Forum V: Archive
Compiled: Sun, Jun 25, 2000 at 11:29:23 (GMT)
From: Jun 17, 2000 To: Jun 23, 2000 Page: 5 Of: 5


Jethro -:- As Jo Cocker said at Woodstock.... -:- Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 18:16:03 (GMT)
__ Robyn -:- As Jo Cocker said at Woodstock.... -:- Sun, Jun 18, 2000 at 12:51:11 (GMT)
__ ham -:- Quite (nt) -:- Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 21:56:26 (GMT)
__ Helen -:- As Jo Cocker said at Woodstock.... -:- Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 19:40:12 (GMT)

JtF -:- Just another old trick from Rawat/ The Dunce Cap -:- Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 17:35:47 (GMT)
__ Jim -:- Why not stand up and say something?? -:- Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 22:03:11 (GMT)
__ __ ham -:- Interesting post Jim -:- Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 22:30:22 (GMT)
__ __ __ Jim -:- Interesting post Jim -:- Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 22:32:59 (GMT)
__ __ Monmot -:- Don't leave us hanging... -:- Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 22:15:03 (GMT)
__ __ __ Jim -:- What happened was great -:- Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 22:31:11 (GMT)

Rob -:- The Darker side of the Cult? -:- Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 06:04:29 (GMT)
__ Rob -:- Durn link thingymabobs..... -:- Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 06:07:01 (GMT)
__ __ Stonor -:- And another Durn active link -:- Sun, Jun 18, 2000 at 02:00:58 (GMT)
__ __ __ Rob -:- And another Durn active link -:- Sun, Jun 18, 2000 at 02:31:42 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Stonor -:- If only plagerism were the least of his crimes! nt -:- Sun, Jun 18, 2000 at 02:54:18 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- Of course should read 'worst' of his crimes! nt -:- Sun, Jun 18, 2000 at 18:19:29 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ cq -:- Crowley's version of 'Do what thou wilt ...' -:- Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 17:09:17 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- Crowley's version of 'Do what thou wilt ...' -:- Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 18:13:16 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ cq -:- Crowley's version of 'Do what thou wilt ...' -:- Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 18:34:26 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- Crowley's version of 'Do what thou wilt ...' -:- Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 19:10:16 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ cq -:- Oh boy. Just got your email. -:- Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 19:57:55 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Elaine -:- cq -:- Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 22:23:06 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- Oh boy. Just got your email. -:- Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 20:09:33 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ cq -:- Wilco, commander. -:- Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 20:35:41 (GMT)
__ __ Rob -:- Ignore this, I was drunk last night!! Sorry. (nt) -:- Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 18:35:50 (GMT)

Jim -:- Did anyone in Boston notice the MRC ad? -:- Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 04:56:38 (GMT)
__ jondon -:- Did anyone in Boston notice the MRC ad? yes -:- Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 12:08:51 (GMT)
__ __ cy -:- Did anyone in Boston notice the MRC ad? yes -:- Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 13:06:49 (GMT)
__ Katie -:- River of Answers -:- Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 12:04:51 (GMT)
__ __ Jim -:- River of Answers -:- Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 21:50:43 (GMT)
__ __ __ VP -:- River of Answers -:- Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 22:52:10 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Selene -:- hey VP -:- Sun, Jun 18, 2000 at 04:38:55 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ VP -:- hey Selene -:- Sun, Jun 18, 2000 at 13:27:32 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Selene -:- ok VP I know how we can get in touch -:- Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 04:41:30 (GMT)

'George Stepalloverus' -:- DC Program -:- Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 04:18:01 (GMT)

Roger eDrek -:- I have not yet begun to fight! -:- Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 02:17:18 (GMT)
__ Jean-Michel -:- How the whole case is going to end up -:- Sun, Jun 18, 2000 at 00:16:51 (GMT)
__ Jerry -:- Good luck, Roger -:- Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 14:15:40 (GMT)
__ Roger eDrek -:- The letter from the ISP's lawyers to me -:- Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 02:20:36 (GMT)
__ __ Jerry -:- I must be missing something -:- Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 14:37:03 (GMT)
__ __ __ Charles Zelda Dickens -:- Putting a fine point on the perjury sentence -:- Sun, Jun 18, 2000 at 02:18:18 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ gerry -:- Rog, Important, read Zelda's post. -:- Sun, Jun 18, 2000 at 02:49:49 (GMT)
__ __ __ Roger eDrek -:- I must be missing something -:- Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 19:16:01 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Katie -:- I must be missing something -:- Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 20:33:11 (GMT)
__ __ Roger eDrek -:- Corrections -:- Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 02:24:15 (GMT)
__ __ __ Jean-Michel -:- The 'M and EV vs. Exes' Websites' Saga updated! -:- Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 08:01:02 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ VP -:- The 'M and EV vs. Exes' Websites' Saga updated! -:- Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 22:47:33 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Jean-Michel -:- Hey VP! Let's bet on this !!!!!!!!!!! -:- Sun, Jun 18, 2000 at 22:00:49 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Roger eDrek -:- Apparently, they don't have to say -:- Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 19:24:49 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ cq -:- 'They' being the service provider??? -:- Tues, Jun 20, 2000 at 19:29:44 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ VP -:- About your website, Roger -:- Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 22:33:55 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Roger eDrek -:- Exactly! -:- Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 20:04:12 (GMT)
__ __ __ Zelda -:- Let um put THAT in their pipe and smoke it. -:- Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 03:13:54 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Cynthia G. -:- You go guys!!! -:- Tues, Jun 20, 2000 at 18:43:13 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ cq -:- You go guys!!! -:- Tues, Jun 20, 2000 at 19:42:22 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Cynthia G. -:- To: (Sir) David, Roger eDrek and Jean Michel -:- Tues, Jun 20, 2000 at 20:46:23 (GMT)

Rob -:- Whoops! There goes another one! -:- Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 01:36:14 (GMT)
__ Jim -:- Oh, you get used to it -:- Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 04:52:00 (GMT)
__ __ Rob -:- But you know what? -:- Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 05:06:01 (GMT)
__ __ __ Jim -:- Well, a few things -:- Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 05:28:54 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Rob -:- Well, a few things -:- Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 18:43:56 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Well, a few things -:- Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 21:36:02 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Nigel -:- Well, a few things -:- Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 16:53:37 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Well, a few things -:- Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 21:41:22 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Monmot -:- Could Smoove B be related to.... -:- Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 22:24:35 (GMT)


Date: Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 18:16:03 (GMT)
From: Jethro
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: As Jo Cocker said at Woodstock....
Message:
'this just about says brings it all into focus'

Here's a posting by 'Newfounder' from the ex-satsangi site.


