Forum V: Archive
Compiled: Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 13:08:59 (GMT)
From: Oct 04, 2000 To: Oct 11, 2000 Page: 4 Of: 5


temporarily anonymous -:- this forum; its tone -:- Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 21:41:41 (GMT)
__ AJW -:- this forum; its tone -:- Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 16:57:31 (GMT)
__ Roger eDrek -:- Why are these ex-PAMs so damn special? -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 03:39:59 (GMT)
__ __ AJW -:- PAMs are special Roger. -:- Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 16:29:56 (GMT)
__ __ __ Loaf -:- Heez loaf -:- Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 06:20:02 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ AJW -:- Heez loaf -:- Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 10:16:01 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Loaf -:- Heez loaf -:- Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 13:44:49 (GMT)
__ __ suchabanana -:- Yes,been there,Rog,+we have to keep reaffirming... -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 04:23:36 (GMT)
__ __ Susan -:- coming out of the woodwork tonight -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 04:12:00 (GMT)
__ __ __ Jim -:- Susan if I may, I think you'se confused, hon -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 04:25:49 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ gerry -:- two points -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 16:13:14 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Susan -:- I don't buy your argument -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 16:48:27 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Roger eDrek -:- yeah, I like what Jim said -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 05:14:07 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Susan -:- I have a feeling you are typing as I type -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 05:26:29 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Susan -:- more -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 05:40:28 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Susan -:- I don't disagree with that at all (nt) -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 04:31:17 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Susan -:- more -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 04:42:00 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Baby killer! -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 04:57:44 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Susan -:- no never -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 05:15:44 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- That's bullshit -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 05:26:43 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Monmot -:- That's bullshit--not from an outsider's p.o.v. -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 08:11:11 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JohnT -:- But what about THIS outsider's p.o.v.? -:- Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 20:30:34 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Just like I thought, the 'cult' part was a joke -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 18:32:39 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Monmot -:- The Circle Game -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 21:14:15 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- No wonder this guy can handle his marriage -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 21:21:55 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- That's bullshit - from another 'outsider's' p.o.v. -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 17:29:33 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- That's bullshit - from another 'outsider's' p.o.v. -:- Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 04:25:58 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Monmot -:- The Razor Tongue -:- Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 18:14:26 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- Mean Mouth -:- Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 18:30:38 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- That's bullshit - from another 'outsider's' p.o.v. -:- Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 15:07:41 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- Above post empty - (!). Will re-do if nec. nt -:- Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 19:02:25 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- It will show up eventually - patiently waiting:)nt -:- Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 19:41:10 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Monmot -:- Lysistrata 411 -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 21:21:20 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ suchabanana -:- Yes, Lysistrata is that play -:- Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 04:02:38 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ such -:- was not exactly Serenity -:- Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 19:13:13 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- Lysistrata 411 - Monmont and Katie -:- Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 16:38:13 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Monmot -:- Lysistrata 411 - Monmont and Katie -:- Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 18:22:13 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- Oh yes, the Canadian Thanksgiving Day jokes. ;) ot -:- Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 20:37:53 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- Weird US holidays -:- Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 21:36:23 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- Lysistrata 411 - Monmont and Katie (ot) -:- Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 18:36:53 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Helen -:- Lysistrata 411 - Monmont and Katie (ot) -:- Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 20:53:17 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- And why would you say that, Stonor? -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 18:37:18 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ cq -:- my two cents re Jim and Katie's quarrel -:- Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 18:34:11 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Here's why that's a problem, cq -:- Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 19:31:37 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JohnT -:- an outsider's p.o.v. -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 16:23:35 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- With an attitude like that, John .... -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 18:53:22 (GMT)
__ __ Scott T. -:- Why are these ex-PAMs so damn special? -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 04:06:37 (GMT)
__ __ Jim -:- Excellent fucking post! -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 03:59:02 (GMT)
__ __ __ Coach -:- Bullet stuff -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 16:32:22 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Jim -:- Is this it? It looks like a lot of work -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 18:57:58 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Coach -:- Yeah -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 19:26:59 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Testing -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 19:35:35 (GMT)
__ __ __ Roger eDrek -:- I think I'm dumb or maybe just happy -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 04:10:00 (GMT)
__ suchabanana -:- KINDNESS?! Some people have been through f-HELL!!! -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 01:37:42 (GMT)
__ Tonette -:- I know what you mean -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 00:17:13 (GMT)
__ Bin Liner -:- this forum; its tone -:- Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 22:09:48 (GMT)
__ Way -:- this forum; its tone -:- Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 21:59:57 (GMT)
__ Joe -:- Questions re tone -:- Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 21:59:48 (GMT)
__ __ temporarily anonymous -:- Questions re tone -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 02:13:40 (GMT)
__ __ __ Jim -:- Haven't you noticed? -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 02:29:43 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ temp. anon -:- Haven't you noticed? -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 03:13:49 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Great question -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 03:27:33 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ temp. anon. -:- yes, you do -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 15:20:02 (GMT)
__ __ Katie -:- Hostility on the forum -:- Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 23:48:21 (GMT)
__ __ __ cq -:- Hostility on the forum -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 11:11:28 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Katie -:- Forum and site -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 12:36:32 (GMT)
__ __ __ temporarily anonymous -:- Hostility on the forum -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 