Forum V: Archive
Compiled: Sat, Jul 01, 2000 at 00:40:29 (GMT)
From: Jun 21, 2000 To: Jun 28, 2000 Page: 5 Of: 5


annie -:- so long -:- Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 22:56:10 (GMT)
__ Deputy Dog -:- annie: I think you gave it a good shot -:- Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 22:05:10 (GMT)
__ (Sir) David -:- so long -:- Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 01:12:19 (GMT)
__ __ gErRy -:- Don't let the door hit your ass on yer way out... -:- Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 04:31:57 (GMT)
__ __ __ Rob -:- gErRy- remember, its a REVOLVING door -:- Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 04:37:05 (GMT)

cq -:- Continuing saga/scandal of the DECA scam: -:- Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 20:35:52 (GMT)
__ Happy -:- Continuing saga/scandal of the DECA scam: -:- Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 12:55:28 (GMT)

Jim -:- My apologies to Annie -:- Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 19:05:12 (GMT)
__ Keith -:- My apologies to Annie -:- Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 22:54:12 (GMT)
__ Loaf -:- So nice. -:- Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 19:45:02 (GMT)
__ __ Keith -:- So nice. -:- Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 23:04:19 (GMT)
__ __ __ G -:- Jim is a Randroid -:- Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 23:55:04 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ JohnT -:- Urrghh! I'm a Randroid?? -:- Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 20:44:14 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ G -:- certainty -:- Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 22:44:30 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ JohnT -:- certainly subtle -:- Fri, Jun 23, 2000 at 20:35:08 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- certainly subtle -:- Fri, Jun 23, 2000 at 21:47:36 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JohnT -:- subtle strength -:- Fri, Jun 23, 2000 at 22:24:50 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- subtle strength -:- Fri, Jun 23, 2000 at 22:38:24 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JohnT -:- subtle strength -:- Fri, Jun 23, 2000 at 23:12:20 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- Objectivists, extremists -:- Sat, Jun 24, 2000 at 14:24:22 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JohnT -:- Yippee! I'm not a Randroid. -:- Sun, Jun 25, 2000 at 07:18:32 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Yes, G, let's talk about certainty -:- Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 23:23:33 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- unidentified quote, Objectivism vs skepticism -:- Sat, Jun 24, 2000 at 14:36:59 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- ok -:- Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 23:34:18 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Yes, well it was either you or Way or maybe both -:- Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 23:51:33 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- ok -:- Fri, Jun 23, 2000 at 00:27:52 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Alright, it must have been Way -:- Fri, Jun 23, 2000 at 00:37:30 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Way -:- Yeah, that was me, although... -:- Fri, Jun 23, 2000 at 13:54:45 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- 'two-bit philosophy', ok, it seems I was mistaken -:- Fri, Jun 23, 2000 at 00:58:12 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- And when did I say otherwise? -:- Fri, Jun 23, 2000 at 01:19:09 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- misquoting -:- Fri, Jun 23, 2000 at 01:27:07 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Let us not mince words, brother -:- Fri, Jun 23, 2000 at 01:34:00 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- scientists -:- Fri, Jun 23, 2000 at 02:05:14 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Let's really look at what you're saying -:- Fri, Jun 23, 2000 at 14:55:11 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- What I'm saying -:- Fri, Jun 23, 2000 at 16:43:05 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ gErRy -:- Hey I are one too !!! -:- Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 04:06:17 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Jim -:- G is a liar -:- Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 03:44:05 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ G -:- You didn't say that -:- Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 18:27:25 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- What's your game, G? -:- Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 19:27:31 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Runamok -:- and the movie didn't match the book at all -:- Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 14:56:33 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- and the movie didn't match the book at all -:- Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 15:01:20 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- Pranaming to Rand's book -:- Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 15:07:31 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- to Stonor re Ayn Rand (ot) -:- Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 20:48:03 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- to Stonor re Ayn Rand (ot) -:- Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 22:27:46 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- to Stonor re Ayn Rand (ot) -:- Fri, Jun 23, 2000 at 14:05:25 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- to Katie re Ayn Rand (ot) -:- Sat, Jun 24, 2000 at 04:42:29 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- apologies for double post! -:- Sat, Jun 24, 2000 at 14:56:14 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- to Stonor re Ayn Rand (ot) -:- Sat, Jun 24, 2000 at 03:42:52 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ gErRy -:- Oh bullshit Jimm I was there... -:- Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 04:46:56 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Selene -:- no way??? Ayn rand over South Park? -:- Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 06:00:13 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Selene -:- Why is AG down? oh yeah and as for Jim -:- Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 01:06:09 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ (Sir) David -:- It's not down now and I've gone to bed -:- Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 02:08:14 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Selene -:- sweet dreams zzzzzzzzzz -:- Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 02:26:26 (GMT)
__ Annie -:- gosh -:- Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 19:21:20 (GMT)
__ __ Not Jim -:- Can't get it up, eh Annie -:- Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 19:54:54 (GMT)
__ __ Jim -:- Okay, I was wrong but tell me ....... -:- Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 19:37:03 (GMT)
__ __ __ annie -:- yes i can balance a checkbook, regardless -:- Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 20:57:12 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ hamzen -:- Annie, all you're talking about is a bootstrapping -:- Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 05:22:14 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Rob -:- Well, it does sound like -:- Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 03:33:11 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Powerman -:- yes i can balance a checkbook, regardless -:- Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 22:41:54 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Anne -:- yes i can balance a checkbook, regardless -:- Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 21:10:26 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ annie -:- your motives are not MY motives. -:- Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 21:13:50 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Anne will NEVER understand you, Annie -:- Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 21:16:13 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Jim -:- I agree with everything you say -:- Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 21:02:13 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ annie -:- now that IS scary -:- Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 21:03:51 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Setting you up? Come on, now! -:- Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 21:11:34 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ GeRry -:- I'm yankin' yer ass to the manly side of the sound -:- Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 05:00:10 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ annie -:- yah, i suspected as much -:- Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 21:20:13 (GMT)

VP -:- An affirmation for Susan, Abi and Anth -:- Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 18:36:19 (GMT)
__ Just curious -:- Why twist the words VP -:- Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 01:28:23 (GMT)
__ __ VP -:- Your exact post again as a refresher -:- Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 02:34:35 (GMT)
__ __ __ VP -:- I can't believe I said FUCK on the forum--nt -:- Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 02:36:40 (GMT)
__ __ VP (very pissed) -:- Don't back peddle now, J.C. -:- Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 02:18:42 (GMT)
__ __ __ Just Curious -:- I don't back peddle VP -:- Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 06:38:11 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ VP -:- Sick of this pissing contest -:- Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 13:16:39 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Just curious -:- is not interested in a pissing contest -:- Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 13:56:46 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- Personally, I agree with VP -:- Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 20:40:40 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Just curious thinks -:- it is nothing to agree to, Katie -:- Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 21:06:19 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- it is nothing to agree to, Katie -:- Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 21:55:56 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- P.S. I take back part of my post -:- Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 22:26:17 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Curious or whatever -:- My last words -:- Fri, Jun 23, 2000 at 06:55:38 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ VP -:- Thanks for all of your posts..:) -:- Fri, Jun 23, 2000 at 02:51:07 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Susan -:- well said and I agree Katie (nt) -:- Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 23:19:07 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ bjorn seeker -:- So Bjorn again Bjorn ? -:- Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 21:10:59 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Susan -:- just curious- -:- Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 16:14:05 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Just curious -:- to susan -:- Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 21:52:52 (GMT)
__ Susan -:- thank you -:- Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 00:37:33 (GMT)
__ __ VP -:- you are welcome--glad it did post! -:- Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 01:16:52 (GMT)
__ VP -:- I'll try posting it again -:- Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 18:44:44 (GMT)
__ __ VP -:- Shit, this isn't working! -:- Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 18:48:27 (GMT)

Paul -:- Thanks to JM and Anth... -:- Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 17:55:03 (GMT)
__ AJW -:- Thanks to JM and Anth... -:- Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 12:52:29 (GMT)
__ Way -:- To Paul -:- Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 19:55:04 (GMT)

Annie -:- Making a free decision -:- Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 16:44:06 (GMT)
__ Rob -:- So long as you are happy.... -:- Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 04:08:58 (GMT)
__ Jerry -:- The portal? Where? -:- Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 00:12:54 (GMT)
__ __ gErRy -:- The portal? here's where... -:- Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 05:13:32 (GMT)
__ __ __ gErRy -:- The portal? No sexual connotation intended... -:- Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 20:36:14 (GMT)
__ Anne not Annie -:- What a free decision -:- Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 18:18:43 (GMT)
__ __ Annie -:- yes, a free decision -:- Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 19:16:25 (GMT)
__ __ __ Anne -:- no free decisions -:- Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 20:42:53 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Annie -:- you are being presumptuous, supercilious. -:- Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 21:10:25 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Anne -:- you are being presumptuous, supercilious. -:- Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 21:25:21 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Annie -:- i wasn't trying to give you peace of mind. -:- Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 21:39:56 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Aha! The Rain Man defence! -:- Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 21:15:05 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Anne -:- Aha! The Rain Man defence! -:- Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 21:37:42 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ annie -:- yeh -:- Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 21:27:45 (GMT)
__ You are a liar, Annie -:- Making a free decision, what a joke -:- Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 17:03:36 (GMT)
__ __ Keith -:- Making a free decision, what a joke -:- Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 22:40:15 (GMT)
__ __ annie -:- i am speaking for myself only. -:- Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 17:25:07 (GMT)
__ __ __ Keith -:- i am speaking for myself only. -:- Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 22:47:08 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ keith -:- Correction!!! -:- Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 22:50:32 (GMT)
__ __ __ Jim -:- Just send me the emails, please -:- Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 17:39:29 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Jim -:- Sorry, even I couldn't read that post! -:- Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 17:42:12 (GMT)
__ __ __ Not Jim -:- Why you are a liar and another slippery eel -:- Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 17:38:32 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Annie -:- good grief -:- Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 17:46:33 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Not Jim -:- Ok I'll trust -:- Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 17:58:44 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- If you even thought of editing them, I'm amazed -:- Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 17:53:15 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ annie -:- I'm amazed that you would trust me that far -:- Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 17:54:42 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Are you gonig to send them now or not? (nt) -:- Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 17:58:39 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Won't you even answer the question? (nt) -:- Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 18:08:46 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- Looks like we've heard the last from Annie nt -:- Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 18:20:19 (GMT)

Elaine -:- FA- Well, it's been 2 days now... -:- Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 14:25:03 (GMT)
__ (Sir) David -:- FA- Well, it's been 2 days now... -:- Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 00:48:37 (GMT)
__ __ Jerry -:- I just couldn't let this pass! -:- Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 03:00:16 (GMT)
__ Why are you stirring up -:- this shit, Elaine and what business is it of yours -:- Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 15:57:07 (GMT)
__ __ Elaine -:- Hey, raina was a mixed up person... -:- Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 16:38:23 (GMT)
__ __ __ Rob -:- Hey, raina was a mixed up person... -:- Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 04:30:42 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Elaine -:- That was cute - we can only hope...NT -:- Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 17:25:56 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Jim -:- Hm.... how about the Quakers? (nt) -:- Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 06:30:47 (GMT)
__ __ __ Jerry -:- Post your email address -:- Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 00:38:42 (GMT)
__ __ __ Powerman -:- Say, Elaine... -:- Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 18:27:54 (GMT)
__ __ __ You're a liar, Elaine. -:- Tell me something I don't know -:- Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 16:50:41 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ (Sir) David -:- I detect a pack instinct here -:- Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 01:01:28 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ SB -:- I detect a pack instinct here -:- Sat, Jun 24, 2000 at 22:39:33 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Keith -:- I detect a pack instinct here -:- Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 08:36:34 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Rob -:- Pack of 3-headed dogs maybe Dave? -:- Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 04:35:43 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ (Sir) David -:- Pack of 3-headed dogs maybe Dave? -:- Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 10:40:36 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Rob -:- Yeah sure. Like I said, I'm over it. nt -:- Fri, Jun 23, 2000 at 01:26:09 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Selene -:- I did not -:- Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 04:33:37 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- I agree with Selene -:- Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 17:13:49 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Selene -:- be careful when you agree with Selene -:- Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 18:11:03 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- be careful when you agree with Katie! -:- Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 19:55:05 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Selene -:- oops ants don't run in packs do they? -:- Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 18:26:16 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ SB -:- A question -:- Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 03:15:53 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ (Sir) David -:- A question -:- Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 10:38:06 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Nope -:- Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 14:54:12 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Selene -:- to answer you SB -:- Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 05:00:22 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ SB -:- to answer you SB -:- Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 12:22:19 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- That is SOOOO absurd, Dave -:- Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 01:11:46 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ (Sir) David -:- Yes but what's the purpose here then? -:- Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 01:24:33 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Give me a break, Dave -:- Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 14:48:29 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ SB -:- Give me a break, Dave -:- Sat, Jun 24, 2000 at 00:19:50 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Keith -:- Hi. -:- Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 22:16:42 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Powerman -:- Say, Keith... -:- Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 22:35:28 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Keith -:- Say, Keith... -:- Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 22:42:46 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ What a fake!! -:- Keith is full of BS -:- Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 12:38:39 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Powerman -:- Say, Keith... -:- Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 22:47:54 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ keith -:- Say, Keith... -:- Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 22:56:47 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jerry -:- Let me help -:- Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 00:46:54 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Keith -:- The power of one. -:- Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 07:18:50 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Someone who loves humor -:- You are in excellent form today Jerry! LOL (nt) -:- Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 02:22:31 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Helen -:- You are in excellent form today Jerry! LOL -:- Fri, Jun 23, 2000 at 01:32:54 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Keith -:- You are in excellent form today Jerry! LOL (nt) -:- Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 07:21:26 (GMT)


Date: Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 22:56:10 (GMT)
From: annie
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: so long
Message:
I'm going to make myself scarce here because it is taking
up so much time. If anyone writes and asks me a question
it's possible i won't see it, ok?

