Forum V: Archive
Compiled: Fri, Sep 01, 2000 at 13:23:18 (GMT)
From: Aug 19, 2000 To: Aug 29, 2000 Page: 4 Of: 5


The observant -:- What a boring life you guys must have. -:- Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 10:10:43 (GMT)
__ Nigel -:- What a boring life you guys must have. -:- Thurs, Aug 24, 2000 at 21:17:39 (GMT)
__ ex-mug -:- Arrogant, condescending twat -:- Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 16:16:09 (GMT)
__ It's True -:- What a boring life you guys must have. -:- Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 18:46:45 (GMT)
__ hamzen -:- You might be right, how to judge? -:- Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 18:30:09 (GMT)
__ SB -:- To say that, you must have errased many words of -:- Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 13:08:03 (GMT)
__ Hal -:- Why do you say that? Expand please nt -:- Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 12:22:49 (GMT)
__ Salam -:- Shutup, idiot. -:- Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 10:23:07 (GMT)

SB -:- Sir Dave's secret forum: Elaine is sick -:- Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 06:03:25 (GMT)
__ Forum Admin -:- Please take this discussion elsewhere... -:- Thurs, Aug 24, 2000 at 18:09:55 (GMT)
__ __ SB -:- This FA is a total jerk -:- Fri, Aug 25, 2000 at 22:05:16 (GMT)
__ __ __ SB -:- I forgot to add -:- Fri, Aug 25, 2000 at 22:19:01 (GMT)
__ __ SB -:- Please take this discussion elsewhere... -:- Thurs, Aug 24, 2000 at 23:56:45 (GMT)
__ __ Selene -:- just to clarify it wasn't on AG -:- Thurs, Aug 24, 2000 at 23:19:51 (GMT)
__ Sir Dave -:- That's not my forum, actually -:- Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 10:05:13 (GMT)
__ __ Dizzy SB -:- Thanks SD (nt) -:- Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 12:55:58 (GMT)
__ SB -:- Not secret, wrong word. Here's the link -:- Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 06:24:49 (GMT)
__ SB -:- [edited] -:- Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 06:14:09 (GMT)
__ __ Elaine -:- And your point is?..... -:- Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 10:24:30 (GMT)
__ __ __ sb -:- And your point is?..... -:- Thurs, Aug 24, 2000 at 13:24:30 (GMT)
__ __ __ Selene -:- looks like SB's name isn't the only one -:- Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 23:27:52 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ sb -:- looks like SB's name isn't the only one -:- Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 23:43:30 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Selene -:- ps regarding looking for attention -:- Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 05:23:00 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ to Elaine from Selene -:- I see I was wrong about you 'outing' that other -:- Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 05:27:14 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ SB -:- I see I was wrong about you 'outing' that other -:- Thurs, Aug 24, 2000 at 16:06:52 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Selene -:- I try. more brains some times than others -:- Thurs, Aug 24, 2000 at 21:04:13 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Selene -:- SB I am with you on this -:- Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 00:03:46 (GMT)
__ __ __ The observant -:- A question for Elaine. -:- Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 11:02:23 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Rob -:- She won't answer that truthfully -:- Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 17:00:29 (GMT)
__ __ FA Please delete this -:- post. FA Please delete this post. (nt) -:- Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 07:31:15 (GMT)
__ __ __ sb -:- Who are you? (nt) -:- Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 07:51:12 (GMT)

Premieji -:- Marahaji is a man, yes a big man. -:- Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 00:26:41 (GMT)
__ DeProGram Anand Ji -:- Marahaji is a man, yes a big man. -:- Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 05:04:09 (GMT)
__ cq -:- Since you 'got turned onto Knowjedge' ... -:- Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 19:24:34 (GMT)
__ __ ham -:- Exactly cq, a premie is a junkie -:- Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 23:53:47 (GMT)
__ hamzen -:- Rumour has it he's actually a VERY small man, -:- Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 19:06:26 (GMT)
__ Jerry -:- Marahaji is a man, yes a big man. -:- Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 15:52:47 (GMT)
__ TD -:- What does he rescue people from Premieji? nt -:- Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 05:20:09 (GMT)
__ Nigel -:- 5' 2' with inverse-proportional self-esteem rating -:- Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 03:05:37 (GMT)
__ Brian -:- Marahaji is a man, yes a big man. -:- Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 01:29:12 (GMT)
__ __ Sir Dave -:- Full marks for that answer, Brian -:- Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 01:52:31 (GMT)
__ Gregg -:- Marahaji is a man, yes a big man. -:- Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 01:13:06 (GMT)
__ __ Preamieji -:- Be cool motherfuckers -:- Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 00:30:42 (GMT)
__ __ __ 98% of people who got K -:- have left!!!!!!!!!(nt) -:- Thurs, Aug 24, 2000 at 07:08:30 (GMT)
__ __ __ Stonor -:- Anyo premie calling others 'motherfuckers' ... -:- Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 20:10:27 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Shroomananda -:- Whose 'enchantment' are the 'ex' premies under -:- Thurs, Aug 24, 2000 at 22:37:51 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ hamzen -:- Ahh that's what calming the mind does for you eh -:- Thurs, Aug 24, 2000 at 23:08:24 (GMT)
__ __ __ cq -:- 'Live and let live' ... -:- Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 18:26:42 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Premieji -:- 'Live and let live' ... -:- Thurs, Aug 24, 2000 at 05:40:08 (GMT)
__ __ __ hamzen -:- 'Think for yourself, question authority' -:- Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 04:21:18 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Premieji -:- Chewin' the fat with Ham -:- Thurs, Aug 24, 2000 at 05:33:25 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ hamzen -:- Make some effort please, or is that too much -:- Fri, Aug 25, 2000 at 08:14:18 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ VP -:- Spot on, hamzen!--nt -:- Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 16:13:01 (GMT)
__ Sir David -:- Marahaji is a man, yes a big man. -:- Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 00:53:39 (GMT)
__ __ Selene -:- Premieji is losing his touch -:- Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 03:02:29 (GMT)
__ __ __ Preamiji -:- Premieji is losing his touch -:- Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 00:22:10 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Selene -:- sometimes life sucks sometmes it's great -:- Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 01:50:45 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ cq -:- sometimes wanting a saviour sucks ... -:- Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 18:29:31 (GMT)
__ __ __ Sir Dave -:- Premieji is losing his touch -:- Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 11:47:29 (GMT)

Q -:- If premies are the ads, I worry about the product. -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 23:02:34 (GMT)
__ SB -:- If premies are the ads, I worry about the product. -:- Thurs, Aug 24, 2000 at 13:43:15 (GMT)
__ cq -:- If premies are the ads, I worry about the product. -:- Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 19:01:58 (GMT)

St Phil of the Light -:- WHAT? get K in an armchair!!! new age PANZIES!!!! -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 12:36:02 (GMT)
__ Sir Dave -:- You need to read this -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 14:25:34 (GMT)
__ __ bill -:- You need to read this -:- Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 02:55:52 (GMT)
__ Tell -:- WHAT? get K in an armchair!!! new age PANZIES!!!! -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 12:41:20 (GMT)
__ __ St Phil otl -:- found it -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 13:03:20 (GMT)
__ __ __ St Phil otl -:- The Truth about M -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 13:22:00 (GMT)

Loaf -:- Shroom and premie posters -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 06:36:37 (GMT)
__ Nigel -:- Shroom and premie posters -:- Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 02:46:29 (GMT)
__ Moldy Warp -:- Bizarre Freudian slip -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 21:23:11 (GMT)
__ __ Moldy Warp -:- Bizarre Freudian slip -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 21:53:34 (GMT)
__ __ __ Monmot -:- You were correct-it is Richard Dawkins (nt) -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 22:07:43 (GMT)
__ Sir Dave -:- Shroom and premie posters -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 14:29:31 (GMT)
__ __ Nigel -:- Shroom and premie posters -:- Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 03:01:16 (GMT)
__ Loaf -:- oops -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 06:47:25 (GMT)

Nigel -:- Dawkins pranams before king-in-waiting! NOT. (ot) -:- Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 22:50:12 (GMT)
__ G -:- Prince Charles' lecture (ot) -:- Thurs, Aug 24, 2000 at 20:31:52 (GMT)
__ O -:- Dawkins is a bad role model -:- Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 05:37:42 (GMT)
__ __ Nigel -:- Pathetic crap, O -:- Thurs, Aug 24, 2000 at 17:23:06 (GMT)
__ __ __ Nigel -:- The value of science: serious questions for 'O' -:- Thurs, Aug 24, 2000 at 19:31:42 (GMT)
__ __ bill -:- shp? -:- Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 13:37:36 (GMT)
__ __ __ bill -:- shp? -:- Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 13:41:26 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ bill -:- O -:- Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 14:57:55 (GMT)
__ bill -:- Dawkins pranams before assumptions -:- Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 05:17:37 (GMT)
__ P-man -:- Dawkins and food -:- Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 00:08:59 (GMT)
__ __ Sir Dave -:- Evolution and pesticides in GM foods -:- Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 15:07:17 (GMT)
__ __ Nigel -:- Dawkins and food -:- Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 00:33:58 (GMT)
__ __ __ P-man -:- crying wolf, etc. -:- Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 01:31:30 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ VP -:- Genetic engineering gone bad -:- Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 15:50:34 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ hamzen -:- Smells like racism to me -:- Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 19:18:03 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ P-man -:- Smells like racism to me -:- Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 20:47:45 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ ham -:- Apologies P-man -:- Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 23:15:51 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ P-man -:- Apologies P-man -:- Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 23:53:02 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Nigel -:- crying wolf, etc. -:- Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 02:22:41 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- GM food in the USA -:- Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 15:36:41 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Nigel -:- GM food in the USA -:- Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 00:07:21 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ ham -:- Proper research, couldn't agree more -:- Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 19:25:10 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- GM food in the USA -- to be more accurate -:- Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 16:44:08 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ The Ref -:- Decision: P-Man by TKO -:- Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 15:18:00 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ P-man -:- slavery and food -:- Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 15:42:58 (GMT)
__ Nigel -:- Forget Shroom.. how about the article? -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 02:08:01 (GMT)
__ __ Joe -:- The Article -- genetically modified foods -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 17:19:51 (GMT)
__ __ __ Nigel -:- The Article -- genetically modified foods -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 23:09:55 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Joe -:- The Article -- this is the wary statement.... -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 23:15:06 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Nigel -:- The Article -- this is the wary statement.... -:- Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 00:47:28 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- The concern -:- Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 15:29:00 (GMT)
__ __ __ Katie -:- Joe, a fact correction or two -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 20:36:33 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Joe -:- Roundup and modifed soybeans -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 20:58:44 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- Roundup and modifed soybeans -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 21:26:15 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ ham -:- Exactly, the whole food industry needs serious -:- Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 19:31:58 (GMT)
__ __ __ Joe -:- Genetic Engineering v. Conventional Breeding -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 17:54:29 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Joe -:- Potential Problems with Genetic Engineering -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 17:59:43 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Monmot -:- Terminator Seed-The Bottom Line Is The Bottom Line -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 19:43:40 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- Terminator Seed-The Bottom Line Is The Bottom Line -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 20:50:48 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Monmot -:- Terminator Seed-The Bottom Line Is The Bottom Line -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 21:10:07 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- KPFA -- OT -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 21:25:41 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Monmot -:- KPFA -- OT -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 22:02:36 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- KPFA -- OT -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 23:02:30 (GMT)
__ __ __ Stonor -:- gm foods: ugly story thks for your 'round-up' (nt) -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 17:35:19 (GMT)
__ __ hamzen -:- Superb bit of writing -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 02:47:42 (GMT)
__ __ __ Nigel -:- Nice post, Ham... you're up late..! -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 03:24:21 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ ham -:- Not tonight -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 03:36:24 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Nigel -:- Not tonight -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 04:01:31 (GMT)
__ Shroomananda -:- Ignorance of what? Seems to me this guy is saying -:- Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 23:56:49 (GMT)
__ __ G -:- 'what pumps blood' -:- Thurs, Aug 24, 2000 at 22:23:45 (GMT)
__ __ sam -:- Ignorance of what? Seems to me this guy is saying -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 02:44:52 (GMT)
__ __ Jim -:- Shroom did it again! Perhaps we should pay him -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 01:02:03 (GMT)
__ __ Moldy Warp -:- Dissatisfied and runaway mind and not the intellec -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 00:46:57 (GMT)
__ __ __ Shroomananda -:- Brain: 2+2=4; Mind: I need a red Ferrari; NT -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 00:58:20 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Sir Dave -:- Now I know who Mr Mushroom is -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 01:28:29 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Selene -:- are you saying M invited me to his house ? -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 06:36:15 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Sir Dave -:- are you saying M invited me to his house ? -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 10:15:31 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Shroomananda -:- To me, it's not the Ferrari that matters. It's -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 01:38:36 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- the 106 foot luxury megayacht -:- Thurs, Aug 24, 2000 at 21:37:40 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Shroomananda -:- I would rather he spend the money I give to him -:- Thurs, Aug 24, 2000 at 22:49:52 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- 'he wants' -:- Thurs, Aug 24, 2000 at 23:25:50 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Nigel -:- OK, Mr interpreter and mouthpiece... -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 04:44:53 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Shroomananda -:- He's definitely talking about -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 05:05:22 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Nigel -:- Answer the rest of the question please (nt) -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 05:13:29 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Shroomananda -:- You mean about right and wrong? I'm a bad -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 05:26:12 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- 'Hitler did some good things' -:- Thurs, Aug 24, 2000 at 21:53:00 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Jerry -:- To me, it's not the Ferrari that matters. It's -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 04:28:37 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Shroomananda -:- Didn't people give him that stuff? NT -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 04:55:07 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jerry -:- Didn't people give him that stuff? NT -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 05:00:45 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Shroomananda -:- I don't know, Jerry. But if one is desireless and -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 05:18:21 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Moldy Warp -:- I don't know, Jerry. But if one is desireless and -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 21:51:50 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ SB -:- I don't know, Jerry. But if one is desireless and -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 10:30:25 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jerry -:- Don't be so sure about desireless -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 05:58:43 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Moldy Warp -:- M materialist extraordinaire -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 22:03:09 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Nigel -:- I'm beginning to wonder whether Shroom... -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 05:10:52 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ SB -:- I'm beginning to wonder whether Shroom... -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 10:35:39 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ ham -:- I went through the same scenario -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 07:40:05 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jerry -:- I'm beginning to wonder whether Shroom... -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 05:25:15 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Sir Dave -:- Time for the myth to be exploded Shroom -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 02:03:22 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Moldy Warp -:- Now I know who Mr Mushroom is -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 01:35:41 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Moldy WArp -:- Brain: 2+2=4; Mind: I need a red Ferrari; NT -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 01:22:03 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Shroomananda -:- Is it your brain or your mind that's asking? NT -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 01:23:25 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Moldy Warp -:- Is it your brain or your mind that's asking? NT -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 01:31:14 (GMT)
__ __ Nigel -:- Ignorance of what? - just about everything! -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 00:38:11 (GMT)
__ __ __ Nigel -:- And Dawkins said more than you quote... -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 01:14:38 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Shroomananda -:- If there is a God and he/she/it has a heart then -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 01:22:17 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Jerry -:- If there is a God and he/she/it has a heart then -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 04:35:26 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Shroomananda -:- I am thinking and feeling, Jerry. I think God -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 05:34:45 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jerry -:- Fuck Hitler -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 06:07:05 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Nigel -:- hoist by your own petard (nt) -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 01:33:57 (GMT)
__ __ __ Shroomananda -:- You sound 'knowledgeable' about ignorance. -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 01:09:18 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ sam -:- You sound 'knowledgeable' about ignorance. -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 02:48:15 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Nigel -:- And you sound ignorant about many things -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 01:32:46 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Nigel -:- And you ARE just stupid... -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 01:16:30 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Jim -:- Yeah, Nigel. What can you say to THAT, hm??? -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 01:14:18 (GMT)
__ __ Sir Dave -:- The heart of the matter -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 00:37:14 (GMT)
__ __ __ Shroomananda -:- If the heart that Maharaji talks about is simply -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 01:15:05 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ hamzen -:- But you still got upset eh -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 02:20:31 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ sam -:- But you still got upset eh -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 02:55:52 (GMT)


Date: Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 10:10:43 (GMT)
From: The observant
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: What a boring life you guys must have.
Message:
Kindergarden next.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 24, 2000 at 21:17:39 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: fitzroy@liverpool.ac.uk
To: The observant
Subject: What a boring life you guys must have.
Message:
Watching rats desert the sinking ship can be fascinating. Watching the captain go down with all hands will be even more so...