03:27:13 (GMT)
__ __ __ Jim -:- EPO -- the ridicule center of the universe -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 02:20:56 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Jim -:- Same post (the other came up blank) -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 02:22:30 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- Same post (the other came up blank) -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 02:42:37 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Funny, I guess you've said it all then -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 03:03:55 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ The Munificent Mr. Hole -:- BWWHAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAA -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 04:52:03 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ The Munificent Mr. Hole -:- correction: rec.gardens.roses -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 05:00:45 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- You poor fuck -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 05:06:46 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Salam -:- With caps lock for a laugh -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 06:22:42 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- You are wrong, Jim. -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 03:14:44 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Well I guess I am -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 03:32:04 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- Oh yeah, Jim - 'angry YOUNG men'??? Where??? (nt) -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 03:23:05 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Touche! (nt) -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 03:32:36 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Salam -:- That was very refreshing. -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 03:45:15 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Fuck you! Draw nothing! Where is she???? (nt) -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 04:02:38 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- I went to bed -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 13:20:45 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Same to you -:- I do not know, gonne fishing?..nt -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 04:04:34 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Salam -:- I changed my mind, I thing she won by a point. -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 07:01:58 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- I'll make it easy, Salam : TAKE my fucking goat! -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 19:03:01 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Salam -:- It OK Jim, you can keep the goat. -:- Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 01:30:07 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Susan -:- LOL LOL good one!!!(nt) -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 03:28:31 (GMT)
__ __ __ Sir Dave -:- Maharaji was right about one thing -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 01:16:31 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Katie -:- Maharaji was right about one thing -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 02:26:26 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Maharaji was right about one thing -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 08:48:21 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ JohnT -:- Steady on, Scott T! -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 09:10:00 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Steady on, Scott T! -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 23:18:40 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Bullshit, Katie -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 02:34:53 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- Jim, you remind me of Dr. Laura -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 02:50:16 (GMT)
__ __ __ Susan -:- I totally agree -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 00:14:36 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Helen -:- I totally agree -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 16:47:24 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Hold on there, Helen -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 19:08:41 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Helen -:- Hold on there cowboy -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 20:46:47 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Well, that's pretty damned simplistic, isn't it? -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 21:19:07 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Helen -:- so what? -:- Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 03:46:28 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- took the words right out of my mouth -:- Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 04:37:14 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Take the spin off and look at this fairly -:- Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 05:06:21 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- Oh for god's sake, Jim - face the facts -:- Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 07:21:41 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- The facts are the very things I'm talking about -:- Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 00:08:21 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- A toast, with jam and bread. -:- Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 05:51:16 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Monmot -:- C'mon Jim, Let's Bifurcate Here -:- Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 01:02:17 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Nothing. Forget it (nt) -:- Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 03:56:41 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ suchabanana -:- I totally agree -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 03:04:33 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- And let me jump on that bandwagon too! -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 03:08:14 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ janet of venice -:- ..'and it honestly hurts me...' -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 09:34:32 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- 'Everything lies'? Ain't that the truth, Janet? -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 19:10:56 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Katie -:- Thanks, Susan -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 02:52:20 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ JohnT -:- The price of silence -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 08:35:21 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Susan -:- I think you are wrong -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 17:06:54 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ JohnT -:- I think you are unfair -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 17:38:33 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Susan -:- you are right -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 17:42:50 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JohnT -:- and you -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 18:06:55 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- The price of silence -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 13:50:27 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ JohnT -:- The price of silence -:- Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 08:25:07 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- The price of silence -:- Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 18:13:46 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JohnT -:- The price of silence -:- Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 06:36:21 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- The price of silence -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 23:37:42 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- I find that very hard to believe, Scott (ot) -:- Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 00:00:56 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- I find that very hard to believe, Scott (ot) -:- Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 00:33:25 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- A little fuzzy thinking perhaps, Katie and Susan? -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 19:32:28 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Replacing another blank post -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 19:37:31 (GMT)
__ __ __ Jim -:- Hostility on the forum -:- Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 23:56:25 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ anonymous -:- Logical and right on target -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 00:30:13 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Hal -:- Logical and right on target -:- Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 09:57:36 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Salam -:- Logical and right on target -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 01:40:23 (GMT)

