS!!!!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, May 20, 2000 at 13:49:03 (GMT)
From: Daneane
Email: None
To: Non - Devotee
Subject: aaaaarrrrrgggghhhhhhh!
Message:
Thanks for the wave of nausea this morning.

One tape eight hours a day?? One tape EIGHT HOURS a day??

It is a good thing she wasn't macking on Twinkies as she listened, or who knows what she would have done.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, May 20, 2000 at 07:54:59 (GMT)
From: Jean-Michel
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Hey, look what Yahoo's done!
Message:
Try a search for Elan Vital on Yahoo!

And see the results !!!!

This is what those great wise saints of EV have achieved, no doubt Rawat's PR are pissed of ...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, May 20, 2000 at 13:41:32 (GMT)
From: Daneane
Email: None
To: Jean-Michel
Subject: Congrats J-M
Message:
Or should I call you Dr. J-M, o great honored historical scholar of the DLM/EV Papers??

It's beautiful, truly...I even followed the link just because. If only they knew just how truly the represented a search of EV.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, May 20, 2000 at 10:40:27 (GMT)
From: Robyn
Email: None
To: Jean-Michel
Subject: Hey, look what Yahoo's done!
Message:
Dear JM,
I had a time getting to yahoo to search and Bill Gates is not happy with that! My Netscape browser hasn't worked for a couple days for some reason so for IE I first had to do a search for yahoo then searched for Elan Vital. Sorry but what would he be pissed at? It said Elan Vital Australia: a place were m is invited to speak.
I thought it would have something about his brother or something.
Love,
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, May 20, 2000 at 12:20:07 (GMT)
From: henrik
Email: None
To: Robyn
Subject: searching
Message:
Robin a simpler way would be just to type 'www.yahoo.com ' straight into the url line of your browser and it will take you straihgt there , no need to do a search for a search engine if you know the name of it, your browser will also fill in the 'http//: ' bit for you
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, May 20, 2000 at 12:23:42 (GMT)
From: henrik
Email: None
To: Robin
Subject: oh, and another thing
Message:
I think the point being made was the reference to elan vital right alongside that of Divine Light Mission highlighting the fact that they are one and the same , contrary to what Elan Vital would have us believe
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, May 20, 2000 at 17:46:07 (GMT)
From: Robyn
Email: None
To: henrik
Subject: oh, and another thing
Message:
Thanks henrik, on the search thing as well as the reason for the EV upset.
One thing just to clarify. My name is Robyn, with a 'y'. There has been one or two others posting as Robin, with an 'i' and that is never me. :)
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, May 20, 2000 at 00:38:20 (GMT)
From: henrik
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Elanoholic Anon and on and on.....
Message:
Hi , my name is Henrik and I'm a Elanoholic.
At first I just dabbled socially , you know , for kicks , but the next thing I knew i was on three Elan Vital meetings a month . I thought I could handle it and it wasnt untill I was introduced to Mr Big ( who went by the codename M) that I realised I was in too deep. Of course I finally graduated to the tapes and the heavy merchandise , my habit was becoming more and more expensive, it was about then that I realised I was hooked and on a slippery slope.
I turned to a friend who gave me the advice that was to turn my life around .
He suggested I actually listen to the outrageous crap that was been said on the tapes ! I know, I know it seems so obvious now but at the time I was so desperate for an escape from my fucked up life and problems I couldnt think further than my next tape without realising that the solution to the end of my torment was actually in front of me all the time. So I did as my friend advised , listened to the tape whilst allowing myself to hear the actual meaning of the words .
The turnaround was miraculous , in no time at all I was I was back into my old fucked up lifestyle again with all its corresponding problems and I loved it , not because I enjoyed having problems but becuase they were at least REAL.
And to those of you may be thinking of going down that same self-dillusional , pathetic path I trod I say this -get a fucking afterlife!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, May 20, 2000 at 08:19:36 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: fitzroy@liverpool.ac.uk
To: henrik
Subject: The 'real' content of those tapes...
Message:
Hi Henrik,

May I invite you to take part in an experiment? It's in my thread down below ('Hey Guys! Lets...'). Nobody has got all the answers right yet, but since you are no doubt very familiar with both the content and 'meaning' of hundreds of M addresses, I suspect you should do well discriminating between the REAL and the fake.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, May 20, 2000 at 01:05:44 (GMT)
From: Daneane
Email: None
To: henrik
Subject: Confused
Message:
I'm not sure I am reading your post right. Are you saying you never listened to what M was saying at first? Was there something else about it that kept you going? Or were you waiting for something?