I just sent an email to Way, this is part of what
I wrote, and I thought I would post it here:

I expect that for all of us -- premies or expremies or inbetween --
if Maharaji IS something like 'lord' then we'll all realize it
eventually for ourselves. If he's NOT, then we'll all realize
it eventually for ourselves. Trying to convince one way or another
is in my opinion a waste of time.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 22:05:10 (GMT)
From: Deputy Dog
Email: None
To: annie
Subject: annie: I think you gave it a good shot
Message:
annie,

Thanks for defending M and K. I appreciate it. You weren't expecting to convert anyone exes I hope?

When we practice, and get in touch with that inner quiet, all the argument, quarrels, bickering, histrionics, rants and ravings, bluster, tirades, bombast, the entire war of words we witness here, all seems kind of distant and pointless doesn't it?

IMO we all have divinity within. Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed, Nanak, Rumi, Kabir, all said we do, and I believe them.

Keep on keeping on annie.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 01:12:19 (GMT)
From: (Sir) David
Email: sirdavid12@hotmail.com
To: annie
Subject: so long
Message:
I can relate to that Annie and also I have some understanding of what you must have been through to write the above post.

If you don't want to argue the toss with people who only want to score political points but instead just want to write some heartfelt posts which won't be shot down in flames, you may write on my forum which is The ANYTHING GOES Forum.

People at my forum have learned the virtue of good manners and tolerance of other people. It is uncensored and doesn't need to be censored because it only attracts cool people. Uncool people just don't feel OK there and so they leave. So you're welcome to post there and so is anyone else who possesses the usual social ettiquettes which are necessary to get along with people.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 04:31:57 (GMT)
From: gErRy
Email: None
To: annie
Subject: Don't let the door hit your ass on yer way out...
Message:
It's been real, Annie.

dismayed,

gErRy

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 04:37:05 (GMT)
From: Rob
Email: None
To: gErRy
Subject: gErRy- remember, its a REVOLVING door
Message:
Watch for newcomers;)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 20:35:52 (GMT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Continuing saga/scandal of the DECA scam:
Message:
Has anyone collected in one place all the DECA (and I still don't know what that's an acronym for) posts?

If so, here's an interesting post by that's just about to disappear into the archives (and posted only yesterday!)

Date:
Tues, Jun 20, 2000 at 21:46:23
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

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

Hope you don't mind me pulling this out of impending obscurity, Cynthia.

Chris

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 12:55:28 (GMT)
From: Happy
Email: None
To: cq
Subject: Continuing saga/scandal of the DECA scam:
Message:
Interesting stuff, thanks for reposting it.
I agree that it would be nice to have all details about DECA
easily accessible on the net.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 19:05:12 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: My apologies to Annie
Message:
Annie,

I was able to find most of your old emails on my old computer which is at my girlfriend's. I had them both there and on my new one which is the one that had to be reformatted. Anyway, I have to admit, my memory was wrong. You did say even then that you thought Maharaji was God. Mind you, you said it in a completely idiotic, non-sensical way but, the point is, you said it and I was wrong to call you a liar on account of your supposedly never having done so. Here's a sample exchange:

Me:

'Do you think Maharaji's god? I don't know about you, but I dedicated my life to him because that's exactly what I thought. He wasn't just some 'guru' or some wise guy or anything of the sort. He was god in human form.Now, do you believe that's true or not?

You:

'Yes, I do.
Yet at the same time, I find him to be as human, or more, than I.
And simultaneously I am recognizing that I am also god in
human form, and so are you, and so is everybody.
To me, life has become like an amazing hall of mirrors.
I have thought of Maharaji as a fountain. There are times when
I have listened to him, that I was transfixed by the depth and
the poetry of his words, and how he addressed precisely my own heart and even funny details of my previous week.
I have heard Maharaji say that what he is experiencing, we can
experience too.'

But what I call a new-age language melt down is stuff like this:

Me:

'....NO evidence in the known universe of the existence of god.'

You:

'yah, but what's the definition of 'god' ???

and anyhow, what evidence is there of the existence of ANYthing?
*poof* it's ALL imaginary: of this I am becoming more
and more convinced.'

or....

You:

'i don't need to prove you are wrong in order to
prove i am right. i dont believe in that stuff.
it's possible we are both right. it doesn't even
matter to me -- if the maharaji i love who has
contributed only positive benefit to my life has
another dark side to him, where he wreaks havoc
on people such as yourself, i don't even care!
it's all much too much, perhaps each of us creates
the maharaji we believe in, and he doesn't even exist
as an entity by himself.'

Although I admit I was wrong to call you a liar I can say this my own defense (it's not a full defense, I concede). Your words were all over the place. You fuck with words and their fair meaning. I think that's why I remembered your 'viewpoint', if I can call it that, wrongly.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 22:54:12 (GMT)
From: Keith
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: My apologies to Annie
Message:
I'll give you that Jim. You did the research and said sorry. Good boy!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 19:45:02 (GMT)
From: Loaf
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: So nice.
Message:
Jim

Must you be so fierce.

I know this may very well start you shouting at me

Please don't.

I've been thinking about this for a while, and so I thought I would say something while you were a little more accessible

(Always kick a man when he's down). Joke.

You take pleasure in throwing your weight around.

And you have considerable weight and moral force behind your arguement, which make your personal remarks and language all the more cutting

Lowers the tone, raises the temperature and misses the point.

I'm slowly getting to feel like I could like/respect you - but you have nearly driven me away from this place.

I just thought I'd let you know.

Don't call me a wuss or make personal remarks about me. I'm not getting at you... I'm getting clear about what matters.

Its easy to sound off onto a keyboard and a monitor. Easy to get full of yourself.

I'm doing it now..aren't I ?! So I'll stop.

I'm going to duck now....

Why can't we all just have world peace and no hunger and lovely things like that !!!

Loaf the Gentleman Bimbo.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 23:04:19 (GMT)
From: Keith
Email: None
To: Loaf
Subject: So nice.
Message:
I agree Loaf, and would add that if Jim would develop a nicer on-line persona his arguments would be far better recieved by those who most matter.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 23:55:04 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Keith
Subject: Jim is a Randroid
Message:
A Randroid is an android who is a follower of Ayn Rand's teachings. Ayn Rand was a cult leader and atheist writer.

I think he would agree that he is essentially an android, since he seems to buy into the computational no-free-will model of the mind.

See What's REALLY Wrong With Objectivism? - Summary which discusses the question 'Why do so many Objectivists insist on attacking the honesty, integrity, and character of their opponents?'

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 20:44:14 (GMT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: G
Subject: Urrghh! I'm a Randroid??
Message:
The Summary starts

The concepts of 'evil,' 'evasion,' and 'inherently dishonest ideas' are psychological concepts that do not belong in philosophy.

Well I do think that there is such a thing as evasion. An inherently dishonest idea might then be well defined as one that leads a person into habitual evasion in speech and thought. As a practical person I want a philosophy to deal with the real world. So I disagree with that quote.

The Summary goes on

These concepts merely serve to give Objectivists unrestricted license to morally condemn other human beings.

This is not true at all. Our sense of right and wrong reflects something real in the world. But it's not infallible! We can never be completely certain of the truth of things. We do have a moral sense; and it is capable of being right (we just never know when - not for sure).

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 22:44:30 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: certainty
Message:
JohnT:
Our sense of right and wrong reflects something real in the world. But it's not infallible! We can never be completely certain of the truth of things. We do have a moral sense; and it is capable of being right (we just never know when - not for sure).

G:
From the web page Essentials of Objectivism at www.objectivism.org:

Epistemology
“Man’s reason is fully competent to know the facts of reality. Reason, the conceptual faculty, is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses. Reason is man’s only means of acquiring knowledge.” Thus Objectivism rejects mysticism (any acceptance of faith or feeling as a means of knowledge), and it rejects skepticism (the claim that certainty or knowledge is impossible).

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 23, 2000 at 20:35:08 (GMT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: G
Subject: certainly subtle
Message:
JohnT wrote (among other stuff - selection and emphasis by G):
Our sense of right and wrong reflects something real in the world. But it's not infallible! We can never be completely certain of the truth of things. We do have a moral sense; and it is capable of being right (we just never know when - not for sure).

G replied:
From the web page Essentials of Objectivism at www.objectivism.org:

Epistemology
'Man's reason is fully competent to know the facts of reality. Reason, the conceptual faculty, is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses. Reason is man's only means of acquiring knowledge.' Thus Objectivism rejects mysticism (any acceptance of faith or feeling as a means of knowledge), and it rejects skepticism (the claim that certainty or knowledge is impossible).

JohnT explained more fully:
Knowledge is not impossible. We are almost certainly right about some things. Unfortunately, we cannot be certain which beliefs in particular are correct.

Please, G, I'd appreciate it, if and when you quote again, that you acknowledge any emphases you add. In this case the meaning of the sentence you emphasised was quite subtle - that's why it was more fully explained later. This stuff is college grade mathematical epistemology.

We can have certain knowledge; we just can't be certain which things we know for certain.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 23, 2000 at 21:47:36 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: certainly subtle
Message:
The www.objectivism.org web site states

'...Objectivism ... rejects skepticism (the claim that certainty or knowledge is impossible).'

JohnT:
We can have certain knowledge; we just can't be certain which things we know for certain.

G:
Being correct about something is different than having certain knowledge of something. Your definition of 'certain knowledge' seems weaker than Objectivism's definition.

I will acknowledge any emphases that I add.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 23, 2000 at 22:24:50 (GMT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: G
Subject: subtle strength
Message:
Hmmm, weaker? I don't understand. I think the position I sketch is true. What could be stronger than that?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 23, 2000 at 22:38:24 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: subtle strength
Message:
I did not mean less true, I meant less absolute, less extreme.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 23, 2000 at 23:12:20 (GMT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: G
Subject: subtle strength
Message:
JohnT wrote: Hmmm, weaker? I don't understand. I think the position I sketch is true. What could be stronger than that?


G responded:I did not mean less true, I meant less absolute, less extreme.

JohnT ruminated: The claim I make is true, absolutely. But it's knowledge about knowledge - a sort of math. People who believe in reason can usually be persuaded of its limits - and those limits are now quite well understood owing to contributions from a range of thinkers from Descartes thro' Godel and Turing.

It is those who believe in revealed knowledge that are extremist and dangerous. If GOD has confided His Truth to you - well, you can't argue with that!

As we see on this Forum, indeed.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 24, 2000 at 14:24:22 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: Objectivists, extremists
Message:
Your view sounds quite reasonable, but it does not seem the same as the Objectivists. The Objectivists seem extreme, given their statement that Objectivism rejects skepticism. They don't seem to understand the limits of reason. Some Ayn Rand followers became so extreme that their group has been characterized as the Ayn Rand cult. Many people who don't believe in revealed knowledge are also extreme and dangerous. There are many examples of this.

So it's not simply a matter of getting away from spiritual cults, there is a lot of other garbage in the world to watch out for. People can get carried away with how much they think they understand things, and that doesn't just apply to one type of person, it applies to everyone.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Jun 25, 2000 at 07:18:32 (GMT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: G
Subject: Yippee! I'm not a Randroid.
Message:
Sigh. It's SO much more fun to disagree. But we're having no luck, G!

I like Godel's theorem a lot. It's strictly about math - arithmetic actually - and something called 'provability'. Some interesting results are
1) some theories are true - but cannot be proved
2) contrariwise, some theories are false - but cannot be proved to be false
Of course, one cannot point to examples of either... (think about it!) but all the same, one can be certain they are somewhere. Good fun.

There's a book called Godel's Proof by Nagel and Newman which is very good - and I don't doubt there's loads of stuff on the Web about it.

This may seem to wander off topic. But this stuff about the limits of knowledge - of pure reason, even - comes up here all the time. Recently, for example, the Delusionists have been trying to make hay with 'well, you can't prove Foo ISN'T God, can you?'.

Well, I'd try crucifixion, myself (joke! - bad taste joke, but still a joke, OK. I'm a vegatarian. I'd NEVER crucify a hamster); but seriously, so what? The fact that something cannot (even in principle) be proved false does not mean it is true... In actually means nothing at all...

All the best.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 23:23:33 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: G
Subject: Yes, G, let's talk about certainty
Message:
Our sense of right and wrong reflects something real in the world. But it's not infallible! We can never be completely certain of the truth of things. We do have a moral sense; and it is capable of being right (we just never know when - not for sure).

I'm confused. I thought you've said on more than one occassion that you're certain that some form of divine consciousness (let's just call it 'God', shall we?) exists. That, regardless of anything, this belief is non-negotiable for you.

Am I missing something?

Go ahead, start dancing.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 24, 2000 at 14:36:59 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: unidentified quote, Objectivism vs skepticism
Message:
To clarify, it was JohnT who wrote:

Our sense of right and wrong ...

When it comes to certainty and knowledge, do you agree with Objectivism or skepticism? www.objectivism.org states that Objectivism rejects skepticism, and I take them at their word. You can't have it both ways.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 23:34:18 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: ok
Message:

I'm confused. I thought you've said on more than one occassion that you're certain that some form of divine consciousness (let's just call it 'God', shall we?) exists. That, regardless of anything, this belief is non-negotiable for you.

Am I missing something?


Yes, you're confused, I did not say that.

Yes, you're missing something.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 23:51:33 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: G
Subject: Yes, well it was either you or Way or maybe both
Message:
Right now, G, I trust you about as far as I can throw you. But I do know this: either you or Way or possibly both of you have said just that before, that your belief in a higher consciousness of some sort is non-negotiable. Now I notice that you're playing your cards a little close to your chest and I can understand that. No one likes to be embarrassed and you must be that given your blatant attempt to lie about me. But let's look past that, shall we? Are you now categorically denying that you ever claimed that you would not, could not, or however you phrased it, EVER abandon your belief in a higher consciousness?

And how about this one: haven't you also stated with equal unshakable certainty that you will NEVER accept the proposition that consciousness is nothing but the product of our physical brain?

