Forum V: Archive
Compiled: Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 13:08:59 (GMT)
From: Oct 04, 2000 To: Oct 11, 2000 Page: 3 Of: 5


rob areson -:- still complaining? -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 04:09:42 (GMT)
__ Eric -:- still complaining? -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 19:46:25 (GMT)
__ __ Joe -:- Please, Face reality -:- Tues, Oct 10, 2000 at 21:44:23 (GMT)
__ __ Bin Liner -:- still complaining? -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 22:45:47 (GMT)
__ suchabanana -:- I've seen God within, too! -and it wasn't Prem(nt) -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 16:11:51 (GMT)
__ janet of venice -:- rebuttal to your 'still complaining?' -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 07:27:18 (GMT)
__ __ Coach -:- Great stuff, Janet -:- Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 01:55:12 (GMT)
__ __ Sir Dave -:- rebuttal to your 'still complaining?' -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 15:58:40 (GMT)
__ __ Bin Liner -:- rebuttal to your 'still complaining?' -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 12:19:04 (GMT)
__ __ rob-a -:- rebuttal to your 'still complaining?' -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 08:25:49 (GMT)
__ __ __ DeProGram Anand Ji -:- what miracles have you seen from GMJ? -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 11:37:55 (GMT)
__ __ __ Janet of venice -:- rebuttal to your 'still complaining?' -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 09:53:44 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Rob -:- Just making something clear -:- Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 03:36:21 (GMT)
__ __ Monmot -:- Supremely well said, Janet. Bingo Big Time (nt) -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 08:17:23 (GMT)
__ Jim -:- Will u use the 7 million dollar yacht to do that? -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 04:29:02 (GMT)
__ __ rob areson -:- Will u use the 7 million dollar yacht to do that? -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 06:22:23 (GMT)
__ __ __ Jim -:- Maharaji didn't find the yacht under his tree -:- Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 04:25:14 (GMT)
__ __ __ Helen -:- the tie is in a warehouse of loot -:- Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 04:09:14 (GMT)
__ __ __ G -:- Why did you buy him the tie? -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 17:50:52 (GMT)
__ __ __ Scott T. -:- I'd like a flatwater kayak if you're that generous -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 08:53:17 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Salam -:- What about me ha? I found this guy -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 10:00:35 (GMT)
__ __ rob areson -:- Will u use the 7 million dollar yacht to do that? -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 05:40:16 (GMT)
__ __ __ G -:- Could you explain? -:- Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 22:40:29 (GMT)
__ __ __ TED Farkel -:- use 7 million dollar yacht to do that?Can I come? -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 15:42:51 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ From one DVD PWK -:- to another; TED -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 16:34:21 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ TED Farkel -:- to another; TED -:- Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 21:35:29 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ From one dvd PWK -:- to another; TED, improve yor research -:- Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 23:39:40 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ TED Farkel -:- TED, improve yor research/c'mon down bro... -:- Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 03:11:34 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Salam -:- to another; TED -:- Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 01:19:27 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Bjørn the observant -:- Salam are your really imbesille -:- Tues, Oct 10, 2000 at 12:25:29 (GMT)
__ Salam -:- Get this bastard. -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 04:14:25 (GMT)
__ __ rob areson -:- Get this bastard. -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 05:42:37 (GMT)
__ __ __ Salam -:- Why is he still loose?..nt -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 06:16:10 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Jim -:- Cuz he's a LOOSER, Salam (nt) -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 19:58:36 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ rob areson -:- Why is he still loose?..nt -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 06:19:30 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Salam -:- You are barking at the wroung tree,boofhead..nt -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 06:26:31 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ rob areson -:- You are barking at the wroung tree,boofhead..nt -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 06:29:37 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ janet of venice -:- he means-introduce yourself, rob. -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 07:34:06 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Salam -:- You don't need to be a boofhead to bark -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 06:52:16 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ rob-a -:- You don't need to be a boofhead to bark -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 07:51:40 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ cq -:- Care to elaborate on this, Mr Areson? -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 10:43:59 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Coach -:- point of order -:- Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 02:00:25 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ cq -:- I refer the right honourable gentleman to ... -:- Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 19:13:11 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Coach -:- re:Boofhead -:- Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 02:07:56 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Salam -:- re:Boofhead -:- Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 03:01:33 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Coach -:- re:Boofhead -:- Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 03:57:29 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Hal -:- What did the creator look like ? -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 08:19:53 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ rob_a -:- What did the creator look like ? -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 08:55:10 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Rob -:- Bjorn, is that you AGAIN???? -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 22:24:51 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Forum Administrator -:- 'rob areson' is NOT Bjorn. -:- Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 21:09:44 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Why be coy, FA? -:- Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 23:42:01 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Forum Administrator -:- Ain't always that simple.. -:- Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 10:35:40 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Rob -:- Oh wait a minute, I got it. -:- Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 03:29:14 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Your post makes you sound like a dick only b/c.... -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 20:02:44 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- What did the creature look like? -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 10:56:02 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Salam -:- A guided tour. -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 09:52:11 (GMT)

Rev John Hammond-Smyth -:- The temptation of Michael -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 03:32:40 (GMT)
__ Roger eDrek -:- There's always good time religion at the House -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 04:39:53 (GMT)
__ hilarious -:- hath hath hath hath hath ahth ahth...nt -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 04:02:57 (GMT)
__ Jim -:- Oh no! The Rev's gone Unitarian! -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 04:01:22 (GMT)

Scott T. -:- Reluctant reprise to Joe (ot) -:- Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 23:15:39 (GMT)
__ Joe -:- Why reluctant ? -:- Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 19:07:49 (GMT)
__ __ Scott T. -:- Why reluctant ? -:- Tues, Oct 10, 2000 at 13:41:31 (GMT)
__ __ Joe -:- Also, Experience vs. Values -:- Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 19:36:57 (GMT)
__ __ __ Scott T. -:- One more thing -:- Tues, Oct 10, 2000 at 14:48:06 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Joe -:- One more thing -:- Tues, Oct 10, 2000 at 17:15:03 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- One more thing -:- Tues, Oct 10, 2000 at 18:17:40 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- One more thing -:- Tues, Oct 10, 2000 at 19:20:40 (GMT)
__ __ __ Scott T. -:- Also, Experience vs. Values -:- Tues, Oct 10, 2000 at 13:53:16 (GMT)
__ Mr Bubblehead -:- Reluctant reprise to Joe (ot) -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 23:25:56 (GMT)
__ __ Stonor -:- Oh, Mr. B, what a lovely Sunday morning read! :)NT -:- Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 15:16:04 (GMT)
__ __ __ Mr B -:- Oh, Mr. B, what a lovely Sunday morning read! :)NT -:- Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 22:40:00 (GMT)
__ __ Scott T. -:- Reluctant reprise to Joe (ot) -:- Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 00:17:53 (GMT)
__ __ __ Mr B -:- Reluctant reprise to Joe (ot) -:- Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 05:16:45 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Joe -:- Hi Mr. B -- values vs. actual behavior -:- Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 20:04:18 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Mr Bubblehead -:- Hi Mr. B -- values vs. actual behavior -:- Tues, Oct 10, 2000 at 21:35:50 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Hi Mr. B -- values vs. actual behavior -:- Tues, Oct 10, 2000 at 14:02:38 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- Hi Mr. B -- values vs. actual behavior -:- Tues, Oct 10, 2000 at 18:55:47 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Hi Mr. B -- values vs. actual behavior -:- Tues, Oct 10, 2000 at 14:10:09 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- The bubble of our discontent (ot) -:- Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 17:26:39 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Mr Bubblehead -:- 'The state of nature fallacy'.....Very good. -:- Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 23:30:51 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- 'The state of nature fallacy'.....Very good. -:- Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 05:12:32 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Moses -:- Friends in High Places -:- Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 08:15:45 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Friends in High Places -:- Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 11:10:23 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Mr B -:- I'm not called Mr Bubblehead for nothing. -:- Tues, Oct 10, 2000 at 21:21:24 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Mr B -:- The Children I mentioned were German btw.....NT -:- Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 09:25:04 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Yeah, they would pretty much have to be.....NT -:- Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 11:12:28 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Actually, now that I think of it... -:- Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 11:24:28 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Mr Bubblehead -:- Actually, now that I think of it... -:- Tues, Oct 10, 2000 at 21:24:51 (GMT)
__ Scott T. -:- The principle of generality (ot) -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 03:47:12 (GMT)

Joe -:- Mark Appleman's statement re Serenity -:- Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 23:04:23 (GMT)
__ G -:- When Maharaji purchased Serenity yacht -:- Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 17:57:56 (GMT)
__ suchabanana -:- Serenity: 1.donations diversion,or 2.tax scam?y,n? -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 04:07:37 (GMT)
__ __ Joe -:- Maybe a simpler story -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 16:45:21 (GMT)
__ A friend of mine -:- bought a 60 ft yacht - -:- Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 23:46:39 (GMT)
__ __ Lotus eater -:- A friend of mine bought a 60 ft yacht - -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 20:02:10 (GMT)
__ Elaine -:- Mark Appleman's statement re Serenity -:- Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 23:44:17 (GMT)
__ __ JohnT -:- five dollars -:- Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 13:46:51 (GMT)


Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 04:09:42 (GMT)
From: rob areson
Email: rob_areson@hotmail.com
To: Everyone
Subject: still complaining?
Message:
wow, I can't believe all of you are still complaining about M and K. It really is too bad that you didn't receive the experience that Knowledge can bring, it is the most fullfilling thing I have witnessed. Maybe you people could take up a sport or hobby, you know, something that you could enjoy. I can't imagion that complaining, because you never made the effort that it takes to go inside, would make you feel any better. (I know what some of you are thinking, 'I made the effort and went inside and it wasn't that great.', well, if you had truely gone inside, you would have met your creator, and never left M.)
I will be spreading the real truth out in the real world. I wish you all peace and happiness. look for peace, not pain.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 19:46:25 (GMT)
From: Eric
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: still complaining?
Message:
I have to say I do agree with Rob Areson. I am still dipping in to this site, it has a certain fascination because I do empathise and understand and relate to many of things discussed here. But the one area in which I diverge from the opinions expressed here is the responsibility.

I take full responsibility for the things I have done, the thoughts/concepts I have had, the money I give or don't give. I don't lay my own misunderstandings, failures and disappointments at M's door. Those have been my decisions and my learning processes and curves I have gone thru. And Knowledge and the experience within me have definitely given insight in to conciousness and my own self. MY experience of life - not M's experience .... my own experience .... my own understanding .... my own wisdom.