When you did really focus in on what he was saying...what things began to come out?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, May 20, 2000 at 01:22:49 (GMT)
From: Henrik
Email: None
To: Daneane
Subject: Confused
Message:
erm......... I think you should try lookng at the posting from a more ironic angle. Think of it as an existential piss-take
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, May 21, 2000 at 11:40:15 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: fitzroy@liverpool.ac.uk
To: Henrik
Subject: Too subtle by half..
Message:
You had me well fooled (and that will teach me to read the whole thread before jumping in). That came across as a genuine premie attempting a bit of ham-fisted irony. Nice one, sir!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, May 20, 2000 at 01:47:38 (GMT)
From: Daneane
Email: None
To: Henrik
Subject: Had a feeling...
Message:
but I still don't get the 'afterlife' part.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 23, 2000 at 13:21:53 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Daneane
Subject: Had a feeling...
Message:
Daneane:

Life after... EV? Just a guess, mind you. I'm over 50 and clueless.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, May 19, 2000 at 23:45:35 (GMT)
From: JW
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Internal Images (ot)
Message:
Talking about the Vietnam war down below, got me thinking about the images those of us in our 40s have of that period. I read some place that when people are asked the images they remember, they include the following. I bet most of you can conjure these images of the war, if you are old enough. Remember these?

1. A Buddhist monk sitting at a Saigon intersection immolating himself to protest the South Vietnamese Government;

2. The little girl who had been hit with napalm and running naked down Highway 1 in Vietnam;

3. The national police chief executing a terrified man, suspected of being in the Viet Cong, with a pistol shot to the side of his head;

4. The bodies in the ditch after the My Lai massacre; and

5. Americans evacuating from a Saigon rooftop by helicopter, while desperate Vietnamese try to climb aboard.

Merely reading short descriptions prompts most older Americans to remember these images in sharp detail.

Some would add a couple more:

1. B-52s with bombs streaming below them into the pock-marked countryside of Vietnam

2. A ruined city such as Hue, nothing but rubble in view, as American and South Vietnamese troops move in to retake it after the Tet offensive.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, May 20, 2000 at 16:57:20 (GMT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: Internal Images (ot)
Message:
Hi JW -
I remember all of those images quite well. Even though I was only 13 in 1969, people 2 years older than me were getting drafted - including people I knew. I also remember my dad going to Viet Nam in 1964 and 1965 - why I'm not sure - and I only remember it because he brought us souvenirs with 'Viet Nam' written on them. Now that I think about it, he was probably an 'advisor'.

I know you didn't like the recent Newsweek issue on the 25th anniversary of Viet Nam, but the photos illustrating it were very good, I thought. They were all taken by Vietnamese photographers. The one that struck me the most was the picture of all the pairs of combat boots abandoned on the road by South Vietnamese soldiers who didn't want to be recognized as such.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, May 21, 2000 at 02:12:20 (GMT)
From: Stonor
Email: None
To: Katie and JW
Subject: Internal Images (ot)
Message:
Hi Katie and JW and . . . ,

You know, I have all of those pictures in my mind too. And on top of them, I also have the grandparents, parents, and children of these places of upheaval of many continents, in my classrooms.

Stonor

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, May 20, 2000 at 19:57:41 (GMT)
From: JW
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Pictures
Message:
I agree the pictures were really good, it was the analysis, and how lopsided and biased it was that bothered me, AND that they let Kissinger try to vindicate himself.

I also think that Life Magazine, and the great photographs, probably had more to do with bringing the war home and changing the consciousness about the war than almost anything else. I remember most of the above pictures appeared in Life Magazine, which was in most of our homes.

Life Magazine, and the pictures that came into our homes, was also very powerful in the civil rights movement.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, May 20, 2000 at 05:42:40 (GMT)
From: Monmot
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: Internal Images (ot)
Message:
I remember those images also, together with way too many shots of soldiers being carried out on stretchers. The one image that carved a new neural pathway for me was going to the funeral of a young man I grew up with. He was my older brother's friend, and I remember looking at him in his Marine uniform in the casket and noticing that the arm of his uniform was stuffed, and that he obviously lost his arm along with his life.