Anyway, why do you read it if your life is so interesting?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 16:16:09 (GMT)
From: ex-mug
Email: None
To: The observant
Subject: Arrogant, condescending twat
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 18:46:45 (GMT)
From: It's True
Email: None
To: The observant
Subject: What a boring life you guys must have.
Message:
We all have a boring life. You are so right. In fact, I am so bored that I have taken to sticking pins into my eyelids just to avoid the boredom for a few seconds. Sometlimes I even consider doing something really exciting like meditation, or watching a Maharaji video. But that might just be too stimulating.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 18:30:09 (GMT)
From: hamzen
Email: None
To: The observant
Subject: You might be right, how to judge?
Message:
Boring only means something in comparison to a less boring life,
so any suggestions how I could be less boring, and I'm assuming that you think your life is more productive, so what's so special about yours.

Always willing to tinker and make improvements from whatever source it comes.

Hopefully you are not also in kindergarten, planted what you presume is a little bomb, and will now be invisible?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 13:08:03 (GMT)
From: SB
Email: None
To: The observant
Subject: To say that, you must have errased many words of
Message:
your everyday vocabulary, like decency, honor, dignity, rights, opinions, and most of all, maybe you have forgotten that you should mind your fricking business. Kindergarden. Are you Stonor?

You look ignorantly childish writting this, as if you don't care about others feelings and rights.

I like your courage. Very nice name you picked. It's easy to throw away what is not ours, isn't? Mind your own businness. Stupid Elaine is writting my real name all over the internet, you OBSeRVANT not!!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 12:22:49 (GMT)
From: Hal
Email: None
To: The observant
Subject: Why do you say that? Expand please nt
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 10:23:07 (GMT)
From: Salam
Email: None
To: The observant
Subject: Shutup, idiot.
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 06:03:25 (GMT)
From: SB
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Sir Dave's secret forum: Elaine is sick
Message:
I never heard of it until today when I clicked on a link at Anything goes. Elaine talks there with Stonor and both agree that I'm a troubled person. Elaine is a saint. What a piece of crap some people can be. They simply lie to themselves and drag others with them. I find it sickening. Stonor, don't talk to me anymore, honest. I don't like your two faces, in fact, I dislike that a lot!

Elaine posted there (this is an example, there is more there)

Posted: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 14:31:54 (EDT)
Original: Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 23:16:45 (EDT)

Posted by: Elaine Recipient: Stonor

Email Address: Not Provided Recipient: Not Provided
Browser Type: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; MSNIA; Windows 98; DigExt)

Subject: To Stonor
Message:

Gee, Stonor,

I read your post to SB. My gosh, it was so clear (as usual)
but... I fear for you now.
Dammit - I feel you're going to be the brunt of her intensity now.

TY for recognizing - as I wish everyone would - the restraint I have with her. My God, she seems like a troubled person. Our history goes way back now - I AM her pet person to attack - no matter what I say , it seems.
But, oh well.
Thanks for quoting me in your post.

I still haven't gotten back w/ you over your long post to me - I'm sorry. I get so caught up.
I did post a very long post under a 'P-man' post on F-5 just now. I hope you see it. I would love comments from intelligent people to help me understand things better.Probably a meditator that has had similar experiences would be best,that I could ask - how do you integrate the facts on the ex-premie site. It's a tuffy for me.
It's a shame I'm sincerely pondering this whole thing and someone like Powerman just wants to put me down. I just don't get it. But, oh well. I'm not whining really.

See ya later,
Elaine

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 24, 2000 at 18:09:55 (GMT)
From: Forum Admin
Email: None
To: SB
Subject: Please take this discussion elsewhere...
Message:
By all means disagree with the comments of others posted on this forum, but don't bring arguments from Anything Goes over here.

We are trying to discourage personality clashes, arguments or vendettas from taking over the forum, as they have little or no relevance to the purpose it was created for.

Please note: future threads of this kind will be deleted.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 25, 2000 at 22:05:16 (GMT)
From: SB
Email: None
To: Forum Admin
Subject: This FA is a total jerk
Message:
What about that I need to take this type of subject irrelevant to you, but not to me, to other place but other people are allowed to discuss other extra silly subjects? Do you see what happen when we look further?

You haven't yet had time to remove my real name posted IN AUGUST 16 but you have time to answer my post. Whoever you are, you are being a jerk with me, and is obvious to see.

Thanks a lot, whoever you are. I'll be happy to know someday who did this to me. Talking about personal. Your actions are VERY personal. Shame on you too!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 25, 2000 at 22:19:01 (GMT)
From: SB
Email: None
To: SB
Subject: I forgot to add
Message:
I forgot to add, to remind you, that I sent you four emails with a very good explanation. Your answer to my email doesn't make too much sense, for if many people have done the 'job' of FA, many could have deleted my name. Maybe you have to take a new password after that, but not a big deal. It's so easy to edit a post! Time for this but not for that. Some people care and some don't. There goes my faith again.

I'm puking!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 24, 2000 at 23:56:45 (GMT)
From: SB
Email: None
To: Forum Admin
Subject: Please take this discussion elsewhere...
Message:
Have you deleted the posts that include my name? Have Elaine received a warning about naming people?

I thought that what I brought was relevant to the fact that Elaine lies to the members of this forum. Here few days a go she posted making remarks about Lard and at other forums she talks completly different about him.

I thought also that it was relevant because she is talking about people I LIKE from this forum, and these IMO people should know. What about trashing people indirectly, like Elaine does too often, talking about me (and others), putting me as an example of meanness. Is that okay? Who is going to draw the lines and can you be fair? Is repeating two hundred times the same, for months consider harrassment or not? Does it show bad intention or not? But then, it wouldn't be fair what others have done either: People often bring irrelevat subjects and post it here. Stuff that doesn't have nothing to do with guruji.

I check yesterday and my REAL name is STILL there. MY NAME WAS POSTED ON THE 16TH!!! Do anybody cares? I'm more confused than usuallly now.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 24, 2000 at 23:19:51 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: Forum Admin
Subject: just to clarify it wasn't on AG
Message:
It was on AFoot, a premie forum run by CD.

SB isn't the first one to ever do this but others don't get a FA msg. about it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 10:05:13 (GMT)
From: Sir Dave
Email: None
To: SB
Subject: That's not my forum, actually
Message:
It's Chris Dickey's premie forum.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 12:55:58 (GMT)
From: Dizzy SB
Email: None
To: Sir Dave
Subject: Thanks SD (nt)
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 06:24:49 (GMT)
From: SB
Email: None
To: all
Subject: Not secret, wrong word. Here's the link
Message:
Paradise Link
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 06:14:09 (GMT)
From: SB
Email: None
To: SB
Subject: [edited]
Message:
[edited by forum admin - contained personal details]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 10:24:30 (GMT)
From: Elaine
Email: None
To: SB
Subject: And your point is?.....
Message:
Unlike you,SB,I am well aware that this is a public forum.

I don't forget that by 'signing a real name by mistake'.

Please post anything you want that I've ever posted here as many times as you like.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 24, 2000 at 13:24:30 (GMT)
From: sb
Email: None
To: Elaine
Subject: And your point is?.....
Message:
Unlike me, why? Speak straight. What do you mean by that?

Because this is a public forum and premies are welcome to post doesn't mean that you have the right to trash people who have left the cult. I think I know who you are in real life. What you do you do it because you have no integrity, morals and common sense. You are carrying a lot of garbage and it is not allowing you to see yourself as others perceive you. You play minds games Elaine and people who reads your posts can spot that easily.

I am not campaigning against you, even that I said horrible things to you, what it bugs me is the shit you say sometimes and your 'silly mistakes' which I don't accept them as being that; I think you know exactly what buttons you are going to push each time. Is fine. Play your games, but then, don't be surprised when you generate reactions.

You told me in Paradise that I'm mad at you because you said you didn't read my posts. Look at your simplistic mentality!! Do you honestly believe that?? Please Elaine, get a life. You think that, thinking from your mosquito brain.

You want respect from me and you have targetted me from the begining, have you not? You used me TOO MANY times as an example of meanness, and trashed me everytime you could to make me look like somebody I'm not. Just because you don't use foul language doesn't mean that you can become scandalized by us who do use it. Many of my first posts to you, with shut ups, F...u, etc. were not said in the tone you received them. These days many adult people use them, even in TV, and is not a big deal to me to use them, when I read something that is simply, shit, TO ME. LOL. It became personal with you when you began to attack me with your empty arguments of good people, bad people.

My swearing didn't make my arguments less valid, but you chose not to answer my questions; they were TOO straight for you. I can understand that you have lived your life for so long believing you were right that now is difficult to think the opposite, and also that if sincerely you are finding faults on gurulard you may be going through some rough times having to define yourself, but taht doesn't give you the right to do what you do. I think you are doing this because you know me in real life. Get a grip if you do. Gurulard is bad!

You are sneakky and I don't like people like you. You showed your core and I don't like it. Period.

I think is YOU who doesn't understand the dynamics of this forum, not me. I have the right to defend myself if I chose to do so, at any time. Can you deny that?

You don't reason properly. Work on it and get sincere. The fact that you have make some statements against gurulard doesn't mean anything. In Paradise you are your true person and you don't fool me. Why you play games? Stop using me as an example to express your dislike for straight forward people like me.

Why people are sarcastic with you? Were your answers to them truthful and direct? NO! Jim has too much ego, eh? The guy knows his logic and you feel challenged to stop the BS and that is too confronting. Fine. But then, don't trash people. Understand them, make an effort to understand their arguments. You chose to pass a judgement and attack the harsh words, why don't attack the arguments? You are not too interested in being honest and many of us are sick of your coming and going. Is human nature sometimes to repell shit, did you know it?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 23:27:52 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: Elaine
Subject: looks like SB's name isn't the only one
Message:
you 'acccidently' let out in public.
We are not stupid. You just outed someone else over there on the CD foot in mouth premie forum

Elaine your game is up. You are not to be trusted. After this latest finding I'm convinced.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 23:43:30 (GMT)
From: sb
Email: None
To: Selene
Subject: looks like SB's name isn't the only one
Message:
Some other of her comments are sickening. And Stonor was there gossiping with her, but not for humor, both accussing people of this and that.

Stonor wrote to me in Paradise asking me how many people care about my posts? What is the meaning of that? I'm about expossing the fact that Elaine should not be allowed to post for a while. That she brought my name up was no mistake, IMO. Is not about me, as Stonor implies there, but about how false Elaine is and if she belongs here or not. To me she is a troublemaker.

She is saying here that she is changing, 'slowly', and there she is such a devoted centered, above all person! Stonor telling Elaine that I am a troubled person. No shit! I should be jumping up and down of joy: A greedy stupid guru snatched so much from me, 25 years. Not a big deal, right? I should be happy happy. bulshit! I'm sick and tired of people coming here to criticize ex-premies for this or for that! Tired! It makes me sick to see her phoniness, if that is a word. And Stonor, she doesn't know what side she is in? I'll tell you what side: Outside. An outsider passing judgements on me, victim of the cult. I don't get it!

Stonor seems to imply that I'm looking for attention. Am I doing that? No. Elaine is a false deluded person. I told you all along! She should hit the road. She's happy. She doesn't need this site.

Hi Selene!

PS: The call was $6.70, not $2 something. Dizzy me. ;)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 05:23:00 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: sb
Subject: ps regarding looking for attention
Message:
Someone accusing you of attention for your honest struggles afer years in M's cult seems cruel and unfounded.
I don't see you being here for attention.
I know what it is like to go through what you are going through and to be so emotional.

How can someone who didn't go thgough it pass judgement like this? often I come on here because I need to read the other posts. Sometimes something I read really helps, sometimes I get really angry and react. Does that mean I am looking for attention? no.
And it doesn't matter if others think I am just looking for attention. They are here too. Why are they here
if not to recover from M's cult, which IS what this site is about, M's cult?
Attention? LOL as you would say.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 05:27:14 (GMT)
From: to Elaine from Selene
Email: None
To: Elaine
Subject: I see I was wrong about you 'outing' that other
Message:
person.
I finally got the stomach to read the thread on A Foot In Mouth
(someone else used that name once and I can't help it it's funny to me!!)
and I see you didn't really 'out' this person.
I apologize, I was wrong about that.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 24, 2000 at 16:06:52 (GMT)
From: SB
Email: None
To: to Elaine from Selene
Subject: I see I was wrong about you 'outing' that other
Message:
Duh, Selene has brains.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 24, 2000 at 21:04:13 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: SB
Subject: I try. more brains some times than others
Message:
Hi sb.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 00:03:46 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: sb
Subject: SB I am with you on this
Message:
It's beyond me that anyone thought that forum was unnoticed. In fact, I don't think some of them did think it would go unnoticed. Which does not make what was posted there any better!!

The call was pretty cheap still.
I am going to use that for my USA long distance calls when I can remember!!

they are making me work at work again. It's a very crazy busy time. So if I am slow to respond that is why. Slow by my standards of online obsession anyway :)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 11:02:23 (GMT)
From: The observant
Email: None
To: Elaine
Subject: A question for Elaine.
Message:
Why do you really post here?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 17:00:29 (GMT)
From: Rob
Email: None
To: The observant
Subject: She won't answer that truthfully
Message:
So allow me.

Elaine is a premie who has secreted herself into the ex-premie forum for the self-appointed noble purpose of ultimately protecting and defending her Lord maharahaha. Sort of a passive-aggressive wannabe-warrior.

These subtle disparages against Gerry and Jim are, I suspect, but the thin end of a very long and carefully thought-out wedge she seeks to drive between us.

So far as any ex continues to acknowledge her presence here, and take part in the in-fighting, she will feel THAT joy, THAT grace and THAT reward of serving her master.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 07:31:15 (GMT)
From: FA Please delete this
Email: None
To: SB
Subject: post. FA Please delete this post. (nt)
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 07:51:12 (GMT)
From: sb
Email: None
To: FA Please delete this
Subject: Who are you? (nt)
Message:
NT
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 00:26:41 (GMT)
From: Premieji
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Marahaji is a man, yes a big man.
Message:
Since I got turned onto Knowjedge, my life has excitement, happiness and meaning. Maybe I would of got here anyway, but it was Knowledge that has shown me the way. It has also shown the way for countless thousands of others and will continue to into the future. Since one of your more amusing objectives seems to be to hound him into non-existance, how do you then reconcile that with the knowledge that many people are very happy living with Knowledge?
Here's a little song I'm working on. Sing with a Jamacian reggea lilt.