Come on, G, let's be honest, shall we?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 23, 2000 at 00:27:52 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: ok
Message:
I did not say my belief in a higher consciousness of some sort is non-negotiable. I did not claim that I would not, could not EVER abandon my belief in a higher consciousness. I did not state with unshakable certainty that I will NEVER accept the proposition that consciousness is nothing but the product of our physical brain.

IF I were presented with sufficient evidence, then I would change my beliefs. As it stands now, IMO, what I have seen supports my beliefs.

When you say that you do not follow the teachings of Ayn Rand, what exactly do you mean? You seem for the most part to agree with her philosophy. Do you mean that you don't believe all of her philosophy?

As to Objectivism vs. skepticism, which one do you go with?

What is your response to gErRy's post? I have no idea if he is serious or not.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 23, 2000 at 00:37:30 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: G
Subject: Alright, it must have been Way
Message:
Okay, G, as someone who just the other day falsely accused someone of saying something she didn't (annie), I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. It must have been Way then that spoke with such certainty. You never did according to you. If I or anyone else finds anything to the contrary in your past or future posts we can talk about it then.

But fuck off with this Ayn Rand shit. I'm not even going to answer your questions. How do you like that? You brought her up in the first place, I said she was part right about some stuff and now you want to walk me down some dumb primrose path I've already told you I wasn't interested in. I have never given you any indication to think otherwise, yet you've already lied about me regarding her. You've got be dreaming if you think you warrant any further discussion about her or her two-bit philosophy from me. You're not trustworthy, are you?

As for Gerry, you'd best ask him. Leave me out of it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 23, 2000 at 13:54:45 (GMT)
From: Way
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Yeah, that was me, although...
Message:
...what I said was: I just cannot imagine this universe existing without a higher intelligence at work in it, (and bananas are just too delicious to be an accident).
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 23, 2000 at 00:58:12 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: 'two-bit philosophy', ok, it seems I was mistaken
Message:
her or her two-bit philosophy

Ok, you apparently don't think much of her philosophy.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 23, 2000 at 01:19:09 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: G
Subject: And when did I say otherwise?
Message:
I never said I did. In fact, I said just the opposite when you asked. I said 'she didn't understand the subtleties of mutual reciprocity' or something to that effect. And you're the bright light that's able to put all those medicore scientific minds in their place? All those fools with their 'logical mistakes'?

This I've got to see. Where do I sign up?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 23, 2000 at 01:27:07 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: misquoting
Message:

...put all those medicore scientific minds in their place? All those fools with their 'logical mistakes'?

And you talk about misquoting. I never said anything of the sort.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 23, 2000 at 01:34:00 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: G
Subject: Let us not mince words, brother
Message:
G,

The 'fool' part is all mine, sure, but are you actually saying that you haven't criticized large blocks of scientists for simply being illogical?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 23, 2000 at 02:05:14 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: scientists
Message:
What I was saying is that it is not warrented for scientists to present their philosophical beliefs as scientific fact without providing proof. That is why the biology teachers dropped the wording 'unguided' from the teaching of evolution. As a reminder, most US scientists are theists.

As far as Dawkins is concerned, yes, I was pointing out what I saw to be logical mistakes in his books, largely dealing with philosophical issues.

Scientists in general tend to be rational and logical, but not always, they are not infallible. For example, when chaos theory was first being investigated, there was a great deal of resistance to it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 23, 2000 at 14:55:11 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: G
Subject: Let's really look at what you're saying
Message:
What I was saying is that it is not warrented for scientists to present their philosophical beliefs as scientific fact without providing proof.

Fact is, you've said a lot of things. Yes, you've said what you mention above but that's not what I'm referring to. I'm talking ablout the various times you've simply dismissed many scientists as thinking illogically. Come on, G, don't deny it. You said that more than once and I objected on each occasion. My memory's not THAT bad.

That is why the biology teachers dropped the wording 'unguided' from the teaching of evolution.

Oh big fucking deal! In this context, 'unguided' and 'random' amount to the same thing in my books but whatever, eh? You find the smallest little pegs to hang your whole argument on. I mean is that it? That in the highly-charged political arena of education, where science fights religion tooth and nail, that this little diplomatic gesture, if you will, is some sort of major concession or something that science suggests nothing about the presence or lack thereof of a creator? That's pretty thin, to say the least.

As a reminder, most US scientists are theists.

Yes, G, you keep hiding behind this 'fact' but what does it really mean? I have to agree with Jerry, I think it was, who said that, even if that's true in some sense, it's only indicative of the fact that most people, raised with religion, surrounded by religion, hang on to it unless something happens that almost forces them to stare closely at the question. Being in a cult did it for me. Studying biology or evolution might do it for someone else. Many fields of science simply don't force the issue and thus religion lingers in the minds of scientists like an old family heirloom. It's just there. Big deal.

As far as Dawkins is concerned, yes, I was pointing out what I saw to be logical mistakes in his books, largely dealing with philosophical issues.

You did no such thing. Dawkins can skate circles around you, in my humble opinion.

Scientists in general tend to be rational and logical, but not always, they are not infallible.

No, of course not and who said otherwise? Not me. But here's where we've differed so much. I say that while individual scientists can be fallible and thus, at times, illogical, the scientific arena is a very demanding one intellectually, at least to the extent that it doesn't allow irrational or illogical claims to last that long. The scientific process fueled by simple human ambition sees to that. Thus it's silly to think that a whole field of science has overlooked some straighforward logical realities that you, G, see so clearly. And yes, that's exactly how you've talked on more than one occasion. That's just hot air, as far as I'm concerned.

For example, when chaos theory was first being investigated, there was a great deal of resistance to it.

And that's an example of what? Surely not the point you were trying to make about scientists being illogical, I hope.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 23, 2000 at 16:43:05 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: What I'm saying
Message:
No, I did not 'dismiss many scientists as thinking illogically', that is a gross distortion. When did I dismiss their scientific work? I criticised Dawkin's illogical philosophical arguments. Since when does being an atheistic scientist make one an authority on philosophy? That is a different subject matter. You confuse pseudo-science with science.

'unguided' and 'random' amount to the same thing

Thanks for clarifying the totally unscientific use of the word 'random'.

Science does not fight religion, that is not the purpose of science. Yes, whether there is a creator is not a scientific subject. You have a very poor understanding of science.

Yes, lets consider biology. How was the first cell created?

Dawkins makes many illogical blunders in his books, one being circular reasoning.

it's silly to think that a whole field of science has overlooked some straighforward logical realities

Another gross distortion. We are arguing about philosophical issues, not scientific ones. What Dawkins is preaching is not scientific and he does not represent the 'whole field' of science. You are also under the very false impression that theistic evolution is somehow against science. You only think that because of your black and white thinking.

Yes, science is demanding, etc. That has nothing to do with our discussion.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 04:06:17 (GMT)
From: gErRy
Email: None
To: G
Subject: Hey I are one too !!!
Message:
he seems to buy into the computational no-free-will model of the mind.

This is exactly, precisely it !!! The only free will we have is the free will to think we have free will.

we are not in control here mr spock...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 03:44:05 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: G
Subject: G is a liar
Message:
I NEVER even went close to saying I was a follower of Ayn Rand. What stupid game are you playing, G?

You want to know why I attack YOUR integrity? THIS is why. Really, how dare you! I'm amazed.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 18:27:25 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: You didn't say that
Message:
You're right, you didn't say you are a follower of Ayn Rand.

I've concluded that you follow her teachings in a certain manner based on your behavior (calling people idiots, etc.), your philosophy, and our previous discussion regarding the Ayn Rand cult, which is now in the inactive index.

Do you follow her teachings?

See THE UNLIKELIEST CULT IN HISTORY by Michael Shermer at www.skeptic.com.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 19:27:31 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: G
Subject: What's your game, G?
Message:
You're damned right I never said it. More importantly, I criticised her when you asked for my opinion. In a nutshell, I said that I thought she didn't get it right.

Do I follow her teachings? Of course not. And how dare you twist my words like that! You revealed much more about yourself than you intended to on this one, bud. Believe me.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 14:56:33 (GMT)
From: Runamok
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: and the movie didn't match the book at all
Message:
The architect in _Fountainhead_ would never have been a modernist!!! What idiots? Don't they read?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 15:01:20 (GMT)
From: Stonor
Email: None
To: Runamok
Subject: and the movie didn't match the book at all
Message:
Good point Runamok. I had a friend who literally put her book on a pedastal and bowed to it. Now he claims (recently found my email address though a web search)to be into ethics, a la Dewey. but I haven't been able to bring myself to respond. I guess there's hope for everyone.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 15:07:31 (GMT)
From: Stonor
Email: None
To: Stonor
Subject: Pranaming to Rand's book
Message:
Sorry, not that it matters, but it was another person who pranamed to her book. I don't think think there's much hope for him. He's the same psych prof control freak I've mentioned in another context. I couldn't figure out at the time what his 'trip' was, but G's Randroid post is beginning to explain that to me.

Stonor

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 20:48:03 (GMT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Stonor
Subject: to Stonor re Ayn Rand (ot)
Message:
Hi Stonor -
Regarding Ayn Rand, didn't you find her portrayal of women completely obnoxious? She did have strong female characters, but they were all dying to be subjugated (i.e. raped) by a STRONGER man. I am guessing that she had major problems along this line - all the sex scenes in her book are rape scenes!

Just had to say this, as it really invalidates anything in her books for me. Also should say that most of the people I know who get into Ayn Rand are high school and college students - they really like her books, but then generally tend to move on after they've been into it for a while, and then refer to it as the 'Ayn Rand' phase. I think she mainly appeals to a somewhat adolescent personality.

Take care -
Katie

PS. Owe you an e-mail.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 22:27:46 (GMT)
From: Stonor
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: to Stonor re Ayn Rand (ot)
Message:
Hi Katie,

The only book I've read of Ayn Rand's was Anthem, which I remember having rather liked. With all my work/study from 87 to 97 I haven't found the time to read as many novels as I might have liked. I do have a video tape of The Fountain Head which, as a past student of cinematography I loved for it's camera work and expressionistic style. But I sure know what you're talking about in terms of the way women were portrayed in that film - whether it followed the book or not, it was nasty stuff, and at times highly suggestive of S and M. I think that this is a general problem that in it's extreme form is recognized as such, but the need for many people to dominate others, or submit to another's authority seems to be quite generalized in a more subtle way. And of course both sides of this coin are co-dependent.

I only wish that that psychology professor was 'just' an adolescent. Unfortunately, he is only a year younger than I, and teaches at a University here. I went out with him for only a few months (5 years ago - my last), and after a scene he created when he saw me in the university on other business (and his subsequent documented lies to the authorities), he would have been fired had he not just received tenure. My life . . . even I don't want to know!

BTW, you've used that term, 'adolescent personality', to describe another middle-aged man we've discussed, and I don't feel that it's really appropriate, as most adolescent boys I've known do not have such sadistic control tendencies. I don't think it's fair to describe mal-adjusted/psychotic mature men as having adolescent personalities. I don't quite get the connection, and I think it minimizes the seriousness of their inappropriate and highly damaging behaviour. And his 'worship' of Rand and his statistics book editor was really bizarre, to say the least. I wasn't joking about it at all, because he sure wasn't!

Katie, do we both have the same academic imprint on our writing styles? It's only when speaking that I lose it at times it seems.

Appreciated your post above re: raina. I will write again soon, and don't worry about responding to the last few, as I think I tried to suggest to you! ;-)

Love,

Stonor

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 23, 2000 at 14:05:25 (GMT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Stonor
Subject: to Stonor re Ayn Rand (ot)
Message:
Hi Stonor -
When I said Ayn Rand appeals to 'adolescent personalities', I probably should have said 'adolescents'! I really wasn't referring to the professor that you know (I had a similar experience with a fellow faculty member, BTW), I was talking about the great number of people I know who have gone through an Ayn Rand phase in high school and college. (And when I referred to our mutual friend as having an adolescent personality, I meant it! Wasn't trying to insult teenage boys - I really DID think he was like one. Obviously didn't know the whole story.)

Part of the premise of her books (I have never read any of her philosophy, and do not want to), is that all people are NOT created equal, and that there are certain people who are better than others because they are more intelligent, more perceptive, more sensitive, and even more physically beautiful (!). Anway, I think this appeals to people at the high-school/college age because they are trying to differentiate themselves from 'the masses' (Ayn Rand just HATES 'the masses'. She was raised in Soviet Russia, and I think that had a huge influence on her.)

Most of her books are also extremely romantic - not in a romantic love way, but in a more general way. I think this also appeals to that age group - I know it appealed to me, although I think it's a bunch of hooey now.

As I recall, 'Anthem' is the most purely philosophical of her novels. My sister and I read it when we were both premies, and we both absolutely cracked up laughing at the ending, which, if I remember right, is a glorification of 'EGO'. Naturally, that went counter to everything we had been taught as premies, and learned from studying other spritual books. It basically ruined the whole book for us (I mean, EGO was the WORST thing we could think of back then!) I have also read 'The Fountainhead', 'We the Living', and most of 'Atlas Shrugged' (couldn't get through it.) IMHO, she had major issues about sex and intimate relationships.

Re academic imprint - god, yes - although I see it in my writing more than in yours! I always say technical writing had ruined my writing style. I tend to be way too formal and instructional sounding. I really admire the people here who write very spontaneously. Actually writing on the forum and writing e-mails has helped me be more spontaneous, but it's hard to switch back and forth.

Talk to you soon -
Love,
Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 24, 2000 at 04:42:29 (GMT)
From: Stonor
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: to Katie re Ayn Rand (ot)
Message:
Hi Katie,

Yes, and thanks for the clarification. I think that a lot of different things appeal to adolescents especially new and different ideas. When I'm sitting on a bus I listen to them talking with such conviction on so many different issues, depending on their course content usually. The whole world is opening up for them as they move into college and university courses. I remember myself back then. You might be right re: Rand and adolescents. I like your analysis, and you've read a lot more of her work than I have. They don't all move on, unfortunately (and was that faculty member into Rand too?) . Did you check out the Rand cult site in G's 'Jim is a Randoid' post? And of course we know that Jim is really a 'Jimian' which is a BIG step up from a 'Simian'. ;-)

My first reaction was that it is too funny that you really thought he was like an adolescent! But then I thought a bit, and I think that I too thought something like that for a while. In fact, even that psych prof (and at least one other) seemed to present that 'childish' or at least 'boyish' side rather consciously in order to disarm and ultimately manipulate and control. Hmmmmmmm . . . we'll talk.