Scott mentioned hearing someone say that the students at Kent State got what they deserved. The family of Alice ______, one of the students killed, received hate mail after her death. Actions like these completely escape me.

Then I saw a documentary last year about vets and their dogs in Vietnam. The Canine Corps vets were interviewed and told the most heart-wrenching storys about the heroics of the pooches, and how their lives were saved numerous times by their dogs. The army considered the dogs 'equipment' and wouldn't allow the vets to take the dogs home with them. I cried my ass off watching that one.

I think I need a drink now.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, May 20, 2000 at 19:54:48 (GMT)
From: JW
Email: None
To: Monmot
Subject: Internal Images (ot)
Message:
Have you read any of O'Brians' books on Vietnam? They really capture what you are describing--- how US troops were sent to do an impossible task and reacted in different ways, from heroic to absolutely barbaric. I heard an interview of him recently, in which he described how US troops became so brutalized that life didn't have much value. An incident, actually true, involved his platoon slowly torturing and killing a baby water buffalo in Vietnam. He used that as a metaphor for the senseless brutality of it all.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, May 20, 2000 at 03:50:15 (GMT)
From: Robyn
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: Internal Images (ot)
Message:
Dear Joe,
Yes, I remember all those things too. I also saw the naked girl from that picture as a grown woman on the morning news or a magazine show.
It amazed me at that time and I have come to see this as a pivotal moment in our society. The actual filming of the war and showing it on the news at 6 and 11. My parents would have the news on as we sat at the dinner table so we could watch the carnege while we ate and then again just before bed time. Seemed to me that these times of day were particularly important to be peaceful. And today war video is probably almost instant. I also think that people became callous to the violence through this, partially anyway, like it was cartoons or something. Then that played a part in the integrating of violence more into our every day to day lives.
Our lives back then, at home was a lot like the show, 'All in the Family', my dad was the Italian Archie Bunker if that isn't an oxymoron.
Weird to sit here and think of that time and see it as so much more innocent then today even with the war and it being shown on tv. Guess that's why I'm holed up here in the sticks! :)
Love,
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, May 21, 2000 at 06:32:41 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Robyn
Subject: Internal Images (ot)
Message:
Robyn, et al:

I've been taking a look at some polling data created by the National Election Study during the period of the Vietnam War. I can't say there are many surprises, but quantification of what we already know is interesting... and there are a few things that seem provocative.

First of all it should come as no surprise that disapproval of the war itself (a 'no' answer to the question: 'Do you think we did the right thing in getting into the fighting in Vietnam or should we have stayed out?') increased from about 40% in 1966 (when I graduated from HS) to 66% in 1972. Similarly, the percentage of those who felt we ought to pull out of Vietnam entirely increased from 11% in 1966 to 37% in 1970; in other words from about 1/10th to more than 1/3rd. So, although the sentiment to pull out was increasing it did not reach a majority, at least not by 1970. What is slightly more revealing is the fact that the percentage of hawks (remember that term?) who felt we ought to 'get tougher' in Vietnam declined from about half the population (48%)in 1964 to less than 1/3rd (27%) in 1970. The middle position, that of hanging on to negotiate a 'peaceful settlement,' did not change a great deal during the period remaining consistently at a little more than 1/3rd of the electorate.