BullShp Detector -:- Are you bald and used to sell lightbulbs in Miami? -:- Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 20:55:27 (GMT)
__ shp -:- Are you bald and used to sell lightbulbs in Miami? -:- Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 21:09:05 (GMT)
__ __ Gordon Showcase -:- I'm not bald and I sell drugs to schoolkids -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 00:45:19 (GMT)
__ __ __ Tonette -:- Hey, I never belived he was Lord of the Universe! -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 01:00:31 (GMT)

cq -:- What's original about the 'knowledge' then? -:- Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 17:28:12 (GMT)
__ Bin Liner -:- What's original about the 'knowledge' then? -:- Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 20:03:11 (GMT)
__ __ cq -:- Let's face it ... -:- Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 19:53:03 (GMT)
__ shp -:- Nothing new under the sun, conservation of energy -:- Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 18:19:24 (GMT)
__ __ Way -:- shp - do you miss sitting in the satsang chair? -:- Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 20:16:51 (GMT)
__ __ __ shp -:- No more truthtelling at all or just re Maharaj?nt -:- Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 20:57:27 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Way -:- No more truthtelling at all or just re Maharaj?nt -:- Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 22:10:59 (GMT)
__ __ cq -:- It was a short post, Sandy. Try reading it -:- Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 19:04:18 (GMT)
__ __ __ shp -:- I did read it. Substitute 'original' for 'new'. -:- Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 19:32:09 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ cq -:- Substitute 'original' for 'new' I see ...or do I? -:- Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 20:02:41 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ shp -:- Your criticism is riddled with inaccuracy, oh well -:- Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 21:08:07 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ cq -:- YOU said: 'The Knowledge is definitely not new' -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 10:33:39 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ shp -:- YOU said: 'The Knowledge is definitely not new' -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 15:01:49 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Bin Liner -:- 'Care to share' -:- Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 23:41:29 (GMT)
__ __ Jim -:- What ABOUT the yacht, shp? (nt) -:- Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 18:23:13 (GMT)
__ __ __ shp -:- What about it? (nt) -:- Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 18:29:11 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Tonette -:- A question -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 00:42:30 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ shp -:- More than one question, T, and some answsers 4U -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 05:18:26 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Jim -:- What ABOUT it??? -:- Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 18:39:24 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ shp -:- WHAT about it? -:- Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 18:50:32 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ aJanet of venice -:- WHAT about it? -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 10:56:05 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Will someone show Janet the HTML for paragraph? -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 19:39:57 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JohnT -:- the HTML for paragraph breaks -:- Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 12:48:19 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ shp -:- WHAT about it? -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 15:48:28 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Moneymaking's not one of your strong suits?? -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 19:42:41 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ suchabanana -:- 'The Giver and the Gift' -- was bull, brother -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 03:36:16 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Just what I thought. You're too stupid for words -:- Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 18:56:30 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Hal -:- Just what I thought. You're too stupid for words -:- Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 14:36:58 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ shp -:- Just what I thought. You're too stupid for words -:- Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 21:41:23 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Hal -:- You're right shp -:- Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 07:22:17 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ shp -:- About trust -:- Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 14:44:31 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ shp -:- to cq and Jim. gotta go now, see yas later..., -:- Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 19:42:00 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ shp -:- If I'm too stupid for words, don't post to me. -:- Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 19:19:36 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Liar! -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 02:43:28 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ shp -:- At the very worst I'd call it a snide remark, but -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 05:31:43 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Face it, asshole, you're caught in a lie -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 05:58:20 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ shp -:- Your shock, shlock tabloid ways will fool a few... -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 06:16:20 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JohnT -:- the realationship between a fool and his money -:- Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 13:02:30 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ shp -:- the realationship between a fool and his money -:- Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 21:44:12 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Mark Appleman -:- Dont give the new/now age a bad name! -:- Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 21:47:48 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ shp -:- It's always good to hear from you, Mark -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 05:50:42 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Mark -:- It's always good to hear from you, Mark -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 15:42:30 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- The universe is unfolding perfectly right here! -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 19:46:39 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ shp -:- From one bongo to another.... -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 16:04:26 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Wow! They actually called you a 'bongo', shp? -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 19:49:12 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- You mean shp is an aries??? -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 03:16:17 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Danny -:- Just curious, Jim -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 04:07:48 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ shp -:- Bravo, Danny. Bravissimo! (nt) -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 05:53:27 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- No, you're absolutely right, Dan -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 04:31:50 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Danny -:- No, you're absolutely right, Dan -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 22:02:28 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- No cigar on that one, Danny -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 23:56:57 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Danny -:- No cigar on that one, Danny -:- Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 02:24:53 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- No, Danny, not in this context it's not true -:- Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 04:12:06 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ dhp -:- Keep going Danny, soon you'll be an idiot, too, -:- Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 21:55:42 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Very pathetic, shp, even for you (nt) -:- Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 23:28:40 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ shp -:- Very pathetic, shp, even for you (nt) -:- Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 02:28:12 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Can you read, Mr. New Age Imbecile? -:- Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 04:42:07 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ shp -:- This haughty yet somehow slapstick thing you do -:- Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 14:52:47 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- For the last time, Mr. New Age Looser .... -:- Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 18:09:08 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ shp -:- Do you promise it's the last time, and learn to -:- Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 18:29:05 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JohnT -:- shp has shit for brains. He's a form of pollution. -:- Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 19:43:48 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ shp -:- Once again Danny speaks truth in few words! (nt) -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 22:24:12 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ shp -:- You hide your ugliness behind 'human nature' -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 06:06:27 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Fuck you, doofus -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 06:11:55 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ shp -:- More canned crap from the Heller factory -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 06:40:59 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JohnT -:- 'money is not the real bottom line to Maharaji' -:- Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 13:31:00 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ shp -:- 'money is not the real bottom line to Maharaji' -:- Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 22:09:04 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JohnT -:- Well, thank you, flower. -:- Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 18:04:35 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ shp -:- This bud's for you! -:- Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 18:15:16 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JohnT -:- You are a fuckwit. Piss off back to your false God -:- Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 19:36:16 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Tonette -:- I enjoyed that post Thanks! -:- Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 00:50:30 (GMT)