I find that posting and emailing is helping to loosen up my writing style too. Let me know if you see it slipping down too low! I get really split sometimes when I'm doing academic studies at night and teaching REAL beginners ESL during the day. Af ter I fin ish one of those clas ses I am spea king like this for a bout an hou er or so. I've gotten really good at speaking English in slow motion, but they still have to tell me to slow down sometimes!

I just got back from a day in the country visiting 'Grandpa' with my sister and niece and nephew. The weather was beautiful and although the wild strawberries had moved to a VERY different location from when I was a kid, we found them! We also found four different types of ferns to bring back to the city and a few other 'weeds' we liked. :-)

Love,

Stonor

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 24, 2000 at 14:56:14 (GMT)
From: Stonor
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: apologies for double post!
Message:
I think I'm beginning to dislike Microsoft Explorer and think I'll go back to Netscape - it didn't seem to happen before, but I think it's happened a couple of times now with Explorer. Have you compared these two browsers Katie?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 24, 2000 at 03:42:52 (GMT)
From: Stonor
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: to Stonor re Ayn Rand (ot)
Message:
Yes, and thanks for the clarification. I think that a lot of different things appeal to adolescents especially new and different ideas. When I'm sitting on a bus I listen to them talking with such conviction on so many different issues, depending on their course content usually. The whole world is opening up for them as they move into college and university courses. I remember myself back then. You might be right re: Rand and adolescents. I like your analysis, and you've read a lot more of her work than I have. They don't all move on, unfortunately (and was that faculty member into Rand too?) . Did you check out the Rand cult site in G's 'Jim is a Randoid' post? And of course we know that Jim is really a 'Jimian' which is a BIG step up from a 'Simian'. ;-)

My first reaction was that it is too funny that you really thought he was like an adolescent! But then I thought a bit, and I think that I too thought something like that for a while. In fact, even that psych prof (and at least one other) seemed to present that 'childish' or at least 'boyish' side rather consciously in order to disarm and ultimately manipulate and control. Hmmmmmmm . . . we'll talk.

I find that posting and emailing is helping to loosen up my writing style too. Let me know if you see it slipping down too low! I get really split sometimes when I'm doing academic studies at night and teaching REAL beginners ESL during the day. Af ter I fin ish one of those clas ses I am spea king like this for a bout an hou er or so. I've gotten really good at speaking English in slow motion, but they still have to tell me to slow down sometimes!

I just got back from a day in the country visiting 'Grandpa' with my sister and niece and nephew. The weather was beautiful and although the wild strawberries had moved to a VERY different location from when I was a kid, we found them! We also found four different types of ferns to bring back to the city and a few other 'weeds' we liked. :-)

Love,

Stonor

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 04:46:56 (GMT)
From: gErRy
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Oh bullshit Jimm I was there...
Message:
I saw the bookshelves, lined with ayn rand books and your mail...talk about your cult wheredid you get those newsletters huh? And those fucking video you made patty and I endure...shit I wanted watch South Park but you insisted. And another thing if you ever send me any more of those ayn rand tapes I'm reporting you to the border polecie. Your asss is mine pal, get used to it...
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 06:00:13 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: gErRy
Subject: no way??? Ayn rand over South Park?
Message:
You had better be kidding!!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 01:06:09 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: G
Subject: Why is AG down? oh yeah and as for Jim
Message:
He has been around here for me when I needed him. Always. And damned if he didn't exact a price in being snotty at other times.
lawyers, they gotta get paid, no? we discuss him too much IMO.
I mean, what about ME? Isn't this all about me? :) :)

and... I agree re: Ayn Rand fans, I only knew two closely, they scared the shit outta me. strange folks. Very disconnected.

Selene I just got the best project of my life to work on!!!
but this is not about me

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 02:08:14 (GMT)
From: (Sir) David
Email: None
To: Selene
Subject: It's not down now and I've gone to bed
Message:
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 02:26:26 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: (Sir) David
Subject: sweet dreams zzzzzzzzzz
Message:
And thank you for your site. I've had intermitant probs getting
into AG the last few days. No biggie. It's all part of the net.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 19:21:20 (GMT)
From: Annie
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: gosh
Message:
Thanks, Jim. The reason I haven't re-sent you the emails
yet is because they are saved on my old computer which I just
spent about an hour [unsuccessfully] trying to get up.
Annie
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 19:54:54 (GMT)
From: Not Jim
Email: None
To: Annie
Subject: Can't get it up, eh Annie
Message:
The old computer, that is.

Ah me too. Sorry about the liar thing re the emails. But not the other stuff.

You know better.

You gotta know better.

He ain't god.

Tell me you were just taking the piss on that one.

And Jim, you fucked up big time. But the apology was good.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 19:37:03 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Annie
Subject: Okay, I was wrong but tell me .......
Message:
Is that the only sense in which you see Maharaji as 'Lord of the Universe'? That he is, sure, but no more than you or me? We're all 'Lord of the Universe'?

And if that's true, are you able to balance a checkbook?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 20:57:12 (GMT)
From: annie
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: yes i can balance a checkbook, regardless
Message:
<< Is that the only sense in which you see Maharaji as 'Lord of the Universe'? That he is, sure, but no more than you or me? We're all 'Lord of the Universe'? >>

It's hard to answer this in a way that you might accept
that I have used logic. My 'logic' extends into the realm
of things which are supposedly unexplainable.
It is purely fun for me, but there is a determined scientific
part of me. I believe everything is scientifically
explainable. I have tons of theories, want them?

I've experienced myself, me, my body, to be vibrating
particles of light, no more, no less. This was not
drug induced, nor satsang induced.

I have also experienced 'onneness' -- where for an
unmeasurable space of time I had no individual self,
how can I prove this? It was an exquisite thing.
This was not drug induced nor satsang induced. These
experiences as far as I know were random.

I have experienced that the life force inside of me is the
same as what is inside of everybody. I have experienced
being inside of someone else, not physically but consciously.
I have experienced that the Maharaji speaking on stage
was in fact a vibration within myself. Weird, but true.
It didn't make sense even to me, but I wasn't making it up.

I have opened my mouth to speak and heard myself say
things I had never, to my knowledge, previously thought,
heard, or known.

I don't know exactly who or what Maharaji is. I will try
to tell you what 'Lord' means to me. I hope you will
try and understand, not misinterpret what I mean based on
my choices of words or analogies.

I believe there is an energy which is our source and our
sustenance while we are alive. I don't know for sure that
it is omniscient, infinite or eternal, but as far as I
have seen it is bigger and more beautiful than anything
else I've encountered.

Through Knowledge I have experienced that its nature
is love, kindness, humor.

I've started to recognize over time that it is my OWN
nature as well. I have concluded that if god is in fact
inside of me, that's it.

I've experienced that i have been at times a catalyst for
someone to have a profound realization. I'm not taking
credit for this -- it's always been accidental as
far as I could tell. I attribute it to the omnipresence
and whim of that energy sometimes called 'god.'

I've experienced people having the same effect on me, at
times, as if 'god' spoke to me through a random person.
Even if it WASN'T god -- whatever it was caused an awakening
in me, a shift in my perception. This has been a common
occurrence. I've learned from homeless people, sri chinmoy
followers, expremies, my kids, even 'enemies.'

From maharaji I have experienced this phenomenon more
often and more powerfully than from any other person.
Way way way way way way more.

I theorize that if 'god' is energy, then somehow it particulates
itself -- or appears to do so -- in order to exist within its own
creation/illusion.
Within every person is a particle of that power; that is our
consciousness. But in reality the particle is not separate
from the whole. In reality that power is omnipresent.
Everything is constructed of it, from it, by it.

I still believe in the old analogy -- though you may hate it, it is
childlike -- that a shoemaker can also make for himself a pair
of shoes. A power which creates so many human beings
can create for itself also a body in which it can experience
what human beings experience -- and thereby be of much more
use to them than unembodied.

I think often of the ocean as an analogy for 'god.' In that
scenario i imagine each human 'soul' to be like an evaporated
drop of water which makes a journey and ultimately returns to
the sea. 'Lord of the Universe' is -- to me -- like a fountain,
or a powerful underground spring which surfaces and nourishes
the earth, provides water for the thirsty who drink there.

In my mind it doesn't matter if he is the 'lord' or not, or even if
there is more than one lord of the universe. For me it is about the
quenching of my own thirst, it is about my own journey.

I have never been disappointed by Knowledge, nor by Maharaji --
except he did not fulfill my original expectation that he would fix
everything, or tell me what to do -- other than telling me
year after year to go inside, find my own answers.
Annie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 05:22:14 (GMT)
From: hamzen
Email: None
To: annie
Subject: Annie, all you're talking about is a bootstrapping
Message:
system.

When consvciousness wraps back on itself, the normal perceptual modes are thrown. Now you say no drugs, you're being unbelievably naive if you think that your neural system & it's parallel chemical system is not involved.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 03:33:11 (GMT)
From: Rob
Email: None
To: annie
Subject: Well, it does sound like
Message:
..everything is tickety-boo in Annie's life.

All vibrating what-nots and sparkly thingumabobs.

I am so happy for you and deeply embarrassed that I tried to bandy words with a Realized Soul.

You're not C.S. Lewis, are you? Or Lobsang Rampa? Dunno but there is something very familiar about your rhapsodic way of writing. Aslan after he opens his Third Eye. I think you should forward that post to 'Enjoying Life'. In fact maybe I'll do it for you, that Ivette's been hogging it too long now.

So what brings you to the Forum?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 22:41:54 (GMT)
From: Powerman
Email: None
To: annie
Subject: yes i can balance a checkbook, regardless
Message:
Do you really think you've experienced anything different than anyone here? I doubt it. But you sure have fancy explanations for all those feelings. You sure have it all wrapped up, Annie.

Yup, you've got it all figured out. How'd you get so smart or perceptive or multi-dimensional?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 21:10:26 (GMT)
From: Anne
Email: None
To: annie
Subject: yes i can balance a checkbook, regardless
Message:
Thanks annie,

I now know why gm does not want old timers to speak to new people that go to see a video. He is a clever man to have taken the reins into his own hands with his selected videos he allows new people to view.

You are using the old format of arguement we all used on persons we wanted to come to satsang back in the good old days. It is very familiar and most reading here will recognize it. Such a shame that you are not aware of it, or are you? I know that I was when I use to use this method.

Take good care of yourself, you are almost there,
Anne

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 21:13:50 (GMT)
From: annie
Email: None
To: Anne
Subject: your motives are not MY motives.
Message:
see what you like!
do what you can, hope for the best.
Annie
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 21:16:13 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: annie
Subject: Anne will NEVER understand you, Annie
Message:
I agree. How could Anne ever think she knows anything about you? I mean, it's not as if you were in the same cult or anything. Give me a break!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 21:02:13 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: annie
Subject: I agree with everything you say
Message:
Annie,

I've decided you're right. What do I do next? Or should I just feel my way through to the next step? Hey, I'm with you. Like you say, this is fun AND scientific!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 21:03:51 (GMT)
From: annie
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: now that IS scary
Message:
are you setting me up to be clobbered?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 21:11:34 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: annie
Subject: Setting you up? Come on, now!
Message:
Annie,

I've decided it's time for a change. I'm ceremoniously burning all my questions and criticisms of Maharaji and signing up for service. Preferably something fun and scientifc but it doesn't have to be. The main thing is I'm just tired of being 'me' if you know what I mean? I want to free like a unicorn, brave like a gryphon. There are many colours in the rainbow and I want to feel all of them. The birds sing his praises so why shouldn't I? Love is all around me (at least according to quantum physics), so why shouldn't I respect the very form love has chosen to incarnate in? I'm tired of fighting, this ship's coming home!

By the way, did you really think that was Pierre? I did.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 05:00:10 (GMT)
From: GeRry
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: I'm yankin' yer ass to the manly side of the sound
Message:
and we're going snipe huntin' this fall. Put some hair on yer chest, you pansy...
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 21:20:13 (GMT)
From: annie
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: yah, i suspected as much
Message:
Pierre the aspirant? no, but i inquired, I have
wondered about the other, where and how he is.
have you been working on deprogramming him? the
aspirant, i mean?

Jim! don't sacrifice your enquiring mind. It just
wouldn't be you any more. Even if you were exactly
like a unicorn, and doing service too -- I don't know,
I think the world would suffer a loss.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 18:36:19 (GMT)
From: VP
Email: None
To: Susan, Abi and Anth
Subject: An affirmation for Susan, Abi and Anth
Message:
Susan, I am going to say that after reading the thread below I am disgusted by the posts to you by Just Curious. It made me very angry that he/she would question what happened to you!! I want you to know that I for one, think what you and Abi did in telling your stories took major courage. The stories were heart wrenching and painful to read. The fact that someone could sit and play devil’s advocate with information like that is unbelievable.

First of all, it shows a real lack of knowledge about child abuse on Just Curious’ part (even if they were a victim themselves) I know your stories must have been very hard to tell. It happened so long ago and I’m sure parts may have been hard to remember and parts could even be blocked out. Your stories were compelling and well written, not that it’s anyone’s place to critique what you wrote in the first place.

It’s painful enough that you all told what happened to you, without having someone like Just Curious come back later and say, 'those details weren’t graphic enough for me to think it was bad' CHRIST!! (Give me a break, Just curious!) I’m so sorry you had to put up with this. It’s scary for me to think this person believes that what happened to you was not bad. I disagree with J.C. vehemently on this point!