Why do I keep coming back to the perception that Sant Mat
is basically a disease?

Like a chapter from the 'X-files', so-called 'Satsangis'
have swallowed a virus and this has taken over their brain
preventing them from being able to think straight
and giving them a compulsive drive to defend their
beliefs and strive for 'inner' experiences, rather than
focusing on making this experience in the world more enjoyable, or
doing creative things that make the world a
better place.

There is absolutly no point in trying to discuss Sant Mat with
them. Any more than trying to discuss philosophy with
a 'Jesus Freak' or a twice-born Southern Baptist or Jehova's
Witness.

In this sense, the 'faithful' of Sant Mat are little different
from the stridently faithful of Christianity.

Both are highly obnoxious and blind.

They do not see that the spiritual elixir that they extol is based
on an essential arrogance: that THEY are in possession of a
wonderful truth, THEY have CHRIST inside, THEY are disciples
of a Perfect Master, who will take care of them at death and
take them to a Heaven or an inner plane of bliss.

Arrogance, because it says, I believe I am living in a world in
which the creator, god wants to shower all his gifts to a few
people AND I AM ONE OF THE PEOPLE WHO HAS
BEEN SELECTED TO GET GOD'S SPECIAL GIFT.

Everybody else in the world is in a very bad situation.

They are not going to be SAVED.

They are not going to be MET on their deathbed.

They will go to HELL and be burned and tortured for eternity.

They will be ground up in the wheel of reincarnation and have
to suffer untold lives in the lower life forms, without a Perfect Master.
---------------------

The whole effect of these ideas is to harm people, and depress
them and take joy away from their life.

One of the Master's Representatives used to tell me that
the Great Master did not like trees or cemetaries. The
reason was that the souls of trees were very heavy and
slumbering. You had to have 'heavy karma' in order to be a tree.
You are passive and have no way to defend youself.

Graveyards are 'haunted' by confused and negative spirits.
Masters like to avoid them.

---------------

So, don't enjoy the breeze.

It takes your attention away from your goal of
leaving this world and going back Home.

Don't enjoy the trees.

They are bad souls. Don't want to become like them.

Don't look into anyone's eyes.

You may think you see beauty. It is only Maya and Kal trying to keep you here.

Don't fall in love with anybody.

Only give your heart to the Master. Because
only the Master will benefit you in the end.

Remember that your children and family members are only here
to recieve their karmic payment from you. There is no real affection.

Just Karma. As soon as the last penny of the karma is paid, the child will die or go away.

--------------------------

Twice Born Christians and Satsangis,

Sant Mat, The Path of the Masters.

As Will Shakespeare may have said,

'A Cult by any other name would smell as sweet!'

Or, in the inimitable words of Gertrude Stein,

'A Cult is a Cult is a Cult.'

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Jun 18, 2000 at 12:51:11 (GMT)
From: Robyn
Email: None
To: Jethro
Subject: As Jo Cocker said at Woodstock....
Message:
Dear Jethro,
You used that subject title to trick me! Admit it! :) I would never have read the post otherwise but it was very good. I think I know why you all write this posts, I am tempted to say it will fall on deaf ears but I think you write in case there is even just one person, on premie that will hear, that is ready to hear. That motivation is quite commendable(sp). I can't do that very often at all but give all of you who plug away at it credit.
I think more of my place here is to hold the hand of someone just taking those first few and shaky baby steps away. Anyway, you could have thrown a Jo Cocker bit in at the end, just for a reward. :)
Love,
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 21:56:26 (GMT)
From: ham
Email: None
To: Jethro
Subject: Quite (nt)
Message:
a
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 19:40:12 (GMT)
From: Helen
Email: None
To: Jethro
Subject: As Jo Cocker said at Woodstock....
Message:
God--great post, perfect! Without enjoying trees, our friends and family, well forget it! Might as well call it quits,IMO!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 17:35:47 (GMT)
From: JtF
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Just another old trick from Rawat/ The Dunce Cap
Message:
At the recent event in Boston, Rawat pulled out his binder of questions from His premies. He has been doing this off and on for awhile now. He has a few questions that he answers with an apparent sincere tone. However, most of the questions are just used to get the premies to laugh at those who ask such foolish questions. He probably makes them up himself.

Whether he makes them up or not, the intent is no more than to stifle questions through group ridicule. No one wants to wear the Dunce Cap after one of these highly manipulative seesions.

Yeah, Rawat loves his premies alright!!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 22:03:11 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: JtF
Subject: Why not stand up and say something??
Message:
Surely, there's one wavering premie, or clost ex or whatever, just a person, for god's sake, who's willing to clal him on this ugly exercise in group humiliation. No? No willing to do it?

I'll tell you something, if you're even slightly inclined to do so, it would be fun. That's how I felt when I did jsut that to Raja Ji in the eighties. Sure I was nervous. I'd been conditioned jsut like everyone else in the cult to defer quietly to the still, respectful moment, being in the presence of 'specialness' or something. I even had doubts about my doubts back then. But, hell, enough was enough. I wasn't going to sit there and watch him humiliate yet another fellow cult member which is exactly what he was doing when I shouted:

Hey, hold on there! You're telling this guy to contribute money and not worry about his relationship with Maharaji [which the cult was playing down then]. But we were told you guys were divine! Get that? Divine. What about that?

I'd never done anything like that before. I'd always been a good premie and even then, in the late 80's I was merely apostate, not fully manmot. I'd done security so many times myself in the past and here I was playing the rold of the 'bongo' premie, shouting out from the very last row of all places.

But it was a GREAT FUCKING EXPERIENCE! You want an 'experience'? Try telling off your former Lord in public amidst a group of his followers. (Okay, it wasn't the Lord, just a member of his Holy Family. Same thing, I promise you.) Talk about liberating! You know that part of the Pink Floyd song, 'The Wall' where all the kids sing, 'Hey, teacher, leave the kids alone!'? Well, it was like that.