Date: Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 21:41:41 (GMT)
From: temporarily anonymous
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: this forum; its tone
Message:
I am soon going to meet with a notorious ex-premie: a former high-level DLM leader. (We have a mutual friend, it turns out.) I would like to invite him to this forum, but, if I were him and had been checking onto this site now and then, I'm not sure I'd want to get involved.

There is a high level of hostility here. The recent Dettmer-related exchange is but one example. (Where the tables are turned and Jim is the diplomatic voice!)

The excuse used is: 'The cult abused me, I'm angry, I can vent here.'

I don't know, is that a good thing? I know this is not a new topic, but I'm interested in what people are feeling now about this. My problem with 'fuck you, asshole' kind of posts (well, one of my problems) is that a lot of interesting voices that could be heard won't be heard due to the occasionally hostile climate.

Anyway, I hope at the very least I can post here, in a few weeks, my account of my conversation with 'an anonymous former high-ranking DLM leader.' A lot of us are curious to find out the answer to the question posed by that 1973 paperback propaganda vehicle...maybe this old-time PAM can shed some light on the personality behind the persona.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 16:57:31 (GMT)
From: AJW
Email: None
To: temporarily anonymous
Subject: this forum; its tone
Message:
Hi temporarily,

Long ago I used to spend time in Perfectmasterworld, and I've been very well treated by people here on the forum- but I like to think that's because of my youthful looks, sparkling wit, and tendency to buy lots of rounds when I'm drunk.

The forum is lively and has a sharp edge, but the general atmosphere is healthy, free, open debate, discussion and argument.

I think if your pal genuinely wants to inform people about stuff that was going on in the cult they could do it anonymously, or even through an anonymous house-party like yourself.