I have only ever heard M say over and over again, go within yourself, develop that understanding yourself, this is your life, know your self.

The relationships each one of us have with him are, in the main, projections, alot of the people here seem to have projected a need for M to be a supernatural, God-like being. Again I diverge from the general consensus of opinnion over his GOD personna. I personally LOVE M's total humanity. The very fact that he so human and has obviously experienced the same ups and downs that we have as part of the human condition is what it so refreshing about him. He is funny, he is wise, and he is very real. I have never heard him say he is god or allude to omnipresence. In fact I have seen that he works very hard towards dispelling 'religious mysticism' when he speaks.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 10, 2000 at 21:44:23 (GMT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Eric
Subject: Please, Face reality
Message:
Hi Eric. Do I know you? I have a feeling I might, but I'm not sure.

I agree that each of us has to accept responsbility for what we did, believed, the bullshit we accepted, etc. This is a topic of much discussion around here, as you can imagine. But Maharaji also shares a whole lot of responsbility for, yes, claiming to be god, for making himself an object of worship, and saying, for years and years, if you were around, that DEVOTION to him, was the KEY, NOT 'knowing yourself,' not that he didn't sometimes say that, and says it a lot more now that he used to.

I have only ever heard M say over and over again, go within yourself, develop that understanding yourself, this is your life, know your self.

Well, Maharaji said a whole lot of things, much of which directly contradicts other things he said. Part of what a cult does is that it allows you to pick and choose whatever you need to continue to believe and to avoid, at all cost, blaming Maharaji for what he's done. But if that's all you've ever heard, then I take it you are a very new premie. You certainly weren't around before 1983, that's for sure.

I was a premie from 1973 until 1983 and I NEVER, not even once, recall Maharaji ever saying that you were to 'know your self.' I know he says that these days, but then, he was saying we should devote our lives to him, and, yes, by the way, also do meditation (all the time) and experience the supreme love inside you.

If what you are saying were actually true, I don't think many of us would have a problem with Maharaji, but then we wouldn't have wasted years of our lives dedicating ourselves to him either, and Maharaji probably wouldn't be as filthy rich as he now is.

I personally LOVE M's total humanity. The very fact that he so human and has obviously experienced the same ups and downs that we have as part of the human condition is what it so refreshing about him.

Do you actually believe that Maharaji's life is anything even remotely like yours or mine? Get real.

He is funny, he is wise, and he is very real. I have never heard him say he is god or allude to omnipresence. In fact I have seen that he works very hard towards dispelling 'religious mysticism' when he speaks.

I personally never found Maharaji funny, and certainly not 'wise.' But I have heard him allude to his divinity on numerous occasions. Do you recall that he wrote the opening to ARTI, in which he declared himself 'the superior power in person?' Do you recall that he said that Jesus, Buddha and Krishna revealed the same knowledge? Do you recall him saying that guru is greater than God? Do you recall that we lined up by the thousands and kissed his feet, and do you know that he continues to do it? Do you recall what planet you are on?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 22:45:47 (GMT)
From: Bin Liner
Email: None
To: Eric
Subject: still complaining?
Message:

How long have you been a premie , Eric?

What about the 'Lord of the Universe'.

& the 'Satguru'.

& 'Guru is greater than God'.

& the 'Perfect Master'.

Your're right that he never came straight out & said that he was 'God', what does that mean anyway ,I'm fucked if anyone knows , then or now.

He was though, put on a pedestal , bowed down to , held in awe ,
& generally treated as if he were 'God'.

He never tried to disabuse his deluded premies of the fact did he ?

He never said ' I'm just a teacher of meditation', did he ?

He never dropped even the slightest hint in our direction of , 'cool it a little bit,you're getting carried away a bit much, I'm not really up there with Jesus , Krishna ,& Buddha
;this enlightenment deal goes just fine with a steak & a nice bottle of wine,maybe a little spliff later on , after all we're all human'.

Funny he never put himself up with Mahomet.

Might have been afraid of getting 'Fatwa-ed'.

I'm afraid you're mistaken about your experience ,if by that you mean the knowledge, he has said for the record that it's his not yours.

Get a grip , would you.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 16:11:51 (GMT)
From: suchabanana
Email: None
To: rob areson
Subject: I've seen God within, too! -and it wasn't Prem(nt)
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 07:27:18 (GMT)
From: janet of venice
Email: None
To: rob areson
Subject: rebuttal to your 'still complaining?'
Message:
Rob, ive had this affiliation 27 years. you know nothing of my lifetime of effort or experience. i had more whopping experiences than anyone i have asked, over the years.the thing you dont understand, here, Rob, is, i didnt leave him--HE LEFT ME!when he has a problem or a crisis, he just digs his hand into a barrel of premies and throws as many as it takes at the problem, until it goes away or is hidden from his eyes. he eats them/us, sleeps on them, drives them and drives over them, pisses and shits onto them, burns them and snuffs them out, all without thinking. if he was supposed to be everything to us, then we should be everything to him. in fact we are! literally. he should be seeing our faces in everything he touches and uses, because without us, he would'nt have any of it. he should take as considerate thought about how his whims affect our lives, as we were brainwashed to think how ours would affect his!!! MORE SO! we dont NEED him. the strange fact is, he needs us. we are his income. he is nobody to the rest of the world. without us, he would actually have to work, would have to learn to accept to live within the limits, and the results, of his own labors, and what worth he could make of himself, as all of us have had to. Bill Gates deserves his fortune. he changed the world with what he designed and did. GMJ hasnt. he's shown us that we breathe. and in return, he wants us to buy him anything he sees. thats called codependency and enabling, in 12 steps literature. shielding the addict from their consequences. living in the illusion that it's love. it isnt. it's rejecting responsibility for one's life. it is sick for both parties. i used to be part of that raw human cannon fodder, rob.but when i had a crisis, he was nowhere around for me, and neither were the premies. that's not a family, rob. thats abandonment and betrayal.put my name in a string search with your Find key on this forum and read what crises i lived thru , THOUGH I CONTINUED MEDITATING AND KEEPING IN TOUCH AND ATTENDING EVERY EVENT THAT I COULD REACH.i did what i was suposed to, rob. i was there. i did my side.in codependency, neither side can get well until the toxic illusion is broken. the supporter must withdraw. the shielding must end. each person must face their own life. there can't be real love until each individual comes to the relationship whole. there can't be a complete relationship or a complete life until full amends have been made to all, and each individual is rigorously honest with themselves. anything else is unwell and unright.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 01:55:12 (GMT)
From: Coach
Email: None
To: janet of venice
Subject: Great stuff, Janet
Message:
'.i did what i was suposed to, rob. i was there. i did my side.in codependency, neither side can get well until the toxic illusion is broken.'

Ladies & Gentlemen the EPO proudly presents the latest recording sensation from Idaho - THE TOXIC ILLUSIONS

I love it

Coach

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 15:58:40 (GMT)
From: Sir Dave
Email: None
To: janet of venice
Subject: rebuttal to your 'still complaining?'
Message:
Very well put there Janet.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 12:19:04 (GMT)
From: Bin Liner
Email: None
To: janet of venice
Subject: rebuttal to your 'still complaining?'
Message:

Very well said Janet, thanks.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 08:25:49 (GMT)
From: rob-a
Email: rob_areson@hotmail.com
To: janet of venice
Subject: rebuttal to your 'still complaining?'
Message:
wow! you know, Bill Gates didn't design anything. He bought DOS for a few thousand dollars, and he stole windows from apple, but anyway...
...I went to all the events and everything I thought I was supposed to do too, and that didn't quite do it. not completely anyway. I suppose what I said sounds quite ignorant, and you're right, I don't know what you've been through. But I do know what I went through to get this knowledge. And it wasn't easy. I know that it took an incredible effort for me to get it, and I gave up a few times too before I did. I went through hell a few times in my head too, but it was more than worth it for me.
I don't know how I plan to achieve my goal here, but I want to try. I had asked Maharaji many times for knowledge, and gotten no results. But one time I asked with everything that I had, and that wasn't easy. I didn't ask because I thought I was supposed to, I asked him because of what he had shown me. when I finally got it, it was because I asked from a very differant place. I asked from the place that I Thought I was asking from all along.
yes, janet, I've heard all the M horror stories too, but he has never crapped on me. I've played games with myself and though he was crapping on me when my games yeilded no results, but crapped on me he has not. I've heard all the horror stories about M but I've also seen his miracles, and I cannot just ignore them.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 11:37:55 (GMT)
From: DeProGram Anand Ji
Email: None
To: rob-a
Subject: what miracles have you seen from GMJ?
Message:
Name One! The only miracle I've seen is him lying to thousands and thousands of people by implying that he is God and is capable of establishing world peace. The miracle is that many believed him an d allowd themselves to be painfully used and exploited. This is a Satanic miracle possibly.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 09:53:44 (GMT)
From: Janet of venice
Email: None
To: rob-a
Subject: rebuttal to your 'still complaining?'
Message:
what bill gates did, he did'nt do it for himself, he could have, but he didnt keep it to himself..he contributed real, practical, globally usable tools to the world. he didnt just make it possible for himself to get rich, he gave others the stimulus, example and the intelligence to do so, as well, honestly, by using the brains god gave them. he deserves what he has. MJ hasnt given to the world. he only takes from it.
as for the aspirant waiting process, i did it too. i know the whole drill. if you want to talk about arriving at surrender, then read the 12 steps. its all there, but in a much healthier, much more honest, much more responsible form. it will do you far better good than EV and MJ ever will. and MJ doesnt practice his own preaching.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 03:36:21 (GMT)
From: Rob
Email: None
To: Janet of venice
Subject: Just making something clear
Message:
Janet,

Just want you to know that this guy 'rob areson, or rob_a' is a recent imposter, probably Mike 'The Mushroom' Fronke, who's using a name similar to mine (Rob, or Rob Anderson) for reasons which will be clear if you care to read the archives for September this year.

I've been posting here for about 18 months and most regulars will vouch for me (as an ex)

ps, enjoy reading your posts.