The Sun is shining
the weather is warm
the stars are twinkling
and the birds are a singing
so you better put on
your dancing shoes.
Here comes Maharaji
and he's going to rescue you.

Chorus
Maharaji is love
and Knowledge is fine.

The song goes on forever, but the chorus remains the same.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 05:04:09 (GMT)
From: DeProGram Anand Ji
Email: None
To: Premieji
Subject: Marahaji is a man, yes a big man.
Message:
Don't quit youday job, your song SUCKS!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 19:24:34 (GMT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: Premieji
Subject: Since you 'got turned onto Knowjedge' ...
Message:
Reminds me of the old Timothy Leary spiel 'turn on, tune in, drop out'

The drug analogy fits, though.


Maharaji is a dealer.
A very big, ... very fat, ...very rich dealer.

Why else do you think he pushes the deal?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 23:53:47 (GMT)
From: ham
Email: None
To: cq
Subject: Exactly cq, a premie is a junkie
Message:
Even Mel Bourne admitted there were similarities the other week.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 19:06:26 (GMT)
From: hamzen
Email: None
To: Premieji
Subject: Rumour has it he's actually a VERY small man,
Message:
Since I got turned onto Knowjedge, my life has excitement, happiness and meaning. Maybe I would of got here anyway, but it was Knowledge that has shown me the way. It has also shown the way for countless thousands of others and will continue to into the future. Since one of your more amusing objectives seems to be to hound him into non-existance, how do you then reconcile that with the knowledge that many people are very happy living with and I'm not just talking about the size of his prick.

Knowledge?
Here's a little song I'm working on. Sing with a Jamacian reggea lilt.
The Sun is shining
the weather is warm
the stars are twinkling
and the birds are a singing
so you better put on
your dancing shoes.
Here comes Maharaji
and he's going to rescue you.
Chorus
Maharaji is love
and Knowledge is fine.
The song goes on forever, but the chorus remains the same.

First off at least acknowledge from who you nicked this song, was it Bob Marley, or was it a Finley Quaye original? anyway the Finley Quaye one was, how shall we say it, a touch better than your rather feeble attempt. But then how is it possible for any premie to produce even half decent creative output? All these years and what do we have, yeah Michael Bolton, I rest my case. Now to get onto the message.

I'm also very happy with my experiences of practicing the meditation techniques, techniques knicked from other gurus I might add, and a lot of their followers are happy too. So is mr small peckers love so infinite that it extends to someone who thinks he's a charlatan, fraud liar, well basically an indian del boy, maybe that's why other followers of other gurus using the same techniques also n-joi, it's maha's grace & love. Hadn't thought of that.
Also how comes so many sincere exes didn't have it happen for them?

Please shower us with the compassion gained from your superior power in person, he who only spends $400,000,000 on his own techno games, properties and fast cars out of love for the human race, I never thought of this as well, maybe that's why he's shagged so many premies over the years, to share his love with the premies, and not because he couldn't get a shag from a non-premie. Thanks for the enlightenment premie-ji.

May I also say that your post is so clear and well, adult, it's making me rethink my position.
Appreciated.

PS how do you know thousands have gained satisfaction from the practice, and why were there only 323 premies in Miami for the introduction of phase 2?

I await your reply with anticipation and a longing in my heart.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 15:52:47 (GMT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Premieji
Subject: Marahaji is a man, yes a big man.
Message:
The 'Sun is shining' and the 'stars are twinkling'? Sounds like you're having a little trouble telling day from night, premieji.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 05:20:09 (GMT)
From: TD
Email: None
To: Premieji
Subject: What does he rescue people from Premieji? nt
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 03:05:37 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: None
To: Premieji
Subject: 5' 2' with inverse-proportional self-esteem rating
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 01:29:12 (GMT)
From: Brian
Email: brian@ex-premie.org
To: Premieji
Subject: Marahaji is a man, yes a big man.
Message:
You speak of being 'happy living with knowledge', but your lyrics sing the over-bloated praises of Maharaji.

he's going to rescue you

and this little gem:

Maharaji is love - slightly inflated from your Maharaji is a man subject line.

You're saying one thing, and believing something WAY more than that. This is the premie lie. The BIG lie. We all practiced it in the past.

Aspirants, take note. This is the mindset required to receive Maharaji's 'free gift'. You gotta dance to the devotional raggae and walk away empty-headed. Or else just walk away...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 01:52:31 (GMT)
From: Sir Dave
Email: None
To: Brian
Subject: Full marks for that answer, Brian
Message:
And a commendation for even bothering to write such a very elequent post to this premie wind-up merchant.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 01:13:06 (GMT)
From: Gregg
Email: None
To: Premieji
Subject: Marahaji is a man, yes a big man.
Message:
How do we reconcile the happiness of premies with our mission here (to enlighten, not in the mystical sense, because your enlightentment is your own business, to paraphrase the Buddha, but in the sense of presenting the truth as we see it)?

Let me just give you a few examples and let you figure it out.

Here are some happy people: premies, Moonies, Heaven's Gate members (at least in the hours before their final journey), drug addicts (while high, anyway), Jehovah's witnesses (especially when being persecuted while prostletyzing), football fans after a key victory, fanatics of all stripes convinced of thr righteousness of their cause...

But, hey, they're happy, so case closed, eh?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 00:30:42 (GMT)
From: Preamieji
Email: None
To: Gregg
Subject: Be cool motherfuckers
Message:
You're the only one who came close to answering my question, but you still didn't. If Maharaji and Knowledge help make sense of life for some people, give them meaning, bring joy into their lives, then how can that be a bad thing?
I wasn't a Moonie, so I can't comment on them, but I would guess that they are good people, doing the best they can, just like the rest of us. One of the rabble above mentioned Timothy Leary. Timothy put out a CD called 'This Time Around You Can Be Anyone', and there's a track called 'Live and let live', which seems appropriate somehow. Great CD btw.
Woof
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 24, 2000 at 07:08:30 (GMT)
From: 98% of people who got K
Email: None
To: Preamieji
Subject: have left!!!!!!!!!(nt)
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 20:10:27 (GMT)
From: Stonor
Email: None
To: Preamieji
Subject: Anyo premie calling others 'motherfuckers' ...
Message:
Any premie calling others 'motherfuckers' makes it clear that 'Maharaji and Knowledge (did not) help make sense of life for some people, (or) give them meaning, (or) bring joy into their lives'. The 'bad thing', at very least, is that premies can't realize it when they are under his enchantment.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 24, 2000 at 22:37:51 (GMT)
From: Shroomananda
Email: None
To: Stonor
Subject: Whose 'enchantment' are the 'ex' premies under
Message:
when they call people with Knowledge MFer's, Stonor? And whose 'enchantment' are non-anythings under when they talk about people with Knowledge yet do not have the Knowledge themselves? Could it be, oh I don't know, SATAN! Get a life, non-anything! Stop commenting about something that you know nothing about. Stick to drying your tomatoes instead of making pseudo-intellectual statements which just show your ignorance.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 24, 2000 at 23:08:24 (GMT)
From: hamzen
Email: None
To: Shroomananda
Subject: Ahh that's what calming the mind does for you eh
Message:
very impressive!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 18:26:42 (GMT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: Preamieji
Subject: 'Live and let live' ...
Message:
Sure, though that doesn't mean I have to approve too, does it?

The Maha sucks. OK?

Hey, 'live and let and let live'.

Us too.

And as for Leary's 'This Time Around You Can Be Anyone'

I'd rather be myself.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 24, 2000 at 05:40:08 (GMT)
From: Premieji
Email: None
To: cq
Subject: 'Live and let live' ...
Message:
Good point about the live and let live, and I don't mean to be telling you what's real and what's not, but you guys do create a negative stereotype image of a premie you know. Wonder what a stereotypical ex image would be? HAhahaha.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 04:21:18 (GMT)
From: hamzen
Email: None
To: Preamieji
Subject: 'Think for yourself, question authority'
Message:
Title of a 12' put out by Leary in 1990. So?

So if someone lies, and people are stupid enough to believe the liar, then that's ok is it? A curious argument

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 24, 2000 at 05:33:25 (GMT)
From: Premieji
Email: None
To: hamzen
Subject: Chewin' the fat with Ham
Message:
Premieji.....So Ham, you're implying that I'm living a lie hey?

Ham....... Well, yeah man, everybody says so.

Premieji.....That implies that you have some greater understanding of truth that me. Tell me, what is truth?

Ham gets a vacant, faraway look on his face (he must be going into trance, I think), scratches his balls, grunts and says 'duh, fucked if I know man, but you're still living a lie'.

Premieji..... Ham, I don't neccesarily believe that M and Knowledge are 'truth' but they do help me to find my own meaning. Have you ever looked through a good telescope and seen some of majesty, vastness and beauty of the Cosmos? There's no way I even pretend to understand truth. How about you Ham, do you comprehend truth?

Ham..Yeah, well man, I sometimes dwell on it for a minute or two, but then I get a headache and have to stop, but you're still living a lie.

Premieji....... Nice talking to you.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 25, 2000 at 08:14:18 (GMT)
From: hamzen
Email: None
To: Premieji
Subject: Make some effort please, or is that too much
Message:
to ask?

You see I'm still practicing meditation, still working fine thanks, but have also now seen all the hoops installed in my brain by sheer weight of repetition.

That's the magic of walking, you can differentiate between the good and the bad, not just automatically try to defend even when you can't find a sensible thing to say.

So you going to make the effort or shall we just swap abuse?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 16:13:01 (GMT)
From: VP
Email: None
To: hamzen
Subject: Spot on, hamzen!--nt
Message:
good point
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 00:53:39 (GMT)
From: Sir David
Email: None
To: Premieji
Subject: Marahaji is a man, yes a big man.
Message:
You're boring.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 03:02:29 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: Sir David
Subject: Premieji is losing his touch
Message:
The rippling muscles on the hill for all us 'ladies' to enjoy
was funny. This is boring I agree.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 00:22:10 (GMT)
From: Preamiji
Email: None
To: Selene
Subject: Premieji is losing his touch
Message:
Sorry I bore you Selene, as I picture you as strong, vivacious and a fascinating woman: a shining light in this den of iniquity and darkness. I imagine you standing there alone and uncertain, and I reach out to you and gently draw you to my strong hard body, to guide your timid and feminine self to the Place of Dreams; my bedroom. Upon sitting next to each other on my bed of many colors, with the sweetness of your breathe taking mine away, we stare in wonder at each other for what seems an eternity, and then in unison, we close our eyes and meditate the night away. Is not life enjoyable?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 01:50:45 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: Preamiji
Subject: sometimes life sucks sometmes it's great
Message:
I don't say it's always enjoyable. There is a different web site for that. M's ultra controlled enjoylife site.

Truthfully I am sorry but your fantasies bore me too. Did quite some ago actually.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 18:29:31 (GMT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: Selene
Subject: sometimes wanting a saviour sucks ...
Message:
... in fact wanting a saviour (like creamy-Preamji here) always sucks!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 11:47:29 (GMT)
From: Sir Dave
Email: None
To: Selene
Subject: Premieji is losing his touch
Message:
I might have a picture of him somewhere - the fool on the hill...
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 23:02:34 (GMT)
From: Q
Email: None
To: Everyone and EVeryone
Subject: If premies are the ads, I worry about the product.
Message:
If one were to find a vitamin that, though necessary to health, could be intoxicating and dangerous in megadoses (or even moderation)... if the state of mind arising from that intoxication could be positioned as a state of enlightenment... that could then be used to justify just about any otherwise unjustifiable amoral position... what would then constitute a responsible promotion of that vitamin - and what would not, EV?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 24, 2000 at 13:43:15 (GMT)
From: SB
Email: None
To: Q
Subject: If premies are the ads, I worry about the product.
Message:
Not all what looks good ends up being good. What you are expressing is gurulard's mentality: Nothing matters BUT the experience. How conviniente for him to teach people that concept.

Entrapment with the promise of false salvation is not a good vitamin. Lies are not a good vitamin. Deceipt and divertion of funds are no good either.

Either he is God or he isn't. You happen to think he is God, right? I thought the same for the longest time, so I understand where you are. If there is no grace coming from lard because he is no god, why stay to practice 4 yoga tecniques?Do it on your own. He is just a smooth talker. He tricked your mind and snatched it: Reclaim it back. Is yours, for you to use.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 19:01:58 (GMT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: Q
Subject: If premies are the ads, I worry about the product.
Message:
Are you the Q who used to post here about a year ago? (who thought he'd got his name mixed up with mine?)

Just asking.

(BTW, didn't quite understand your message above)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 12:36:02 (GMT)
From: St Phil of the Light
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: WHAT? get K in an armchair!!! new age PANZIES!!!!
Message:
SHIT!!! I had to sit on a floor bloody cross legged for hours.
Stuff round with one of those useless Bragon things.
'AND GOOD GOD'....one can even lay down and meditate.

Looks like I may have never even stopped meditating in my
16 years absense:) Yes things have certainly changed.

So what has M been into. Smoke'n dope, drop'n trips, on
the turps, wild girls. I've looked around most of this site and some others in the links but haven't really found the nitty
gritty on all this reported recent decadence.

Would I be able to get some direct links.
This Forum looks to big to go back track'n through also.

Thanks

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 14:25:34 (GMT)
From: Sir Dave
Email: None
To: St Phil of the Light
Subject: You need to read this
Message:
The more solacious stuff and the more disturbing stuff is on The Truth about Maharaji.

I think perhaps it's too brutal and frank to be linked to from here. Might offend a few sensibilities. Although most of the stuff on it has been copied from this forum and previous incarnations of it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 02:55:52 (GMT)
From: bill
Email: None
To: Sir Dave
Subject: You need to read this
Message:
Well done Sir David.
It should be at least available through a link in the archive introduction section.
Or brought on site.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 12:41:20 (GMT)
From: Tell
Email: None
To: St Phil of the Light
Subject: WHAT? get K in an armchair!!! new age PANZIES!!!!
Message:
What do you want to know
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 13:03:20 (GMT)
From: St Phil otl
Email: None
To: Tell
Subject: found it
Message:
Think I just found what I was looking for. Parden the pun :)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 13:22:00 (GMT)
From: St Phil otl
Email: None
To: St Phil otl
Subject: The Truth about M
Message:
So all that stuff on that page is the real shit eh?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 06:36:37 (GMT)
From: Loaf
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Shroom and premie posters
Message:
I have to say that Nigel's thread below re: Peter Dawkins is a delight from start to finish.

This forum would be a much lesser place without Shroom - because never has so much damage been done to the credibility of GM by so few.

It is exquisite. I think EV should make Shroom head of the
Prem Intuitive Science Synchronisation OFFice.

Well done everybody.Keep up the Good work.

Loaf

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 02:46:29 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: fitzroy@liverpool.ac.uk
To: Loaf
Subject: Shroom and premie posters
Message:
D'you know, Loaf ji old pal, that I almost didn't read your post in case you told me off for being too heavy on the mushroom-infested one...

Well there ya go. Yes, I thought the Dawkins piece was extraordinary, too, and glad you're happy to endorse it.