As for Jadego not being sent back to India, it’s just a guess, but I think he and Maharaji were probably very close. Maybe Maharaji didn’t want to let Jadego go, so he 'put up' with things and hushed them up. Maybe he didn’t believe they were true--no matter who told him they were. Maybe Jadego lied to Maharaji about this. No one who wasn't in the room can say for sure.

I really don’t care WHY he didn't do anything. What matters is that Maharaji was told and he was irresponsible in his response to what he heard.

Just Curious (J.C.) never mentioned the name of the Mahatma he/she sent back to India. If he/she really reported someone for sexual abuse, good! However reporting it to Maharaji and having the person sent back to India is not quite the same as Maharaji going to the police. Maybe we should ask J.C. why Maharaji sent these sex offenders to India instead of allowing them to be prosecuted in the country in which the abuses occured (We all know the answer to THIS, right?)

Were Mahatmas sent to India allowed to continue to be part of Divine Light Mission over there? Just because these instructors were sent back, did that mean they no longer had access to innocent children? Since he took the law into his own hands by punishing the mahatmas himself rather than turning them over to authorities, how did Maharaji control their access to children in India? Did he provide them with counseling? These questions are much more valid than the ones that were raised to you below.

As for Just Curious’ question about why you didn’t go to the police back then—well, you were children. Isn’t that an obvious answer? How were you going to go against your parents and their organization, etc? No one could ever blame any of you for not coming forward as children. That is unresaonable to think you would have.

I am very impressed with you both and with Anth for his actions as well.

Take care and PLEASE try not to let what this person said hurt you anymore than you have already been hurt. This person is not worth your time and the things they have said to you here are cruel and unusual. Thanks for being brave and putting yourself out there.

With deep sincerity and heartfelt caring,
VP

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 01:28:23 (GMT)
From: Just curious
Email: None
To: VP
Subject: Why twist the words VP
Message:
Most of those things you write VP are not true.
I wanted to find the truth about this case or at least get some answers. The reson for this, is very personal. I tried to email Anth, but could not find his address, I emailed to a Susan (on white pages) and I emailed Marianne.

Your post is full of incorrect information. Why?

Just a few things; I never wrote' 'those details weren’t graphic enough for me to think it was bad' or anything like that. I never said that what happeend to Abi and Susan was not bad. I think it is horrible. I never asked Susan why she did not go to the police. The mahatma in question did not commit a crime, still he was sent back. I just sent a letter about it, I dont even know if my letter made Maharaji send the mahatma back.

I wanted to know what had happend to Susan and Abi. And they have my hearthful sympathy.

So Way was kind enough to give me the information I looked for. And Susan and Anth were kind to give me some answers.
I don't think you have any idea about being a victim.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 02:34:35 (GMT)
From: VP
Email: None
To: Just curious
Subject: Your exact post again as a refresher
Message:
Just Curious wrote--(Susan and Abi, please do not read again! This is to refresh Just Curious' memory) Things in bold are what I responded to directly, J.C. Just so you know.

'First of all I have some experience as I once was sexually abused as a kid. From what Abi and Susan write, I would say that what I experenced was more serious.

Abi does not express herself very clearly. It might be understood that Jagdeo was cuddling with her, and that he had an erection. Her letter does not state that Jagdeo had sexual intercourse with her. Did he?

As far as Susan it is a bit more complicated. She states that she has a crush on Randy at 13 and then that something happens with Jagdeo at the age of 15. What she soes not exactly describe.
I do not find her statements very convincing and there is almost some contradictions in her letter.
She writes:
”I do recall later that he did tell me he had told Rawat but I do not recall too much more than that.”

She later writes when she is 17:”This premie was my first sexual relationship of any kind, fist kiss and all, and he soon had to get a divorce to marry me, I was pregnant. I was 17. I still have a lot of shame about this. ”

She then goes on not very clearly about Judy. Judy was an extremely nice person. One thing about her though, is that she was never excact or definite in her statements. From my experiences with Judy, it is not very likely that she expressed herself the way Susan claims. The way I remember Judy, she had an gift to make people feel that things were OK and smooth things.
And I do not find a statement that 'I have told it to Maharaji'
If I am wrong with any of this, I am sorry, but are you regarding this issue without 'glasses'? Without programming?

As far as Anth goes, I called him a coward because he did have the information, and did not have the guts to answer my questions. And having read the post of Amy and Susan I understand why.

I had an other similar experience with one 'mahatma' in the ashram. He was close to strongly seduce an ashram sister who happened to be a very close friend of mine. I reported this to my
regional supervisor at the time, but he did not believe me.
So I wrote a letter to Maharaji about it and few months later the mahatma was sent back to India.

I do not find it likely to believe that in one instance, Maharaji is when he is aware of that one Mahatma is trying to to have sex with a girl, sends this person back to India, but when he gets to know that a person sexually abuses children, he allows it to go on. Do you really believe so?

(VPs's note. J.C. how did I twist your words? I didn't twist them, I reacted to them because they were so fucking low down, IN MY OPINION. And just to answer your last question in that post yes, I do believe that could have happened and did. When has Maharaji done anyting that makes a bit of sense?)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 02:36:40 (GMT)
From: VP
Email: None
To: No one in particular
Subject: I can't believe I said FUCK on the forum--nt
Message:
nt nt nt nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 02:18:42 (GMT)
From: VP (very pissed)
Email: None
To: Just curious
Subject: Don't back peddle now, J.C.
Message:
I have worked with children and I have worked with victims of child sexual abuse, so yes I do know a lot about what victims go through. Also, some of my friends have been victims. Don't presume to know anything about me.

Re-read your post to Anth, Abi and Susan to find where I got my information. Most of what I was addressing is contained in that particular post and in another post further up in the thread where you said you questioned Anth's motives. (What?) I didn't like that either. In fact, I didn't like much you had to say. If I misinterpreted you, maybe you should be clearer and less ambiguous so you won't be misunderstood next time.

I am sorry you were a victim, but being one yourself, you have shown these people precious little support--which sucks!

I have NEVER lost my cool with anyone on the forum, but you may just be my first. You accused Susan and Abi of having contradictions in their stories. You said that what happened to you was worse than what happened to Susan, right? (It's all down below, I just re-read it. It didn't go down any easier the second time through.)

I did not like you questioning them about their 'so-called' contradictions like that at all, because it is sometimes hard for victims to recall all the details accurately after so many years. If you had legitimate reasons for questioning them on a public forum (you keep alluding to this) quit beating around the bush and tell us what your reasons are. Otherwise, don't preach to me. I am working with what you have given here. Unless you clear up your meaning, I have to go by what you have written.

You said it yourself in one of your posts that it could be hurtful to bring up the past--yet you were demanding that they recall it in detail and give you specifics.

Of course you didn't say the exact words that I wrote--I never meant to say you did, I was inferring your meaning- and I was spot on. YOU ASKED ABOUT INTERCOURSE!! That is what I meant when I said that their stories weren't graphic enough for you. You also implied that because they didn't mention having intercourse, what happened to them was somehow less than what happened to you. Re-read your post if you doubt it.

No, you didn't ask Susan why she didn't report it to the police, but you DID ask Anth if the victims had reported it to the police, right? Susan is the victim, so what is the difference? What are you getting at here? If your reasons are so private, why are you grilling these people in public?

I believe you implied that your reporting abuse by a mahatma is what sent him out of the country. I'll look at it again and try to quote it here. Why did you report him if he didn't commit a crime? What did he do?

Yeah, Anth is kind. Even after you called him a coward.


Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 06:38:11 (GMT)
From: Just Curious
Email: None
To: VP (very pissed)
Subject: I don't back peddle VP
Message:
There were ywo reasons for me to ask about these things.

1. I believed that Jagdeo had sexual intercourse with Abi and Susan.
It seems that most ex-premies also believe so.
I wanted to know the truth.

2. This things brought up doubts and stirred up memories in my life and made me depressed. (I was introduced to sex as a 10 year old kid with intercourse and masturbation without being sexually mature)

To me it seems that the truth is that Jagdeo was cuddling or fondling with Abi and Susan, (I am not saying what he did was not bad). Susan was 15 and Abi was about 9.

In the seventies pedophily was not a common word.

One question this arises is how Maharaji got to know about this?

What we know is that Susan told Randy and later told Judy. And both have according to Susan s understanding told Maharaji. What did they tell? The question could have been. ' Randy ;According to a Susan who is 15 years old, Jagdeo fancies her.' Maharaji: Has he done anything to her? Did he have sex with her?, Randy: No,

What we also know is that Abis brother told her mother that Jagdeo fancied Abi, We also know that Abi told about the incident to her father who got angry and told about it to some mahatma.
This brings up a question to me: If I were in Abis fathers shoes, would I just have told a mahatma about it.
That is hard for me to believe.

Otherwise, I assume that if you have lost a finger and are complaining about it to a person who has been paralized, I am sure the person who lost the finger, would get the other persons sympathy. But I hope you will realize there is a difference.

By the way, I asked why Anth had not reported this to the police when it happened. Regarding the Mahatma it was my opinion that such behaviour, even if he did not do a criminal act, should be a mahatma. By the way, he denied the whole incident.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 13:16:39 (GMT)
From: VP
Email: None
To: Just Curious
Subject: Sick of this pissing contest
Message:
You just said: 'I am not saying what he did was not bad'

Not now, but in your original post I quoted here you did say that it wasn't as bad as what happened to you--you minimized her experience.

Listen, if you weren't in the room, you don't know what Maharaji was told or wasn't told by Judy or anybody else--unless you ARE Judy. Everything you are saying about this is pure speculation, or were you in the room? I made some speculations about this, too and it doesn't mean mine were correct either.

J.C. said: 'Regarding the Mahatma it was my opinion that such behaviour, even if he did not do a criminal act, should be a mahatma. By the way, he denied the whole incident.'

I'm still not clear on exactly what this Mahatma person did. You are being much more ambiguous than Susan was. (I'm not asking for details, either, just making a point) Give yourself some credibility here and name the Mahatma--Susan did. If he didn't do anything criminal, why would Maharaji send him back? Because nothing Mahraji ever did, with regards to his organization, made a lick of sense.

Jadego messed with lots of little children. Why are you trying so hard to try to get Maharaji off the hook for this? Jadego worked for Maharaji, therefore Maharaji IS responsible, regardless of whether or not he was told!! This person worked for him for a long time. Then when Maharaji did find out about it, he sent him to India instead of prosecuting him. This shit only happens in a cult--in a legitimate corporation, the person would be in jail now.

You also said; 'If I were in Abis fathers shoes, would I just have told a mahatma about it.' Maharaji came first to premies. Lots of premies put Maharaji and his mahatmas ahead of their children. In many ways. Not ALL premies, certainly, but some, yes. If abi's father knew about it, he should have told, but he was in a CULT!! The cult members in Jonestown gave their kids poison punch, for crying out loud.

Did Anth know about this at the time? I don't remember. Even if he did, he was also in a CULT. This ain't brain surgery.

No offense, but I happen to disagree with what you are trying to say here.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 13:56:46 (GMT)
From: Just curious
Email: None
To: VP
Subject: is not interested in a pissing contest
Message:
If you have not understood or read my posts and understood in which sequence it was written, I see no reason that you suddently will understand. If you quote me incorreclty and does not clip my saying, no fruitful talk can take place.

I don't like your attitude, and I dislike the attitude of persons like gerry.
End of discussion from my side.

Who has a programmed mind set, probably God knows

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 20:40:40 (GMT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Just curious
Subject: Personally, I agree with VP
Message:
Dear j.c. -
(BTW, you certainly SOUND like Bjorn. Maybe you're his twin brother?)

I found your earlier posts, especially the one that VP has quoted above, to be extremely obnoxious and creepy. What right do you have to ask for details of people's sexual abuse on a public forum when you yourself remain anonymous? Did it EVER occur to you that people might not want to disclose details in public, but HAVE done so in private? And if you think sexual abuse only involves intercourse, than I certainly hope you don't have young children.

I felt better after I read your post to VP in which you said that you felt what happened to Susan and Abi was reprehensible. (Abi was SEVEN, by the way! Good god!) However, now you seem to be partially taking back those statements, and I can see why VP is angry.

I am sorry that you were sexually abused yourself - it has happened to many people I know. I do not think, however, that that gives you the right to quantify other people's experiences as 'bad' or 'not so bad'. Can you imagine being sexually abused by someone that you - and your parents - revered as a saint? And being told that you were privileged to be able to spend time with this person?

Regarding 'Jagdeo having the hots for young girls' being 'forgettable', might I remind you that the mahatmas were all supposed to be celibate? (Yes, I know that they were not, but much of the time it was with consenting adults!)

Anyway, I find your efforts to taunt Anthony (by calling him a coward, and by implying that he is lying) and poke holes in Susan and Abi's testimony, ESPECIALLY UNDER PSEUDONYMS (and you have used several) despicable. VP is one of the fairest and most non-judgemental people on the forum. If you cannot communicate with him, you probably cannot communicate with anyone else, and I suggest that you leave and stop tormenting people who have already been troubled enough.

Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 21:06:19 (GMT)
From: Just curious thinks
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: it is nothing to agree to, Katie
Message:
Dear Katie
If there are pro facts on one side of a paper and con on the other part, and a person only reads the con part, comments from that person about such a case is quite meaningless.

To me it seems like VP read only some parts of the story, and you only read VP s limited interpretationn, I dare say it does not give a true picture.

The fact is that I wrote a thank you to Susan and she wrote something of importance to me. Same thing happened to Anth. The thread dissapeared before I could reply again to him.

The fact is that I needed to know what happened in this case

I do not expect you to understand why nor to understand what I have been going through.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 21:55:56 (GMT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Just curious thinks
Subject: it is nothing to agree to, Katie
Message:
Well, it would have been good to know WHY you needed to know what happened in this case, BEFORE you started asking all the questions. I don't know if you can see this, but that made you look very suspicious, or even prurient.