And imagine the feeling you'll have when you look around you and see just how many people in the audience are nodding their heads in agreement with you in spite of themselves. Honestly, someone should try it. Sure would give Ivette Mattos something more interesting to report about on ELK, wouldn't it?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 22:30:22 (GMT)
From: ham
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Interesting post Jim
Message:
Like you I had a number of, how shall we say, 'interesting' discussions with instructors near the end, and there was a lot of head nodding etc, once with Irene Hall, some people actually backed me up, but interesting that neither of us had the bottle re gm then.

Bit puzzled over timing, for some reason I have eight years in it for you in my head, but assumed that was roughly circa 73-81, obviously I was wrong?!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 22:32:59 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: ham
Subject: Interesting post Jim
Message:
73 to 81 is right. I went to this program in the alte eighties as a lark jsut to see who was in town..

gotta run

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 22:15:03 (GMT)
From: Monmot
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Don't leave us hanging...
Message:
What happened? Did they escort you out? Did you get an answer? Perhaps all those bongos were our canaries in the coal mine, eh?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 22:31:11 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Monmot
Subject: What happened was great
Message:
I've only got a moment. First, I came home to ride my exercise bike but, no, I've got to post on the forum again! Shit! And now I've got to run back to Laurie's to load gear for this gig we're doing out in the country tonight. Amazing house. The guy built it himself, 35 foot barreled-arch glass ceiling, spiral staircase with plam trees growing up the centre. It's finally warm here -- hot even -- and this is going to be such a cool gig! But I'm late!

Anyway, short answer is this:

Raja Ji and I started talking. I told him I'd given eight eyars of my lfie to his brother on the clear premise that he was God. No if's and's or but's. Eight years in the ashram. He asked me if they were happy years? I todl him that was a bullshit question, what really mattered was the truth. He then backed-off and asked me if I'd seen 'The Last Emperor' which had recently come out. I said yes and he then offered that that was how they were all raised, silver-spoon, promised they'd never have to work in life. I said so what? What matters is the truth. What happened to your borther's claims to divinity? What about his promise to save the world? What the fuck's going on anyway?

I clearly got the best of him. All the laughter was on my side, heads definitely nodding liek crazy as I ultimately invited Raja Ji over to my place to talk about this later. That was just a joke but when I said it a number of people chimed in that they'd like to come along too.

After the program I went up and introduced myself. When I menitoned that I was now a lawyer (no thansk to his brother who tried to stifle any posible career aspirations I'd harbour) he looked at me with more respect and offered to meet me after work the next day. He did. He came to my office in West L.A. and we went downstairs for a drink. I had scotch, he ahd a perrier. I aksed him a bunch of stuff about all the 'changes' to date and he tried to suggest I should get 'counselling' with one of the euro-trash instructors then in Malibu. I told that that was bullshit and what I needed was a few straight answers.

Then his demeanour shifted and he looked at me completely straightforwardly and told me that whenever he's tried to ask Maharjai these same questions even he's been stonewalled. Maharaji wouldn't even answer his own brother so really, it was futile for me to think I'd ever get anything out of him. That was the most sincerely expressed thing in the whole conversation.

Afterward I walked him out to his tres expensive old man's late model Mercedes, shook his hand and that was that.

Now I'm really late! Laurie, if you read this at your place, I really wrote it last night. Someone's fuckign with teh page times again!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 06:04:29 (GMT)
From: Rob
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: The Darker side of the Cult?
Message:
Could this be what really goes on in the basement of a certain Malibu Mansion?

Check it out,

Invocation to the Lord of the Universe

Crrrrreeeepy!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 06:07:01 (GMT)
From: Rob
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: Durn link thingymabobs.....
Message:
Must be an omen...
Cut/paste this instead:

http://members.aol.com/CSahk/lord.html

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Jun 18, 2000 at 02:00:58 (GMT)
From: Stonor
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: And another Durn active link
Message:
Hi Rob,

Actually, this link is not as creepy as I expected it to be. I had an aquaintance once who answered the phone with 'Do as Thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.' You may recognize that as Aleister Crowley he's quite infamous. Here's a link

A Brief Biography of Aleister Crowley

Seems he had one of those extreme 'Christian' upbringing which propelled in in some kind of 'opposite' direction. But I thought a lot about this 'Do as Thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.' I feel that the issue all hinges on how 'Thou' is interpreted.

I am talking about Aleister Crowley because your link is a 'Magic' site (Crowley's thing was 'Magick') and because of this part of the invocation:

O Lord, May my Will which is Thine be done!

To me the 'problem with this is the assumption that 'my will' is necessarily the same as Thine's or 'whose-ever-it-is.' I don't really know how he interprets or applies it, I've only scanned a bit of his stuff and read his biography.

As with Crowley's 'Do as Thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.' which could be fine except that again, 'Thou' is generally interpreted as 'I,' or twisted to be so, as the God is within me or something.

The more familiar, 'Thy will be done.' has similarly been twisted, IMO, by the more Machiavellian of the 'Christian' priesthood to be definable or identifiable by them alone.

The end of one of my prayers is (I cobble some together and/or modify some) 'For the good of all concerned, Thy will be done always.'

I've read a lot of different things and found that it helps me to get a bigger picture. I think that's the worst thing about being in a cult like 'm''s, that everything you read, if you do, is framed in his mind-set.

I've lost all my old links, but it's interesting out there, isn't it?

Stonor

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Jun 18, 2000 at 02:31:42 (GMT)
From: Rob
Email: None
To: Stonor
Subject: And another Durn active link
Message:
Yep sure is a magical mystery tour online. I'd had a couple of boddingtons too many and was websearching for 'lord of the universe'. Man what a hotch potch that brings up! Even spotted ole jim's name in a forum on 'The Church of Virus' some kinda hyperintellectual brainiac cult. Amazing.