I don't know what happened with either of these trends after the early '70s because they stopped asking those questions. However, they did continue to ask a series of questions related to whether or not people disapproved of various forms of active dissent. The proportion of Americans who disapproved of 'protest meetings' declined about 12% during the period from 1968 to 1974 (54% to 42%). The fraction who disapproved of 'civil disobedience' likewise declined 18% during the same period from 61% to 43%. The most striking data on attitudes toward dissensus, however, have to do with our total about face concerning 'political demonstrations.' In 1968, the year of the 'Tet Offensive' and the first year that a majority of Americans felt we should not have gone into Vietnam in the first place (63%) a whopping 74% of the electorate still disapproved of demonstrations. By 1976 the percentage of disapproval for political demonstrations had declined 43% to less than 1/3rd of the population! Note, however, that lack of disapproval is not the same as approval. The proportion who actually approved of demonstrations never deviated much from 7% during the entire period. 1976, of course, was only two years after we deposed the occupant of the highest office for something close to treason.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, May 21, 2000 at 15:46:17 (GMT)
From: Robyn
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Internal Images (ot)
Message:
Thanks Scott,
I've been thinking about what I wrote and how it would be received by this forum. More loving drivel from your's truly but I guess my personality was a long time in the making as most of that post were opinions I had back then. I didn't really get into my thoughts on the war (which it wasn't even considered) itself which, of course, I was against. My feelings that tie from then to now have more to do with kids in gangs, school shootings, more violence on tv, movies etc which comes from a more desensitiesed view of violence (the war footage on the news played a big part in this, imo) as well as it perpetuating more violence in our society in general, also, imo.
Interesting that a higher percentage of non-disapproval didn't change the % of those who approved of it. Maybe those who had disapproved were just not wanting to let go of their deep seated opinions but also saw the mess we were digging ourselves into.
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 22, 2000 at 00:47:45 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Robyn
Subject: Internal Images (ot)
Message:
Robyn:

Interesting that a higher percentage of non-disapproval didn't change the % of those who approved of it. Maybe those who had disapproved were just not wanting to let go of their deep seated opinions but also saw the mess we were digging ourselves into.

Actually most of those who had disapproved of demonstrations in 1968 probably came to take a more neutral view of them. That's why outright disapproval went down but approval didn't change. So, you have it about right although we can only speculate about what was going on in their minds. Whatever, they decided that some issues demanded demonstration, or at least that demonstration was OK in some circumstances.

My feelings that tie from then to now have more to do with kids in gangs, school shootings, more violence on tv, movies etc which comes from a more desensitiesed view of violence (the war footage on the news played a big part in this, imo) as well as it perpetuating more violence in our society in general...

One way to interpret the poll results concerning disapproval of dissent is that authority no longer commanded as much respect. Yeah, I can see the links from that to today... in actions as diverse as not voting in elections, the Militia Movement, crime, and freeway speeding. (If I insist on driving the speed limit here in DC I have to take the far right lane to avoid being tailgated by some angry Yahoo in an SUV intent on getting to the party before the invitation arrives. Ask Helen if it isn't true.) It's called 'the law of unintended consequences,' which is a sort of sequel to Murphy's Law. If what you're doing *can* have some negative consequence that is directly opposed to what you intend to happen, then it will.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, May 20, 2000 at 20:03:56 (GMT)
From: JW
Email: joger02@aol.com
To: Robyn
Subject: Internal Images (ot)
Message:
Hi Robyn:

Yeah, I saw an interview with that girl as a grown woman. She has scars from the napalm, but at the time I saw the interview she recently had a baby and was living in Canada. It was definitely nice to know she survived after seeing that picture.

So, do you think Jessica might be up for house (and dog) sitting later in June? The remodeling is all over, and I'll leave lots of beer and wine if they'd like. What do you think? I've left my email.

JW

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, May 21, 2000 at 02:17:40 (GMT)
From: Stonor
Email: None
To: JW and Robyn and all
Subject: Internal Images (ot)
Message:
Somewhere in my files I have an article about what that girl is now doing as a woman in Canada. Within a few months I'll find it and post it for you and everyone else.

Stonor

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, May 20, 2000 at 23:28:45 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: glyng@techline.com
To: JW
Subject: Hey if they don't, I will
Message:
House sit that is.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, May 21, 2000 at 01:53:25 (GMT)
From: JW
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: Is it the beer and wine that got you? ::))nt
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, May 20, 2000 at 03:40:44 (GMT)
From: Jethro
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: Remember,,,
Message:
Jan Palach immolating himself to protest the Soviet invasion of Checkoslovakia.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, May 20, 2000 at 02:29:21 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: Internal Images (ot)
Message:
Joe:

I remember a few of those, but not necessarily from that time period. From pictures in the mid-seventies that began to recount the war. I wasn't watching that much TV at the time. I remember David Harris and Joan Baez giving loud almost lyrical speeches with police bashing people's heads in on nearby streets; Country Joe and the Fish making fun of the military; the Berkeley Riots and the smell and feel of tear gas; the Hell's Angels whacking people with beer bottles; the youth adrift, worshipping music, seeing things, thumbing up and down PCH hiding from the draft board; overhearing someone at the grocery store say the kids at Kent State had it coming; Jesus Freaks; Sit-Ins; Billboards with the body count updated daily or hourly; a friend's suicide after a wound left him crippled...