Happy bajans and buns! (Hey, one of us really has to do a thread on that 'night-and-day' Lord-in-Human-Form-finally-sings-as-well-as-he-dances vid...)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 21:23:11 (GMT)
From: Moldy Warp
Email: None
To: Loaf
Subject: Bizarre Freudian slip
Message:
I think you mean Richard not Peter Dawkins who was an initiator or whatever it is called now!!!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 21:53:34 (GMT)
From: Moldy Warp
Email: None
To: Loaf
Subject: Bizarre Freudian slip
Message:
Sorry it was Peter Dawson. Obviously I am programmed to see the Lord's hand everywhere!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 22:07:43 (GMT)
From: Monmot
Email: None
To: Moldy Warp
Subject: You were correct-it is Richard Dawkins (nt)
Message:
mm
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 14:29:31 (GMT)
From: Sir Dave
Email: None
To: Loaf
Subject: Shroom and premie posters
Message:
If Shroom's a premie, I'm a Dutchman. Better, I'm the next President of America and the King of England.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 03:01:16 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: None
To: Sir Dave
Subject: Shroom and premie posters
Message:
Well it would be no surprise to me if George Bush jnr suddenly announced he was a direct descendant of William of Orange...
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 06:47:25 (GMT)
From: Loaf
Email: None
To: Loaf
Subject: oops
Message:
I forgot to say what I wanted to say - which was -

When a premie is seperated from the herd, they curl up into a ball.

Perhaps we can work like a pack of laughing hyenas, and work on them - just a few at a time, gnawing and nipping in a synchronised way.

After all - we know already that they are 'the weary and the weak'

Its just that with all the smart(ass)card enclosures and pens which EV is constructing, all they will be able to do eventually is huddle ever tighter together in both psychologically and physically remote locations, until eventually, the nature of the (THAT) experience is seperate from the rest of our wonderful, generous, natural, scientific, communal, sociable LIFE.

Sorry for leaving this bit out - but i sort of forgot what i wanted to post once i got started.

Oaf.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 22:50:12 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: fitzroy@liverpool.ac.uk
To: Everyone
Subject: Dawkins pranams before king-in-waiting! NOT. (ot)
Message:
Sorry, but this piece is so well written and argued - and people who think they don't like / can't swallow Richard Dawkins on religious grounds or because of previous appointment with a video event, should at least try reading this one if they're vaguely interested in the future of the planet:

Open letter to Prince Charles

Any thoughts, 'O' / Shroom? (Or will you wait for Maharaji's ignorance of it all to further inspire your own…?)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 24, 2000 at 20:31:52 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: all
Subject: Prince Charles' lecture (ot)
Message:
The following is a copy of Jim's previous post of Prince Charles' lecture, which was a response to my request that he post what Charles said.

Prince Charles:

Like millions of other people around the world I've been fascinated to hear five eminent speakers share with us their thoughts hopes and fears about sustainable development based on their own experience. All five of those contributions have been immensely thoughtful and challenging. There have been clear differences of opinion and of emphasis between the speakers but there have also been some important common themes, both implicit and explicit. One of those themes has been the suggestion that sustainable development is a matter of enlightened self-interest. Two of the speakers used this phrase and I don't believe that the other three would dissent from it, and nor would I.

Self-interest is a powerful motivating force for all of us, and if we can somehow convince ourselves that sustainable development is in all our interests then we will have taken a valuable first step towards achieving it. But self-interest comes in many competing guises - not all of which I fear are likely to lead in the right direction for very long, nor to embrace the manifold needs of future generations. I am convinced we will need to dig rather deeper to find the inspiration, sense of urgency and moral purpose required to confront the hard choices which face us on the long road to sustainable development. So, although it seems to have become deeply unfashionable to talk about the spiritual dimension of our existence, that is what I propose to do.

The idea that there is a sacred trust between mankind and our Creator, under which we accept a duty of stewardship for the earth, has been an important feature of most religious and spiritual thought throughout the ages. Even those whose beliefs have not included the existence of a Creator have, nevertheless, adopted a similar position on moral and ethical grounds. It is only recently that this guiding principle has become smothered by almost impenetrable layers of scientific rationalism. I believe that if we are to achieve genuinely sustainable development we will first have to rediscover, or re-acknowledge a sense of the sacred in our dealings with the natural world, and with each other. If literally nothing is held sacred anymore - because it is considered synonymous with superstition or in some other way 'irrational' - what is there to prevent us treating our entire world as some 'great laboratory of life' with potentially disastrous long term consequences?

Fundamentally, an understanding of the sacred helps us to acknowledge that there are bounds of balance, order and harmony in the natural world which set limits to our ambitions, and define the parameters of sustainable development. In some cases nature's limits are well understood at the rational, scientific level. As a simple example, we know that trying to graze too many sheep on a hillside will, sooner or later, be counter productive for the sheep, the hillside, or both. More widely we understand that the overuse of insecticides or antibiotics leads to problems of resistance. And we are beginning to comprehend the full, awful consequences of pumping too much carbon dioxide into the earth's atmosphere. Yet the actions being taken to halt the damage known to be caused by exceeding nature's limits in these and other ways are insufficient to ensure a sustainable outcome. In other areas, such as the artificial and uncontained transfer of genes between species of plants and animals, the lack of hard, scientific evidence of harmful consequences is regarded in many quarters as sufficient reason to allow such developments to proceed.

The idea of taking a precautionary approach, in this and many other potentially damaging situations, receives overwhelming public support, but still faces a degree of official opposition, as if admitting the possibility of doubt was a sign of weakness or even of a wish to halt 'progress'. On the contrary, I believe it to be a sign of strength and of wisdom. It seems that when we do have scientific evidence that we are damaging our environment we aren't doing enough to put things right, and when we don't have that evidence we are prone to do nothing at all, regardless of the risks.

Part of the problem is the prevailing approach that seeks to reduce the natural world including ourselves to the level of nothing more than a mechanical process. For whilst the natural theologians of the 18th and 19th centuries like Thomas Morgan referred to the perfect unity, order, wisdom and design of the natural world, scientists like Bertrand Russell rejected this idea as rubbish. 'I think the universe' he wrote 'is all spots and jumps without unity and without continuity, without coherence or orderliness. Sir Julian Huxley wrote in 'Creation a Modern Synthesis' - that modern science must rule out special creation or divine guidance.' But why?

As Professor Alan Linton of Bristol University has written- 'evolution is a manmade theory to explain the origin and continuance of life on this planet without reference to a Creator.' It is because of our inability or refusal to accept the existence of a guiding hand that nature has come to be regarded as a system that can be engineered for our own convenience or as a nuisance to be evaded and manipulated, and in which anything that happens can be fixed by technology and human ingenuity. Fritz Schumacher recognised the inherent dangers in this approach when he said that 'there are two sciences - the science of manipulation and the science of understanding.'

In this technology driven age it is all too easy for us to forget that mankind is a part of nature and not apart from it. And that this is why we should seek to work with the grain of nature in everything we do, for the natural world is, as the economist Herman Daly puts it - 'the envelope that contains, sustains and provisions the economy, not the other way round.' So which argument do you think will win - the living world as one or the world made up of random parts, the product of mere chance, thereby providing the justification for any kind of development? This, to my mind, lies at the heart of what we call sustainable development. We need, therefore, to rediscover a reference for the natural world, irrespective of its usefulness to ourselves -to become more aware in Philip Sherrard's words of 'the relationship of interdependence, interpenetration and reciprocity between God, Man and Creation.'

Above all, we should show greater respect for the genius of nature's designs, rigorously tested and refined over millions of years. This means being careful to use science to understand how nature works, not to change what nature is, as we do when genetic manipulation seeks to transform a process of biological evolution into something altogether different. The idea that the different parts of the natural world are connected through an intricate system of checks and balances which we disturb at our peril is all too easily dismissed as no longer relevant.

So, in an age when we're told that science has all the answers, what chance is there for working with the grain of nature? As an example of working with the grain of nature, I happen to believe that if a fraction of the money currently being invested in developing genetically manipulated crops were applied to understanding and improving traditional systems of agriculture, which have stood the all- important test of time, the results would be remarkable. There is already plenty of evidence of just what can be achieved through applying more knowledge and fewer chemicals to diverse cropping systems. These are genuinely sustainable methods and they are far removed from the approaches based on monoculture which lend themselves to large- scale commercial exploitation, and which Vandana Shiva condemned so persuasively and so convincingly in her lecture. Our most eminent scientists accept that there is still a vast amount that we don't know about our world and the life forms that inhabit it. As Sir Martin Rees, the Astronomer Royal, points out, it is complexity that makes things hard to understand, not size. In a comment which only an astronomer could make, he describes a butterfly as a more daunting intellectual challenge than the cosmos!

Others, like Rachel Carson, have eloquently reminded us that we don't know how to make a single blade of grass. And St. Matthew, in his wisdom, emphasised that not even Solomon in all his glory was arrayed as the lilies of the field. Faced with such unknowns it is hard not to feel a sense of humility, wonder and awe about our place in the natural order. And to feel this at all stems from that inner heartfelt reason which sometimes despite ourselves is telling us that we are intimately bound up in the mysteries of life and that we don't have all the answers. Perhaps even that we don't have to have all the answers before knowing what we should do in certain circumstances. As Blaise Pascal wrote in the 17th century, 'it is the heart that experiences God, not the reason.'

So do you not feel that, buried deep within each and every one of us, there is an instinctive, heart-felt awareness that provides -if we will allow it to- the most reliable guide as to whether or not our actions are really in the long term interests of our planet and all the life it supports? This awareness, this wisdom of the heart, maybe no more than a faint memory of a distant harmony, rustling like a breeze through the leaves, yet sufficient to remind us that the Earth is unique and that we have a duty to care for it. Wisdom, empathy and compassion have no place in the empirical world yet traditional wisdoms would ask 'without them are we truly human?' And it would be a good question. It was Socrates who, when asked for his definition of wisdom, gave as his conclusion, 'knowing that you don't know.'

In suggesting that we will need to listen rather more to the common sense emanating from our hearts if we are to achieve sustainable development, I'm not suggesting that information gained through scientific investigation is anything other than essential. Far from it. But I believe that we need to restore the balance between the heartfelt reason of instinctive wisdom and the rational insights of scientific analysis. Neither, I believe, is much use on its own. So it is only by employing both the intuitive and the rational halves of our own nature - our hearts and our minds - that we will live up to the sacred trust that has been placed in us by our Creator, - or our 'Sustainer', as ancient wisdom referred to the Creator. As Gro Harlem Brundtland has reminded us, sustainable development is not just about the natural world, but about people too. This applies whether we are looking at the vast numbers who lack sufficient food or access to clean water, but also those living in poverty and without work. While there is no doubt that globalisation has brought advantages, it brings dangers too. Without the humility and humanity expressed by Sir John Browne in his notion of the 'connected economy' - an economy which acknowledges the social and environmental context within which it operates - there is the risk that the poorest and the weakest will not only see very little benefit but, worse, they may find that their livelihoods and cultures have been lost.

So if we are serious about sustainable development then we must also remember that the lessons of history are particularly relevant when we start to look further ahead. Of course, in an age when it often seems that nothing can properly be regarded as important unless it can be described as 'modern', it is highly dangerous to talk about the lessons of the past. And are those lessons ever taught or understood adequately in an age when to pass on a body of acquired knowledge of this kind is often considered prejudicial to 'progress'? Of course our descendants will have scientific and technological expertise beyond our imagining, but will they have the insight or the self- control to use this wisely, having learnt both from our successes and our failures?

They won't, I believe, unless there are increased efforts to develop an approach to education which balances the rational with the intuitive. Without this truly sustainable development is doomed. It will merely become a hollow- sounding mantra that is repeated ad nauseam in order to make us all feel better. Surely, therefore, we need to look towards the creation of greater balance in the way we educate people so that the practical and intuitive wisdom of the past can be blended with the appropriate technology and knowledge of the present to produce the type of practitioner who is acutely aware of both the visible and invisible worlds that inform the entire cosmos. The future will need people who understand that sustainable development is not merely about a series of technical fixes, about redesigning humanity or re-engineering nature in an extension of globalised, industrialisation -but about a re-connection with nature and a profound understanding of the concepts of care that underpin long term stewardship.

Only by rediscovering the essential unity and order of the living and spiritual world - as in the case of organic agriculture or integrated medicine or in the way we build - and by bridging the destructive chasm between cynical secularism and the timelessness of traditional religion, will we avoid the disintegration of our overall environment. Above all, I don't want to see the day when we are rounded upon by our grandchildren and asked accusingly why we didn't listen more carefully to the wisdom of our hearts as well as to the rational analysis of our heads; why we didn't pay more attention to the preservation of bio-diversity and traditional communities or think more clearly about our role as stewards of creation? Taking a cautious approach or achieving balance in life is never as much fun as the alternatives, but that is what sustainable development is all about.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 05:37:42 (GMT)
From: O
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Dawkins is a bad role model
Message:
The tools of science are meant to help mankind isolate observable pieces of reality from the caucophony of physical phenomena in which we are emersed.The scientist's goal in isolating each piece is to define it and catalogue it before assembling it with other pieces that have been observed ,with the goal that one day we will have a complete picture which will enable us to understand our universe,finally.Of course,the luck of the draw will have it that only the men and women of science will get to see that picture while the rest will have to be satisfied to take their word for it.

Those who adhere to scientific values and keep abreast of scientific exploits believe themselves to be the chosen few, as sure as the Christian cult retreats to the mountain-top to wait for the rapture.For like these hapless Christians,scientists and scientist-wannabes believe themselves to be amongst the few who 'know'.Like many with a talent or skill,scientists believe their 'special insight' gives them the right to exhibit a high degree of chauvanism and arrogance in their support of scientific truth uber alles.This snobishness comes through loud and clear when reading the letter from Dawkins to Prince Charles.

I believe balance is a wonderful thing.The feelings of the heart bear wonderful fruit enjoyed by most people on this planet.Should the tyranny of scientific scrutiny squelch the lofty musings of the heart's aspirations?No way!That would quite possibly be the end of the life on earth,and indeed the scientific lineage.For it is the aspirations of the heart that even give scientists the will to perservere and seek their truth.For balance I prefer the sublime insights of scientists like Albert Einstein when he said:

'To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitiveforms - this knowledge, this feeling, is at the center of true religiousness.'

I am not against science I am against Dawkins.I am against the imbalance he exhibits.I respect his intelligence but I cannot respect his arrogance.I understand now why he is a hero to some of the exers who contribute to this forum.He represents the antithesis of the heart.For you folks who have shut yourself off from so many of those natural feelings,he offers the only alternative left for you to pursue.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 24, 2000 at 17:23:06 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: fitzroy@liverpool.ac.uk
To: O
Subject: Pathetic crap, O
Message:
Those who adhere to scientific values and keep abreast of scientific exploits believe themselves to be the chosen few, as sure as the Christian cult retreats to the mountain-top to wait for the rapture.For like these hapless Christians,scientists and scientist-wannabes believe themselves to be amongst the few who 'know'.Like many with a talent or skill,scientists believe their 'special insight' gives them the right to exhibit a high degree of chauvanism and arrogance in their support of scientific truth uber alles.This snobishness comes through loud and clear when reading the letter from Dawkins to Prince Charles.

Doesn't it occur to you that maybe one of the two knows what he is talking about and the other does not?

Scientists do not claim a special insight. They merely offer a method that works for separating truth from bullshit. A method that is available to anyone who cares to understand it.