Anth, what would you like to drink? it must be my round.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 03:39:59 (GMT)
From: Roger eDrek
Email: drek@oz.net
To: temporarily anonymous
Subject: Why are these ex-PAMs so damn special?
Message:
Ok, I'm one of the bad people. Always was and always will be.

And yeah, yeah, yeah, there's all these ex-PAMs who are patiently queued up waiting for the day that the Ex-Premie Forum is a kinder and gentler place and hell freezes over. Yeah, sure, right.

Before I really launch into my boring main point I'd like people to consider what kind of place the Ex-Premie Forum and the Ex-Premie.org website is in terms of Maharaji. This is not a Maharaji-friendly or even a Maharaji-neutral website. Let's call it as it is. The twain shall never meet. Look around. It's everywhere. It permeates.

Consider the worst sin, the worst affront ever to Maharaji (and no, that isn't him dancing with his best points) on these pages. What is it? It's the revealing of the techniques of Knowledge.

This is not a premie friendly place. Let's stop thinking that it is.

Also, another thing before I get to the main point (a second post is in order I see) is that these ex-PAMs desire and require to establish some special rules of engagement before they speak or present their special insider information. Hmmm. What is THIS? What does this mean? Do these people still, somehow, consider themselves special? Are they trying to prepare us for the big heavy-duty truth? What are their special needs before they simply come here and either use their real name or a handle and start telling what they saw - what they experienced. Christ, what else is there? What kind of buildup do they need?

Basically, I'm suspicious of these special needs that the most high ex-PAMs appear to need before they tell us the simple truth about what they experienced.

  • What is it that they want?
  • What is it that they are hiding?
  • If they were big hitters in the propaganda machine (ala Donner and his letter recently posted here) and while they might have been 100% sincere, they pretty much played with our heads. But, I'm sure that in our own zealousness we are all guilty of doing that.
  • And what now? They want to play with our heads again some twenty or thirty years later?
  • I mean, what the hell is this?
  • Just tell us that you were as mislead in the same way we were. I think that we can buy that.
  • Tell us what you saw.
  • Tell us how you feel.
  • Write a journey.
  • Keep It Simple Stupid.

The Main Part

I only left the cult a few years ago after a long term 24 year involvement where I really thought that Maharaji was the Almighty! Wasn't I stupid? Well, it's worse than that because sometimes in a moment of weakness I still consider that he might be the Lord of the Universe and I'm going to the worst of Hells for being the notorious Roger eDrek. Or maybe I'll be reborn a million times as a third world street orphan addicted to inhalants. You know the drill.

And maybe everybody here has their own horror story about the possibility that Maharaji was God and how it was intimidating to even consider leaving the cult. I know that the Ashram residents had the shit scared out of them by Maharaji threatening them with whatever at the thought of leaving the ashram.

Indeed, (taking 'RESPONSIBILITY') I got very hostile in regards to Michael Dettmers and what he was not saying.

And, in one of the posts in this thread the inevitable and the unmentionable is finally put forth and that is the concept of war criminals. Ok, we can tone down that piece of semantics and quite possibly use the term criminal. Ok, I'll take it one more step and just say unethical and maybe add some innocence and use the phrased deluded coconspirator. Whatever! The fact is that some of the high PAMs and DLM and Elan Vital office holders very much facilitated what essentially has been a scam if Maharaji is not or was not the Lord of the Universe. And some of these people profited from their actions and association. And some, like Dettmers, at some point knew that Maharaji was phony and yet Dettmers continued in his role.

Let's not forget the impact that these people had on the lives of the simple and struggling common premie who was always quitting their jobs and living from paycheck to paycheck because they were always leaving town to attend a program and/or they were giving their possession and money to Maharaji because they were asked to do so by these people. Consider the recently posted Donner letter in regards to the break up of the Holy Family and you will understand how much power, sway, and influence these people had over our lives. The answer is a lot, too much, in fact.

Let's consider Bob Mishler and use him as some kind of ethical person standard of the highest order. Mishler came to the conclusion that Maharaji was bogus and he went very public with what he believed and what he saw. And this was at a time when it was a very brave and risky thing to do. Even today as an ex-premie the well-programmed premie part that still very much lives inside of me still considers Bob Mishler to be a monmot, a traitor of the worst kind.