BTW, I did read all your posts (I am guessing that VP did too) and I felt the way I describe above. It seemed very suspicious that you didn't say who you were, yet kept asking people very personal and intimate questions. I am glad Susan answered you if it helped you, but I don't feel that she was obligated to respond in any way. I respect her very much for having the courage to not only bring up this issue in the first place, but to keep answering questions from people about it OVER and OVER again. I would guess that she would rather not think about it and/or re-live as much as she's been forced to. I don't think she should have to do that.

You wrote:
I do not expect you to understand why nor to understand what I have been going through.

I'm not a mind-reader! You never SAID why, or what you'd been going through, and you still haven't said that. How could you expect anyone to understand?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 22:26:17 (GMT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: bjorn
Subject: P.S. I take back part of my post
Message:
I just read your post from the inactive about how reading about the sexual abuse by Jagdeo and being called a pedophile brought back stuff from your past. I had missed this before.

I don't agree with everything you said in the post. For example, what you said about Anth and professional help - how do you know that Abi and Susan have NOT had professional help and would still like to see Jagdeo kept away from more children? I would if I were them.

But I do hope you are able to sort out the stuff from the past, and that you get professional help yourself, if you feel you need it.

Also, I do not think you are a pedophile based on what you have posted on this forum (and I have posted about this before). If I were you, I wouldn't even answer those posts which say that. I wish EVERYONE on this forum would refrain from calling each other 'pedophiles'. It minimizes the harm done by real pedophiles.

Sincerely,
Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 23, 2000 at 06:55:38 (GMT)
From: Curious or whatever
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: My last words
Message:
Katie

The consequences of what happened to me as a kid was disasterous. I think you would start crying if I went into details. However I do not hate the person who did this to me, I considered him to be one of my best friend.

I realize to day that I never really overcame the wounds that I got. Somehow to receive Knowledge, seems to have burnt away a lot of suffering,

When I started to read about this, things came back to me. To bring this things to surface made me suffer. For me this case has 2 sides, and it concerns a person that is very dear to me.

But anyway, I read Susans posts previous, I also wrote once a post to her, and to me it seems that the whole thing is like a knife in her hearth. And that conserns Randys role, Judys role and Maharajis role. I do not think what is going on is very healthy for her. I think it seems more that she is used as a tool in the Maharaji anti campagn, and that people have been more concerned about that, than her own well being and healing of wounds.
Within this complex it is also obious that many including me seem to misunderstand what Jagdeo did. And I apologize for Susan that I wanted to know the thruth about something

I wanted many times to get out of here. I feel very hurt and depressed at this time and I can only say, your site has done me no good.

I prefer you would not reply. I rest

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 23, 2000 at 02:51:07 (GMT)
From: VP
Email: None
To: Dear Katie
Subject: Thanks for all of your posts..:)
Message:
...on this thread. I agree with what you had to say in all of them. I also hope Just Curious gets help, even if he did make me angry.

Thanks for saying I was fair. I try to talk things out and not lose my cool because most of the time, that is not called for. But some things are just too important to let go without addressing, and this was one of them. Not that getting angry did any good in this case either...

Just curious wants the truth to come out. Well, it already has. If he can't accept it, that is his issue.

I really really (our favorite word) liked when you said Susan shouldn't have to talk about this any more. So, I'm dropping the subject now.

Love,
VP

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 23:19:07 (GMT)
From: Susan
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: well said and I agree Katie (nt)
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 21:10:59 (GMT)
From: bjorn seeker
Email: None
To: Just curious thinks
Subject: So Bjorn again Bjorn ?
Message:
fo
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 16:14:05 (GMT)
From: Susan
Email: None
To: Just curious
Subject: just curious-
Message:
You are seeing only what you want to see here.

I have not, and will not, push Abi to say more than she has said. But I think it is quite clear that what happened to her went WAY beyond what happened to me. I think you ought to read it again.

Also, I knew of other victims, and when I told Randy and Judy I made it clear it WAS NOT just me. The other victims, like Abi, had worse happen to them. Jagdeo seems to have like most predatory pedophiles been very aware of the vulnerabitlities of his victims. If they were younger, and had had messed up families like Abi's, he seems to have violated them worse, knowing he was unlikely to be reported, or perhaps he thought, it seems correctly, that no one would beleive a childs report about Mahatma Ji.

I was worried that Randy had not told. I was worried that he must have minimized what happened. I could not believe that Rawat would let Jagdeo travel as an initiator with free access to kids if he really understood the gravity of what happened. That is why, years later, I reported it to Judy the second time. That is why I DID NOT tell her I had reported it before. She came back to me and said that when she told Rawat he said that he had heard about this before, and he was glad it was not a new incident. I am not pulling this out of the clear blue sky. She confirmed that Randy must have told him because how else would Rawat have been able to say he already knew? Why ON EARTH would Judy say this if it was not true? She even seemed, perhaps, a little disturbed with me for putting her ( unknowingly) in the position of reporting something like this if it had already been reported. She said, when I said I had told Randy years ago, 'well, Randy is a good guy, of course you could trust him to report it', and I said I couldn't help but be worried he had not when Jagdeo was still a full initiator traveling around.

I also must say that both of them took me very seriously and I did not get the impression they thought this was a small or inconsequential problem. I know Randy always thought of himself as a very ethical guy and I really thought when I was forced to name him as the one I told he might just tell the truth and let the chips fall where they may. I do not know Judy at all, but she certainly seemed like a caring person.

I have tried and tried to imagine if a person could really find something like this forgetable. I am always one to give people the benefit of the doubt. But it is just so hard to beleive. There were a lot of screwed up things in the cult, but I really don't think reports like this were so commonplace that they were forgetable.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 21:52:52 (GMT)
From: Just curious
Email: None
To: Susan
Subject: to susan
Message:
Dear Susan
You write I only see what I want to see. I think that is true, but I have done my best to look at this case as objectively as I am able to. And I tried to find the truth.

What really has been going on in the Jagdeo case regarding Maharaji, is nothing but speculations from my side. Hopefully the truth will come to the surface.

This case also has shown me that what happened to me, is something I need to work out in my life.

Thanks for communicating with me. and best wishes to you.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 00:37:33 (GMT)
From: Susan
Email: None
To: VP
Subject: thank you
Message:
That really was so nice and it means a lot coming from you. You have always been a voice I respect so much here.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 01:16:52 (GMT)
From: VP
Email: None
To: Susan
Subject: you are welcome--glad it did post!
Message:
Susan,
You are most welcome. I have always respected you, too, (in your posts before you wrote as Susan) and even more since you decided to tell what happened to you. From my experience, doing the right thing and taking a stand is not easy to do.
Take Care,
VP

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 18:44:44 (GMT)
From: VP
Email: None
To: Susan, Abi and Anth
Subject: I'll try posting it again
Message:
For some reason this post didn't post. (At least I am unable to read it.) I'll put it here again and see if this works:

Susan, (and Abi) I am going to say that after reading the thread below I am disgusted by the posts to you by Just Curious. It made me very angry that he/she would question what happened to you!! I want you to know that I for one, think what you and Abi did in telling your stories took major courage. The stories were heart wrenching and painful to read. The fact that someone could sit and play devil’s advocate with information like that is unbelievable.

First of all, it shows a real lack of knowledge about child abuse on Just Curious’ part (even if they were a victim themselves) I know your stories must have been very hard to tell. It happened so long ago and I’m sure parts are hard to remember and parts could even be blocked out—which could explain any so-called 'contradictions' Your stories were compelling and well written, not that it’s anyone’s place to critique what you wrote in the first place.

It’s painful enough that you all told what happened to you, without having someone like Just Curious come back later and say, 'those details weren’t graphic enough for me to think it was bad' CHRIST!! (Give me a break, Just curious!) I’m so sorry you had to put up with this. It’s scary for me to think this person believes that what happened to you was not bad. I disagree this J.C. vehemently!

As for Jadego not being sent back to India, it’s just a guess, but I think he and Maharaji were probably very close. Maybe Maharaji didn’t want to let Jadego go, so he 'put up' with things and hushed them up. Maybe he didn’t believe they were true-- I can’t say for sure, and I really don’t care—what matters is that Maharaji was told and he was irresponsible in his response to what he heard.

Just Curious (J.C.) never mentioned the name of the Mahatma he/she sent back to India. If he/she really reported someone for sexual abuse, good! However reporting it to Maharaji and having the person sent back to India is not quite the same as going to the police. Maybe we should ask J.C. why Maharaji sent these sex offenders to India instead of allowing them to be prosecuted in the country in which the abuses occured (We all know the answer to THIS, right?)

Were Mahatmas sent to India allowed to continue to be part of Divine Light Mission over there? Just because these instructors were sent back, did that mean they no longer had access to innocent children? Since he took the law into his own hands by punishing the mahatmas himself rather than turning them over to authorities, how did Maharaji control their access to children in India? Did he provide them with counseling? These questions are much more valid than the ones that were raised to you below.

As for Just Curious’ question about why you didn’t go to the police back then—well, you were scared children. Isn’t that an obvious answer? How were you going to go against your parents and their organization, etc? No one could ever blame any of you for not coming forward as children. That is unreasonable to think you would have.

I am very impressed with you both and with Anth for his actions as well.

Take care and PLEASE try not to let what this person said hurt you anymore than you have already been hurt. This person is not worth your time and the things they have said here are cruel and unusual. Thanks for being brave and putting yourself out there. We all care about you!

With deep sincerity and heartfelt caring,
VP

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 18:48:27 (GMT)
From: VP
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Shit, this isn't working!
Message:
Can anyone read those last two posts or is this just me who can't? If it didn't post, can someone just send me Susan's e-mail address?
Thanks,
VP
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 17:55:03 (GMT)
From: Paul
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Thanks to JM and Anth...
Message:
Just back from Paris and wanted to thank JM and Anth for sharing a lovely evening,dinner, and conversation (ex-premie and otherwise. Paul
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 12:52:29 (GMT)
From: AJW
Email: None
To: Paul
Subject: Thanks to JM and Anth...
Message:
It was a great night Paul.

But we should thank you. You paid.

Thanks again

Anth- eats anything if it's free.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 19:55:04 (GMT)
From: Way
Email: None
To: Paul
Subject: To Paul
Message:
Paul,

I just called your wife. How does our glorious Midwest city look to you today? Soyez le bienvenue.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 16:44:06 (GMT)
From: Annie
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Making a free decision
Message:
Stonor quoted from Dostoevsky: << And they will be glad to believe our answer, for it will save them from the great anxiety and terrible agony they endure at present in making a free decision for themselves. >>

Making a free decision for themselves. This is simply
the point. That's something I've personally gotten from
Knowledge, that possibility. In fact it is what stands out
the most, most often, when I speak about or reflect on
the impact Knowledge has had in my life. I would gladly
have been saved from the great anxieties and terrible
agonies, and at one time I thought that's what I could expect
from Maharaji himself. 'Tell me what to do...' Let someone
else do my thinking, hallelujah.

A time came when I realized that Maharaji simply wasn't
wanting to play that role in my life. My experience
must surely be very different from that of many here,
but I don't think I am personally so different from anyone.
When the concepts stopped working for me, there was nobody
to provide answers, I had to figure it out for myself.

If I have figured things out wrong, I am confident it will
become clear to me.

As I wrote before: mindlessness is easy but it
is ultimately unsatisfying. It is a negation and waste
of one's unique character, gifts, intelligence. The
human spirit, consciousness, is a powerful force, it
does not care for submission nor mindlessless.

I have heard Maharaji say that Life itself is the real teacher,
and will teach us one way or another.
I have found this to be true. I have questioned and
challenged and so forth. I have been angry and confused
and have always came back to this: what I am looking for is
inside of ME. It is. There is a portal. But you all know
this already.

I believe that when one practices Knowledge, even sporadically,
there grows an intolerance for what is false within oneself.
This is why I say that we entered mindlessly but left
the 'cult' thinking for ourselves. So I left the cult but
not the Knowledge, not the Master. It is a very personal
thing. I love Maharaji, I LIKE him even, I don't always
agree with him, what he says or maybe how he is doing what
he does but I don't hate him for it. I've gotten a lot from
him, and according to what I value, it is way more than
anything I have EVER given.

I am not an antagonist here. I respect that each person
is finding their own way. Annie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 04:08:58 (GMT)
From: Rob
Email: None
To: Annie
Subject: So long as you are happy....
Message:
...living in cloud cuckoo land, Annie, I am happy for you.

I mean, you do realize that, don't you? That you have created an entire fantasy world for yourself, right there inside your own head.

It's filled with allegorical oceans and vibrating blots of energy and sounds very cosy. Somewhere floating around in there you also have a 'virtual' maharaji, a kind, loveable bear of a teacher, stripped of all his real-world nasties like greed, egomania and cultishness. The enigmatic Lord of the Universe, playing host to your personal nirvana.

Well like I said, so long as you are happy and know it's not real.

Because in the *real* world, Annie, your version of maharaji simply doesn't exist.

So I left the cult but not the Knowledge, not the Master

See it just isn't like that. In the real world, maharaji wants, nay, expects his devotees, or students as he calls you now, to attend events, buy inspirational product, stay in touch, participate etc etc. It's drummed into aspirants as soon as they have swallowed the bait, and continues right through their life as premies. In other words, if you accept maharaji as your teacher, and ESPECIALLY if you consider him to be the Lord of the Universe, as you do, then you have to partake of cult activities or by definition he isn't your teacher.

See what I am saying? You've taken your own path in life, which is wonderful, and are exploring it, but seem to be clinging on to the idea that you are still somehow umbilically connected to this man, but that is so only in the realm you have created for yourself in your head.

I think it would be really liberating for you to let go of him entirely, and make the whole thing real. It may involve taking a few steps down and slumming with the rest of the cro-magnums down here on earth for a while, but think of the old analogy of coming down off one mountain top so you can scale the one seen in the distance.