You don't need to understand quantum physics to follow a sound argument, but it helps to ditch your superstitious belief systems.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 24, 2000 at 19:31:42 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: fitzroy@liverpool.ac.uk
To: Nigel
Subject: The value of science: serious questions for 'O'
Message:
Assuming you would agree that the testing of new medicines for curative effects against placebo/control groups has social value (is vital even)...

Well (1) how would you feel about an experimental research program that examined the differences - if any - between experiences of 'Knowledge' and placebo practices (ie, various groups using simple relaxation, meditation, self-hypnosis etc) ?

Any social value there? Would you be interested in the findings?

And (2) just suppose 'Knowledge' was found to have some 'added-value' that the control groups lacked, then how would you feel about an experiment that examined whether a devotee could discriminate betweem the teachings of their 'Master' and a 'non-Master' (ie. someone just pretending to have special insight), or (3) maybe compared the experiences of 'Knowledge' with or without Maharaji's involvement..?

I'd call that not only scientific but sensible. How about you?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 13:37:36 (GMT)
From: bill
Email: None
To: shp?
Subject: shp?
Message:
You need to land.
Speak in your own words.
Your heros need changing or at least put them aside for awile.
You paint with too broad a brush.
Be accurate, or strive to be accurate.
Focus your mind on one thing at a time. Do you actually feel your breath for minutes at a time? I dont think you try to focus your mind enough to do that. If you are all for meditation, then feel your breath for an hour straight and maybe the scatterbrain effect will lessen.

You are not disrespecting 'ex's' when you post without care.
You are disrespecting your own concentration 'gift'.

Do not smoke pot and stop reading anything telling you ABOUT life for a while. If you value your life, then value every moment and every typed word you make. Try to emerge as a more valuable human and we here will respect that. Even with differences.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 13:41:26 (GMT)
From: bill
Email: None
To: bill
Subject: shp?
Message:
Just kidding O.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 14:57:55 (GMT)
From: bill
Email: None
To: bill
Subject: O
Message:
Hi O,
I had been reading some shp down below and when I read yours, I went to eat and then came back and typed to shp.
of course I know you are not shp. I realized I typed it after your post and in my rush to leave somewhere, I only had a moment to type something and I inappropriately put 'just kidding' as a way of saying it wasnt you I was posting to. I walked away from the computer thinking, well, rushing makes for blunders.

The Einstien qoute is one of his that I have a problem with.
Isnt our human nature and our 'lowly' behaviours just as great as 'highest wisdom' and 'radiance'? If the oneness IS self aware, it has a dark side as well. Maybe it is playing chess with itself in a good god/bad god game. We of course advertise the god as all good. All perfect and loving. I think the evidence of human nature tells me that the 'force' loves fights.

this is heresy to religions of all stripes. Both the oneness is concious and the oneness is unconcious crowds think we have to break through OUR bad stuff to reach the 'perfect'.
I think we are here as entertainlment and sport. If we manage to live well, then so be it, but that is not a big issue for the god. We have problems and dilemmas and human nature and I personally feel innocent and not in need of jumping through hoops just to please some two faced god.

jesus(yeshua) said it when he said 'the devil knows not for whom he works'. Well, I read that as yeshua saying Him and His dad are the employers of the devil. Whatever I dont believe, I do believe that. the 'oneness' foisted the bad on us.

I dont want to join the ranks of those that want to just 'praise god' wether it is the way religions do it, or Einstiens sort of independent way of saying it.

New agers are hardly more caught in this need to grovel than old style religions. Look at the freaking muslims, 5 times a day they bow to the a rock god. Religious zealots want a world where we all just praise praise praise.

Let god come in form and give me a chance to ask 'have we been sufficiently entertaining?', 'cant you just get into boxing as a hobby and leave us free of religious wars?'

Give me a religion that sees you as you are. As human nature shows me that it is. A game. With two opposing forces.
With an edge given to the positive side. But not a big one.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 05:17:37 (GMT)
From: bill
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Dawkins pranams before assumptions
Message:
Hi Nigel,
You know, I cant enjoy the condensencion and insult without reading the Charles speech. Then again, every time I read a short Dawkins piece, I cant help but notice the 'dont you get it? you idiot' tone of his typeing. I didnt notice that tone in the 'river of dna' book, I probably just missed it because it was the first book I read of his.

Charles may make creepy comments to his own Monica Lewis, like the kotex comment, but his public addresses surely must be sent around to a few educated freinds for review before he makes a major speech on a subject like this. So I dont want to just assume that made a 'ninny' of a speech.

Dawkins makes the claim that darwinism is truth, but Dawkins is not a real scientist although he is pretending to speak for the scientific reality crowd. HIS version of Darwinism is the whole materialist package. The definately unproven religious side of those that want to take the role of DNA in lifeforms and assume thier way to a 'truth' that is just a theory. A real scientist would not set himself up as a mouthpiece for assumtions.

I guess he wants to make the claim that humans are the first to plan for the future. Havent squirells and other creatures also shown some evidence of planning for the future? If he wants to say that the animals are dealing with repeating environmental cycles, seasons, what about humans? the saying goes, 'if you dont learn from your errors you are bound to repeat them', we have human nature which binds us up. Lets see him try to take some of his newly freed up time and explain away human nature.

In the paper today, gm corn that was made to kill off a worm that bothers it, kills other creatures as well. The 'natural' oils called EFAcids, which are removed to improve shelf life, are killing people because of EFA deficiencies. The power of the profit motive to foist 'improvments' to natural eating of nutrients in the US is....well, I go to the gym, EVERY trainer there is balding rapidly. Only the young guys have yet to show that. I myself have stopped eating any american processed protien source. I do fish and tofu and rice and beans. SOMETHING is making an epidemic of balding amongst vast numbers of US guys.
Lots of early twenty year olds are going bald. I was at Cape Cod and asked a few guys who had good hair what they ate. Fish. One fisherman who was a typical US man and was balding, was the exception, but the next morning his freind told me that this guy actually ate lots of meat and dairy. Well, thank you for keeping my survey on track. It may be the Bovine Growth Hormone screwing with testosterone in men. In the gym lots of guys eat powdered protien and I found out that protien without EFA's, has LONG been known to be a health hazard. In nature, protien comes with EFA's handy. Was Charles talking about similar diet screw ups?

dawkins wont give him an inch.
zealot.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 00:08:59 (GMT)
From: P-man
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Dawkins and food
Message:
Dawkins makes some good points about evolution, nature and science, but... I don't want no corporate piggies in starched white shirts fucking with my food. They're already fucking up the food with dangerous pesticides, and pardon my tone towards Dawkins, but he can shove it about 'crying wolf'.

First of all it isn't 'crying wolf'. GM food is a real concern: The companies running the agriculture business are evil motherfuckers and couldn't be trusted to bring you a glass of water, much less do Frankenstien alterations to food. Dawkins needs to get real.

Second of all, even if it was 'crying wolf', so fucking what? Is he serious about the world relaxing about real concerns if GM turns out to be okay? If that was the case, we're going to relax into oblivion after Y2K.

Other than that, Dawkins seems cool.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 15:07:17 (GMT)
From: Sir Dave
Email: None
To: P-man
Subject: Evolution and pesticides in GM foods
Message:
The problem with GM foods that have been altered to produce an inbuilt pesticide is that the bugs which it is supposed to kill don't all die and the ones which survive, quickly evolve into a superbug which is immune to the pesticide in the GM crop.

This is one of the main things which some scientists have against bug resistant GM crops. The problem with crop parasites will only get worse in a few years as the new super bugs evolve.

The consumers are also against such GM crops because they don't want to be eating food with pesticides in.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 00:33:58 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: None
To: P-man
Subject: Dawkins and food
Message:
First of all it isn't 'crying wolf'. GM food is a real concern: The companies running the agriculture business are evil motherfuckers and couldn't be trusted to bring you a glass of water, much less do Frankenstien alterations to food. Dawkins needs to get real.

Hi P-man. I think using bogus emotive arguments (not you - the kneejerk anti-GM brigade, who object to people 'playing God' - and many of whom in the past have objected to things like organ transplants and blood donations, for the same reasons) is very much crying wolf. And, yes, nobody should be able to genetically engineer my food without my consent, but (NB) in the UK, so far, nobody is allowed to do this.

But 'Frankenstein Foods' has become such an ever-present slogan in the British news media, it completely swamps any kind of reasoned discussion of the subject of gene-modification and - especially - medical spin-offs. And the politicans are VERY concerned with keeping in with the newspapers.

I think this is Dawkins' main point, and I wholeheartedly agree with him. Prince Charles attacked 'scientists' in general in spite of the fact that many scientists would share many of his environmental views.

Charlie boy should get back to his real job of pretending to be apprentice monarch and keep his mouth shut about things he can only understand in black-and-white terms - and then not very well.

I'm sure Dawkins has to be as aware as anybody that the real danger from GM comes from runaway mutations cross-fertilising with wild variants of crop, etc., and I thought the letter was fair and very well argued.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 01:31:30 (GMT)
From: P-man
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: crying wolf, etc.
Message:
As I understand it, 'crying wolf' is when you know there's no real danger and you cry for help. So if the anti-GM brigade is 'crying wolf', that means they believe there isn't really any danger? I think it's obvious that isn't true; it's clear they do think there's danger.

The reason they think GM is dangerous is because they think it's 'playing God' (that you shouldn't tinker with anything because it isn't 'natural'). Okay, so that isn't the reason it's dangerous.

It's dangerous because it's dangerous, for the reason you mentioned, Nigel, and many others similar. It's just dangerous when there's reasonable possible danger (don't hang off the sides of cliffs, and all that).

But a good case of crying wolf would be when someone believes there isn't any danger, or even believes it but is wrong. This isn't a case of either.

These guys believe there's danger and there is. They're just misguided by a superstitious precept that you shouldn't be in control of the environment, that only God can do that without causing a catastrophy.

But they're half-right that when you take control of something, you can mess it up. And they probably got lucky that this is a case where someone is about to really mess things up... maybe. Actually, I think there's a good chance if they start injecting genes that have complex processes such as specified reactions to herbicides and pesticides that there will be consequences.

If this was the nineteenth century and a religious group was protesting slavery because it was 'playing God', would you say they were 'crying wolf'.

The real danger I see in this case is the proliferation of GM foods that haven't been well thought out. People who protest GM foods for the wrong reasons aren't the real danger here unless their confusion sabotages their objective. But usually any bad publicity with this kind of thing will slow things up.

As far as Prince Charles sticking to more royal matters, I agree.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 15:50:34 (GMT)
From: VP
Email: None
To: P-man
Subject: Genetic engineering gone bad
Message:
Just look at bulldogs. Talk about human genetic engineering gone awry! Those dogs are so inbred that most of them die within 5-8 years due to respiratory failures. Sure, they are fun to look at, but I ask you, do you want to come back in your next life as a bulldog? Not I.

On a more serious note, where can I learn more about GM foods? Who is producing them? It's bad enough to have our livestock fed with steroids and preservatives, now we have vegetables with 'built in' pesticides?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 19:18:03 (GMT)
From: hamzen
Email: None
To: P-man
Subject: Smells like racism to me
Message:
And while we're arguing about gm foods, which in a lot of third world countries would deal with seious deficiencies like vitamin a missing in rice (I think it's vit a) caiusing blindness, similar situations in africa and south america. So if the argument was more reasonable because of our diets we could have the luxury of declining and less fortunate countries could crack on.

Smells like racism to me.

Also our food has been completely fucked over for decades, mixing up thousands of genes, but has an outcry like this ever happened.
No?

Gerry, I agree there should be choice, but informed choice, and bearing in mind the less than perfect diets elsewhere.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 20:47:45 (GMT)
From: P-man
Email: None
To: hamzen
Subject: Smells like racism to me
Message:
I'm not sure if your post meant that you think I'm Gerry, but in any case, I'm not.

I also didn't understand another part of your post. Do you mean the protest against GM foods is racist? How so? I didn't get that.

I think the big outcry about GM foods is because the consequences could be worse than previous 'experiments'. Also, in the past people had less information because there was less media and less opportunity to organize a protest because communicating was harder and people were less conscious of the effect of diet on health.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 23:15:51 (GMT)
From: ham
Email: None
To: P-man
Subject: Apologies P-man
Message:
Not at all sure why I called you gerry, did read a lot of posts catching up on this thread, need to check if gerry posted on the topic, but thinking about it I do associate you and gerry as operating in similar territory, in the way that you get those overlaps in a venn diagram. But if you challenged me I would have difficulty explaining why, it's a feeling emotional thing!!
So again big apologies, but I certainly did see you as seperate, not a split identity.

I also didn't understand another part of your post. Do you mean the protest against GM foods is racist? How so? I didn't get that.
It's not only the protests that I think are racist, but actually the media that I see as being even more racist over the issue.

I think the big outcry about GM foods is because the consequences could be worse than previous 'experiments'. Also, in the past people had less information because there was less media and less opportunity to organize a protest because communicating was harder and people were less conscious of the effect of diet on health.

Information about the COMPLETELY detrimental effects of the food production industry, especially since the second world war, have been around for decades. To give a few off my head examples, the gradual loss of topsoil because of mechanization, the awful effects hormonally of factory farming not just on the animals but the people who eat them, the fact that treating animals as just another industrial product was quite likely to lead to the kind of disasters such as BSE and CJD (a SERIOUS problem over here that is likely to lead to thousands of very painful deaths, not just the hundreds as at present), the well documented negative effects of mono-culture, these issues I've picked up for thirty years from the small scientific sections of the MAINSTREAM press, but were the editorials ever addressing the obvious very serious consequences, never. The issue list is enormous, shit when was the Rachel Carson book out, hardly recent. That's leaving out the the strong possibility that cancer increases and especially the huge increase in male impotence in the western world are either and/or related to it. What's happened , in my opinion is that when the economy was less stable people were in denial, now everyone is reaching middle class security, suddenly the blinkers are coming off, but instead of dealing with the whole industry which could still threaten them economically they target one future sector to appease themselves.
BUT BUT BUT instead of making sure that the food industry is regulated VERY TOUGHLY in all areas, no to appease their consciences they are scapegoating.
But the consequences are that in those areas of the world where there are VERY SERIOUS deficiencies caused by overreliance on one crop, ie rice in asia leading to large parts of the population experiencing early blindness or the effects of subsistence farming in huge areas of africa etc, again the list is endless, the possible benefits of gm foods were being researched
by local scientists.

Because of the scare ALL research is now off, so sod the 'foreigners/wogs', it's me & little johnny etc etc

What has happened is an alliance between the middle classes and the green movement & the new age movement, pretty much for the first time. The green movement will always distort because they feel so powerless, the new agers, like Bonnie Prince Charlie, link it in with EXACTLY the same territory that the other little gm exploits.
If you'd heard the huge number of middle class people over here saying that this agenda should be applied everywhere, that africans are one with nature and happy with their subsistence farming etc, well you'd be under no illusions how racist the whole agenda is. Can't speak for the us of a, but here in europe it's unbelievable.
So people are starving, tough shit is basically the message.

And just in case you're under any illusions about my stance, I'm an organic raw food vegan completely anti the whole economic system and the middle class bollocks that has supported it for ages, the I'm alright jack crowd......

Hopefully that clarifies a bit.