Rob

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 08:17:23 (GMT)
From: Monmot
Email: None
To: janet of venice
Subject: Supremely well said, Janet. Bingo Big Time (nt)
Message:
b
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 04:29:02 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: rob areson
Subject: Will u use the 7 million dollar yacht to do that?
Message:
huh?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 06:22:23 (GMT)
From: rob areson
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Will u use the 7 million dollar yacht to do that?
Message:
hey jim, once I bought M a really nice tie and sent it to him...would that be translated to: M asked for $ for probagation, I gave $, M then took the $ and bought a tie?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 04:25:14 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: rob areson
Subject: Maharaji didn't find the yacht under his tree
Message:
No, roba, it wouldn't. That would be called a gift.

But in this case we're not talking Santa Claus and chimneys. We'd already heard on this forum how Maharaji had John Hampton out looking for a yacht for him -- secretly -- at the exact same time as he was sending various honchos out trying to desparately squeeze money for some EV-type excuse.

The point is, it wasn't out in the open. Maharaji didn't trust his premies enough to say 'Hey, we desparately need that last bit of help you can give right now for [plane, Amaroo, this thing, that thing, ...]. And don't be put off by the fact that I'm spending millions on a yacht right now. The two have nothing to do with each other.'

Can you imagine?

Here's a question for you. Answer it honestly to yourself, even if you can't answer it honestly to ME:

Do you think Maharaji wants to keep the yacht a secret?

There aren't too many pictures of him and his friends and family on it sold at EV events are there? Hm, wonder why not. It's not exactly ugly, is it? You don't imagine Maharaji's ashamed of it like he was that old 'delapidated' house he torn down in Malibu, do you?

And here's another question:

We know that Maharaji is wealthy. He brags about being a 'successful private investor' on his web site and EV, in fact, admits his wealth by assumption in its FAQ.

We also know that EV has put a lot of pressure on premies over time to donate because it's really needed every last bit of help it could muster, not once, but time and again.

Soooooo, do you think that Maharaji's ever donated any money to EV?

How much?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 04:09:14 (GMT)
From: Helen
Email: None
To: rob areson
Subject: the tie is in a warehouse of loot
Message:
Rob
Did you ever read about those huge warehouses where M stashes all the stuff people have given him--all his loot? There are premies whose service it is to guard the loot. The tie you gave him is in there somewhere maybe.

He gets alot of loot, that lays waste in those big warehouses. DO you see anything absurd, wasteful or weird about that?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 17:50:52 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: rob areson
Subject: Why did you buy him the tie?
Message:
Why did you buy him this really nice tie? Could it be that his really liking really nice ties had something to do with it? He has repeatedly made it very clear that he likes all these goodies. Could it be that prior solicitations for expensive gifts to him had something to do with it? You were influenced, you were conditioned.

Do you believe that he had nothing to do with this luxury megayacht being purchased? Either he delegated the purchase using his own money (which used to be premies' money) or he asked for it to be given to him by premies using their own money. To think that premies just on a whim bought a $7 million dollar luxury megayacht for him without any indication from him that he wanted it is quite a stretch. You're not implying that are you?

There is this idea instilled in premies by him that by giving money to him, you are helping propagation because he lives his life only for propagation, that he turns around and uses whatever money or gifts he gets for propagation.

The point is this, what does having a 106' yacht have to do with propagation?

There is also this idea that satisfying his desires - his every whim - is somehow a selfless and spiritual thing to do, that it somehow helps propagation. How's that?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 08:53:17 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: rob areson
Subject: I'd like a flatwater kayak if you're that generous
Message:
Rob:

It would probably be interpreted as an ill-considered gift. Couldn't you find any Brut aftershave?

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 10:00:35 (GMT)
From: Salam
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: What about me ha? I found this guy
Message:
and you want to keep his wallet for yourself. Share.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 05:40:16 (GMT)
From: rob areson
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Will u use the 7 million dollar yacht to do that?
Message:
yes jim, I will be using the seven million dollar yacht to do that.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 22:40:29 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: rob areson
Subject: Could you explain?
Message:

I will be spreading the real truth out in the real world.

...

yes jim, I will be using the seven million dollar yacht to do that.

Could you please explain just how you are going to use Prem Rawat's $7 million dollar luxury megayacht, which is for his personal use, to spread the real truth out in the real world? He wouldn't even let you get on it unless you paid him big bucks. Even if you could, then what would you do with it? I don't get it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 15:42:51 (GMT)
From: TED Farkel
Email: None
To: rob areson
Subject: use 7 million dollar yacht to do that?Can I come?
Message:
Hey Mr. Rob Areson-if you really are going to do a little prachar with that 7 million boat that our lord somehow found the money to buy,even though he don't seem to have a job of any sort,could you please cruise down around the Gulf and pick me and the boys up?
Would love to watch a few videos,pop a foamy,munch on a few crawdads,and schmooze with you and our lord.
Propagation's a little slow in Mobile,so give ole TED a call.
I'll be ready.

In the grease,
At the toes,
TED Farkel
(I'll bring the hubcap and used motor oil for the arti tray)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 16:34:21 (GMT)
From: From one DVD PWK
Email: None
To: TED Farkel
Subject: to another; TED
Message:
Hi Ted.
Read your post about your experience as a new born DVD premie.
How come the Knowledge you talked about is completely different than the presentation I saw.

Just wondering

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 21:35:29 (GMT)
From: TED Farkel
Email: None
To: From one DVD PWK
Subject: to another; TED
Message:
Hey brother-since I posted what my experience was at the DVD session,and you haven't,why don't you proceed to tell all of us what you really did experience?I can't tell you how my experience
is different from yours, until I know what yours was....

As we say down in Mobile,'that dog won't hunt',if you know what I mean....

Respectfully,
In the suds,(one beer/video,except on Sat. nights)
At the video,
TED Farkel

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 23:39:40 (GMT)
From: From one dvd PWK
Email: None
To: TED Farkel
Subject: to another; TED, improve yor research
Message:
Hi Ted you are really funny. I loved your posts, But some ex-premies with IQ less than their shoenumber, believe it or not, did really believe you are for real.

Say hello to my aunt Gloria in Mobile

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 03:11:34 (GMT)
From: TED Farkel
Email: None
To: From one dvd PWK
Subject: TED, improve yor research/c'mon down bro...
Message:
Dear Mr. DVD Premie-
I'm not sure who Gloria is,cos I really live in Shaft,which is just outside the great metropolis of Mobile,Alabama.

But you seem like a curious feller...and a bright shiny new premie like me (at least according to Mr. eDrek),so why don't you stop in when you're down south next time...Farkel's Auto Transmission Repair Shop in Shaft...

Just strung my christmas lights up to spell 'Synchronization' across the front of the shop doors...sounds kinda 'new agey' and I'm hoping to pull in a few aspirants,although there's not too many 'new agey' types down here in Shaft these days...

Also,I'm officially allowin one beer per video each night..so far Friday night's the most popular,we show at least 10-12 videos that night(most of them are the short 5-6minute jobs with all the nature shots,but heck,we're half loaded and that looks good too,if you know what I mean...)

And Sat. night,we allow a free peek at the eDrek 'boob fest' site,which is really catching on down here,so keep me posted and maybe we can swap some ideas on propagatin this here knowledge,OK?

Respectfully,
Serving our master,
(even with greasy hands)
TED (hubcap) Farkel

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 01:19:27 (GMT)
From: Salam
Email: None
To: From one DVD PWK
Subject: to another; TED
Message:
Could it be a different version. Ha, there it is, several versions.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 10, 2000 at 12:25:29 (GMT)
From: Bjørn the observant
Email: None
To: Salam
Subject: Salam are your really imbesille
Message:
There are just different levels of honesty. Dont tell you really believed in TEDs story?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 04:14:25 (GMT)
From: Salam
Email: None
To: rob areson
Subject: Get this bastard.
Message:
Man, I am cracking up.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 05:42:37 (GMT)
From: rob areson
Email: None
To: Salam
Subject: Get this bastard.
Message:
what is it that makes me a bastard? being happy, or hoping that you will be?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 06:16:10 (GMT)
From: Salam
Email: None
To: rob areson
Subject: Why is he still loose?..nt
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 19:58:36 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Salam
Subject: Cuz he's a LOOSER, Salam (nt)
Message:
fff
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 06:19:30 (GMT)
From: rob areson
Email: None
To: Salam
Subject: Why is he still loose?..nt
Message:
whut??!!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 06:26:31 (GMT)
From: Salam
Email: None
To: rob areson
Subject: You are barking at the wroung tree,boofhead..nt
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 06:29:37 (GMT)
From: rob areson
Email: None
To: Salam
Subject: You are barking at the wroung tree,boofhead..nt
Message:
hi salem, I don't believe I am the one barking here. whut is nt?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 07:34:06 (GMT)
From: janet of venice
Email: None
To: rob areson
Subject: he means-introduce yourself, rob.
Message:
and he's kidding about the mushrooms.
relax, rob.
we're all you, in another skin.
come on in, tell us about yourself,dont be nervous. we're just _people_! you know us. we've all done the same thing and been in the same place. it's just us.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 06:52:16 (GMT)
From: Salam
Email: None
To: rob areson
Subject: You don't need to be a boofhead to bark
Message:
My name is Salam, and I like it to be spelt that way.
Yuo areobviousy new here otherwise you wouldn't ask such a question.

NT= No Text.

Got it. Now tell us who you are and what you want. Also have your driving licence and credit cards ready. We take orders online. And by the way we have enough mushroom for the next three months.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 07:51:40 (GMT)
From: rob-a
Email: None
To: Salam
Subject: You don't need to be a boofhead to bark
Message:
sorry 'bout that, SALAM. I don't get the mushroom thing. I am here for the same reason most others are, to tell the truth about M. Many of the quotes, which are supposedly by M, posted on this site, are quite inaccuarate. why is that?
personally, I have seen my creator face to face, and it was M who helped me get there. It sadens me to see people cut off from something so cool. I don't think I can convince anyone that M is the saviour(especially not here), but I would like to try anyway.
and really, salam, you don't need to bark at me, I'm a nice guy(except in the boxing ring), I'm here to chat and hopefully make friends, I have no intentions so fight with anyone here.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 10:43:59 (GMT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: rob-a
Subject: Care to elaborate on this, Mr Areson?
Message:
You say: 'Many of the quotes, which are supposedly by M, posted on this site, are quite inaccuarate.'

Care to cite examples so they can be corrected?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 02:00:25 (GMT)
From: Coach
Email: None
To: cq
Subject: point of order
Message:
What the fuck is a 'boofhead?'