Good luck.

Rob

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 00:12:54 (GMT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Annie
Subject: The portal? Where?
Message:
I have been angry and confused and have always came back to this: what I am looking for is inside of ME. It is. There is a portal. But you all know this already.

Actaully, I don't adhere to this. I find that I need interaction with things and/or people to find what I'm looking for. I don't know of any portal within me that takes me to... whatever, with no need for anything but me to go just within. I gave that myth my shot. It didn't work. So, about this portal? No, Annie, I've heard about it, but I don't know about it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 05:13:32 (GMT)
From: gErRy
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: The portal? here's where...
Message:
Hey Jer, (you already know this)

There's portals all over the fucking place. Most have two legs, but some are on wheelchairs. They come in all sizes and colors and some are really funny looking,while others are just plain ugly, but you already knew this...

dismayed,

gErRy

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 20:36:14 (GMT)
From: gErRy
Email: None
To: Anne
Subject: The portal? No sexual connotation intended...
Message:
I said:

There's portals all over the fucking place. Most have two legs, but some are on wheelchairs. They come in all sizes and colors and some are really funny looking,while others are just plain ugly, but you already knew this...

What I mean by this, taking 'portal' to mean 'gateway' is that in contrast to some foo foo pie in the sky meditative wanking, the real gateway to bliss at least for me, is other people. In the flesh of course, the internet doesn't cut it.

The only time I get 'blissed out' is in an encounter with people. And it really doesn't matter who it is, or what the context may be. It happens all the time--everyday. And I don't have to 'practise' to experience this.

Beats the hell outta sitting alone with one's head under a blanket with yer fingers in yer ears, if you ask me.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 18:18:43 (GMT)
From: Anne not Annie
Email: None
To: Annie
Subject: What a free decision
Message:
oh Annie..... where have you been, gone and done with your life? Have your eyes ever been open to what is surrounding you?

'there grows an intolerance for what is false within oneself'

This is just a natural part of growing up, of approaching middleage when one re-evaluates where one has arrived. It has nothing to do with practising k, even sporadically. Basic psychology of the different stages of life we all pass through and necessary for our maturing. The film American Beauty did a wonderful job of expressing just that idea. Being grown up enough to be true to yourself and having the courage to change along with the strength of character needed to say 'I've made a mistake'.

The emotion of love is a very powerful one but what role is fear of loss of love playing in your life? You give gm your love freely, thinking this is your free decision to do so, but slowly an intolerance for what is false will grow in you. It has already started no matter how afraid you are.

I know very well of the portal you speak and know it is a deadend.

Have fun developing your honesty with yourself,
Anne not annie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 19:16:25 (GMT)
From: Annie
Email: None
To: Anne
Subject: yes, a free decision
Message:
I wrote, regarding the effect of practicing Knowledge:
'there grows an intolerance for what is false within oneself'

Anne wrote:
<< This is just a natural part of growing up, of approaching
middleage when one re-evaluates where one has arrived. It has nothing
to do with practising k, even sporadically. >>

I do not disagree with you, actually. However for me this was happening
when I was 28, and still living in the ashram, practicing Knowledge
in the morning and at night and whenever else I had the time, including
an effort moment by moment to 'meditate constantly.'

My own gut feeling, my want, was increasingly in conflict with my beliefs
and lifestyle. It was a very scary time for me, for a few years as a
matter of fact.
I attempted to stay with the nonexperiential beliefs but was unable,
regardless of how it looks to people here.

Anne wrote:
<< The emotion of love is a very powerful one but what role is
fear of loss of love playing in your life?
You give gm your love freely, thinking this is your free decision to do so,
but slowly an intolerance for what is false will grow in you.
It has already started no matter how afraid you are. >>

But I am not afraid.
The feelings of love I have towards Maharaji have been
a surprise to me. In fact they continue to be a surprise.
They do not originate in my head, nor come from fear.

Anne wrote:
<< I know very well of the portal you speak and know it is a deadend. >>

No! it is a portal. If you don't know what I am talking about, then
you have overlooked something within yourself.
Annie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 20:42:53 (GMT)
From: Anne
Email: None
To: Annie
Subject: no free decisions
Message:
Annie, annie, annie.....

'there grows an intolerance for what is false within oneself'

I am glad for you that you started to grow up at 28 years of age and that your gut feelings were causing you conflict. Always best to trust those gut feelings, those doubts. Now as you approach middle age the intolerance for what is false will continue to renew those conflicts.

Having the conflicts you had at 28 you state made it a very scary time for you so your decision that you made freely, without fear motivating you, was to step through that portal within yourself?

When a person is brainwashed into believing something it is always a suprise when their awarness of self realizes that they have unexplainable feelings of love for another whom they do not even know well enough to pick up the phone and say 'hey how are you?' Nor would their dropping by their beloved's be welcomed.

You have a few more suprises to uncover for yourself from within yourself. One may be that one day you will understand that I do know all about your portal (why is everything always so sexual?) and you will be suprised to learn it really is a dead end which you already realized at 28.

Keep smiling,

Anne

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 21:10:25 (GMT)
From: Annie
Email: None
To: Anne
Subject: you are being presumptuous, supercilious.
Message:
Anne: your 'truth' isn't mine, nor is it universal.

I don't presume to know what you think, feel, believe,
whether your experiences are valid or not, blah blah.

You are making assumptions and presumptions about me,
but you do not know me, you know almost nothing about
me, and that makes your profound insights about me
irrelevant.
Annie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 21:25:21 (GMT)
From: Anne
Email: None
To: Annie
Subject: you are being presumptuous, supercilious.
Message:
Thanks annie
for your warm response to my understanding of what you had written in a previous post.

The love coming though you in your 'blah blah' has given me peace of mind.
bye,
Anne

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 21:39:56 (GMT)
From: Annie
Email: None
To: Anne
Subject: i wasn't trying to give you peace of mind.
Message:
Anne,
I was responding to the tone of your post to me,
which began 'annie, annie annie...' and to
your assumptions about me which I know to be
incorrect.

I don't know 'portal' to be a sexual reference.
Maybe that was just your interpretation.

'blah blah' I use perhaps too freely, and it is
never intended as a putdown of the other person, it
is an act of laziness. I offended someone on this
forum once before using 'blah blah' so perhaps I should
use 'et cetera' instead.

When I say or write 'blah blah blah' it is generally
because I am tired of listening to myself.
Annie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 21:15:05 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Annie
Subject: Aha! The Rain Man defence!
Message:
The only thing you could add for completion's sake might be a few lines from Desiderata...

Oh Desiderata,
Why don't you come to your senses

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 21:37:42 (GMT)
From: Anne
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Aha! The Rain Man defence!
Message:
'come to your senses'
thanks for the code. Gave me a good laugh but I'm not sure that annie is aware of that by her next post to you.
Hope you have some more fun here,
Anne
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 21:27:45 (GMT)
From: annie
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: yeh
Message:
yeh
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 17:03:36 (GMT)
From: You are a liar, Annie
Email: None
To: Annie
Subject: Making a free decision, what a joke
Message:
You're here to preach, to convert, to bolster your own shaky convictions.

You say: I am not an antagonist here. I respect that each person is finding their own way. Annie

Your very presence here, and especially, your words betry your true intentions. You are extremely antagonistic, in that peculiar, cowardly premie passive-aggresive way. You don't respect the people here, Annie. If you respected the people here, you wouldn't preach your nauseating, hackneyed premie-lite pablum.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 22:40:15 (GMT)
From: Keith
Email: None
To: You are a liar, Annie
Subject: Making a free decision, what a joke
Message:
People like you here are arch-hypocrits of the first order. I am not here to defend Anne's views nor Maharaji's. But ex's who preach their own style of nauseating,hackneyed,ex-premie-heavy
crap are the last ones to speak of respect. Go look at yourself in the mirror! But you wont. Cowards rarely do.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 17:25:07 (GMT)
From: annie
Email: None
To: whomever you are
Subject: i am speaking for myself only.
Message:
Sorry but you don't know my motives. You can choose
to call me a liar and believe yourself, that's your
business. Jim invited me to stay, I have not
got an agenda here. Shall I go? Was this post from
Jim?

If I am here as you say to 'bolster' my own 'shaky
convictions' it may be true, somewhat. I have
explained before, I will repeat myself. I have
benefited from having my words, my posts, ripped
to shreds. Why? because I have had to examine my own
logic, my own experience, and find my own certainty.

You doubt that I am here with good will, you doubt
that I do not see much difference between myself and
exes. I can only guess that you don't even read my posts
carefully, with an open mind, or else you have a pre-disposed
mindset which prevents you from reading what's written.

You are compelled to look for discrepancies, lies,
premie concepts, perhaps in order to bolster your OWN
uncertainties.

When I come here and read posts it is the opposite. I
am compelled to seek out the honesty in even the most
negative anti-Maharaji posts. I am inclined to see
the similarities between my own thoughts and some of
those expressed here.

I am inclined to believe that every person -- premie
or expremie or otherwise -- is doing their best, finding their
own way. Call me a liar if it makes you feel big and strong.
I know I am not. Annie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 22:47:08 (GMT)
From: Keith
Email: None
To: annie
Subject: i am speaking for myself only.
Message:
Well expressed Annie. Sums up many of my feelings from the past and now. People like yourself who are so cocksure they know everything are the true moderates here. This forum without such people, imho, would become painfully lop-sided. Keep it up. The bullies never want to admit their own failings.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 22:50:32 (GMT)
From: keith
Email: None
To: Annie
Subject: Correction!!!
Message:
Correction; People like yourself who are so cocksure they know
everything are the true moderates here
should have read 'People like yourself who are NOT so cocksure they know everything are the true moderates here.'
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 17:39:29 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: annie
Subject: Just send me the emails, please
Message:
I am inclined to believe that every person -- premie
or expremie or otherwise -- is doing their best, finding their own way.

What about the truth? Not YOUR truth, THE truth? You know, the one where this idea's right, so is this one and this one but hos one here? Gotta go. Couldn't be more wrong. What about all that or have you simply given up trying to understand anything honestly and are just trying to feather your nest with whatever so long as it's cheap and shiny?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 17:42:12 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Sorry, even I couldn't read that post!
Message:
What about the truth? Not YOUR truth, THE truth? You know, the one where this idea's right, so is this one and this one but hos one here? Gotta go. Couldn't be more wrong. What about all that or have you simply given up trying to understand anything honestly and are just trying to feather your nest with whatever so long as it's cheap and shiny?

should read:

What about the truth? Not YOUR truth, THE truth? You know, the one where this idea's right, so is this one and this one but this one here? It couldn't be more wrong. It's gotta go.' What about all that or have you simply given up trying to understand anything honestly and are just trying to feather your nest with whatever so long as it's cheap and shiny?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 17:38:32 (GMT)
From: Not Jim
Email: None
To: annie
Subject: Why you are a liar and another slippery eel
Message:
You doubt that I am here with good will, you doubt
that I do not see much difference between myself and
exes.

So there's really not that much difference between your beliefs and ex-premies rejection of those beliefs? Huh? You are really fucked up by this stuff, aren't you. I feel sorry for you.

You still believe in the Lord of the Universe crap. But you told Jim in e-mail that you did NOT believe that. Now which is it?

See, you are simply a confused, pathetic cult apologist and liar. Where's the good will in that?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 17:46:33 (GMT)
From: Annie
Email: None
To: Not Jim
Subject: good grief
Message:
NotJim wrote:
<< So there's really not that much difference between your beliefs and ex-premies rejection of those beliefs? >>

That's not what I said. I don't see much difference
between myself and other people regardless of whether they
are premies expremies or lunatics.

<< You still believe in the Lord of the Universe crap. But you told Jim in e-mail that you did NOT believe that. >>

Sorry but this is erroneous. How am I supposed to prove
this? You know perfectly well that I could pull up those
old emails and edit them if I wanted to. You choose to
see me as a liar, so be it. I am not.
Annie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 17:58:44 (GMT)
From: Not Jim
Email: None
To: Annie
Subject: Ok I'll trust
Message:
Well, you did lie about the emails. Yeah, go ahead and post them. I'm sure Jim will let us know if you've substantially altered them or not. Please go ahead and post them. It would go a long way in clearing up this issue and establishing your credibility or the lack of it.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 17:53:15 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Annie
Subject: If you even thought of editing them, I'm amazed
Message:
Not Jim said:

<< You still believe in the Lord of the Universe crap. But you told Jim in e-mail that you did NOT believe that. >>

To which you replied:

Sorry but this is erroneous. How am I supposed to prove this? You know perfectly well that I could pull up those old emails and edit them if I wanted to. You choose to see me as a liar, so be it. I am not.

Why would you even say something like that? Too much. No, Annie, I trust you enough to presume you wouldn't do something THAT outright shifty. So forget about that concern and just send them. Now. Why late? You DON'T have to work on them, so just send them. I say that they completely undermine what you're saying now about your beliefs. Let's see.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 17:54:42 (GMT)
From: annie
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: I'm amazed that you would trust me that far
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 17:58:39 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: annie
Subject: Are you gonig to send them now or not? (nt)
Message:
hhhhh
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 18:08:46 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Won't you even answer the question? (nt)
Message:
gggggg
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 18:20:19 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Looks like we've heard the last from Annie nt
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 14:25:03 (GMT)
From: Elaine
Email: None
To: FA
Subject: FA- Well, it's been 2 days now...
Message:
How is raina doing?
Are you guys discussing things by e-mail?

Does she understand what happened and why?
Is she going ballistic or accepting the decision?

Just a general - is she ok? - would be nice,if you don't want to get into it.