So, where are these ex-PAMs? What do they have to hide? Why not just come out and say it? If Bob Mishler were alive today and posted on this Forum the same kind of information he told in his radio interview would the ex-premies be hostile to him? Emphatically, NO! He would be a hero for helping us break free of our fears and ties with Maharaji. I need to know that Maharaji is bogus. I'm going to burn in hell if Maharaji isn't bogus! Somebody, anybody who knows please tell me! I've got to know!

And who better than that ex-PAMs to help set me free and anyone else who needs it by telling us what they saw?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 16:29:56 (GMT)
From: AJW
Email: None
To: Roger eDrek
Subject: PAMs are special Roger.
Message:
Roger,

PAMs are special people for many reasons.

They get to wash, shower and put on clean underwear every day.

Even inside the 'Residence' there are layers on people around the Master. There are people who don't get to see him and people who do. People who get a glimpse and those who talk to him. Those who talk to him once in a while and those who talk to him lots.

And of course, because he is a divine being, all these different levels of involvement reflect interaction with the creator. (It used to be called 'Darshan'.)

Anyway, whatever lever of interaction gives you great status- and intense interaction is recognised as being of life shaping importance, and immensely beneficial.

Yup, it's wacky-doodle world out there in Perfectmasterland. Things are not as they seem to outsiders like you Rog' who, as you admit in your post, were just too bad, and carried such a Kali-Yuga type vibe, that, should you have been allowed into the presence of Heem, you would probably have blown to smithereens.

Another difference is that they get to eat good food, cooked with love and devotion.

They get front seats at programmes and get to go to special rooms with loads of free snacks and premie servants, happy to be rubbing shoulders with cult celebs.

You get the best passes of all. The PAM smart card gets you free meals in Woolworths Cafes all round the world.

You're allowed to be on any kind of 'special diet'you like and it's taken seriously.

You, 'know certain little things' that you don't talk about, except when you get drunk and stoned years later and are writhing in hell, or Paris or somewhere, blind to 'heez loaf'.

You really have to be in 'that place' to understand all this of course.

I could go on, but nobodys brought me a glass of water with a white cloth over it, and my throat's a little dry, cough, cough, so I'll share more secrets from the hidden world of the perfect master with you later Roger.

Anth the ok I suppose another beer will do then.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 06:20:02 (GMT)
From: Loaf
Email: None
To: AJW
Subject: Heez loaf
Message:
You, 'know certain little things' that you don't talk about, except when you get drunk and stoned years later and are writhing in hell, or Paris or somewhere, blind to 'heez loaf'.

Eh... What...?

Did someone call ?

Who is it ? I can't see a thing !

Loaf

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 10:16:01 (GMT)
From: AJW
Email: None
To: Loaf
Subject: Heez loaf
Message:
No you Loaf,

I meant the divine loaf that flows from heez holy lotus teeth.

Anth your blowther in heez loaf

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 13:44:49 (GMT)
From: Loaf
Email: None
To: AJW
Subject: Heez loaf
Message:
I am getting closer to finding out what a brayner is....

I can feel it in my bones

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 04:23:36 (GMT)
From: suchabanana
Email: None
To: Roger eDrek
Subject: Yes,been there,Rog,+we have to keep reaffirming...
Message:
'Well, it's worse than that because sometimes in a moment of weakness I still consider that he might be the Lord of the Universe and I'm going to the worst of Hells.'

But -- Somethin' about Prem's material/power trip now don't jive -- with the truth we know of, and why we are alive. So, I say we kick some booty on the count of five. And if we pray for guidance, then the REAL Lord will know -- that at heart we still strive. One, two, three, quattro...

Peace,

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 04:12:00 (GMT)
From: Susan
Email: None
To: Roger eDrek
Subject: coming out of the woodwork tonight
Message:
Deluded co conspirator

Roger, I knew a few PAMs in my day, and I think most of them if anything were more programed than most of us, not less. I believe they were cult victims too. I don't think your 'doubts' and struggles couldn't be the same ones most PAMs have when they leave the cult.

All I know is I aspired, in the worst way, when I was in the cult to be a PAM. It is just too easy for me to see myself in their shoes. God, all I wanted was to be in their shoes. I groveled at their shoes.

So I have no doubt, if I had been chosen, I would have served. I would have been a war criminal surely. If Rawat had said, I am making you Susan, Durga Ji, and you shall live in splendor, I would have bought it.