Huh?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 19:13:11 (GMT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: Coach
Subject: I refer the right honourable gentleman to ...
Message:
... hang on a minute - I've never even used the word.

I think Salaam's your man, Coach.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 02:07:56 (GMT)
From: Coach
Email: None
To: Coach
Subject: re:Boofhead
Message:
What is a Boofhead you may ask...
According to Australia's prestigious Macquarie Dictionary,
Boofhead: /'bufhed/, n. Colloq. a fool

Not as lot of people know that

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 03:01:33 (GMT)
From: Salam
Email: None
To: Coach
Subject: re:Boofhead
Message:
It is more than that. Boofhead is a slang word used in Australia.
It discribes someone who is making a fool of himself. Used more likely between friends.

shp is a real boofhead, he is always making a fool of himself. You ask him a question and he pretend to know it all, but we all know that he is an idiot. So instead of calling him that and seeing that he is such a rag bag getting tossed around I will call him a boofhead.

See shp knows that he is a boofhead and the poor thing can not do anything about it. It is in the genes. Once a boofhead, always a boofhead.

Now shroom was not a boofhead, no, he is a dickhead, because he could not see further than his nose. He did not admit to himself that he was an idiot and kept doing what he wanted to do. That is why he got knocked off. Compare that to shp, he is still here, becuase FA knows he is a boofhead, which comming back to our definition...........................

http://whatsthenumber.com.au/oz/unique/words1b.htm

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 03:57:29 (GMT)
From: Coach
Email: None
To: Salam
Subject: re:Boofhead
Message:
Right ho!!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 08:19:53 (GMT)
From: Hal
Email: None
To: rob-a
Subject: What did the creator look like ?
Message:
Was it that you saw inner light or was it a person? If you saw a light within , why do you think that it was God? Many will tell us that God is a light , perceived in the region between the eyebrows. As far as I know , that light (which most of the people posting here have seen) doesn't speak. So how come it must be God?

Another point which you may need to be informed of is that there are plenty of people who have left Maha who continue to go within and have wonderful experiences. I am one of them. I feel better than I ever did in my 28 yrs of being a premie. It is such a relief to not be influenced by Maha's concepts.

Yes I experienced what he once called 'the concept bomb' !. Hey, guess what? He was the fucking biggest concept! He's the one to drop if you want to experience true freedom !
Don't knock it 'til you try it. Another thing Rob, try not to generalise about ex-premies not having made effort to experience 'the inner world'. Sounds kind of arrogant, you know?

Hal

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 08:55:10 (GMT)
From: rob_a
Email: None
To: Hal
Subject: What did the creator look like ?
Message:
well, he was about six feet tall with red hair and crooked teeth.
....anyway, hi hal, I have seen light that was light and I have seen light that IS god. I have heard music within that sounded like nice music, and I have heard music within that IS god. Of coarse, I cannot explain how it is god, just like I cannot explain how when I drink water, my thirst is removed.
You're right in a way about the somewhat arrogant statement, apologies to all, but what I said was, 'you never made THE effort that it takes to go inside...', not, never made AN effort to go..., and what I meant by that is not, go to the place where there is light or music or whatever, but the effort that it takes to reach that infinate platform. Before I asked M for that experience, it was the same as when I get out of the shower and dry off, when I dry my face with a towel, I usually rub my eyes with the towel too and see light but then again, I've done that when I was three, and that is not god, it is just a physical and chemical reaction.
would love to chat all night but I must get some sleep now...nice to meet everyone.
(I know my post made me sound like a dick but I really did mean it with good intentions.)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 22:24:51 (GMT)
From: Rob
Email: None
To: rob_a
Subject: Bjorn, is that you AGAIN????
Message:
Because 'rob a' happens to be my Hotmail 'sender' name and I know the FA just gave you the address.......

Just wondering.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 21:09:44 (GMT)
From: Forum Administrator
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: 'rob areson' is NOT Bjorn.
Message:
(But I think we all know who it is.)

BTW: I haven't given Bjorn your email address yet, Rob. Check today's emails. Thanks.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 23:42:01 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Forum Administrator
Subject: Why be coy, FA?
Message:
What? This guy breaks house rulse by changing his name -- to mislead -- and you don't both out him immediately and block him to boot?

Am I missing something?

Who is he and won't you please tell him to get lost.

Otherwise, that there rule is starting to look pretty thin, don't you think?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 10:35:40 (GMT)
From: Forum Administrator
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Ain't always that simple..
Message:
I don't want to be heavy-handed unless I am 100% certain of a poster's identity - and in this case I am not. It was more a matter of the original post's content, rather than the source IP that aroused suspicions - as well as the (possibly coincidental) similarity between 'rob's' full name and 'Rob's' full name. Looked like he was being deliberately provocative - or that's what a few of us thought, possibly mistakenly.

rob a is complaining up above about being unreasonably dissed - and he may have good reason if it IS just coincidence, so I suggest we wait and see.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 03:29:14 (GMT)
From: Rob
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: Oh wait a minute, I got it.
Message:
The penny just dropped.

Well you didn't stay away long, did you Mike? I should have known you would try to create a cloud of confusion by using a name similar to that of your nemesis!

I suppose we'll have a few days of denial while you try to maintain a different persona, but it'll break down, Mike, first time you lose it!

Couldn't resist the 'boxing' reference eh? We supposed to be afriad now, is that it? What a prick.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 20:02:44 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: rob_a
Subject: Your post makes you sound like a dick only b/c....
Message:
You're fucking your own mind big time.

Yeah, you saw God alright. Sure you did, Rob.

And so did all of Bal Bhagwan Ji's devotees.

Don't look to hard at this. Your illusions may shatter.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 10:56:02 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: rob_a
Subject: What did the creature look like?
Message:
Rob:

and what I meant by that is not, go to the place where there is light or music or whatever, but the effort that it takes to reach that infinate platform.

Oh THAT. I got onto the infinite balloon ride, but never made it to the infinite platform. Have you been on the infinite bungee jump yet? You may need to ask him for another experience. BTW, you mentioned that there are inaccurate quotes on this site. I'm sure we'd all like you to point them out. Most of them come from tapes, videos or text material that's been published and therefore documentable, but a few might have been recollections from when we were struggling to pull ourselves up onto the infinite platform, or just after we fell off.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 09:52:11 (GMT)
From: Salam
Email: None
To: rob_a
Subject: A guided tour.
Message:
Well son.

Start with the journey entries. You will find some amazing stories. Make sure there is plenty of tissue paper.

Then go into DLM/EV papers. The link is on top right of this page.

Once you have done that, go into the forum archives and read some .(do not miss the shroom)

When you feel that you have enough background info come back and talk to us, not as the half wit dumb ass people that you think we are. Put as a collection of people that have their on lives to live.

To begin with I am not complaining. No mate. I am wienging. You know why? I am wienging because some ass hole fat greasy indian con merchant calling himself GOD instead of DOG. I am also totally pissed of that this con merchant is still in business. And I am infuriated by the fact that intelligent people are still being dragged into this lier's web. So I do not know what to do about it except for coming to this delapitated forum and talk about it. It just happened that I was in a good mood and you were in the right place. You see, I belive we are a bunch of psychos for being here. I mean here we are 25 years after and we just can not come over it. You would say that it will click one day and we just walk away from it, no? Instead look at us, having nothing else to do but dig up dirt of some fat ass lard of the universe. I mean who the hell cares about a fucking 7 million do-llars or a 25 million jet. It is only material anyway. Shit yes. I really do not get it at all. I am even starting to repeat myself here. I mean who cares about those dickhead premies anyway. Not even there Lard does. They are nothing more maggots like us. But you try telling that to Jim, Sir David, Roger and some few other guyes, very bad people. Never stop talking about Lardy. Now we have a big bannana too, Always some big 112 boat or airplane or a big house or tax evasion or something else. Never a nice poem like Ivete Belfort Mattos or Carole Jones. I mean there was this really nice fellow, Shroom. He was right up there, sooo inside all the time, very very beautifull, but some nasty man, Rob scared him away.

Even now they are saying that the techniques were stollen. I can not belive them. I wish they go away and leave us alone so we can talk about the old days. You can even tell me about how so so beautiful marraji is and you can fill my head with mindless talk about how soso beautiful it is and stuff like that.

(ah Sorry, can not remember where I was. Who?, can not belive it, must be a dream, AHHHHHHHHHHHHH).

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 03:32:40 (GMT)
From: Rev John Hammond-Smyth
Email: pulpit@church.com
To: Everyone
Subject: The temptation of Michael
Message:
And it came to pass that a dark angel of Satan whose name was Yves didst appear unto Michael and sayeth - Why dost thou hold back from us, for it is written that Michael didst once proclaim that his Lord was the God on High and now ye sayeth that ye maketh a contract with a mere meditation teacher and sweareth an oath unto a false god who is not even a very good meditation teacher?

Why dost thou not leave thy false god and come with us unto the land of Ex-prem?

And Michael sayeth - I always knew that God was just a meditation teacher and not really very bright and so I maketh for him a divine barn for him to harvest his riches and keep them from the eyes of the heathens and unbelievers.

And in those days, there was another angel of darkness whose name was Joe of Whalen and he held the sword of sharp tongue and cutting criticism. And he rebuked Michael saying - thy days in the world of the meditation teacher god are numbered for thou hast born false witness against thine premie brethren who had once putteth their faith in you. Give up this charade and come with us unto the land of ex-prem which is a land flowing with milk and honey and where thy covenant with the meditation teacher god shall be broken.

And Michael replyeth - Verily I say unto you, I will not come with you unto your land for it is written that the Lord thy meditation teacher god shall provide unto his favourites. For they that sweareth the oath of allegence unto his kingdom shall have riches and abundance which shall be added unto their own.

And lo, the Devil himself, whose name is Jim of Heller came unto Michael and tempteth him, saying - Deny thy Lord and thou shalt dwell in the kingdom of ex-prem for all the days of thy life. And thy brethren of ex-prem shall fall upon their knees before you and will worship you saying - here is the great one who didst leave the meditation teacher god and didst preach the truth to us, that we might know the ways of the Lord.

And Michael sayeth - Get thee behind me, Satan. I cannot go back upon a promise that I maketh to my Lord for his riches hath become as mine own, yea, even unto the Swiss money changers. Verily I say unto you; you never saw the glory of the meditation teacher god's riches even though his riches didst come from thine own pockets.