Appreciate it,
Elaine

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 00:48:37 (GMT)
From: (Sir) David
Email: sirdavid12@hotmail.com
To: Elaine
Subject: FA- Well, it's been 2 days now...
Message:
I appreciate your sentiments Elaine, as I am sure Raina would too. If some reactions to your post are not to your liking, just ignore them - that's what I do.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 03:00:16 (GMT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: (Sir) David
Subject: I just couldn't let this pass!
Message:
Hey, Sir D, guess what. So does M! hahaha!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 15:57:07 (GMT)
From: Why are you stirring up
Email: None
To: Elaine
Subject: this shit, Elaine and what business is it of yours
Message:
Get a life, move on, get over it.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 16:38:23 (GMT)
From: Elaine
Email: None
To: Why are you stirring up
Subject: Hey, raina was a mixed up person...
Message:
Just want to know if she's ok...figured someone would get bent out of shape, over normal human curiousity and concern.

This place ....sheesh.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 04:30:42 (GMT)
From: Rob
Email: None
To: Elaine
Subject: Hey, raina was a mixed up person...
Message:
I'm sure she's found another audience somewhere, Elaine, I wouldn't worry. I'm also sure that if she has (ie found another forum) she's already well on her way to pissing them off too!

Let's hope it's a Scientology forum:)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 17:25:56 (GMT)
From: Elaine
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: That was cute - we can only hope...NT
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 06:30:47 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: Hm.... how about the Quakers? (nt)
Message:
llll
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 00:38:42 (GMT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Elaine
Subject: Post your email address
Message:
What you can do is post your email address and ask her to get in touch with you, if you're that concerned. She can still read the forum, I think. How would the FA know how she's doing? What do you think the FA is going to tell you, hi, Elaine, raina's fine and she says hi to everybody? Sheesh.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 18:27:54 (GMT)
From: Powerman
Email: None
To: Elaine
Subject: Say, Elaine...
Message:
what do you think of maharaji?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 16:50:41 (GMT)
From: You're a liar, Elaine.
Email: None
To: Elaine
Subject: Tell me something I don't know
Message:
Just want to know if she's ok...

Now how in the fuck would anyone here know anything about Raina? She was really tight about her email address. In fact I don't believe she ever gave it out. Did you suppose she checks in with the FA's and gives them a daily report on her mental status?

figured someone would get bent out of shape, over normal human curiousity and concern.

Of course you did, and that's exactly why you posted this. You're a slippery eel, Elaine.

This place ....sheesh.

Indeed, Elaine. This place. An ex-premie place. If you don't like it, why not take your master's advice and just walk ?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 01:01:28 (GMT)
From: (Sir) David
Email: sirdavid12@hotmail.com
To: You're a liar, Elaine.
Subject: I detect a pack instinct here
Message:
and I still don't understand why Raina was banned from reading or writing to this forum. I consider it unfair.

The best thing to do would have been to limit her to just a few posts a day if people considered her to be writing too many posts, which I believe was the only complaint against her.

Instead, everyone ganged up against her. Has anyone read, 'Lord Of The Flies' by William Golding? If you have then you'll relate to my feelings about this. The pack instinct, that's what it is; the hounds are going in for the kill.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 24, 2000 at 22:39:33 (GMT)
From: SB
Email: None
To: (Sir) David
Subject: I detect a pack instinct here
Message:
I dislike your interpretation totally because disregards other people's point of view and also, because you forgot to consider the fact that all humans are NOT ALIKE. Some have less tolerance than others, for certain 'things' and what raina did bothered some people, especially me. So, you probably didn't bother reading my posts to her and don't know everything but think can talk about it? It's a question. I have low tolerance to abuse since I am a new ex, maybe? Also because I was involved for more than two decades, and you, how long? We can generalize, right? I find it insensitive of you to put me in that box. I didn't go for a 'kill', Sir Dave. I wanted her to stop using my name and me as stupid examples. She didn't. I don't understand you sometimes...I really don't.

Love and peace,

S

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 08:36:34 (GMT)
From: Keith
Email: None
To: (Sir) David
Subject: I detect a pack instinct here
Message:
The pack instinct has always been a feature of this forum in my experience Dave. Premies have it too. Even kids at school have it. Is that where it begins? Is in the genes? Is it God's flaw? Or is it Jim and Gerry and Powerman and their devotees (this is of course secret information) (and Brian...ssshhh!) who are orchestrating all this? I love conspiracy theories. Don't get too worked up guys. I'm just having a little fun. I'm smiling, alright? Be nice now!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 04:35:43 (GMT)
From: Rob
Email: None
To: (Sir) David
Subject: Pack of 3-headed dogs maybe Dave?
Message:
Wasn't so long ago that.......

You know what I'm saying don't you? Let him without sin etc etc...

S'OK, I'm over it. But please, enough of the preaching already.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 10:40:36 (GMT)
From: (Sir) David
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: Pack of 3-headed dogs maybe Dave?
Message:
I never asked for Cerberus to be blocked and banned from these pages. Neither did I condemn any previous incarnations of Rob for anything. So I'm not sure what you mean.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 23, 2000 at 01:26:09 (GMT)
From: Rob
Email: None
To: (Sir) David
Subject: Yeah sure. Like I said, I'm over it. nt
Message:
lsanfoefov
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 04:33:37 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: (Sir) David
Subject: I did not
Message:
I tried to talk to her. words like everyone.
They remind me of, pack instinct!

selene, not one of em whoever they are

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 17:13:49 (GMT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Selene
Subject: I agree with Selene
Message:
'EVERYONE' (whoever that is) did not 'gang up on Raina'. I know I didn't, I know Selene didn't, and I know several other people did not too. Also, I don't like being generalized about because I post here (and this is not addressed solely to you, David, obviously).

I pretty much said my all about my feelings about Raina and the forum in my post to Elaine (under that title) above. I do not think there is a 'pack mentality' on this forum. People argue about EVERYTHING, and although there may be a prevalence of opinion on one side or another, there are always plenty of people who take the opposite side, and aren't afraid to say so. Personally, I see NO authority on this forum except the FA's and they are usually quite inconspicious (in fact they don't act enough for some people, although they act too much for others.)

I know there are a lot of people on this forum who really resent authority in any shape or form, and I'm guessing this is partially a relic of being involved with Maharaji. I feel that way myself a lot of the time, but I don't think there is any 'THEY' or 'EVERYONE' on this forum - although people may think there is. Everyone who posts here is part of the forum, even if they may like to think of themselves as apart from it.

Anyway, Dave, I like and respect you very much, and although this post was triggered by your post and Selene's answer, it basically is a response to many, many, other posts about the forum mentality that have been posted lately. It just came out here.

Take care, both of you -
Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 18:11:03 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: be careful when you agree with Selene
Message:
Hi Katie
Just kidding regarding subject line.
yeah, I had to pipe in about being lumped into ANT pack mentality here. I'm sure there is some of that in me, I'm thinking it's mostly in my anger toward M and some of the things that happened over my years of involvement in his cult.

As for the rest, I like what Powerman said about 'not trusting any subcultures'. And you are right! the group here argues about just about everything. So it is weird to be labeled like that, though I know Sir Dave and doubt that was his intent, at least toward me.

This forum is very uncontrolled. I think accusing the FA's of censorship here is overboard. I work on many other forums, through work related projects, and this one is the most laid back in terms of any intervention of posting.

this from selene, almost voted in for most posts deleted in 99 :)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 19:55:05 (GMT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Selene
Subject: be careful when you agree with Katie!
Message:
Hi Selene -
Ants are more like a multi-cellular creature which obeys a central directive (I think so, anyway. Not an entomologist).

Glad my post was OK. And I promise to disagree with you about at least SOME things (actually we already do).

Love,
Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 18:26:16 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: oops ants don't run in packs do they?
Message:
I should start keeping a log of my typos. For an English project or something! :)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 03:15:53 (GMT)
From: SB
Email: None
To: (Sir) David
Subject: A question
Message:
Hi Sir Dave,

Did you read all her posts? The only objection you have is to the amount of post of Raina? What about the 'material' she wrote about?Was it acceptable? I don't think so. Blocking was extreme because she never got a warning, but IMO, most of what she wrote had sickening written all over.

SB

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 10:38:06 (GMT)
From: (Sir) David
Email: None
To: SB
Subject: A question
Message:
I read some of her posts and I had a brief conversation with her which was fine and I didn't feel any antagonism from her but only good vibes.

She might have a small persecution complex. If that's the case, patiently showing her that she was not being persecuted would have been the best way forward. Instead, the opposite happened.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 14:54:12 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: (Sir) David
Subject: Nope
Message:
Raina was NOT persecuted. Hardly. You say you only had one discussion with her but many had much more contact and, in each case, she scratched and gouged for no good reason. Sure, she might think she's been 'persecuted' by being kicked out, but any reasonable person looking atht esituation would never call it that. And who cares what she thinks? She's wrong.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 05:00:22 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: SB
Subject: to answer you SB
Message:
I think she made an impact. obviously. Or why all the fuss over this? I mean, who would have cared if a less colorful character had been banned? I never ever understood why 'she' (and I use those quotes purposely cause who knows?) picked on you!
my theory:
You are, IMO one of the most genuine people here.
You are dramatic and direct in your posts. I know from experience that can cause a lot of reactionary type behavior. It's interesting. People on the net. A whole study in itself.

and she went after a lot of people I really cared about.
I repeat what I said somewhere here before, to ham I believe.
This disruptive type of thing is not going to stop. This persona was just a prolific and often good writer.

It IS confusing isn't it? I keep coming back to when I first started posting here not so long ago. And sometimes asking myself what happened?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 12:22:19 (GMT)
From: SB
Email: None
To: Selene
Subject: to answer you SB
Message:
Raina 'did an impact here' because of her big, naughty mouth, right? People tried to reason with her, to be kind, and she chose to be naughty.

I agree. More Rainas, Keiths and Elaines will come...and their ideas will push us to want to attack them. THEIR IDEAS! There is good and bad in all places...I take the bad of this place to get the good. My head is getting better. Thanks to all of you, including the premies. When I read premies posts it becomes so obvious why I left the cult!

I don't know how to accept your 'compliments'...I see myself as not having much to give for many reasons, one being that to interact here I need time to respond and I can't do that...

I'm working in my aggression. I think sometimes my aggressive part comes across because since I don't like typing I write directly... I'm working on it... You wouldn't believe the 'things' I feel like writting sometimes...LOL

I like you too...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 01:11:46 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: (Sir) David
Subject: That is SOOOO absurd, Dave
Message:
'Lord of the Flies', my ass. All that happened was that someone got kicked off a discussion board. What's your argument look like without the overkill?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 01:24:33 (GMT)
From: (Sir) David
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Yes but what's the purpose here then?
Message:
I consider the purpose of this forum is to help people come to terms with and understand the damage that Maharaji and his cult has done and then to help them start thinking for themselves again.

Such a personal process and metamorphosis is not smooth and the last thing I think we should do here is kick people off this forum. Brian's old idea of limiting some people's posts to just a few a day seems to be the best idea to me, in these cases.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 14:48:29 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: (Sir) David
Subject: Give me a break, Dave
Message:
Dave,

Raina wasn't interested in any of the 'work' you describe. None of it. She wasn't ever even in the cult, for God's sake. She was just here to cause shit. She even said as much. Remember how when pressed she'd say she was ehre as a social experiment in communication? Well she's got her data now. Big fucking deal.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 24, 2000 at 00:19:50 (GMT)
From: SB
Email: None
To: Jim and SD
Subject: Give me a break, Dave
Message:
She wasn't a premie or an ex: She wanted to disrupt, in my book. I agree with Jim. Understand you SD, because you look to me like a caring smart person, but sometimes, like everybody, you get off..
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 22:16:42 (GMT)
From: Keith
Email: None
To: Elaine.
Subject: Hi.
Message:
Hope you are not getting too affected/infected by all the petty bitterness and callous disregard for other peoples feelings that occurs commonly here, Elaine.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 22:35:28 (GMT)
From: Powerman
Email: None
To: Keith
Subject: Say, Keith...
Message:
If you feel that way, why do you hang around?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 22:42:46 (GMT)
From: Keith
Email: None
To: Powerman
Subject: Say, Keith...
Message:
Fair question Powerman. I'll give you a serious response when I've got more time on my hands. Please remind me if I forget.
Cheers!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 12:38:39 (GMT)
From: What a fake!!
Email: None
To: Keith
Subject: Keith is full of BS
Message:
Yes! Take days to think about an answer...maybe I forget...

Get lost!! Go give satsang to other like you. Don't come here with your BS and expect good response: WE LEFT THE CULT. Its endoctrination is your company...premie or not, your mind sounds loud and clear:BS!

SB

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 22:47:54 (GMT)
From: Powerman
Email: None
To: Keith
Subject: Say, Keith...
Message:
Listen, I'm really busy right now. But if you could remind me to remind you, I'll get back to you on it.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 22:56:47 (GMT)
From: keith
Email: None
To: Powerman
Subject: Say, Keith...
Message:
Sure I will. But could you remind me if I forget! Ta.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 00:46:54 (GMT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: keith
Subject: Let me help
Message:
Keith, if you forget, I'll tell Powerman to remind you to remind him, and if he forgets to remind you, I'll remind you to remind him to remind you. Okay? Ya see? One big happy family doin' what we can to help each other out. How sweet.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 07:18:50 (GMT)
From: Keith
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: The power of one.
Message:
Thanks honey pie, sugar ant, sweetie, honeysuckle...I'd better stop. Nice can become a little over intimate. But there you go. The power of one. We are all inter-connected.
Love from brother Keith.
PS; now what was is IT that I forget? Jerry?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 02:22:31 (GMT)
From: Someone who loves humor
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: You are in excellent form today Jerry! LOL (nt)
Message:
(nt)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 23, 2000 at 01:32:54 (GMT)
From: Helen
Email: None
To: Someone who loves humor
Subject: You are in excellent form today Jerry! LOL
Message:
I agree that was hilarious!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 07:21:26 (GMT)
From: Keith
Email: None
To: Someone who loves humor
Subject: You are in excellent form today Jerry! LOL (nt)
Message:
Better humor than tumor!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index