And to amplify my point, take global warming/environmental issues beyond the food industry, industry full stop, the information has been available for decades re serious enviro effects, I read about it in mainstream papers including global warming ages back, but hey we can't have our economic prosperity affected etc etc and now that we're ok, and China, India, Brazil etc are going down the same route, it's a case of tough.
'Just because we were lucky doesn't mean you can be if it means destroying the planet.'
So will we get co-operation between governments, will we shit, the west will try to hang onto every last drop even though we were the ones to destroy this planet, and tough shit to the foreigners etc etc

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 23:53:02 (GMT)
From: P-man
Email: None
To: ham
Subject: Apologies P-man
Message:
You make some interesting points, Ham. I'll have to chew over these ideas for a while.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 02:22:41 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: None
To: P-man
Subject: crying wolf, etc.
Message:
Ok - fair point that 'crying wolf' isn't really the best analogy, because in the original children's story, the motive for raising the alarm was knowingly to deceive, which doesn't apply here.

But the effect is much the same: if the public starts thinking 'Phew - it's safe, after all! What was the fuss all about?' because of too many false alarms and unfounded fears, then they're not going to appreciate those subtler - but more dangerous - factors, eg, from cross-mutation etc. Instead it will be 'The food is not only safe but - hey! getting cheaper too thanks to GM - so let's all just eat it and stop worrying' (which will surely happen...)

See also my comments to Joe below about the dangers of enforced genetic-stasis vs. biodiversity.

And, sorry, I just can't see the relevance of what you said here:

If this was the nineteenth century and a religious group was protesting slavery because it was 'playing God', would you say they were 'crying wolf'.

No, of course not. But they'd be talking about known, observable damage being done to people right before their eyes, if the supporters of slavery but cared to look. So I don't think the comparison is valid.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 15:36:41 (GMT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: GM food in the USA
Message:
Nigel, maybe genetically modified food has been kept out of Britain, but we have it everywhere in the USA. It's almost impossible to find a potato that isn't genetically modified, and soybeans, tomatoes, lots of grains, etc., are too, and since foods aren't labeled, we have no idea whether what we are eating has been genetically modified or not.

I agree that those who resort to new-age mumbo jumbo or religion (like Charles) to argue against GE aren't doing much of a service, but I agree with Powerman that the danger is real, and the consequences so great that we should take the time to understand the effects of what is being done. Unfortunately, the pofit motive being what it is, that isn't likely to happen unless people start demanding that governments do something. That isn't hysterical nonsense, it's the way people without power and money get attention to the problem.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 00:07:21 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: fitzroy@liverpool.ac.uk
To: Joe
Subject: GM food in the USA
Message:
Nigel, maybe genetically modified food has been kept out of Britain, but we have it everywhere in the USA. It's almost impossible to find a potato that isn't genetically modified, and soybeans, tomatoes, lots of grains, etc., are too, and since foods aren't labeled, we have no idea whether what we are eating has been genetically modified or not.

I am aware of the situation in the states - and I find that pretty scary that Monsanto and the rest can just get away with it, with inadeqate governmental controls. (And also depair of the fact that much of what happens in the states today, tends to be copied here five years later...)

I think, by comparison, the debate in the UK is still on comparatively safe territory. Time to breathe and think about sensible legislation, still. And I prefer Dawkins' kind of input to that debate than Prince Give-me-a-proper-job-in-life's uninformed ravings...


Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 19:25:10 (GMT)
From: ham
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Proper research, couldn't agree more
Message:
Over here the area around the gm fields has been so small that bees have carried beyond already, and as per usa, well this is really the argument isn't it, that the multis have been fucking with food for years without popular consent, but this is a chance to get back at them. Unfortunately it means all research in less developed countries on foods dealing with specific nutritional weaknesses in local diets has been completely stopped by the outcry.
That has to be wrong as well.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 16:44:08 (GMT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: GM food in the USA -- to be more accurate
Message:
According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, about 40 genetically modified (GM) crops appear in a variety of
food products now available on the U.S. market. But only a handful of studies have examined the long-term health and environmental impact of these foods because government regulatory bodies, like the FDA, do not require such testing.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 15:18:00 (GMT)
From: The Ref
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Decision: P-Man by TKO
Message:
Sorry Nige, hit the showers. He really nailed you on the wolf gambit. And P-Man, you nearly beat yourself with that 'slavery' crapola. Almost took the round away from you for that.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 15:42:58 (GMT)
From: P-man
Email: None
To: The Ref
Subject: slavery and food
Message:
I should have explained further when I made this comparison:

If this was the nineteenth century and a religious group was protesting slavery because it was 'playing God', would you say they were 'crying wolf'.

I understood Dawkins' use of 'crying wolf' to mean that playing the 'God card' aroused unfounded fears about applying science to improve food production. I used an extreme comparison to slavery to point out that the importance of the 'God card' is relative to the issue being protested. As long as the moral elements of an issue overshadow the details behind its protest, the importance of those details take on a diminished importance.

If Pat Buchanan was protesting the airlift of food to starving Africans because it was 'playing God', the 'crying wolf' argument would take on more credibility... not because 'crying wolf' was wholly more accurate but because the 'God card' would qualify as totally lacking in credibility.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 02:08:01 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: fitzroy@liverpool.ac.uk
To: Nigel
Subject: Forget Shroom.. how about the article?
Message:
It seems inevitable that if you mention a premie by name here they will hi-jack the whole thread in affected outrage. My mistake. (But anyway, what do you think, 'O'?)

I posted this letter because Richard Dawkins (unbeknownst to him)was a major factor in getting me out of the cult. Just by writing 'The Blind Watchmaker'.

For me the problem is the public's / premie's ignorance of science, and that's what this letter is about. Especially this business of 'crying wolf' (or 'GM') or whatever.

Anyway, I'd just be interested in anyone's thoughts on the piece itself.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 17:19:51 (GMT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: The Article -- genetically modified foods
Message:
I think your mentally-impaired Prince needed a letter like this, as his comments were rediculous, at least the reasoning was.

But I hope that Dawkin's comments aren't taken as a license for genetically modified food from the scientific community.

True, man has been genetically modifying food since agriculture began, but never in the massive ways it is being undertaken now. And with the profit motive as the organizing principle, I think we should tread gingerly.

For example, Monsanto has developed genetically modified corn that was supposed to be better because it required less pesticide. Turns out, however, that it REQUIRES the use of another pesticide that, guess what, Monsanto produces (called Roundup.) In many ways Roundup is actually more destructive to the environment than the old pesticides.

Also the multi-nationals are modifying grains so that farmers can't 'save the seed' which they have done for eons, and instead have to buy it each year from the producer.

And there have been NO long term studies on these new modified foods. Once these plants are loose in the environment, there isn't much hope in eradicating them is there is a problem. I agree that we shouldn't appeal to some kind of religious agricultural ideal, but I think we should actually do the science of this stuff. Plus, I would like to know what I am putting in my body, so I think genetically modified foods should be labeled, something the industry is fighting tooth and nail.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 23:09:55 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: fitzroy@liverpool.ac.uk
To: Joe
Subject: The Article -- genetically modified foods
Message:
Just quickly Joe, re. 'we should tread gingerly' - I think Dawkins also makes this very point, but wants people to be clear on what are and aren't the dangers of GM, and not just damn the whole thing in principle. I think he says this very well with the 'GM GM GM!' / 'crying wolf' point.

But I agree there is always a danger when attacking a critic of anyone or anything, the attack is itself construed as support for that person or thing. (Like if an ex is criticised by a fellow-ex for coming down hard on a premie, there is a temptation to see that as moral support for the premie, when it is a separate argument altogether). Human nature I guess...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 23:15:06 (GMT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: The Article -- this is the wary statement....
Message:
Here is the line from the letter that I find troubling...

Almost every morsel of our food is genetically modified - admittedly by artificial selection not artificial mutation, but the end result is the same.

I'm not so sure the end result IS the same, especially in terms of unintended consequences, especially with the speed and scale that genetic engineering is currently occurring.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 00:47:28 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: The Article -- this is the wary statement....
Message:
I think he means 'the same in principle', rather than 'in every case'. But I would agree that if misread, the statement could be dangerous in the wrong hands.

I don't see that GM is necessarily more rapid than natural selection. Selective pressures in nature are ever ongoing - as much as any 'tampering' by scientists. It is just that in the latter case, I think there is greater danger of the changes having immediate undesired effects if they are implemented for food production too soon.

And even when you always grow your crops from the same, single, reliable strain of wheat, or whatever, this too carries its own real dangers: mainly to the maintenance of biodiversity on the planet.

There are dangers whichever way you look at it, simply because agriculture is itself, unnatural. Necessary, but still unnatural.

(BTW: I don't have any big axe to grind on this subject but just like things to be explained fully and clearly - y'know, the way only Maharaji can do it!)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 15:29:00 (GMT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: The concern
Message:
I think the reason I reacted to the statement is that the big genetic engineering companies use that kind of statement in their propoganda. It's the idea that there isn't any real difference between genetic engineering, and animal husbandry or splicing trees, which has been done for centuries.

But there IS a big difference, as I have posted. True, bad things can happen using traditional methods, but that's a specious argument. That's like saying all wars can have bad consequences, so nuclear war can't be all that much worse.

That isn't an excuse to embarking on rapid technology without fully understanding the consequences on something as vital as the food supply, health, and bio-diversity.

Again, I think the USA is just beginning to be aware of the genetic engineering issue, but Europe seems much more concerned.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 20:36:33 (GMT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Joe, a fact correction or two
Message:
Hi Joe -
Round-up is a herbicide, not a pesticide. It is used for weed control. It's sold by other companies under different brand names. Also, I am not convinced at all that it is worse than other herbicides, at far as chemical pollution goes - in fact, far from it in some cases. I think 2,4-D and other chemicals are much worse. But you are right about the long-term effects not being studied (that is how we ended up with DDT and Agent Orange, too.)

BTW, you would NOT believe the amount of herbicides most farmers use on their fields - especially if they use no-till farming. No-till which is great for controlling soil erosion, but not so good for limiting herbicide use.

I also think that the Roundup crop you are thinking of might be soybeans - Roundup-resistant soybeans are planted all over the US now (usually used for animal feed). I think Roundup-resistant corn is still experimental. Roundup-resistant soybeans can NOT be exported to Europe and some other countries, so they have to be separated out at the grain elevator.

I am not a fan of Monsanto at all - just stating the facts.

Also, farmers in the US just don't save seed anymore, and haven't done so since the fifties, probably. They have planted hybrids for many years. You cannot save the seed of any hybrid (for example, a 'Big Boy' tomato) and expect to get the same plant back if you re-plant it. There are a lot of people who are interested in saving and preserving non-hybrid seed stocks and germ plasm - even crop breeders think this is important.

Take care -
Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 20:58:44 (GMT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Roundup and modifed soybeans
Message:
Actually, I think Monsanto has genetically modified corn and soybeans to be resistant to the herbicide (roundup) it manufactures. That way, roundup can be sprayed to kill weeds and it won't kill the soybeans.

The big fear is that the genetically modified soybeans will spread to other plants, making weeds more herbicide resistent, and we would end up using even more herbicides.

There was a study published in Nature, from the University of Chicago that was really troubling and is all abuzz in the scientific community. The study found that some species of genetically modified plants in field tests showed a dramatically increased ability to reproduce sexually and spread their modified genes to non-modified plants. This has added to fears that the genetically engineered organisms might 'escape' into other related crops or weeds.

Obviously the problems associated with the glow of genes from biologically engineered species to wild species could change the genetic diversity and processes of whole ecosystems.

The 'saving seed' really concerns the developing world. The goal is to pull those farmers into a agricultural system controlled by a handful of corporations.

Fortunately, the Europeans are way ahead of Americans when it comes to being concerned about GE foods.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 21:26:15 (GMT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Roundup and modifed soybeans
Message:
What you said about Roundup-Ready soybeans (that's what they call 'em) is correct - actually I was trying to say that, but you said it better! And you are right about the fear of weeds becoming Roundup-resistant - what a mess that would be.

I think the main reason farmers are using Roundup-Ready soybeans is because then herbicide costs are cheaper, and number of herbicide sprayings are reduced, which is also cheaper. I also believe that Roundup is less polluting in the short run (mostly because farmers who grow conventional soybeans spray a lot of different kinds of weed-specific herbicides on them), but could have drastic effects in the future.

I also agree about saving seeds being more important in the developing world. Basically the whole 'Green Revolution' (high input = high yields) ALREADY has messed up traditional farming systems all over the world - not to mention being more polluting.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 19:31:58 (GMT)
From: ham
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Exactly, the whole food industry needs serious
Message:
checking out, not just one specific area.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 17:54:29 (GMT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Genetic Engineering v. Conventional Breeding
Message:
I think Dawkins admits this in the article, but I'm not so sure about the conclusion that the results are the same. There are a number of big differences between natural breeding and genetic engineering. For example:

Conventional breeding relies primarily on selection, mostly using natural processes of sexual and asexual reproduction. GE utlizies a process of insertion of genetic material, via a gene gun, etc., which does not occur in nature.

GE can insert genetic material from any life form into any other; conventional breeding generally can only work within a species, or at most, within closely related species.

Conventional breeding relies on mixing characteristics from different populations within a species and then selecting from a plant's genetic elements. GE relies on inserting genetic elements, and they end up in random locations, which can disrupt complex gene interactions.

GE plants almost always contain a viral gene promoter gene, which is the 'on' switch for the gene inserted. These are never deliberately introduced in conventional breeding.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 17:59:43 (GMT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Potential Problems with Genetic Engineering
Message:
I'm no expert on this, but there have been a number of dangers identified in genetic engineering of plants including:

1. New toxins and allergens in food, and other possible health problems;

2. Increased use of chemicals in crops, resulting in contamination of water, food supply, etc;

3. The creation of herbicide-resistent weeds;

4. The spread of diseases across species barriers;

5. Loss of bio-diversity in crops.

6. Once released, they can never been recalled or contained. If these artificially induced characteristics result in negative side-effects, the consequences are incalculable.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 19:43:40 (GMT)
From: Monmot
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Terminator Seed-The Bottom Line Is The Bottom Line
Message:
I read the Dawkins letter to Prince Charles, which I thoroughly enjoyed. I've always liked science but I usually have to read the science written for the lay person in order to accurately understand it. I have no clue what the Bonnie Prince said in his speech, given that I was away and was indulging in reading lite. Suffice it to say, though, I don't think that many members of the Royal Family are rowing with both oars.

I do know that many 'eco' activists can react in knee jerk fashion on many issues, but I do think that when it comes to GM food, there is cause for concern. Although I am no expert by any means, Monsanto et al. have not been forthright when it comes to informing the general public about what they've been up to, and about what they're attempting to do in re GM foods.

As Joe has mentioned above, their primary organizing principle is economic, and because the bottom line is the bottom line for such companies, great care must be exercised in reviewing what Monsanto et al. say, paying particular attention to what is NOT being said. With an issue such as GM foods, and its attendant complexity, it's difficult to know what is NOT being said, and also difficult to discern any spin Monsanto may be putting out.

In India, where Monsanto was testing out its Terminator seeds (seeds which are produced from the crop grown with Monsanto seeds and which are sterile, thereby necessitating purchase of more seeds for the next growing season), one of the neighboring farmers' crops showed up as being grown from the Monsanto seeds. Monsanto filed suit against this farmer accusing him of theft of their Terminator seeds. Because the seeds had blown onto his property, he countersued Monsanto accusing them of 'environmental pollution.' The farmer won.