And there was a wailing a gnashing of teeth throughout the land of ex-prem for it was clear to all that Michael's hands were indeed tied, as tight as the moorings on the divine yacht that lyeth in the harbour. Yeah, and the devil and his angels didst cover their faces in awe as the confidentiality contract was shown to them in clarity and synchronisity.

And the boy (Sir) David sayeth - what hath been signed can never be put away and he that is the meditation teacher god hath bought the silence of the PAMs. Verily I say unto you, the fault is not Michael's but all blame lies at the feet of the beast with two heads that dwelleth in Malibu. And the boy (Sir) David didst say to the children of ex-prem, tempt ye not this Michael of Dettmers. For there but for the grace of God go I. Who are we to say what a man may do or not do? Who are we to point a finger at our own brethren?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 04:39:53 (GMT)
From: Roger eDrek
Email: drek@oz.net
To: Rev John Hammond-Smyth
Subject: There's always good time religion at the House
Message:
Amen! The most powerful sermon yet!

Sermons at the Holy House of Maharaji Drek

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 04:02:57 (GMT)
From: hilarious
Email: None
To: Rev John Hammond-Smyth
Subject: hath hath hath hath hath ahth ahth...nt
Message:
hath
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 04:01:22 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Rev John Hammond-Smyth
Subject: Oh no! The Rev's gone Unitarian!
Message:
Nice work anyway, Rev. Very funny. Now I know that's not at all what you intended. Forgive me for laughing. I'm just a bit immature like that.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 23:15:39 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Reluctant reprise to Joe (ot)
Message:
Crap, I just invested a lot of time in a detailed response to Joe's post about Clinton and the whole thread had gone into inactive by the time my response was posted. So, what happened to that? Where'd it go?

Anyway Joe, I can defend that perspective and I know of at least one presidential scholar who agrees with me (James Pfiffner), so it's not a minority of one. There was a sea change in the way Clinton managed the presidency after 1994, and no he wasn't a very good *presidential* politician prior to that time. How quickly we forget.

It also sounds to me like you're buying Rogers' notion that the Clintons just weren't social democratic enough to please the white working class. Except for tax cuts all of the programs you feel he didn't measure up on are standard SD stuff. Rogers may be right, and you're certainly entitled to think so. I'll just say that there's a big difference between attitudes and values, and there's a political price for mistaking one for the other. That has been the consistent flaw in Rogers' analysis, on labor unions and electoral politics. I think he is indulging in wishful thinking, but I'm used to being on the other side of that argument, and feel comfortable being there. We'll see. I guess it wouldn't be much fun if we all agreed.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 19:07:49 (GMT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Why reluctant ?
Message:
Maybe you are trying to avoid OT threads, which I am as well, considering that there is a lot of interesting stuff that is not OT happening on the forum. So, I'll try to keep this short. Just a couple of comments.

Anyway Joe, I can defend that perspective and I know of at least one presidential scholar who agrees with me (James Pfiffner), so it's not a minority of one.

Does 'Pfiffner' really describe Clinton as 'babbling?' If so, then perhaps it's a minority of two. Is it that he was babbling before 1994, but then stopped?

Regarding Clinton changing the way he governed in 1994, well, that is obvious. If you mean prior to the 1994 elections, after he lost on healthcare, he opted for the minimalist approach, the same one he continued to champion and the one Al Gore still does. He basically stopped proposing much at all and played defense, which he did masterfully, at least for his own electoral benefit.

I think the thesis of the book I mentioned is that Gore isn't doing so well this election because he isn't winning among the white working class the way he would because they don't see much in what he offers for them, unlike when Clinton ran in 1992. [Actually, Michael Dukakis, a much more traditional Democrat than Clinton, got a higher percentage of them in 1988 than Clinton got in 1992.] And in 1994, when Clinton's economic populism had been jettisoned, NAFTA had been passed, and a flawed strategy on health care collapsed, that group abandoned the party in droves.

Gore gave a very populist speech at the Demo convention, talking about taking on corporations, etc., but he didn't mean a word of it, and I think most of those voters know it, and hence he isn't doing so well. He got a bump after the convention from those working class voters, but he is losing it now.

If you mean Clinton changed after the 1994 elections, well then the Congress was in Republican control and he was forced to change. As I said, part of the reason the working class voter returned to the Democrats in 1996 and 1998 was because Clinton and the Democrats were seen as the protectors of what was left of the safety net that the Republicans were out to destroy. It wasn't because Clinton's 'values' changed. He didn't suddenly become anti-gay, conservative on civil rights, or any more 'family values' than he already was, he just played defense instead of offense.

Of course there is a difference between attitudes and values. And of course values come into it. But the white working class, which has changed substantially over the years and is now nearly half women, have lost ground economically over the past 20 years, but makes up 55% of the electorate. Since neither party has adequately responded to their needs, they are up for grabs and no party can succeed without them.

The Democrats used to have this group locked up, but they haven't got them anymore. They have lost ground among them since the 70s, some of whom became Reagan Democrats in the 1980s or Perot supporters in the early 1990s. The Democrats have lost 14% of these voters during that time (20% among men) but they have retained about the same among college educated whites. Teixeira and Rogers argue that this was from frustration with government's failure to address their economic anxieties. They became 'pragmatic conservatives.' I think this is largely true.

But in the realm of values the authors have discounted racism as a cause, and, although I think this is true for the 90s, I think before that, the perceptions about race did skew some of the white working class against government policies. For example, I think thaat the misperception of welfare as a program for blacks, even though it helped more white workers, was crucially in the 'pragmatic conservative' shift. This has an effect, but I think the economic insecurity this group feels if the predominant one. And as the government offered them less and less, they got more frustrated with government, the democratic party, and even with voting at all. Turnout among the non-union, white, especially male, members of this group for presidential elections is in the low 40s, and has been on a continuous downward trend for 25 years.

I agree with them that the 'New Democrat' ideas has neglected to address the fundamental issue of the white working class and has failed as a political strategy as a result.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 10, 2000 at 13:41:31 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Why reluctant ?
Message:
Joe:

I thought you were going to keep it short? :-)

As briefly as I can, I think that the US, including our working class, starts from a more classicaly liberal base than any other nation on earth. Whatever you're trying to do politically you have to deal with that. Instead of dealing with it I think a lot of analysts with a social democratic bias tend to just overlook it, or assume it out of existance. This fact could also contribute to inefficacy.

I think the thesis of the book I mentioned is that Gore isn't doing so well this election because he isn't winning among the white working class the way he would because they don't see much in what he offers for them, unlike when Clinton ran in 1992. [Actually, Michael Dukakis, a much more traditional Democrat than Clinton, got a higher percentage of them in 1988 than Clinton got in 1992.] And in 1994, when Clinton's economic populism had been jettisoned, NAFTA had been passed, and a flawed strategy on health care collapsed, that group abandoned the party in droves.

This is basically an advocacy position within the democratic party. I'm also communicating with some advocates of proportional representation who argue that congressional candidates in both parties who had the greatest electoral success were those who moved away from a centrist position. If correct it supports your thesis. Their analysis may be flawed because they did not include the ideological position of the opponents who lost. In other words, it's entirely possible that the 'more radical' candidates who won did so because they were closer to the center than their opponent. Even if they are right, however, the primary reason these SD measures are not proposed is that public opinion soon shifts to oppose them, as was the case with healthcare. The voters want to have their cake and eat it, but where the rubber meets the road they want less government rather than more.

So, I think those proposals that involve the 'generality principle' like the demogrant, guaranteed annual income, etc., have the greatest chance of ending the stalemate. In the mean time, if we don't pass a national health plan pretty soon (and we won't) I may move to Australia. The insurance industry is VERY AWARE of the ideological predispotion of Americans to be anti-statist, and is quite facile at exploiting it. This gives them a huge advantage, no matter what Rogers and Teixeira are saying. So, if we are both right?

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 19:36:57 (GMT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Also, Experience vs. Values
Message:
Also, I wanted to mention one other point on the issue of values vs. economic insecurity as a motivator for voting behavior.

I would argue that the political behavior of the white working class that we are currently seeing, has actually been SHAPED by the DISJUNCTURE between their economic experience, which has been largely negative and frustrating, and the values that they traditionally hold, such as beliefs about fair reward for effort, the loyalty of employers when workers show loyalty and the related value of the centrality of hard work, and also individual acheivement. The actual experience of this group is largely that exercising those values often does not result in economic improvement. Hence, the frustration with 'the system' and the frustration with government for not doing anything about it.

Also Clinton payed a price in 1994 when he didn't deliver on what he had promised in the campaign on the economic stimulus issues, and the middle class tax cuts.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 10, 2000 at 14:48:06 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: One more thing
Message:
Joe:

What do you do when the position you support is actually against the economic interests of the constiuency you're trying to win, as may be the case with many Americans regarding health care? A significant minority don't have adequate healthcare, but a minority is still in minority, and for those who are working steadily they just don't have the need, and would probably rather keep their tax burden down. Seems to me the only way you're going to reach those who stand to benefit little by assisting a minority is to somehow appeal to their 'values' over and above their economic interests. That's bound to be more complicated than it looks.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 10, 2000 at 17:15:03 (GMT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: One more thing
Message:
What do you do when the position you support is actually against the economic interests of the constiuency you're trying to win, as may be the case with many Americans regarding health care? A significant minority don't have adequate healthcare, but a minority is still in minority, and for those who are working steadily they just don't have the need, and would probably rather keep their tax burden down.

It's not only the issue of those who don't have healthcare, which has been growing for years, with a very slight decrease this year, probably because of the extremely low unemployment and tight job markets encouraging more employers to add a health benefit to attract workers, it's also the kind of healthcare coverage that people actually have.

Maybe it's because I live in California, which went down the HMO highway before ther rest of the country, but there is a huge disatisfaction with insurance companies and the healthcare industry among many middle class and upper-middle-class people, who have never been without healthcare coverage.

The 'patients bill of rights' proposals are responses to that, but it is only going to get worse because of the push for profits by HMOs and the tendency to cut corners, reduce benefits, restrict, reduce payments to hospitals and doctors, etc., to make more money to satisfy shareholders. Plus the medical profession, especially nurses but increasingly doctors, are also organizing against the current system. Also, the aging baby boomers will have increased need for healthcare as they age, and the squeeze will be on. So, I think we are going to see more support for health care reform.