Oh, I forgot one. In grade school on the B&W Hoffman TV (the first one we ever had) listening to the announcement that US troops had gone into Laos... and knowing that even though I didn't have a clue what Laos was, that this would somehow eventually and inevitably involve me.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, May 20, 2000 at 00:05:21 (GMT)
From: Marianne
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: Internal Images (ot)
Message:
Joe: I plainly recall all the visual images you have mentioned. I also recall Jane Fonda in the plane in North Vietnam; pictures of thatched roof homes being incinerated by Agent Orange; and the photo montages of Bob Hope and others entertaining the troops during the holidays -- our own propaganda machine at work. I compared that with the friends who came home from the war and were horribly tormented by what they saw and did.

One of the last people executed in California was a Vietnam vet, whose crime was directly traceable to his wartime service.

Marianne

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, May 20, 2000 at 00:01:50 (GMT)
From: Powerman
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: Internal Images (ot)
Message:
The two images I remember best are the guy getting shot in the head and the girl with napalm running down the highway. I've seen those images so many times that it's hard to recall when I first saw them and if they're imprinted in my mind from seeing them during the war or long after. I have seen all those images you mentioned.

The other thing is that the war spanned such a long period; the most intense part I remember was between '67 and '71. By the time the war ended in '75 it seemed distant from the earlier photographic images.

Off the subject a little, but still on topic, when I saw JFK Jr. interviewed while was alive, he said that his memory of his life got confused with all the pictures he's seen of himself over the years. He said it was to the point where he didn't know if he actually remembered some things or it was really the pictures he saw later that he remembered.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, May 20, 2000 at 19:48:39 (GMT)
From: JW
Email: None
To: Powerman
Subject: Internal Images (ot)
Message:
Powerman,

I agree that the most intense period was 1967 or 1968 to maybe 1972. The late sixties and 70 and 71 were the height of American casualties and many people being drafted and sent to Vietnam, and was also the height of the protests. By 1972, just prior to the election, Nixon announced he was ending the draft, and so the intensity for Americans, both as to the war itself, and the protests, subsided quite a lot. I recall that by the time I graduated from college, and I went to a university where massive war protests prior to that were the norm, the protests were pretty much over, because the draft had ended, the number of American troops in Vietnam was getting smaller all the time. Nixon was successful in dividing the peace movement between the die-hards and those who were mostly concerned about they and their friends being drafted to Vietnam. By 1975, when the war finally ended, it was almost off the radar screen of the media, and wasn't even much of a subject in elections. McGovern, the 'peace' candidate, only got 37% of the vote in 1972.

In fact, there has been a lot written about the fact that Nixon even tried to pull the remainder of the troops, the ones that remained, out of combat in Vietnam, partly because he was being told by the big brass in the military, that the US army was basically falling apart in Vietnam and was functioning very poorly.

Another thing that is burned in my mind was watching John Kerry, now a US Senator and then the head of Vietnam veterans against the war, testify in 1971 before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I remember he said that My Lai and such massacres by US troops:

'were not isolated incidents but crimes committed in the day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.' Kerry said that 'over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia' and how American trooops had 'personally raped, cut genitals, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Kahn, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of Vietnam, in addition to the normal ravages of war.'

I was a senior in high school when I heard that -- I found that really devestating and it completely altered my view of my own country.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 22, 2000 at 04:14:46 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: Internal Images (ot)
Message:
Joe:

What was your view of this country before Kerry changed your mind?

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, May 20, 2000 at 00:09:32 (GMT)
From: Powerman
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: Oh yeah...
Message:
The other thing that is interesting is how different our relationship is to the media now than in the 60's, 70's. Being younger and part of the counterculture invalidated the media, not to mention there were long periods I watched no television and read little from newspapers and magazines.