I admit to being fascinated and drawn to occult stuff & i have read some of crowley. I agree that m. sought to credit everything mystical and spiritual as being derivations of *his* knowledge, like I said in a post to Han, he's the worlds biggest plagiarist.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Jun 18, 2000 at 02:54:18 (GMT)
From: Stonor
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: If only plagerism were the least of his crimes! nt
Message:
If only plagerism were the least of his crimes! nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Jun 18, 2000 at 18:19:29 (GMT)
From: Stonor
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: Of course should read 'worst' of his crimes! nt
Message:
Of course should read 'worst' of his crimes! nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 17:09:17 (GMT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: Stonor et al.
Subject: Crowley's version of 'Do what thou wilt ...'
Message:
Crowley's version of 'Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law' seems to miss out four little words that are in an (I think) earlier version.

That one reads: 'Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law - lest thou harm none'.

This strange (mis?)use of English is apparently intended to be taken NOT as an incentive to cause harm - quite the opposite, though it certainly had me puzzled.

And the 'thou' in the quote - didn't know that referred to anyone but the one doing the invocation (but I could be wrong).

(P.S. will get the emails you lost in your cyber-crash to you soon)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 18:13:16 (GMT)
From: Stonor
Email: None
To: cq
Subject: Crowley's version of 'Do what thou wilt ...'
Message:
Hi Chris,

How go your final projects? And I lost your website too BTW. And did you visit my ancestor's home yet? (see post below with Monmot) I find it all quite funny, but I do get sick of the cheap shots. As if I could change my posting name now!

It was a nice surprise to see your post in this thread! What's the source for your other version of that 'law'?

As to the 'thou'. . . well 'who' or 'what' is the invoquee evoking?

Looking forward to hearing your news!

Stonor

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 18:34:26 (GMT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: Stonor
Subject: Crowley's version of 'Do what thou wilt ...'
Message:
Phew! that's some ancestral pile you got there (can I crash on the carpet someday?)

Final projects? Nope, just half-way through the multimedia course, but it's going well. Thanks for asking.

Invocation was the wrong word to use, (I hope). I might well be totally incorrect (not having read too much Crowley over the years - but some - e.g. his son Amado's books are a bit of a laugh, if taken with a pinch of salt) but the gist of the meaning was, for me anyway, an affirmation of the basic freedom (and it should never become an obligation imposed by another) that WE (i.e. each individual) should be the only ones who set our own limits. And who sets our own challenges? Hmmmmm ....

'It's your life ... and you can do what you want ...' (Kinks?)

Source for the other version of the 'Law'? Will investigate, but I've heard it mentioned several times by people who sounded like they knew what they were talking about.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 19:10:16 (GMT)
From: Stonor
Email: None
To: cq
Subject: Crowley's version of 'Do what thou wilt ...'
Message:
Don't ask me about crashing on their carpets! But you can crash on mine if you make it to Montreal one day. (I might even have a bed in the spare room by then!)

There are a lot of interesting issues in those concepts aren't there? To a large extent I believe that that is the crux of many, if not all the problems we have today. Believe me, if people had done as they wilt with me anymore than they managed to getaway with over the years, I would not be here talking to you. m seems to believe in that concept, doesn't he? And the premies support and enable him to continue.

Who says all roads can't lead to being on topic?

Stonor

did you get my email?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 19:57:55 (GMT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: Stonor
Subject: Oh boy. Just got your email.
Message:
... and I never did ask what Raina had said to you.

and now I've posted bigtime defending her presence here.

Hmmmmm.

Dilemma.

OK. Principles are what it's about.

And what is the principle?

Free speech?

Perhaps Raina saw the Forum's allegations against Rawat as being unfounded. Hence she, as it were, 'justified' to herself (as is her wont) her unfounded allegations against you.

An unenviable position to be in, Stonor (or can I call you Stony?)

But if free speech is worth the space it's written in, you always have this 'free' space in which to counter her allegations. Not that you should have to. But ain't that the nature of the internet?

Need to think about this some.

(Personally I think she was looking for someone to shatter her reasons for looking up to M. - in a big way. That involves facing our (exes) own petty-mindedness in falling back on the convenient old reasons for dissing the Maha.)

Bad form that she said some of the things she did say. But then ... was it just looking for attention? Or did she bring some wider issues to light here?


Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 22:23:06 (GMT)
From: Elaine
Email: None
To: cq
Subject: cq
Message:
What allegations about Stonor?

You've given me a lead on maybe finding out why she's 'hurt' by me.

So raina said some shit about Stonor??

And then I respected two posts of rainas that I thought were not as flaming as her usual fair. Maybe that's what got Stonor 'hurt'.
Could you direct me alittle to the subject matter.

Thanks

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 20:09:33 (GMT)
From: Stonor
Email: None
To: cq
Subject: Oh boy. Just got your email.
Message:
Give me a break cq and discuss this with me via email sometime!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 20:35:41 (GMT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: Stonor
Subject: Wilco, commander.
Message:
Ain't I just the closet exhibitionist!

(non-sequitur?)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 18:35:50 (GMT)
From: Rob
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: Ignore this, I was drunk last night!! Sorry. (nt)
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 04:56:38 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Did anyone in Boston notice the MRC ad?
Message:
Did anyone mention the MRC ad in or around the program last week?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 12:08:51 (GMT)
From: jondon
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Did anyone in Boston notice the MRC ad? yes
Message:
One of the premies from my roommates group stumbled across the article the morning of...as it lay on my kitchen table. They have been to the website but are not discussing it...at least not yet and not around me.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 13:06:49 (GMT)
From: cy
Email: None
To: jondon
Subject: Did anyone in Boston notice the MRC ad? yes
Message:
LOL...LOL!...LOL!!! ;)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 12:04:51 (GMT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: River of Answers
Message:
I think that 'River of Answers' post you quoted from ELK - with excerpts from M's satsang in Boston - was an answer to the MRC letter. Just my opinion, but consistent with M's oblique/non-existent way of addressing people's concerns.

Just think - you might have inspired M to develop a new 'theme'! Sheesh.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 21:50:43 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: River of Answers
Message:
God, I would have liked to have been there! Just once I'd like to see me, you, anyone stand up and tell him off in public. (Yes, cult forum watchers, be assured that if I were there that's exactly what I'd do). What a weak paper tiger he is! Imagien how his smile would freeze and soon fall off as someone called him on the obvious travesty of this exercise.