That being said, I think what Hillary Clinton learned was that you have to do this in steps. The plan is to add prescription drug coverage to medicare, cover all uninsured kids, then, gradually, add benefits for others. It's a bad way to do it, and will cost more in the long run than would a single-payer plan, but I think the politicians are convinced that's the only way to do it politically. The insurance companies will oppose everything, unless they get to provide the benefits without regulation, but at least, so it is believed, we will get additional coverage for those who don't have it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 10, 2000 at 18:17:40 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: One more thing
Message:
Joe:

The 'patients bill of rights' proposals are responses to that, but it is only going to get worse because of the push for profits by HMOs and the tendency to cut corners, reduce benefits, restrict, reduce payments to hospitals and doctors, etc., to make more money to satisfy shareholders. Plus the medical profession, especially nurses but increasingly doctors, are also organizing against the current system. Also, the aging baby boomers will have increased need for healthcare as they age, and the squeeze will be on. So, I think we are going to see more support for health care reform.

Hope so, but just where is the savvy campaign? My roommate was Ellen Pinney, the director of Oregon Health Action (still) who managed to pass a bill with the help of the Senate president (now Governor) that essentially extends coverage provided by employers. Their basic strategy was to pass more extensive health care on a state by state basis and build up a constituency for a national system. The insurance industry has been able to play off of this strategy by simply leaving behind 'unfriendly' states making it appear that their exit is the fault of the reformers, and claiming they can't stay in business under the new conditions. Looks like to me the reformers' strategy failed, or at least needs revision.

Health care is one area that comes into conflict with the American Ideology, because the nature of the 'product' is not served well by the market paradigm and government involvement on some level is really necessary. I'm not convinced that the 'failings' of the healthcare system, such as it is, can't be played off against the reformers though. I guess it depends on how pissed off the boomers get, how much power they have, and whether or not they can get their act together behind a relatively simple approach that doesn't involve too much government. Sheesh, you'd think they could at least start by creating a tax credit for all money spent on private healthcare, and some sort of risk pooling mechanism; something that's quasi-public like SAIF.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 10, 2000 at 19:20:40 (GMT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: One more thing
Message:
Just like the white working class we have been talking about, the consumers of health care aren't organized. Plus, they know something is very wrong, but there isn't a consensus on what to do about it. Plus, there are lots of divisions within the group, like younger people who have less need for healthcare and don't want to pay anything, and older workers who have medicare and so aren't as concerned.

I think the big advantage of a universal program that can be emphasized is choice. I idea that you get to pick your own doctor and don't have to rely on the HMO doctors, that you get to go straight to a specialist without going through a PCP, pick your own pharmacy, etc. For those under the HMO scheme, which is more and more people, this is very attractive, because those plans have become so restrictive. I think there would be significant support for that.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 10, 2000 at 13:53:16 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Also, Experience vs. Values
Message:
Joe:

Again, briefly:

I would argue that the political behavior of the white working class that we are currently seeing, has actually been SHAPED by the DISJUNCTURE between their economic experience, which has been largely negative and frustrating, and the values that they traditionally hold, such as beliefs about fair reward for effort, the loyalty of employers when workers show loyalty and the related value of the centrality of hard work, and also individual acheivement.

What we found too. It is possible to convince workers that we've gone too far in emasculating the power of unions (although the formation of the AFL-CIO did more do erode unionism in the US than any policy), but as unions become more powerful they will meet with less favorable responses from workers unless they fundamentally change how they operate, and specifically how they veiw and deal with technological change. But the dilemma posed by the disjunction between values, and the disposition of managers and owners to exploit those values (with little effective opposition from unions) is at the heart of it. All I'm saying is that you can't overlook the value disposition and expect to change things very much. Understanding it is much better, even if it means some pet social-democratic policy solutions prove impossible.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 23:25:56 (GMT)
From: Mr Bubblehead
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Reluctant reprise to Joe (ot)
Message:
Mr Scott,
your following statement enters mercy waters indeed, I'll just say that there's a big difference between attitudes and values, and there's a political price for mistaking one for the other.
Very interesting, but how do you differentiate between the two. Who's values and attitudes are we talking about? They are somewhat fluid. Are we talking Native Americans, Hispanics, gays, rich whites, poor whites, etc? If we're talking of the values of politicians, then we have gone from murky waters to quicksand. Oh no, I feel the pull of Bubbleland, something I just can't seem to control these days.
Well Mr Scott, here I sit under a beautiful tree in Bubbleland, overlooking a peaceful mountain scene. As I close my eyes to feel the Oneness of Nature, it begins to rain, and I'm aware of the aliveness of the Earth and my connection with it, and it brings to mind 'attitude'. I have a theory that the reason there is so much bad attitude around these days is because we have lost that connection to the Earth. That connection from which we draw our strength, our joy, our everything. We are like angels that have forgotten our Mother and our wings have been busted. It strikes me that we are now a culture addicted to short cuts in the pursuit of 'good attitude'. Be they religion, gurus, service to others etc, if practiced in isolation, they are just short cuts to nowhere, and as they say in the classics 'there's no such thing as a free lunch'. A connection with the earth brings with it an understanding of compassion and selflessness, of how to live with awareness and honour, and that's where real attitude has it's roots, imo.
yours into perpetuity
Mr Bubblehead
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 15:16:04 (GMT)
From: Stonor
Email: None
To: Mr Bubblehead
Subject: Oh, Mr. B, what a lovely Sunday morning read! :)NT
Message:
:))))) ooooooo
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 22:40:00 (GMT)
From: Mr B
Email: None
To: Stonor
Subject: Oh, Mr. B, what a lovely Sunday morning read! :)NT
Message:
A big HELLO Ms Stonor. You sound spry and chirpy this fine Spring day.
Yours Affectionately
Mr Bubblehead
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 00:17:53 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Mr Bubblehead
Subject: Reluctant reprise to Joe (ot)
Message:
M.B.:

Perhaps in everyday speech the difference between values and attitudes is not very distinct, but in methodological terms that's not the case. We differentiate between an empathy for the worker, a distrust of impersonal employers, and job dissatisfaction on the one hand and a commitment to the implementation of statist principles that are often proposed as the *solution* on the other. Joel Rogers looks at the very substantial amount of data, some of which he collected himself, that shows a very broad acceptance of labor unions as 'good' and concludes that there's a latent groundswell of social democratic sentiment in the US and an imminent resurgence of unionism.

He's right about the first observation, but not about the conclusion. Americans are as anti-statist, and anti-social-democratic is they ever were. In fact, more so than at any time since the 1920s, and the conviction is more uniform across the country. That too can be verified using the very same instruments Rogers used to document attitudes toward unions. These are 'values' because they help define us *as* Americans. Now, I think you can debate whether or not they are the 'right' values, but it's delusion to argue that they aren't there, or that if so they represent some sort of passing fancy. Essentially they put boundaries on what is possible, and it's those boundaries that Joel doesn't like.

As a rule, the demographic that is the most skepital of these 'American' values is the black population, and specifically black Americans descended from slaves (rather than Carribean). It's not difficult to see why this is so, since founding values are usually identified with those who rule, and the rulers were perceived with some clarity as 'the beast.' Yet, if you meet a black American in Europe he or she will strike you as more American than black. That is, they have a deep but somewhat more qualified committment to the same set of values, more than the typical European.

Even the transcendentalist movement, Thoreau, Emerson and Margaret Fuller and their followers, who I think come the closest to your 'Oneness with Nature' narrative, are far more individualistic in the interpretation of that insight than their European counterparts of the time. The same would be true today. That is, the Greens are more statist in Europe, while in the US such people are more likely to be anti-statist if not openly anarchistic. Funny how that works.

It's a key to our character that Joel keeps overlooking for some reason.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 05:16:45 (GMT)
From: Mr B
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Reluctant reprise to Joe (ot)
Message:
Dear Mr Scott,
I am unfamiliar with much of the subject matter of your interesting and informative missive, as here in the Land of the Bubble, we have very few Americans and even fewer politicians.
Regarding attitudes and values, they are taught to us by others, e.g., religious leaders, politicians, business interests, parents, etc, but in most cases they are not our own. Of course society couldn't function without the parameters that these imposed values provide, but that doesn't mean necessarily that there is much of value in many of them either. Sometimes maturity helps us to develop some of our own values and more importantly, our attitudes, but it's my experience, that one way is to simply put yourself in Nature, be still, listen, and be prepared to follow the intuitions that follow. Real values then flow, your personal values.

As a rule, the demographic that is the most skeptical of these 'American' values is the black population, and specifically black
I think you need to spread your wings a bit here Mr Scott. It's my experience that most of the civilized world is extremely skeptical of American values (there's an oxymoron if ever I heard one). Many of us see Globalisation as another word for the Americanization of the world, and something to be avoided at all costs.
Humbly
Mr Bubblehead

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 20:04:18 (GMT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Mr B
Subject: Hi Mr. B -- values vs. actual behavior
Message:
I think you need to spread your wings a bit here Mr Scott. It's my experience that most of the civilized world is extremely skeptical of American values (there's an oxymoron if ever I heard one). Many of us see Globalisation as another word for the Americanization of the world, and something to be avoided at all costs.

I think you might be saying that American 'values' aren't showing up so strongly in what the US does around the world. We may profess 'values' of democracy and self-determination, but if those 'values' conflict with American self-interest, they sometimes go out the window. There is a rather widespread movement right now pointing out the hypocrisy of a lot of American foreign policy in that regard.

During the Cold War especially, the US supported lots of brutal, even murderous dictators, even armed, trained their death squads, etc., overthrew governments, etc., because they were or(or weren't) enemies of the USSR, or flirting with a socialist government. Nicaragua, Chile, Guatamala, Indonesia, Zaire, are all examples and the list goes on. While, at the same time, we expressed our 'values' of democracy, freedom, human rights and the rest.

The USA has also been greatly criticised for using our 'values' as a reason for taking certain actions when really they wre taken for other reasons, usally economic concerns. [Attacking Iraq because they invaded Kuwait, citing the value of self-determination, and because Hussein attacked and murdered his own citizens citing human rights, when really it was the free flow of oil that that war was about. Also, we were, at the very same time, selling sophisticated weaponry to Turkey, who was attacking its Kurdish population, and to Indonesia, who was attacking East Timor and we had no interest in either invasion or even sanctions.]