Nowadays the media's reach is huge compared to what it was in those days and being in our 40's causes alot of this stuff to be more interesting than it what was.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, May 20, 2000 at 02:48:48 (GMT)
From: Scott
Email: None
To: Powerman
Subject: Oh yeah...
Message:
Powerman:

If I have my math right, and assuming you're now 45, then in 1969 at the height of the war and the opposition to it you were 14. I think there is a very clear difference in our remembrances. I'm not being condescending, I hope, when I say that yours and Joe's seem... packaged. I have no doubt that mine seem packaged to a vet who was on point in '69. I don't know which is more valid or reflective of the times, but they sure are different.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, May 20, 2000 at 04:23:39 (GMT)
From: Powerman
Email: None
To: Scott
Subject: Oh yeah...
Message:
Hi Scott,
I'm 47 and I sure wouldn't want to be any older. I'm not sure what you mean by 'packaged' but if you mean 'remote' then yes, I didn't go to Vietnam. I could have been drafted by '71 but the lottery was in place by then and my birthday came up in around 200th place.

On the other hand, I actually went to Berkeley at 16 in 1969 and then marched in a big anti-war protest in San Francisco. I joined the SDS at my high school (yes, high school), read The Communist Manifesto and became a Communist. I leafleted my high school with anti-war material and got in a lot of trouble. So I did my best as a tyke.

If I'd been drafted I wouldn't have gone to Vietnam, come hell or high water, but maybe that's the result and luxury of being an upper middle-class kid.

If I have my math right, you're about five years older and went to Nam.

P-Man

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, May 21, 2000 at 03:21:00 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Powerman
Subject: Oh yeah...
Message:
Powerman:

If I have my math right, you're about five years older and went to Nam.

No, but I was at Berkeley in '69. I was destined to be in the military, and escaped my destiny. Instead of joining SDS in HS I marched in the Regimental Color Guard with Sam Sheppard, Jr. By 'packaged' I meant that the images were those seen by millions over media. I guess you just chose those images, rather than others you could have chosen. The collective images of the time don't seem to mean as much to me as what I saw with my own eyes (or thought I saw), so I guess I never really internalized them. I tried telling the draft board that I was a communist, but they didn't buy it, given the fact that I had four years of military science training and could have qualified as a 2nd Lieutenant. So, I was pursued by the FBI for three years until I got a deferment. Eventually I managed to convince them I was unsuitable.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, May 20, 2000 at 00:01:32 (GMT)
From: Elaine
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: Susan/Helen don't read above post
Message:
Thank you,JW I'll sleep really well tonight.

Susan/Helen - just kidding.

Elaine

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, May 19, 2000 at 22:26:04 (GMT)
From: leaning towards satpal...
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: is there a way?...
Message:
I was just wondering-is there a way that we can take advantage of this new sat-pal connection to make a little mischief for the big m?
Perhaps the newsletter,or some of his satsangs,or ...would anyone be able to get an interview with satpal himself, regarding the past split with m?It would help satpal's work, and ours as well...
Any old, unheard of stories from the holy family, esp. regarding the days before the holy family split?
Any thoughts?....
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, May 19, 2000 at 22:15:33 (GMT)
From: Elaine
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Moonie's
Message:
Ok - I found alittle out about The Dalai Lama...
What is it that Sun Yung Moon sp? gives or offers. I mean - why do people get hooked by HIM?
I've never talked to anyone in my life associated w/ him. What gives anyway?
Got a clue - any real encounters(talks) with any followers?

I mean I got the major scoop on Baba ji for y'all.

Elaine B.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 22, 2000 at 19:18:10 (GMT)
From: Elaine
Email: None
To: All
Subject: Well no one knows much about Moonie's really (nt
Message:
om
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, May 21, 2000 at 18:05:48 (GMT)
From: JW
Email: None
To: Elaine
Subject: Moonie's
Message:
After I got out of the Maharaji cult in 1982, my friend Joy, who left the same time I did, and another ex-premie started an 'ex-members' group. The major source of referral of other ex-cult members to teh group was a therapist in Berkeley named Phil Kushman, who did counseling to people leaving cults. He would recommend that people go to our group. Only ex-cult members were allowed -- no therapists, or anyone else.

We met in a church in Berkeley and the 'core' of the group was about 3 ex-premies, about 5 ex-moonies, and there were also a smattering of people leaving other cults, several of them christian-based, and every week new people from new cults I had never heard of would show up.