Hey, Maharaji! I've got a question for you and no, it's not one you can carefully pick from your special pool of lob balls. Here's the question before your goons kick me out. Have you read the open letter to you published on the internet? The one that challenges you to an open dialogue with your former followers. Do you have the courage to be accountable to them or not?

See where that would go, I guess.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 22:52:10 (GMT)
From: VP
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: River of Answers
Message:
Jim, you said,'See where that would go, I guess.'

Surely you know.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Jun 18, 2000 at 04:38:55 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: VP
Subject: hey VP
Message:
I have been meaning to get back in touch with you for quite some
time. Lost your email in one of my manic email purges.
I gather from your posts that things are going well.
Always appreciated all the love you sent my way and remembering
tonight how much you supported me when I was a brand new ex.
thanx.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Jun 18, 2000 at 13:27:32 (GMT)
From: VP
Email: None
To: Selene
Subject: hey Selene
Message:
Thanks for your support of me on the forum, too, Selene. Remember we both hit this place about the same time? I can send you my e-mail, but I don't think I have your address, either. You seem to be doing well, also, and that is great!
I caught some of your writing on the wantan scribes--keep writing!
Going to go enjoy father's day, even if it is a Hallmark holiday (snicker!)
VP
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 04:41:30 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: VP
Subject: ok VP I know how we can get in touch
Message:
And if it's OK I am very interested in how the writing is going.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 04:18:01 (GMT)
From: 'George Stepalloverus'
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: DC Program
Message:
Dear all-just got confirmation for the DC program on Sunday.
I will be attending and reporting back live to you all on Monday morning,hopefully with comments from lard about the recent web events and mrc letter...
On another front,is the post about daya having a coke problem true?Can it be substantiated?I have heard the same thing about hansi a few years ago,but had not heard this one before...

My informal assessment of current premies is that most of them have not been on this site.I have floated some of the minor rumors about m's secret life to some of them and they have been shocked.Most of them have not wanted to talk about it, but I believe the day is coming soon when they will know most of these things that we know, and when they do, a large percentage of them will take a few giant steps backward, or leave completely.
This site is extremely powerful!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 02:17:18 (GMT)
From: Roger eDrek
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: I have not yet begun to fight!
Message:
Ok, here's the deal. Me, Roger eDrek is fighting back. Sorry, I will not put my real name on this forum because I believe that there are people who would or might like to cause trouble for me or hurt me.

Anyway, I'm fighting back against big money, big ill gotten gains, big gun lawyers from New York City, and a big fat drunken Lord of the Universe living in a palatial estate on top of the hill in Malibu.

I've been accused (I've yet to see the papers sent to my ISP) of illegal copyright infringement of religious texts and for having pejorative images of the Maharaji.

My ISP quickly buckled under the pressure from the New York law firm of Milbank, Tweed, Hadley, and McCloy under the guidance of Robert Jacobs who has his name in almost every corporate document that allows Maharaji to live like a king yet avoid paying income taxes.

A good friend here on the Forum put in me touch with Robin Gross of the Electronic Frontier Foundation who is helping me with what will most likely be a lawsuit to stop this ugly powerplay on the part of Maharaji.

The following is my Counter Notice Letter to the Attorney of my ISP. The Counter Notice asks that my website, House of Maharaji Drek be put back online and available for public viewing. I'll follow this post with the response from the ISP attorney.

My Real Name Here
Drek@oz.net
My Real Address Here
My Real City Here, My Real State Here 06660
Phone: (925) 555-1234

June X, 2000

RICHARD BUSH, ESQ.
Miller Nash
601 Union Street, Ste. 4400
Seattle, WA 98101
Sent via fax: 206-555-7485

RE: Counter-notification regarding misidentified website, www.oz.net/~drek

Mr. Bush:
I hereby submit my counter notice in accordance with 17 U.S.C. § 512(g) the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ('DMCA') and request that my website, www.oz.net/~drek be put back online within ten business days. I declare under penalty of perjury that my website www.oz.net/~drek was removed by mistake or misidentification of its contents.
I further declare under penalty of perjury and that I am entitled to use such materials as guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution and copyright law’s Fair Use Privilege (§ 107). Likewise, Maharaji’s claims of character defamation or libel are without merit because Maharaji is a public figure and such parody and satire is protected speech. In short, Maharaji is using the DMCA to censor fair criticism of him.
I, the subscriber, consent to the jurisdiction of Federal District Court for the Northern District of California (where I currently reside) and agree to accept service of process from Maharaji to adjudicate his claims over my Web site. Indeed, I would like very much for a court to hear the details of Maharaji’s abuse of the DMCA in this case. (See Footnote at bottom)
More specifically:


  • The DMCA required statement by the copyright owner that it has a good faith belief that there is no legal basis for the use of the materials complained of is invalid because the 'fair use' doctrine under Section 107 of the Copyright Act permits the use of the copyrighted works in such that it is for the purposes of criticism, comment, or research, and as such is not an infringement. Clearly, all material on my website at www.oz.net/~drek is for purposes of criticism of Maharaji. The educational value of www.oz.net/~drek has helped many people avoid the becoming members of this cult and has helped cult members exit Maharaji’s cult. And I have received numerous letters to that effect.

  • Elan Vital and Maharaji have not provided sufficient information to specifically identify the particular copyrighted work or works complained of other than a general statement covering the entire website rather than specific pages or elements.

  • I’ve been told that the 'take down' letter from Milbank stated that www.oz.net/~drek contained 'pejorative images of Maharaji.' Pejorative images of a Public Figure is not illegal and is protected speech. Therefore, such claim is completely without merit and is being used to bully the ISP.

  • Any use of copyrighted photos on my Web site have been altered in obvious parody, which again is protected speech and is not a copyright infringement. For example, view Maharaji’s opening splash page at www.maharaji.org and my parody of that page at www.oz.net/~drek/pics/monkeytrap.html.

  • I’ve also been told that the 'take down' letter from Milbank stated that www.oz.net/~drek illegally published Maharaji’s religious texts. Again, since I do not have specific complaint with enough details to identify the religious texts in question I am at a severe disadvantage in defending myself. I believe that my website contains approximately two quotes that are attributed to Maharaji and they are no more than several sentences in length. This use is clearly protected speech and is not an illegal use.