The US also sometimes used the reason of preventing genocide, like in the Balkans, but if the genocide is in Africa, like in Rawanda, then the 'value' isn't exercised.

This mentality has to some degree continued even after the fall of the USSR, and has kind of morphed more into the economic realm. For example, the WTO basically usurpts the right of the American public to control it's laws and regulations, as they can be overrulled by an international body overwhich the public has no control. So, while we have the 'value' of democracy and carrying out the will of the people, when it is in corporate interests, we have set up international organizations that completely usurpt that. Fortunately, there is a large backlash, much larger than the business community ever anticipated, working against this.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 10, 2000 at 21:35:50 (GMT)
From: Mr Bubblehead
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Hi Mr. B -- values vs. actual behavior
Message:
Good morning Joseph,
I agree whole heartedly with you. America is a truly confusing country. It strikes me as being very conservative. We hear here of the power of the Christian Right, yet you have millions of homeless and millions more of people just hanging on, etc, etc. In the West now, in any given year, around 20% of the people will suffer from a mental illness. Truly frightening stats, and America is at the forefront of pushing this insanity on to the rest of the world.
I'm a bit scattered this morning Joseph. It's all this trying to stay on topic. It always ends up giving me a headache.
Yours Truly
Mr Bubblehead
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 10, 2000 at 14:02:38 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Hi Mr. B -- values vs. actual behavior
Message:
Joe:

I don't disagree with the general position you're taking. Several observations:

As a general rule Americans don't care much about foreign policy, which leaves a power vacuum. To change things significantly you'd have to portray those who now occupy that power vacuum as 'unAmerican,' which means that you'd have to start by understanding what 'Americanism' is. In other words, you'd have to understand the values, and then make people care about them in the context of foreign policy. It would be a daunting task, to say the least.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 10, 2000 at 18:55:47 (GMT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Hi Mr. B -- values vs. actual behavior
Message:
I think more Americans are caring about foreign policy when it affects working conditions, wages, environmental protections, etc. I think what happened in Seattle, is evidence of this. Also, it's now likely that Nader will get enough votes to quailify the Green party for matching funds and there is the basis of a movement growing.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 10, 2000 at 14:10:09 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Hi Mr. B -- values vs. actual behavior
Message:
I should have added that the American Ideology is a good deal more complicated than just supporting 'democracy,' though that is part of it. Consider the effect that Gunnar Mydal had on the civil rights movement when he made a concerted effort to understand the values in order to illustrate the extent to which they diverged from practice.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 17:26:39 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Mr B
Subject: The bubble of our discontent (ot)
Message:
Mr. B:

Regarding attitudes and values, they are taught to us by others, e.g., religious leaders, politicians, business interests, parents, etc, but in most cases they are not our own.

What justification do you have to suggest that values learned from others are not our own? Most values are learned from parents, though perhaps (and this is a big qualification) those may be indirectly influenced by religious leaders and politicians especially of the charismatic variety.

Sometimes maturity helps us to develop some of our own values and more importantly, our attitudes, but it's my experience, that one way is to simply put yourself in Nature, be still, listen, and be prepared to follow the intuitions that follow. Real values then flow, your personal values.

Being meditative and reflective with respect to values is at least part of the process of making a value orientation your own, but I can't see that 'nature' is the real source here. The problem with this 'commune with nature to obtain pristine values' point of view is that it's an incomplete scenario. Values have mostly to do with how we interact with other humans, and evolve in response to that fundamental dilemma. How Crusoe dealt with nature prior to the arrival of Friday was one thing, and the arrangement afterward was quite another. In short, the relationship between an individual and nature, in the absence of other humans, is not a source of 'values.' This is a common mistake, from Rousseau to Marx. In fact it has acquired a name: 'The state of nature fallacy.' It's fallacious because it represents a condition that doesn't and can't actually exist.

By the way, 'attitudes' are short term pragmatic positions taken relative to current conditions, and change as rapidly as conditions change.

It's my experience that most of the civilized world is extremely skeptical of American values (there's an oxymoron if ever I heard one).

If that were so then I'd be hard pressed to explain why the values and attitudes expressed in 70 different countries, documented by Ronald Inglehart in the World Values Survey for the past 20 years, have been edging in the direction of those expressed by Americans. I submit they your perspective is elitist, and misinformed. This is not to suggest that American values are beyond reproach. Indeed we are frequently very skeptical of our own implementation of them, to the point that we have a sort of recurring passion play with about a sixty year periodicy. We are approximately 30 years from the next one.

Many of us see Globalisation as another word for the Americanization of the world, and something to be avoided at all costs.

Well, if that's the way you see it then it's a mistake. Simply put, I don't see that Globalization, per se, is part of the American Ideology. If you perceive something unhealthy in it, then perhaps this insight might be of value in devising a strategy. Globalization is probably a human imperative, though the specific form that it takes, and the new social contract itself, ought to be leveraged and negotiated to represent the interests of all the parties that will be impacted by it, weak or strong. But the context will, like the American Ideology, have to be Lockean... because that's where the notion of 'human rights' comes from, and more importantly how it can be enforced.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 23:30:51 (GMT)
From: Mr Bubblehead
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: 'The state of nature fallacy'.....Very good.
Message:
Good morning Mr Scott,
What justification do you have to suggest that values learned from others are not our own? Most values are learned from parents, though perhaps (and this is a big qualification) those may be indirectly influenced by religious leaders and politicians especially of the charismatic variety.
Well if values are fluid, and you got yours from someone else, that would tend to suggest that there not really yours, although they may be. I grew up with guys that were taught roughly the same value system as me, and while I kept some, rejected others, it's a continual process of finding what's really real for me. Many of the people I grew with have the same value and belief systems they were taught, and whether that's a product of laziness, apathy, or it's just part of their journey, I don't know. So in a way I would agree with you, that on one level at least, everyboby's value system is theirs, but on another, they can belong to someone else.

Being meditative and reflective with respect to values is at least part of the process of making a value orientation your own, but I can't see that 'nature' is the real source here

Nature isn't really the right word, and whether what I connect to is 'The Source' I can't say, but I can say this, that it's my experience (and when it comes down to it, that's all we've got), that when I'm still in the Earth energy, I do connect to something powerful and 'clean'. That connection has turned my life upside down.

In fact it has acquired a name: 'The state of nature fallacy.' It's fallacious because it represents a condition that doesn't and can't actually exist

I think that due to population, the state of the Earth, and more, that it is getting harder to make that connection, but it's still out there and it's not going anywhere. Rousseau and Marx are dead. It's the connection that people make on an individual basis that's real to them. For me it's the Earth, but as you suggest, it may be people or almost anything, maybe a black wall.

By the way, 'attitudes' are short term pragmatic positions taken relative to current conditions, and change as rapidly as conditions change.

Attitude is everything, or almost, and it's where we live, shapes our character, our future, especially our future, and more, although it can be a bit like the chicken and the egg sometimes. Got to fly...the last Eagle is leaving for Bubbleland.

Mr B

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 05:12:32 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Mr Bubblehead
Subject: 'The state of nature fallacy'.....Very good.
Message:
Mr. B:

Well if values are fluid, and you got yours from someone else, that would tend to suggest that there not really yours, although they may be.

Well, this is only semantics but it's important. If we're going to continue this discussion, or even if you only intend to just think about it on your own, and eventually communicate with others, we need to be on the same page. Values are not fluid; attitudes are. You *have* to get values from others, unless you acquire them transcendentally. I can't see how that would happen, unless you're Moses or something, but that was the position of Thoreau, Emerson and Fuller.

Another point to be made is that there may well be lots of value diversity, while at the same time certain common values are shared. Now, you can take this process for granted, and just decide that you alone create, test, and validate all your values. You can do that, but it just doesn't strike me as very realistic or pragmatic.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 08:15:45 (GMT)
From: Moses
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Friends in High Places
Message:
Mr Scott,
I have noticed too that we tend to be on differing pages, sometimes different chapters, but I put that down to the medium we are communicating in. If for instance, we were sitting near to each other, next to a beautiful little waterfall I know in Bubbleland, then I'm sure we would communicate better, but.....

Values are not fluid; attitudes are. You *have* to get values from others, unless you acquire them transcendentally. I can't see how that would happen, unless you're Moses or something, but that was the position of Thoreau, Emerson and Fuller.

I don't agree that values aren’t fluid. They can be anything, good, bad or indifferent, it just depends what it is you're taught. For instance, during the Second World War, children were taught that it was good to dob in your parents if they suspected them of being Jewish sympathizers, which many of them did, knowing what would happen to their parents. The values of others have little meaning, other than teaching us not to be a square peg in a round society.
On the other hand, I don't see anything transcendental in connecting to the Earth or whatever, following the intuitions that flow from that connection, and learning your own value system. It's not like your actually doing anything, other than being still and following through. Nothing transcendental there. I stopped to have a coffee on the way to work the other day, and went out on to the back porch, which overlooks the river and mountains. It's a magical place and I love to sit and listen to the wind in the trees, and they tell me many things. I saw a friend of mine sitting there on the balcony and I mentioned in passing about listening to the wind, and he said that's why he has his morning coffee there too. So there you go. Nothing transcendental or even special. Just being a bit aware.
Regarding Globalism, Transnational corporations, etc, here's an alternative view, and I'd be interested to hear your reaction. I haven't checked out this month’s issue, but it has a common thread. Check it out
Mr Bubblehead

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 11:10:23 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Moses
Subject: Friends in High Places
Message:
Mr. B:

I don't agree that values aren’t fluid. They can be anything, good, bad or indifferent, it just depends what it is you're taught. For instance, during the Second World War, children were taught that it was good to dob in your parents if they suspected them of being Jewish sympathizers, which many of them did, knowing what would happen to their parents. The values of others have little meaning, other than teaching us not to be a square peg in a round society.

The fact that children are malleable and subject to peer and authority pressure under a totalitarian regime doesn't mean that values are fluid. One would hope that value orientations that are pathological can be unlearned, but it's unfortunately the case that they aren't unlearned easily, and the older the child the more difficult the unlearning process is. Adults in Germany indulged in the same sort of behavior, suggesting that the motive had to do with reverence for the state above other kinds of social ties, a value orientaton that the Nazis were able to exploit. But if you stand at a crosswalk with a 'Don't Walk' sign in Germany today no one crosses the street even if it's obvious that there are no cars anywhere. Do the same thing in Boston and people are liable to think you're crazy.