Anyhow, I was amazed at how very similar the Moonies were to premies. The cults are very similar in essential ways. But the Moonies don't offer some 'initiation' like receiving knowledge is for premies. Rather, Moon is set up as the messiah, and people are attracted to the cult in much the same way premies were in the 70s. There is an explanation of how screwed up the world is, how lost people are, and that through Moon's (something like 'grace') you can have a profound experience and an opportunity to participate in Moon's plan to save the world. Marriage and child-rearing are important components, and like the Maharaji cult, you aren't told about a lot of the rules and concepts at the beginning, you are just told it's wonderful and you get to be a part of a group that is doing something great for the world.

In the Maharaji-cult, the programming mostly happens in the aspirant process, when people are told to discard their doubts, and if they remain listening over, and over and over to videos or, in the old days, satsang from premies, and are told over and over about how wonderful and incredible knowledge is, they eventually either leavel, or suppress all their doubts and adopt the belief, so they can be deemed 'ready' to receive knowledge. By that point, if someone stays around, they are usually programmed enough to do just about anything to receive knowledge, even accept Maharaji as some kind of 'master' worthy of devotion or gratitude, even though it is completely unclear what he had to do with what is supposed to be an internal experience.

In the Moonies, it's the same process, but you have to do those things to open yourself up to Moon, who operates on some ethereal level to give you the juice. The moonies also use a lot more personal connections with the other moonies than premies do, in intense 'training' sessions, in which people are made to feel part of the group, made to feel they are wanted in the group, and to make it difficult to leave.

One Moonie explained that he was invited to dinner at a moonie house, listened to the 'lecture', went back a few times, and then was taken to their 'camp' in the mountains of Southern California, and at that point, if he wanted to leave to pick something up, etc., he was accompanied by another moonie. He said it was very like the situation shown in the movie, 'Ticket to Heaven' which is based on the moonies.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 22, 2000 at 02:59:15 (GMT)
From: Elaine
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: Moonie's/Thanks,JW
Message:
Ticket to heaven - now that's a lead.

So your saying there was ' an experience' of some sort - any prayer, or songs or daily rituals (to him).
Any talk of 'the Bible'.

You've told more than anyone so far. It doesn't sound half bad- I mean - an instant group of friends. There must be more to it to make it so 'sinister'.
I know the mass weddings are wierd - and thinking Moon is some Messiah is hard to take.

Hmmm - I'm even more curious. What is it that they escape from?

Do they drink or follow any special diet I wonder?
I mean even the Rajneesh 2 that I went to some classes with -had to always wear red.

Can you think of just anything else? Thanks,JW.

Elaine

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 22, 2000 at 16:57:33 (GMT)
From: JW
Email: None
To: Elaine
Subject: Moonie's/Thanks,JW
Message:
Elaine, I haven't personally been involved with the Moonies. Most of what I picked up was from listening to ex-moonies talk about it all, and the major feeling I had, shock almost, was that it was so very similar to premies. Even as an early ex-premie, I still held the same smug belief that premies still do, that while all those other people are in weird cults, like the Moonies, I certainly was not.

I think there is more discussion of the Bible among the moonies, because Moon makes a stronger claim to be something of a second coming of Christ. From what I recall the 'rituals' were more sitting in 'lectures' kind of equivalent to 'satsang' back in the old days, but I think you had to be something of a higher-up type to actually speak. I recall they used a lot of props and blackboards. And there was lots of singing.

But the Moonies spent a lot more time out fundraising than premies did. The ex-moonies said there was a kind of 'high' they got off confronting people and getting them to give money. And they tended to do it in groups which created more group loyalty and cohesion, not unlike how the military operates.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, May 20, 2000 at 18:50:23 (GMT)
From: Angry
Email: None
To: Elaine/all
Subject: There's abuse in that cult too!
Message:
I saw this 60 minute segment where the wife of #1 son claimed she had been physically abused. There seemed to be the oh so familiar coverup and denial.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, May 19, 2000 at 23:13:31 (GMT)
From: Powerman
Email: None
To: Elaine
Subject: Moonie's
Message:
I lived in a trailer in the backyard of a Moonie in 1989 in exchange for some work I did for him. It was the first real live Moonie I ever had contact with. He was married to a Japanese woman in a mass arranged marriage in a stadium.