  • On my website I have 7 text copies of communiqués issued by Elan Vital staff addressed to various community officers. I was given these documents by a former community officer. He has since told me that nowhere on the documents was any mention of the document being copyrighted. I believe that the use of these documents also falls under the 'fair use' doctrine and First Amendment protection. However, to avoid any potential problems I will remove these documents at this time.

I sincerely believe that threatening letter sent to Sense Networking by Milbank as agent for Elan Vital and Maharaji is a bold attempt to thwart Free Speech and criticism of a cult leader who has caused irreparable harm to thousands of people including myself both in terms of financial loss and psychological harm. Maharaji and his very expensive and prestigious lawyers have successfully closed down a sister website in France and two websites on GeoCities in the last three weeks. This is the first time ever that Maharaji, who normally shuns publicity, has acted. I would contend that it is not what he falsely claims to be illegal copyright infringement to be the reason for his action, rather the effects of the public criticism is hurting his business.
The Internet has brought power to the average citizen. And that power is the ability to freely communicate. I have not done anything illegal in my efforts to criticize an egomaniacal cult leader. I have done nothing wrong in wanting to provide help to people trapped in deranged religious cult that I was once trapped in.
No, the wrong has been done by Maharaji and his expensive New York law firm by attempting to bully both Sense Networking and myself with a meritless complaint of illegal use of copyright material. Maharaji is doing this to silence public criticism that is costing him money as his followers read these websites and leave his personality cult.
I can be reached at the phone number and address listed above. Please do not hesitate to contact me to discuss resolving this unfortunate situation. Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
My Signature Here
My Real Name Here (a.k.a Roger eDrek)

CC: Robin Gross, Esq., Electronic Frontier Foundation -- FAX: 555-555-1234
CC: Name of Owner of ISP

Footnote on Page 1

Although my Web site has been removed based on mere allegation's of improper activity, I have not yet received a copy of the complaint issued by New York law firm of Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy on behalf of Elan Vital (a.k.a. Divine Light Mission), Maharaji (a.k.a. Guru Maharaj Ji, Lord of the Universe, Prem Pal Singh Rawat, and other names.) The only information that I have been provided regarding the allegations against my Web site are two emails heretofore attached from name withheld of my ISP, Oz.net Internet Services (Sense Networking).

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Jun 18, 2000 at 00:16:51 (GMT)
From: Jean-Michel
Email: None
To: Roger eDrek
Subject: How the whole case is going to end up
Message:
is pretty much obvious.

1/ They'll have to say which documents are supposedly copyrighted, and then we'll have every right to quote it, analyze it and have it online: they'll be very pissed off.

2/ or, knowing that this is what's going to happen, EV is not going to go on, and be ridicule .......

3/ or use every possibility to delay the case, which is going to en up like 1/ anyway .......

They're actually extremely stupid.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 14:15:40 (GMT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Roger eDrek
Subject: Good luck, Roger
Message:
Sounds good, Roger. If I was the guy who had to respond to your letter, you'd be back online in no time. I look forward to seeing that happen. It would be a great victory for exes. Here's to it!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 02:20:36 (GMT)
From: Roger eDrek
Email: None
To: Roger eDrek
Subject: The letter from the ISP's lawyers to me
Message:
Richard J. Busch
rbusch@millernash.com

June 16, 2000

Mr. My Real Name Here

My Real Address Here
My Real City Here, My Real State Here 06660

Subject: Website www.oz.net/~drek

Dear Mr. My Real Last Name Here:

Thank you for your letter dated June 6, 2000 concerning your website www.oz.net/~drek.

The purpose of this letter is to respond to your assertion that your letter constitutes a counter notification under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ('DMCA'), and to notify you of a process that oz.net will follow to give the parties to this dispute the opportunity to determine whether your revised web site allegedly violates any of Elan Vital's intellectual property rights.

First, your letter asserts that it is a counter notification to Sense Networking, Inc. under the DMCA. You did not state, however, that you have a good faith belief that your material was removed due to a mistake or misidentification of its contents. The DMCA expressly requires your counter notification to contain the statement that you have a good faith belief that the material was removed due to a mistake or misidentification. (See 17 USC §512(g)(3)(C)). Therefore, your letter does not comply with the requirements of a counter notification under the DMCA.

Second, your letter indicates that you will revise your web site in response to the claims from Elan Vital. It is possible that your changes will address their concerns. Therefore, we will notify Elan Vital's attorneys that they may review your revised web site on a secure section of oz.net's system that is not available to the general public. They will be informed that your web site will be made available to the public through the Internet in 10 - 14 working days from the date of your letter if they do not provide us with a written notice under the DMCA. If Elan Vital delivers a written notice, Sense Networking, Inc. will forward that notice to you as required by the DMCA, and we will await your response.

Your web site will be available at:

http://www.oz.net/~drek/OFFLINE

The username is: (I've removed this)
The password is: (I've removed this)

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me.

Very truly yours,

Richard J. Busch

cc: Robin Gross, Esq., Electronic Frontier Foundation
bcc: (Edited: Owners and Managers of ISP)

BUSCH:cm
File No.: 521690-2001
Doc ID: SEADOCS:50007.1

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 14:37:03 (GMT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Roger eDrek
Subject: I must be missing something
Message:
I don't know if these guys know how to read, Roger. You say this....

I declare under penalty of perjury that my website www.oz.net/~drek was removed by mistake or misidentification of its contents.

....and they respond with this....

You did not state, however, that you have a good faith belief that your material was removed due to a mistake or misidentification of its contents.

Lawyers. Sheesh. Which reminds me of a good lawyer joke I recently heard. What's the difference between a flounder and a lawyer? One's a scum sucking bottom feeder, and the other one is a fish. Yuck, yuck. With all deep respect to all lawyers present, of course.