Are you intentionally confusing yourself? Of course individuals play a part in determining their own values, but it's simply not a sound premise to assume that a value orientation is fluid. It's not practical either. Well, I guess glass is a slow moving fluid... but that's usually not what one means by the term.

On the other hand, I don't see anything transcendental in connecting to the Earth or whatever, following the intuitions that flow from that connection, and learning your own value system. It's not like your actually doing anything, other than being still and following through.

I'm beginning to think you are aptly named. What you're describing is a transcendental process, and you're not describing it very rigorously, which of course is one of the hallmarks of transcendentalism. It can't survive much rigor because you'd discover that your intuitions are coming from your social interactions rather than nature. It may be more free of coercion and direct influence to take a 'nature break,' giving you an opportunity for independent reflection. Is that what you mean? Why would I argue against a healthy process?? But if you think you're sort of formulating your own values out of nothing then I submit that you may need to check to see that you aren't missing some neurons.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 10, 2000 at 21:21:24 (GMT)
From: Mr B
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: I'm not called Mr Bubblehead for nothing.
Message:
Dear, dear, Mr Scott,
We seem to be having some difficulty with the word 'transcendental' so I looked up my trusty Fucken Wagnel, and here's what it says,
'Pronunciation: (tran'sen-den'tl, -sun-), [key]
—adj.
1. transcendent, surpassing, or superior.
2. being beyond ordinary or common experience, thought, or belief; supernatural.
3. abstract or metaphysical.
4. idealistic, lofty, or extravagant.
5. Philos.
a. beyond the contingent and accidental in human experience, but not beyond all human knowledge. Cf. transcendent (def. 4b).
b. pertaining to certain theories, etc., explaining what is objective as the contribution of the mind.
c. Kantianism.of, pertaining to, based upon, or concerned with a priori elements in experience, which condition human knowledge. Cf. transcendent (def. 4b).

Now with the exception of 'c', which I have not got a clue about, not one of the rest pertains to what I'm describing, and since it's my experience, then I ought to know. What I'm describing is as old as man. Indigenous peoples have been doing what I'm describing, in varying degrees, depending on where they come from, for years. It's only since Christianity dislocated man from the Earth, that your view has come into vogue.
Nothing 'lofty' or any of the rest, though it may be 'abstract' only because of my inability to properly describe it. But it is a bit like trying to explain the unexplainable.
I do get the feeling that you're talking of more than values and attitudes here. You seem a well-read man, and I can only surmise that at least in the past, you were looking for that illusive 'something'. Tell me Mr Scott, do you still believe that 'something' is knowable? Do you believe there is meaning for you on Earth?

But if you stand at a crosswalk with a 'Don't Walk' sign in Germany today no one crosses the street even if it's obvious that there are no cars anywhere. Do the same thing in Boston and people are liable to think you're crazy.

What do you suppose makes Germans Germans, Americans Americans, Aussies Aussie? It has to be the land, the energy of the land. It's an energy that the colonialists never really took the time to understand.
Yours Truly
Mr Bubblehead

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 09:25:04 (GMT)
From: Mr B
Email: None
To: Mr Scott
Subject: The Children I mentioned were German btw.....NT
Message:
ytg
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 11:12:28 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Mr B
Subject: Yeah, they would pretty much have to be.....NT
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 11:24:28 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Actually, now that I think of it...
Message:
there was an experiment conducted in a junior high class in California a number of years ago entitled 'The Wave' in which the teacher manipulated students to exibit some of the behavior of those under a totalitarian regime. It established how a process of intimidation, coercion and ego manipulation could contribute to a social pathology. In fact those children who resisted were often those with the strongest value system derived from the home. This suggests that one pathology feeds on another, not that values are fluid.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 10, 2000 at 21:24:51 (GMT)
From: Mr Bubblehead
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Actually, now that I think of it...
Message:
Mt Scott,
you are starting to sound somewhat shaky. Perhaps we could compromise and say instead of values be fluid, they are 'jerky'.
Mr B
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 03:47:12 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: The principle of generality (ot)
Message:
Joe:

I've been thinking that I probably gave you short shrift on part of what you said about the Democratic strategy, or lack of it. I have no problem with the following statement:

I think Teixeira and Rogers are absolutely right when they argue that the best strategy, both for workers and Democrats, is to advocate policies that are universal, like Social Security and Medicare, which progressively redistribute income.

It has always been Citizen Action's conviction that they needed to keep Social Security and Medicare from becoming a needs based system, so that more well off seniors would continue to support it. This is precisely the sort of principle that *will* work, provided it's seen as 'fair' and provided it's not too statist. Two policies, one proposed by the left and another by the right, have the same virtue: Guaranteed Annual Income (Nixon) and Eugene McCarthy's Demogrant. Why these have never been given better press is beyond me.

I will check out the Zweig book, and the Teixeira/Rogers book. I actually found my copy of 'The Disappearing American Voter' buried at the bottom of my laundry basket. I'm not saying your thesis is wholey wrong. I'm just saying it's not wholey right.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 23:04:23 (GMT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Mark Appleman's statement re Serenity
Message:
Okay, so we've all seen the evidence that Maharaji has a seven-million-dollar yacht. But I assumed the premies knew about this yacht and that it wasn't kept secret. Mark suggests that, at the same time the premies were being hit up for money for various 'projects' like planes, Amaroo, etc., etc., Maharaji secretly purchased a SEVEN MILLION DOLLAR YACHT.

Is this really true, and can we fill in the details. I haven't analyzed the records that G and others found, but can we find answers as to:

1. When Maharaji purchased Serenity yacht?

2. Can we correlate this with any fundraising pleas that were going on at the same time?

Hey you guys. THIS is a news story that the papers would LOVE. It would be short, simple, and damning.

Can anyone help us out here?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 17:57:56 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: When Maharaji purchased Serenity yacht
Message:
The Coast Guard Vessel Documentation on Serenity shows:

Year Built: 1997

Vessel Name History, Through:
WESTSHIP ONE, June 30, 1997

No Vessel Owner Changes

So it looks like Serenity was bought sometime before June 30, 1997.

The Premo Marine info page shows that it was created on 4/17/97.

Seva Marine Inc was created on 5/15/1992 and dissolved on 4/18/97.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 04:07:37 (GMT)
From: suchabanana
Email: None
To: Joe et al
Subject: Serenity: 1.donations diversion,or 2.tax scam?y,n?
Message:
1997 built and registered - Westport One (renamed Serenity)

The evidence tends to indicate that Serenity is allegedly either:

1. a diversion of EVI (or other project) non-profit donations;

or possibly

2. a deliberate and cleverly engineered scam to evade federal and state taxes; while 'personal use' and material benefit is derived by the 'owner'

or

3. both?

Ask M., EVI, and all the premies about the $7.5 million 106 foot luxury yacht! Ask the United States of America's IRS, and the States of Rhode Island, Florida, and California, Attorney Generals, too.

Also, the LA Times, Wall St Journal, NY Times, National Enquirer, 60 Minutes, Dateline, Washington Post, Miami Herald, London Times, Time, NewsWeek, US News and World Report, New Delhi Times etc.

The truth will set you free!

Peace,

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 16:45:21 (GMT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: suchabanana
Subject: Maybe a simpler story
Message:
I am assuming that because of the fine legal work of Mr. Robert Jacobs, who, according to Dettmers, Maharaji and his empire and Elan Vital, are pro bono clients because Maharaji is too struggling and poor and Jacobs is just doing him a favor out of charity (I am being sarcastic here, or at least trying), that there are unlikely to be tax violations regarding the yacht but, who knows?

No, my point is just this.

What does it say about Maharaji to the premies and to the world, that his organization would do aggressive fundraising among the premies for things that are just so important to Maharaji's only desire, which is to bring peace and love to anyone who wants it, when, at the same time, Maharaji is so overloaded with cash and so filthy rich, and SO, SO, SO, into priorities other than his stated one, that he can buy a SEVEN MILLION DOLLAR YACHT, instead of using some of his riches to pay for the stuff Yoram Weiss is hitting the premies up for at the very same time?

Really, I think this is major. I think there are lots and lots of premies who won't donate if they know this, and a bunch more that will see this as the last straw.

Some time ago, I mentioned a couple of old time premies I talked to about all this. They said that, while they still had a residual belief in Maharaji and knowledge, they don't contribute money because they think Maharaji and his organization wastes most of it. They kind of had this idea that Maharaji was 'the master', but deeply flawed when it came to money and greed. It was almost like they just had to put up with this big deficiency in their 'master,' but they wished it was different. I thought they appeared to be embarrassed by Maharaji's obscene wealth and screwed up priorities.

This yacht is just more bit of proof about that.

I would say that Maharaji's obvious material greed, and his wasteful and selfish lifestyle, has probably been the biggest reason why he has such a tiny following. And he obviously isn't willing to change, according to what we are hearing now.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 23:46:39 (GMT)
From: A friend of mine
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: bought a 60 ft yacht -
Message:
he sold it and made half a million $.

What are really facts and known about the Serinity transaction?

And fiction?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 20:02:10 (GMT)
From: Lotus eater
Email: None
To: A friend of mine
Subject: A friend of mine bought a 60 ft yacht -
Message:
What on earth are you trying to imply here? that Maharaji is just so brilliant that he is making money all by himself through investment in multi million dollar yachts????

Of course he will spend all the profits, when he realises them, on propagation in Darkest Africa won't he?!?

PS Joe, yes the 'common premie' doesn't know about the yacht.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 23:44:17 (GMT)
From: Elaine
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Mark Appleman's statement re Serenity
Message:
Again,just dropped in for a minute - I didn't know about any
$ 7,000,000 yacht.

Will bring it up to a premie tonight that always says she wishes she had enough money to give even $5.00 sometimes -( she struggles financially.)
It'll probably change that kind of thinking pretty quickly.

Love ,
Elaine

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 13:46:51 (GMT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: Elaine
Subject: five dollars
Message:
You're right, of course. Five dollars must mean a lot more to your friend than it does to Rawat. Anyway, the way I see it, if Rawat wants folk to donate money to help spread the knowledge...
  • He's got plenty of dosh to donate. After all, he's a successful private investor, right?

  • Rawat and the fatcat PAMs have been hopeless at getting 'knowledge' distributed. There must be more cost-effective approaches.

Beware of enterprises that involve poorer folk giving to wealthy types. Especially for 'love' and 'God'.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index