What happens if Terminator seeds gradually 'take over'? Monsanto will have a copyright on pretty much all the seeds on the crops grown around the world, and when they've succeeded in capturing such a global market, you can bet the prices will skyrocket. Although Monsanto says one of their aims is to reduce world hunger, and because the bottom line is the lens through which Monsanto views the world, I surmise that just the opposite is a distinct possibility.

Even though Monsanto and their ilk have suspended some of their GM projects for the time being, a consortium has been created with a $32 million budget to advance GM foods through advertising and other propaganda.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 20:50:48 (GMT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Monmot
Subject: Terminator Seed-The Bottom Line Is The Bottom Line
Message:
Yeah, the bottom line.

There have also been a few studies that, although preliminary, are very troubling.

For example, a study in the British Medical Journal 'The Lancet' found that rats that were fed genetically modified potatoes suffered thickening of stomach walls and other changes in their intestines. The potatoes had contained an implanted gene to produce lectin, a type of chemical that acts as a pesticide.

Also, last year, another study conduced by Cornell University found that half of the butterflies that ate mile weed that had been dusted with pollen from genetically modified corn, died and others grew to only half normal size.

The big, big, problem is that we are simply allowing the industry that stands to make the most money off GE regulate itself. There is something wrong here.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 21:10:07 (GMT)
From: Monmot
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Terminator Seed-The Bottom Line Is The Bottom Line
Message:
Hey Joe:

The big, big, problem is that we are simply allowing the industry that stands to make the most money off GE regulate itself.

I'm sure their advertising/propganda dollars are at work as we speak to ensure future non-accountability. (Sounds kind of tobacco industry-ish, doesn't it?)

Hope you're well. Hot as Hades here.

M

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 21:25:41 (GMT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Monmot
Subject: KPFA -- OT
Message:
I saw a great film a couple of weeks ago called 'On the Air at KPFA,' which is a documentary about the history of the oldest listener sponsored radio station in the country and the current struggle with Pacifica. It was great, albeit in front of a very pro-KPFA audience in Berkeley.

Turns out it's going to be on PBS, on the POV (Point of View) series on 9/19, I think at 9:00 pm. It's a great film and I highly recommend it.

It made me really proud of the station and the way they took on McCarthy, promoted civil rights, and let people on who wouldn't have been allowed on any other radio station. Plus, it dealth with inventing the concept of listener sponsored radio.

I guess because the Pacifica network is in such disarray, that although I understand KPFK did a lot of good coverage of the democratic convention and the related shadow convention, we didn't get to hear it on KPFA. Instead KPFA did its own coverage. And didn't Amy Goodman do some great coverage on Democracy Now?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 22:02:36 (GMT)
From: Monmot
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: KPFA -- OT
Message:
Joe:

Thanks for the heads up on the documentary. I'll make sure I see it. The Pacifica network is pretty awesome in my eyes. The majority of programs are really interesting and informative. They've done a lot on Monsanto and the GM/GE food issues, in particular, a conference held by MIT where scientists from all over the world spoke about GM/GE issues and their ramifications. Fascinating stuff.

Their coverage of the DNC was pretty good. They basically aired all the attendees' speeches at the Shadow Convention which was held down the street from the DNC at the Staples Center. They played Paul Wellstone's speech etc.

I'm waiting for KFPK to change its name to RadioMarcCooper. He now has two hour programs about three days a week. I heard him and Pat Caddell take on David Corn (sp?) trying to convince Corn that Bush would make a better president than Gore. They really trash Gore big time, which I can understand to some degree, but I think Marc's sort of gone over the edge. His reasons for why Bush would be a better president were so abstract I felt I needed to take a hit of acid in order to understand him. He and Arianna are fast buddies nowadays.

Of course, my all time favorite it always Amy Goodman. Even if she were to phone it in, she'd beat everyone by a mile in quality. She was right on top of all the demonstrations that were taking place, interviewing Tom Hayden etc. I'd like to hear an interview with her as the subject. She's pretty interesting and smart as all hell.

Also, I think KPFK is having $$ troubles because they're consistently promoting fundraisers aside from their pledge drives.

Take care
M

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 23:02:30 (GMT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Monmot
Subject: KPFA -- OT
Message:
I finally had to let my subscription to the Nation expire because I couldn't stand Cooper, and because their bias on the KPFA/Pacifica dispute was so abysmal. I was also shocked to see that they actually had a guest editorial by Arianna Huffington, although I have to admit that she did a good job with the Shadow Conventions in both Philadelphia and Los Angeles. Cooper and the Nation seem quite enamored with Arianna, but Katha Pollit has been great.

I think on the issues of Abortion, campaign finance reform, the environment, social security and health care, there is definitely a reason to vote for Gore. I have my problems with him too, but to suggest that Bush as president would be better is insane.

It was great listening to Amy. On KPFA they put Democracy Now on for the first hour of the morning show.

The fact that KPFK covered the Shadow Convention, and Pacifica is so screwed up that they didn't put it up on the satellite for all the stations is really depressing. A few years ago, that would have happened. What is a national network supposed to be for, if not for that?

KPFA is doing great financially, but basically at war with the Pacifica Board, and no one knows when the next shoe will drop. At least MF Berry and Lynn Chadwick are now out of office.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 17:35:19 (GMT)
From: Stonor
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: gm foods: ugly story thks for your 'round-up' (nt)
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 02:47:42 (GMT)
From: hamzen
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Superb bit of writing
Message:
Exactly hits the weaknesses of the new age/eco movement head on, and exactly why I despaired of & moved away from both territories.

The ridiculous thing about gm food is that it's a single gene change, it's all been tested at a level not even remotely approached by any other food research, and when you think of the hybrids where you have thousands of gene swaps, popular food since the second world war and the damage, well laughable.

The problem is that people feel so powerless before the multi-nationals that they'll ridicule themselves if they feel they can land a punch on the multi nationals. This to me is what the whole argument is really about.

But what is really sad is that in asia they were developing, rice I think, with vitamin a added, which is a huge deficiency problem there and now the whole research programme is on hold. Both africa and south america were also doing research on food deficiencies which are now on hold.

Having said that if given a choice at a reasonable price in most instances I prefer organic foods, and so do thew general public who don't all carry new age certification cards either.

But then charles is a little quiant, thinks no-one likes modern architecture or art when the public interest in both is at an all time high.

Re intuition & the heart. Couldn't agree more with dawkins & this coming from someone who had worked on his intuition for over a decade intensely and found about 10% of it was completely unreliable, and with no way of being able to discern which was the dodgy 10% while intuiting, the experience was always the same, ie not reliable.
But then look at all the things we did in the name of the heart, think of the hundreds of millions of $ wasted on gm (that's little gm) straight from the heart.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 03:24:21 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: fitzroy@liverpool.ac.uk
To: hamzen
Subject: Nice post, Ham... you're up late..!
Message:
Me too, I guess..

(or are you up with the dawn?)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 03:36:24 (GMT)
From: ham
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Not tonight
Message:
Up all last night, slept during the day, think I'll head off for a couple of hours.

But then I'm off work at the moment, what's with you, you not working either?

Good to see Dawkins communicating so well, always felt that was a weakness of his in the past, looks like he's got that well sorted now.

Probably gonna be up Sheffield way in a couple of weeks, shroom season an all, assume you've still been having loads of rain in the frozen north? You up for meeting up?

Also want to put on a house do for exes and mates this winter, do you know anyone with access to a decent venue down south, & really cheap, doesn't have to be big but very cheap, or someone with a large house, wanna try and lure jim over too!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 04:01:31 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: None
To: ham
Subject: Not tonight
Message:
But then I'm off work at the moment, what's with you, you not working either?

Academic, remember. Students off holidaying, stayin up all night, taking drugs and shagging etc. so until September at least, the staff too can get into a bit of holidaying and whatever gets them thru the night... (it's alright.. it's alright..)

Good to see Dawkins communicating so well, always felt that was a weakness of his in the past, looks like he's got that well sorted now.

I've always thought he communicated well, but not necessarily for the general public (relevance of adaptive genes etc is lost on many). But I love it when he talks about science generally and applies it to real world issues, because the real world is where (apparently) some of us still live... :)

Probably gonna be up Sheffield way in a couple of weeks, shroom season an all, assume you've still been having loads of rain in the frozen north? You up for meeting up?

It's been warm and sultry here for the last three weeks. T-shirt and shorts all day and night scenario. I'd love a meet up, but Sheffield is a pretty long way from Liverpool for a man on a bicycle, but not impossible, I guess..

Also want to put on a house do for exes and mates this winter, do you know anyone with access to a decent venue down south, & really cheap, doesn't have to be big but very cheap, or someone with a large house, wanna try and lure jim over too!

Tell me where, when etc...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 23:56:49 (GMT)
From: Shroomananda
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Ignorance of what? Seems to me this guy is saying
Message:
'I think, therefore I am.' But what pumps blood to the brain that ALLOWS it to think, Nigel? Could it be, oh I don't know, THE HEART? And when people commit suicide with guns, where do they usually aim? I don't have the figures, but I would have to guess that the majority of the muzzles are pointed at the head and not the chest.

Just because Maharaji emphasizes the heart doesn't mean that he disrespects the brain or the intellect. It's the dissatisfied and runaway mind that he warns about, not the intellect. I would have to subscribe to the sentiment that 'I am, therefore I think.' Or more simply, 'I am.'

What 'ignorance' of Maharaji were you referring to?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 24, 2000 at 22:23:45 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Shroomananda
Subject: 'what pumps blood'
Message:

But what pumps blood to the brain that ALLOWS it to think, Nigel? Could it be, oh I don't know, THE HEART?

Mr. Rawat said that when he talks about the heart, he doesn't mean the organ that pumps blood. I'm beginning to think that you not just a fundamentalist premie, but beyond that. Besides, there's a lot more going on in the brain than just blood flow.

It's the dissatisfied and runaway mind that he warns about, not the intellect.

He warns about that, but then says to 'feel the thirst' and 'get rid' of your 'doubts'.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 02:44:52 (GMT)
From: sam
Email: -
To: Shroomananda
Subject: Ignorance of what? Seems to me this guy is saying
Message:
I used to feel sorry for the unitiated cause they just didn't know what was really going on- the truth. Now I feel sorry for the ignorance that premies have to cling to.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 01:02:03 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Shroomananda
Subject: Shroom did it again! Perhaps we should pay him
Message:
'I think, therefore I am.' But what pumps blood to the brain that ALLOWS it to think, Nigel? Could it be, oh I don't know, THE HEART? And when people commit suicide with guns, where do they usually aim? I don't have the figures, but I would have to guess that the majority of the muzzles are pointed at the head and not the chest.

I'm just waiting for your dissertation on oral sex.

You are such an idiot!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 00:46:57 (GMT)
From: Moldy Warp
Email: None
To: Shroomananda
Subject: Dissatisfied and runaway mind and not the intellec
Message:
Dear Mr Mushroom Please tell me . as God-in-a-bod has failed to get across to me in the last 22 years-- just how are you supposed to tell the difference???
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 00:58:20 (GMT)
From: Shroomananda
Email: None
To: Moldy Warp
Subject: Brain: 2+2=4; Mind: I need a red Ferrari; NT
Message:
NT
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 01:28:29 (GMT)
From: Sir Dave
Email: None
To: Shroomananda
Subject: Now I know who Mr Mushroom is
Message:
I now know that Mr Magic Mushroom Man must be Maharaji. Only he could come out with such a statement like that since only he is so hypocritical as not to see that the things he preaches against (i.e. wanting a red Ferrari) are exactly what he yearns for and gets, for himself.

Mr Mushroom Maharaji; There's nothing wrong with wanting a red Ferrari, if that's what turns you on. Just don't expect the premies to buy it though, not any more.

It's OK, Mr Mushroom Maharaji; it's OK to want a nice boat and an extra mansion in Malibu. Nothing wrong with that. But you'll have to start paying for these things yourself in future, with your successful investments and watch inventions because the premies in the West won't be able to foot the bill for much longer.

And now a question: was the motive of the person who designed the red Ferrari a good motive? What do you say Mr Mushroom Maharaji? Personally, I'd prefer a red Citroen XM 3 litres. A much more comfortable drive and the gears and brakes handle better.

I like nice cars too, Mr Mushroom Maharaji. I also like nice bikes and nice houses and good manners. How are these on your list of priorities? Well I know Maharaji likes nice houses though perhaps he's not into pedal bikes. But good manners? Like saying please and thank you. I think there's a bit to learn there.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 06:36:15 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: Sir Dave
Subject: are you saying M invited me to his house ?
Message:
Right here on forum? wow. He even said he would fire up the
BBQ if I wan't a vegie.
I should reconsider.

I's have some stories to bring back if I made it back.

shrrrroooom. what are you doing? Don't you think it's time to come clean? Aren't you tired of this role?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 10:15:31 (GMT)
From: Sir Dave
Email: None
To: Selene
Subject: are you saying M invited me to his house ?
Message:
I have a sneaking suspicion that Mushroom is only playing a role here. He's not really a premie but is just playing around. So there comes a time when you have to say that there's no point in reading/writing to his posts since he's not the premie he pretends to be.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 01:38:36 (GMT)
From: Shroomananda
Email: None
To: Sir Dave
Subject: To me, it's not the Ferrari that matters. It's
Message:
the desire to HAVE a Ferrari. And the attachment that the Ferrari brings. That's what I think he's talking about. I can't really look at another human being and say that he or she desires too much or is attached. A poor person can desire and be attached whereas a rich person can be desireless and remain unattached. I really don't know about Maharaji's desires and attachments but it would really surprise me if I could get into his mind and find out that he DESIRED a Ferrari and was ATTACHED to it when he got one.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 24, 2000 at 21:37:40 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Shroomananda
Subject: the 106 foot luxury megayacht
Message:
To hell with the Ferrari, a lot of people (with great difficulty) could own a Ferrari, but how many people can own a 106 foot yacht?

Tell me, Shroom, just how is it that Mr. Rawat ended up owning a 106 foot luxury megayacht without desiring one? Do you think he spent millions of dollars on this toy that he didn't even want?

I can't really look at another human being and say that he or she desires too much ...

I noticed that you qualified 'desires' with 'too much'.

... a rich person can be desireless and remain unattached.

A person without any desires? That doesn't sound healthy. It's more a matter of having an appropriate level of desires. In Mr. Rawat's case, excessive desires are evident.

... it would really surprise me if I could get into his mind ...

That would also surprise me.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 24, 2000 at 22:49:52 (GMT)
From: Shroomananda
Email: None
To: G
Subject: I would rather he spend the money I give to him
Message:
any way he wants to, G. It makes me happy. If he wants a 6 foot rowboat or a 106 foot yacht, that's fine with me. Matter of fact, I'd prefer him to have the yacht over the rowboat or the ferrari over a VW. My Master deserves the best. I still haven't seen any of you gripers chiming in on how you gave him a car, boat, plane or other substantial gift. Maybe the people who gave him that stuff wanted him to have it. And still do.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 24, 2000 at 23:25:50 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Shroomananda
Subject: 'he wants'
Message:
Now you're admitting that he does want things, so all that talk about him being free of desire was poppycock. It sounds like you don't even care whether he's 'realized' or not.

I gave him a substantial amount of money.

Maybe the people who gave him that stuff wanted him to have it. And still do.

Maybe they think they do, so what? That doesn't mean that his desires aren't excessive.

I'm beginning to think that you're putting us on.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 04:44:53 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: fitzroy@liverpool.ac.uk
To: Shroomananda
Subject: OK, Mr interpreter and mouthpiece...
Message:
That's what I think he's talking about.