Good luck, Roger. Hang in there.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Jun 18, 2000 at 02:18:18 (GMT)
From: Charles Zelda Dickens
Email: None
To: Roger
Subject: Putting a fine point on the perjury sentence
Message:
I had a flicker of question when I read this sentence in your letter

'I declare under penalty of perjury that my website
www.oz.net/~drek was removed by mistake or misidentification of
its contents'

You did not do the removing so I dont think you can speak for the person/body that did the removing.

I think that you can state under the penalty of perjury
-that you did not intend the material to be interpreted as whatever
-and/or it was not what they say it was not supposed to be

Do you see what I mean? I dont think you can declare under penalty of perjury about a third partys actions- just your own.
I may be wrong on this but something struck me as a notch off about the sentence.

You believe that the person/body that did the removing did so on instructions that the material was objectionble - which it aint.

AND that you have a good faith belief that your material was removed due to a mistake bla bla exact wording like Selene says.

You did not state, however, that you have a good faith belief that your material was removed due to a mistake or misidentification of
its contents.

good luck
ZZ

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Jun 18, 2000 at 02:49:49 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Charles Zelda Dickens
Subject: Rog, Important, read Zelda's post.
Message:
Good job, Zelda.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 19:16:01 (GMT)
From: Roger eDrek
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: I must be missing something
Message:
Indeed, they missed something. Did I forget to click my heels three times or what?

Thanks for the support.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 20:33:11 (GMT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Roger eDrek
Subject: I must be missing something
Message:
Hi Rog -
I am guessing that you have to spit it back in their exact words. 'I have a good-faith belief...' or whatever.

Good luck - and take care -
Katie
(Hey I work for state government - spitting it back EXACTLY is usually the right thing to do - important to know if you ever apply for a state government job!)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 02:24:15 (GMT)
From: Roger eDrek
Email: None
To: Roger eDrek
Subject: Corrections
Message:
The date of my letter should have been June 6 instead of June X.

I've been advised that my publishing this material here would not or should not hurt my case in terms of telegraphing my plans to Maharaji's lawyers. Hell, if they cannot anticipate my moves here they don't even deserve to be Maharaji's lawyers.

So, I've got some more work to do to respond to this.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 08:01:02 (GMT)
From: Jean-Michel
Email: None
To: Roger eDrek
Subject: The 'M and EV vs. Exes' Websites' Saga updated!
Message:
Maharaji and Elan Vital vs. Exes' Websites!

One more Chapter added to The Saga

Thank you Maharaji!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 22:47:33 (GMT)
From: VP
Email: None
To: Jean-Michel
Subject: The 'M and EV vs. Exes' Websites' Saga updated!
Message:
Just curious...Did the person who sent you the letter tell you specifically which documents were supposedly under EV copyright? Did they cite specific examples of quotes or photos? I'm probably asking something that everyone already knows.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Jun 18, 2000 at 22:00:49 (GMT)
From: Jean-Michel
Email: None
To: VP
Subject: Hey VP! Let's bet on this !!!!!!!!!!!
Message:
What happened is that my ISP's registered letter arrived whilst I was on vacation !

And I got it when it was too late and my website already offline.

Next time they'll try this (IF there is a next time), I'll do like Roger did, and ask for details. They'll HAVE TO ANSWER and THEN we'll know what EV and Rawat don't like.

AND THEN we'll have a lot of interesting stuff to elaborate on !!!!!!!!

Guess waht they're going to do ....... I take the bets!!!!!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 19:24:49 (GMT)
From: Roger eDrek
Email: None
To: Jean-Michel
Subject: Apparently, they don't have to say
Message:
Apparently, the DMCA does not require the owners of the copyright material to specifically identify the material in question. They need only say that infringement is happening.

I imagine that in latter stages (e.g. a Court of Law) they would have to be more specific down to an item by item basis.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Jun 20, 2000 at 19:29:44 (GMT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: Roger eDrek
Subject: 'They' being the service provider???
Message:
Rog, found the following at http://www.usiia.org/legis/title2.html
Hope it's of some use (if you haven't already come across it)

From the 'Internet Copyright Infringement Liability Clarification Act of 1998'.
(3) ELEMENTS OF NOTIFICATION-

`(A) To be effective under this subsection, a notification of claimed infringement means any written communication provided
to the service provider's designated agent that includes substantially the following
--

`(i) a physical or electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right
that is allegedly infringed;

`(ii) identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed, or, if multiple such works at a single
online site are covered by a single notification, a representative list of such works at that site;

`(iii) identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity that is to
be removed or access to which is to be disabled, and information reasonably sufficient to permit the service
provider to locate the material;

`(iv) information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to contact the complaining party, such as an
address, telephone number, and, if available an electronic mail address at which the complaining party may be
contacted;

`(v) a statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner
complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, or its agent, or the law; and

`(vi) a statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the
complaining party has the authority to enforce the owner's rights that are claimed to be infringed.

Best of luck with this, Rog.


P.S
It's also worth bearing in mind that:
'Copyright being a proprietary right, it does not avail the
defendant to plead motive or intent. '

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 22:33:55 (GMT)
From: VP
Email: None
To: Roger
Subject: About your website, Roger
Message:
Good luck with your battle to get your website back on-line. In my opinion EV's claim has zero to do with copyright and is 100 % concerned with CENSORSHIP which I am personally against.

They don't like what you have to say--and too bad. If what you say is untrue, let them prove you wrong instead of trying to silence you--SHEESH.
Take Care,
VP

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 20:04:12 (GMT)
From: Roger eDrek
Email: None
To: VP
Subject: Exactly!
Message:
Yes, indeed. The vagueness of the law gives them an unfair advantage and they know that.

I intend to fight them to the bitter end (where any reasonable court will kick their ass.)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 03:13:54 (GMT)
From: Zelda
Email: None
To: Roger eDrek
Subject: Let um put THAT in their pipe and smoke it.
Message:
Roger and friend

I would like to thank you for posting that and also say that the fact that you are taking this step makes me feel less walked on by his holy expensive shoes.

May you endure through the fight and know when you win your battle you win for us.
Zelda

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Jun 20, 2000 at 18:43:13 (GMT)
From: Cynthia G.
Email: None
To: Roger eDrek/Jean Michel
Subject: You go guys!!!
Message:
I had no idea all of this was going on.