The marriage was old fashioned and she was expected to cook and take care of the children and be a good little wife. He invited me over to dinner when he hired me and his wife had failed to make dinner on time. He was fuming but displayed it silently.

The children ran roughshod over the whole house and were indulged in every whim. Getting dinner down was difficult because the kids interrupted me incessantly.

The guy was remarkably entrepreneurial, selling and re-selling anything he could get his hands on; he was driven. At some point I asked him about the Moonie thing and mostly, he recited a complicated philosophy that I can barely remember. But he did mention that Moon claimed the world was so messed up because children were mistreated and that you had to treat them like Gods. It was weird.

Now this was in New Mexico and there didn't appear to be much of a Moonie 'community' there. All I could see this guy doing was making lots of money selling stuff out of the back of a panel truck, and constantly dreaming up new stuff to sell and cheap ways to get stuff.

I've read that Moon claims to be the second coming of Christ.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, May 19, 2000 at 23:23:52 (GMT)
From: Elaine
Email: None
To: Powerman
Subject: Moonie's
Message:
Very cool. That's the kind of inside story I'm looking for.
BTW, I've enjoyed your posts P.

Elaine

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, May 20, 2000 at 17:27:41 (GMT)
From: Gregg
Email: None
To: Elaine
Subject: Moonie's
Message:
Back in the mid-seventies -- I think this was around the time I received Knowledge -- I dropped by the Indianapolis Moonie ashram...or whatever they called it. It was the address on their booklets.

They invited me up to their dining room. They were drinking orange juice, eating marshmallows, and singing sappy songs. It was just too weird.

And their philosopy...I've read about it, but it hasn't stuck with me. Again, just too weird. The good reverend is (or was; maybe he's gone coy like Rawat) referred to as Heavenly Father. His wife is Heavenly Mother or Blessed Wife or something.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, May 20, 2000 at 17:49:39 (GMT)
From: Elaine
Email: None
To: Gregg
Subject: A Moonie walks up to you on the street..
Message:
What did they say that lured people anyway??
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 22, 2000 at 03:56:24 (GMT)
From: Gregg
Email: None
To: Elaine
Subject: Cults R Us
Message:
they would target young people who needed friends and a sense of belonging...(like some of us were)...

I read one book on the Moonies...by far the least interesting of all the books on cults I've read...I've read books on the Krishnas, the Rajneeshies, the Scientologists,( a recent bio of the king of crackpot cult leaders, L. Ron Hubbard), Lenz/Rama, and others.

Cults R us. I mean, we are all involved in our own little cult of personality. US. ME ME ME ME ME. I think I'll repeat this in a few days, if you don't mind.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 22, 2000 at 15:09:00 (GMT)
From: Elaine
Email: None
To: Gregg
Subject: Gregg - yes,but...
Message:
When they targeted young people who needed friends - what did they say??

Come to dinner and need a place to sleep??
Or some spiritual thing about looking for happiness and we have the answer.

I still don't see the hook exactly or why people would stay after the first couple of weeks.
You know what I mean?

Elaine - thanks,tho

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, May 20, 2000 at 18:42:38 (GMT)
From: Powerman
Email: None
To: Elaine
Subject: A Moonie walks up to you on the street..
Message:
That reminded me of when some Scientology folks walked up to me in Waikiki and offered me a free personality test. I was already an aspirant but I just wanted to see what would happen, so I got in a van with a bunch of other doofus's and got a ride to the Scientology center on the other side of the island.

It was a very official, professional clinic-type building. I waited in a waiting room until a very serious guy in a reverand outfit called me in. He gave me the test, came back and took it when I was done and studied it. Then he counselled me and told me I was in a critical state and that Scientology could help me. He told me my state was so critical that if I didn't do something fast I'd be dead in five years. That was in 1975.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, May 19, 2000 at 21:10:50 (GMT)
From: jondon
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: devinelovemission.org
Message:
Ever hear of this guy? Jagadguru Shri Kripalu Ji Maharaj. Stumbled upon him when I accidently spelled M w/out an i. This guy is AKA as Shri Maharaj Ji. They are not one and the same, or are they pulling another one of those holy trinity deals on me again. Geez, just when I thought that those 5 years of Catholic school were out of my system.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index