Forget what you think he might be talking about...

Can you tell me one thing he's definitely talking about?

And in the spirit of objective analysis:

- one thing he is wrong about (assuming he hasn't been right about absolutely everything so far) - and how you can tell the difference..?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 05:05:22 (GMT)
From: Shroomananda
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: He's definitely talking about
Message:
peace. He's definitely talking about joy. He's definitely talking about contentment. He's definitely talking about clarity. He's definitely talking about existence. He's definitely talking about consciousness. He's definitely talking about simplicity. He's definitely talking about the heart. He's definitely talking about devotion. He's definitely talking about gratitude. He's definitely talking about the breath. He's definitely talking about kindness. He's definitely talking about life. He's definitely talking about love. He's definitely talking about Knowledge.

And after listening to the satellite broadcast today, he's definitely still talking...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 05:13:29 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: fitzroy@liverpool.ac.uk
To: Shroomananda
Subject: Answer the rest of the question please (nt)
Message:
werwefwefgerg
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 05:26:12 (GMT)
From: Shroomananda
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: You mean about right and wrong? I'm a bad
Message:
judge about right and wrong. There's a lot of gray matter in between. I would have done some things differently had I been in charge, if that's what you mean. But that's a hypothetical question. And I don't really look at things being right and wrong, black and white. Hitler did some good things and Mother Theresa did some bad things. There are no absolutes in this world. Water sustains life and also takes life. Does that mean that water is sometimes wrong and sometimes right?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 24, 2000 at 21:53:00 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Shroomananda
Subject: 'Hitler did some good things'
Message:
First you say that you don't look at things being right and wrong, then you contradict yourself by saying that Hitler did some good (= right) things and Mother Theresa did some bad (= wrong) things.

I hope you're not implying that Hitler's good things justified his bad things. You're not, are you? A person's good actions don't justify their wrong actions. This is elementary ethics.

Water is not a person, so the words right and wrong don't apply. Water IS sometimes beneficial and IS sometimes destructive.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 04:28:37 (GMT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Shroomananda
Subject: To me, it's not the Ferrari that matters. It's
Message:
I really don't know about Maharaji's desires and attachments but it would really surprise me if I could get into his mind and find out that he DESIRED a Ferrari and was ATTACHED to it when he got one.

Well, why does he have all the shit he does if he didn't really DESIRE it?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 04:55:07 (GMT)
From: Shroomananda
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: Didn't people give him that stuff? NT
Message:
NT
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 05:00:45 (GMT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Shroomananda
Subject: Didn't people give him that stuff? NT
Message:
Well then my next question would be, why are people giving him stuff he really doesn't want?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 05:18:21 (GMT)
From: Shroomananda
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: I don't know, Jerry. But if one is desireless and
Message:
unattached, does that mean one refuses all gifts? I have heard that he has refused gifts from people. I also heard that he said to reporters in the early years who asked him about all the cars, houses, planes, etc., that he had been given that he said, 'I remain perfectly still and all things come to me.'

Who knows why he leads a jet-setting luxurious lifestyle? Maybe, if there is re-incarnation, he was a total renunciate in his last life. I don't know but Knowledge works for a lot of people and they've shown their gratitude by giving him stuff. Maybe someone who gave him a house or a car is now an ex-premie. If so, I'd be interested in talking to them about it. Anyone on this site give Maharaji a car or a plane or a house or some other substantial gift?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 21:51:50 (GMT)
From: Moldy Warp
Email: None
To: Shroomananda
Subject: I don't know, Jerry. But if one is desireless and
Message:
Actually yeh. We all gave him our lives..pretty substantial that wasn't it
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 10:30:25 (GMT)
From: SB
Email: None
To: Shroomananda
Subject: I don't know, Jerry. But if one is desireless and
Message:
You need to ask David Smith and the plump Indian guy who is always with Lard why they want this and that for Lard. Phone conferences to request donations...hmmm...Do premies come up with the gifts or Lards desires them and request them? I think that he asks for them.

Write David Smith a letter and tell us his response. Would you like his address?

I did gave money for many of his 'projects', including the plane.

You are a moron like we ex-premies were when involved. We believe the same crap you believe. Someday I hope you would be outside the fence. All looks different in this side shroom. You got to beging reasoning. Your reasoning have had the same depth since you got here. What about openning up a little. You don't believe in Santa Clauss, do you?

If you are for real, you have a big problem in your hands. You got far into justifying all for your Lord, now, think the opposite. You'll see that it makes much more sense! He is a coocky greedy ass person. That is all!

Be nice to yourself. Think!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 05:58:43 (GMT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Shroomananda
Subject: Don't be so sure about desireless
Message:
Shroom,

What do you know about how Maharaji REALLY got all the stuff he owns? You just believe what us little people are told, that it's all gifts, that Maharaji didn't ask for a thing. Personally, I think he asked for all of it. I can't fathom why, if a guy is preaching against materialism, that's exactly what you'd give him. Everything he says is useless, that's what we'll give him, right? How about you, Shroom? If you had the money, would you buy him a new jet? A brand new shiny car? Do you think that's what he wants? If not, why would you buy it for him? Would you buy it for him?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 22:03:09 (GMT)
From: Moldy Warp
Email: None
To: Shroomananda
Subject: M materialist extraordinaire
Message:
Look. Somewhere on this site it describes how M asked for a sports car for his own personal use at Amaroo. Anyway, why does he have a mega mansion at Malibu? And why does he drive these things/live in these phenomenally expensive residences if he doesn't need them. By the way, obviously it would be difficult for you to admit us exes were right about God-in-a-bod, so if you do start to doubt 'the Lord, all powerful, bigger than Jesus, Buddha, Krishna person' just post under a different pseudonym to save face.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 05:10:52 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: I'm beginning to wonder whether Shroom...
Message:
..mightn't be an ex-premie? Just saying the most stupid thing imaginable to reduce M's credibility to below ground level...

It's not like you see Mel Bourne or anyone else jumping in to agree with him, do you?

(Nah - probably not. He's a real premie. I keep forgetting this a cult we're dealing with.)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 10:35:39 (GMT)
From: SB
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: I'm beginning to wonder whether Shroom...
Message:
I think he's a premie who feels courageous to come and talk with us, hoping to score important points for his Lord. The sad thing is that he think he's doing good.

Can you read his passion? How do you fake that? He is a premie.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 07:40:05 (GMT)
From: ham
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: I went through the same scenario
Message:
I'm not so sure he isn't an ex Nigel, no other premie I've known posts quite so voluminously.

Maybe those rotting vegetables are finally turning us paranoid

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 05:25:15 (GMT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: I'm beginning to wonder whether Shroom...
Message:
Funny, Nige :)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 02:03:22 (GMT)
From: Sir Dave
Email: None
To: Shroomananda
Subject: Time for the myth to be exploded Shroom
Message:
Everyone desires things and becomes attached to them. That's normal human nature and Maharaji isn't exempt from that. Of course Maharaji's attached to things and people and he desires them. He's attached to his mistress, I'm sure, which is why he takes her with him when he goes on tour.

You're still living in the old seventies Hindu premie era. Even Maharaji has got rid of all that desirelessnes and non attachment stuff now. It's an impossible dream and quite impractical. This world is for living in, Shroom and not for cowering away from.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 01:35:41 (GMT)
From: Moldy Warp
Email: None
To: Sir Dave
Subject: Now I know who Mr Mushroom is
Message:
But don't you realise, Sir Dave that all these big red cars are just M's LILAS, to show you your own worldliness!!! M actually drives a sinclair C5
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 01:22:03 (GMT)
From: Moldy WArp
Email: None
To: Shroomananda
Subject: Brain: 2+2=4; Mind: I need a red Ferrari; NT
Message:
SOOO, why does M need red ferrari's et al ???
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 01:23:25 (GMT)
From: Shroomananda
Email: None
To: Moldy WArp
Subject: Is it your brain or your mind that's asking? NT
Message:
NT
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 01:31:14 (GMT)
From: Moldy Warp
Email: None
To: Shroomananda
Subject: Is it your brain or your mind that's asking? NT
Message:
It's me, just one entity that thinks -- all that mind OR brain stuff is bollocks.Obviously. I meant that if M wants BIG cars (IE worldly desires ('wants'of the mind, not 'needs'recognised by brain,) then he is 'in his mind' (in the terms that you -- and M -- are describing)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 00:38:11 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: fitzroy@liverpool.ac.uk
To: Shroomananda
Subject: Ignorance of what? - just about everything!
Message:
Ignorance of what? Seems to me this guy is saying 'I think, therefore I am.'

No, Shroom. Dawkins is saying understanding reality involves scientific thinking.

But what pumps blood to the brain that ALLOWS it to think, Nigel? Could it be, oh I don't know, THE HEART?

Yes. Now you're thinking. Excellent. And what is a heart? A blood pump - no more, no less… Splendid piece of circular reasoning, there.

And when people commit suicide with guns, where do they usually aim? I don't have the figures, but I would have to guess that the majority of the muzzles are pointed at the head and not the chest.

Well I hadn't really thought about that question.

Just because Maharaji emphasizes the heart doesn't mean that he disrespects the brain or the intellect. It's the dissatisfied and runaway mind that he warns about, not the intellect. I would have to subscribe to the sentiment that 'I am, therefore I think.' Or more simply, 'I am.'

I would agree with 'I am, therefore I think'. (So would everyone with a materialist/rationalist approach. Descartes is 18 th century philosophy, doncha know - and not worth struggling with.)

What 'ignorance' of Maharaji were you referring to?

Ignorance of evolution. Ignorance of the fact that evolution alone makes prehistoric Vedic myths of 'Perfect Masters' and reincarnation a nonsense. Ignorance of the funny, almost accidental, evolutionary by-product brain-chemistry behind the phenomena he claims as his own, known as 'knowledge' (oh, fuck off, please….!). Ignorance of, or apathy towards the environmental effects of flying a Gulfstream jet around the planet and keeping several fleets of large gas-guzzling cars…

Ignorance of the damaging effects his teachings have had on real lives. (He admits on his website that he 'ignores his critics'. To ignore is a pretty good way to remain ignorant, I would have thought…)

But just ignorance really, when it comes down to it. You got it - he's ignorant of it. So are you, I suspect.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 01:14:38 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: fitzroy@liverpool.ac.uk
To: Nigel
Subject: And Dawkins said more than you quote...
Message:
And Dawkins didn't say anything remotely resembling your summnary. Did you even read the piece, Shroom?

How about:

But what about the instinctive wisdom in Saddam Hussein's black heart? What price the Wagnerian wind that rustled Hitler's twisted leaves? The Yorkshire Ripper heard religious voices in his head urging him to kill. How do we decide which intuitive inner voices to heed?

'Listening to your heart?' - Bad news! Discuss...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 01:22:17 (GMT)
From: Shroomananda
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: If there is a God and he/she/it has a heart then
Message:
why didn't he make Hitler's heart stop beating? One coronary=tens of millions of lives saved. I'm pissed off at God about that! But I still love him/she/it for creating me and sustaining me. I guess I'm just a hopeless romantic. No scientific knowledge. Just a feeling. Oh well.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 04:35:26 (GMT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Shroomananda
Subject: If there is a God and he/she/it has a heart then
Message:
You don't have to stop thinking in order to feel, Shroom. In fact, you'd probably feel a whole lot better if you'd learn how to think. As it stands, you must feel like a jerk after all the dumb stuff you've been caught saying on this website. Why do you keep coming back for more? Are you a masochist or something?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 05:34:45 (GMT)
From: Shroomananda
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: I am thinking and feeling, Jerry. I think God
Message:
should have given Hitler a heart attack. I feel grateful to God for creating me. See? Think. Feel. I can do both. I can be a devotee. I can be a masochist. But I'm not a masochist. I enjoy discussing this topic. What's your excuse?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 06:07:05 (GMT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Shroomananda
Subject: Fuck Hitler
Message:
I'm not talking about what you think about Hitler. I'm talking about how you think about Maharaji. You think it's okay that he's a liar. You think it's okay for a guy who preaches against materialism to live in the lap of luxury. THAT'S the kind of thinking I'm talking about. It's warped.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 01:33:57 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: None
To: Shroomananda
Subject: hoist by your own petard (nt)
Message:
dfg
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 01:09:18 (GMT)
From: Shroomananda
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: You sound 'knowledgeable' about ignorance.
Message:
By the way, what kind of car do you drive? You sound like an environmentalist. Maybe you just ride a bike or hitchhike. But really, Nigel, does it have to be either/or regarding scientific thinking versus feeling? I can feel and I can think scientifically as well. Where's the conflict?

Oh, and Descartes called the pineal gland 'the seat of the soul', if I'm not mistaken. Maybe it's just part of the brain's 'evolutionary chemistry' though. After all, Descartes was just an 18th century philosopher. What did he know? Clearly not as much as you. A know-it-all.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 02:48:15 (GMT)
From: sam
Email: -
To: Shroomananda
Subject: You sound 'knowledgeable' about ignorance.
Message:
I think Nigel is 20/21 century philosopher and who says long ago is better than now when we have lots more info to clarify our philosophies.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 01:32:46 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: None
To: Shroomananda
Subject: And you sound ignorant about many things
Message:
Oh, and Descartes called the pineal gland 'the seat of the soul', if I'm not mistaken.

Descartes, living when he did, had a good excuse for knowing no better.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 01:16:30 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: None
To: Shroomananda
Subject: And you ARE just stupid...
Message:
Should have realised before replying. Won't bother again.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 01:14:18 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Shroomananda
Subject: Yeah, Nigel. What can you say to THAT, hm???
Message:
Nigel,

Shroom can both feel and think scientifically. I think you've finally met your match.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 00:37:14 (GMT)
From: Sir Dave
Email: None
To: Shroomananda
Subject: The heart of the matter
Message:
Er, Mr Mushroom person - when Maharaji talks about the heart, he isn't talking about the thing which pumps the blood, he's talking about the emotions.

Now, the emotions are operated by the brain. Certain emotions can cause the heart to pump faster but the emotions all come from the brain which as you'll know, is the seat of consciousness.

You can actually stop the heart beating and provided it's hooked up to a machine to pump the blood, the person will remain alive.

Also, when the mind is racing and the emotions are very strong, it is quite impossible to sit and do meditation. Try it next time you are worried about something or someone, it's quite impossible to get to that place.

In short, meditation doesn't control the emotions or the mind.

Again, after you have just done some meditation, if you go outside your house and find that someone has just stolen your car, you will not be in that place any more. It's remarkable but true. No matter how good you think the meditation was, it all evaporates completely as soon as someone steals your car or drives over your cat.

Personal experience, is what matters. Next...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 01:15:05 (GMT)
From: Shroomananda
Email: None
To: Sir Dave
Subject: If the heart that Maharaji talks about is simply
Message:
the emotions, then you COULD practice Knowledge when you were emotional, couldn't you?

And I have had an 'emotional' trauma occur right after I practiced and I didn't get nearly as upset as I usually do!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 02:20:31 (GMT)
From: hamzen
Email: None
To: Shroomananda
Subject: But you still got upset eh
Message:
You are truly brainless, and an insult to mushrooms.

If you'd done shrooms enough there's no way you could be soo shallow.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 02:55:52 (GMT)
From: sam
Email: -
To: mush
Subject: But you still got upset eh
Message:
and the fact that you didn't get quite as upset.... er..does that mean that m really is god or is meditation just relaxing?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index