It's exciting if not infuriating. FYI, in the US copyright/patent attorneys are in a different category from other lawyers. They have to pass a different bar exam, etc., etc. I worked with such an attorney years ago and he represented Timex Corp. in addition to other corporations. Intellectual property is an oxymoron in m's world, don't you think? Now he's trying to control the internet--too much!

I don't have much to offer except my very best to you for putting up a fight. The nerve of them. I'd love to see this publicized on CNN--publicized very broadly. News about internet stuff is hot these days, you might even get a pro bono attorney through publicity. Not only would EV/m have to answer for all the so-called copyrighted content in the websites, m would get some really bad publicity. Think he'd like that? What about all the anti-cult websites which have quoted m? Have they been shut down too?

Sorry for posting, I know I'm not liked very much here, but I couldn't resist. What you have created in your websites is threatening to m's lies. These actions by EV and m, et al, are so telling about m. He cannot stand to be critized.

Good luck in the good fight,
Best,
Cynthia G.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Jun 20, 2000 at 19:42:22 (GMT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: Cynthia G.
Subject: You go guys!!!
Message:
Hey Cynthia!

'not liked very much here'??? don't even think it.

- everyone goes through that from time to time (& I think I'm well overdue for my trial by fire, BTW)

In case you're wondering who the f**k this is - and never mind why the Joni Mitchell link (how'd you score?) - it's me Octopus (as was) ...

Good to see you here again.

Pip pip!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Jun 20, 2000 at 20:46:23 (GMT)
From: Cynthia G.
Email: None
To: All
Subject: To: (Sir) David, Roger eDrek and Jean Michel
Message:
And to everyone,

First Sir David, I neglected to mention in my above post that you also are included in the good fight for freedom of speech and information--my apologies. That said, it just occurred to me that while I was at the DECA project (I posted about this several months ago) that there was an actual THEFT of documents from Boeing in Seattle by a premie who worked there.

I was there at the project, the aircraft had been acquired, I knew who the premie was, saw the documents, handled the documents in preparing them for use by the engineers, designers, and mechanics, knew they were photocopies and not originals, and knew they were smuggled out of Boeing offices for the purposes of saving money on the legitimate purchase of these documents (which would have been pricey, I'm sure). There were volumns of proprietary and intellectual property in the form of schematics, engineering specs, you name it. Ripped off. The nerve.

Now I know that premie didn't just have a 'great idea' one day to help m out with his airplane project--it was a huge secret at the time--this was happening before we even moved to the big 'complex.' She must have been requested to do so by someone in charge. All of us at DECA working in that small office at the time were fully aware that what she was doing was extremely risky but not only because documents were being stolen. Boeing is a contractor for the US Federal Government, as in The Pentagon. One just doesn't 'smuggle' out of a Federal aircraft contractor for the United States military. I shutter at how many laws may have been broken in that episode of the B707. I always wondered what would have happened if she had been caught. This was discussed by us workers, as well as by the honchos. And they pressured her beyond belief to get them out of Boeing down to Miami ASAP after the aircraft acquisition. Every day, boxes and boxes of documents.

Another scary episode in my life with m. I knew of a serious theft going on and, well, geeze, I wonder about statute of limitation on that kind of thing.

Ironic, isn't it?
Best,
Cynthia

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 01:36:14 (GMT)
From: Rob
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Whoops! There goes another one!
Message:
Was it something I said?

Oh well, premie ji Han has bailed on me with nary a fight. We were having a little tete-a-tete down in the Cynthia G. 'Hi & Bye' thread.

All I wanted was for him to answer 2 simple, basic questions in his own words, but he couldn't bring himself to do it.

Hope Deputy Dog's got a bit more spunk, as I just threw the same ones at him.

Anyone taking bets?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 04:52:00 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: Oh, you get used to it
Message:
And your penance for seeing through the cult you once belonged to?

Serving as a human fly-swatter right here on F5.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 05:06:01 (GMT)
From: Rob
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: But you know what?
Message:
I got to thank you for sticking at me, way back then, when I was doing exactly the same thing. You MADE me stop and look at what was really going on. It hurt like hell and I hated you for it, but just to have the clarity I have now makes it all worth it.

I just read your 'Michael Borden' ELK post. Very well done, and how strange that right there we have m.'s take on Q&A as a perfect example of Han's behavior here. Questions don't necessarily require corresponding answers, or words to that effect. He must have just come back from Boston!

Got to hand it to Deputy Dogg though, he came right back at me with First Hand Experience descriptions (Reality Check thread). The guy is a sanyasin (sp) for sure. Couldn't be he's just bs-ing me though, ya think?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 05:28:54 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: Well, a few things
Message:
1) Thanks and you're welcome.

2) I noticed you used the word 'clarity' .... :)

3) I know Dogg. What can I say?

Band practice.....

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 18:43:56 (GMT)
From: Rob
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Well, a few things
Message:
2) I noticed you used the word 'clarity' .... :)

Time we reclaimed our vocabulary:

I think intellectual knowledge is a wonderful thing.

I'd like to devote my life to writing.

I enjoy participating in forum discussions.

etc etc etc

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 21:36:02 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: Well, a few things
Message:
Yes, I appreciate what you're saying. I'm grateful myself to get the language back. It's such a goddamned good experience to finally understand that, no, nobody's perfect, not even short, fat greasy middle-aged Indian cult leaders.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 16:53:37 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: fitzroy@liverpool.ac.uk
To: Jim
Subject: Well, a few things
Message:
Rob asked Couldn't be he's just bs-ing me though, ya think?

I'd say that is a distinct possibility. More likely - and more damaging - Dogg is bullshitting himself.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 21:41:22 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Well, a few things
Message:
Is there a difference? Dogg isn't into looking closely at anything. For newagers the world's a romantic date. Turn the lights down low .....

Speaking of which, check this out:

Turn the Lights Down Low

And if that don't work, try cut and pasting this:

http://www.theonion.com/onion3622/turn_lights_down.html

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 22:24:35 (GMT)
From: Monmot
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Could Smoove B be related to....
Message:
Hannibal Lecter? No fava beans and fine chianti on the menu, though. Damn. Who needs sorbet when Smoove B can clear your emotional palate.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index