What I hope, is my ego, ability to be won over with flattery, love of nice things, and gullibilty would not have triumphed. But got I don't know. Or if I had been the kids babysitter, the service of my dreams, would I have ever left? Maybe I would have liked being special more so much I would never have let my mind speak loud enough to see the cult for what it is. That scares me.

Roger, you saw the Marolyn letter? Who has ever been in a better position to see through the scam? But I would say that lady is just as much a cult victim as the rest of us. Yep, a rich one. Rich of our money. But I think she believes the BS, most of the time, maybe she has lucid moments, but I think most premies do, and they attribute it to mind, and push the thoughts out, and listen to their 'hearts'. I think PAMs do it too.

It is just a thought Roger, but I NEVER struggle with maybe he is real. I don't. I don't think Rawat could possibly be anything but a cult leader, just like Moon, Jim Jones etc. It doesn't bother me even in my darkest moments. But maybe the fact that is still alive in you is what makes you somehow see PAMs as somehow inherently different from yourself. I know you to have moments of great compassion and frankly it has suprised me how you seem to have no compassion for Michael, to the point of making a webpage exposing and harrassing a person you have never met. I wonder if it is that part of you that 'doubts' that also allows you to do something like that?

(And please, do not interpet this as my not having the opinion that Michael should say more, I think he should, and I doubt he will. I hope I am wrong.)

I was never around the guru, but somehow I think if I had been I might have been more confused and conflicted with leaving, not less. Once you have the concept of 'Lila' anything you see that is contradictory can be written away. We all thought the short pimply fat boy who lived in the palace and drove all the cars and wanted all our money was LOTU. We all had every reason to know it was a sham. Most of the owrld was laughing at us as the biggest fools that could be. And they cry for the fools that died at Jonestown.

This really was a cult, and is a cult. It really sucks. And it is really complicated.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 04:25:49 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Susan
Subject: Susan if I may, I think you'se confused, hon
Message:
Yes, we all would have grabbed at the gold. No question. Dettmers was once just another new premie looking for a little service around the ashram. So he got what he asked for, in spades.

BUT, whether or not we'd any one of us have traded places with him is beside the point. Fact is, he DID become majordomo, we didn't.

That does put him in a different category and presents him with all sorts of ethical quandries none of us share.

It's like this. My sister and I both want to sneak into dad's closet and steal $20 when he's sleeping. So I get lucky and find the right opportunity. I'm in and take the money. Sis, on the other hand, every bit as willing and all that, never gets a chance. Fine, I'm still the one who has to return the money. It matters not that she wanted to be exactly where I am.

Now I KNOW that that's not a perfect analogy. But then it's Friday night and I'm not going to spend the whole night here. Are you? But I say that that analogy works perfectly well in its essential parts. Dettmers got something we all wanted, yes, but he got it, we didn't. It does put him in a unique position.

Let me remind you, for example -- many of us, maybe most of us, dreamed of the chance to spend just five minutes with out Lord. Most of us never had that chance. But Michael? Think about it.

In short, I don't know how far you can go with that indisputable fact that we'd all have traded places with him. In the end, that WAS his place, not ours and it all creates different obligations and opportunites for him.

Put another way, we can't be heroes here the way Mishler was or the way Dettmers still can.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 16:13:14 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: susan
Subject: two points
Message:
Once a person is around the little emporer any length of time, they discover for themselves that he's naked.

You were never a pam so you never were enlightened like mishler, dettmers and donner.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 16:48:27 (GMT)
From: Susan
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: I don't buy your argument
Message:
You weren't either, a PAM that is. I do not at all believe that every PAM saw through it.

I do believe strongly in the strength of the cult indoctrination on people. I have absolutely no trouble with the concept that a person could watch Rawat do all manner of human and not so nice things and every time the 'doubts' popped into his or her mind that he would feel he was being 'tested' and that it was 'lila' and what about 'that experience' that Rawat gave them.....blah blah.....that coupled with the fears we all had about leaving. And the ugly feeling of realizing what a fool you have been. And seeing the ugliness in yourself in how you treated others using the guru as an excuse.

A lot of people around here see conspiracies everywhere they turn. I suppose it is a more romantic notion of the world than the confusing human drama that it is.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 05:14:07 (GMT)
From: Roger eDrek
Email: drek@oz.net
To: Jim
Subject: yeah, I like what Jim said
Message:
Susan,

I know that I've been avoiding this issue and it is Friday night and all, but... Dang it.

Jim made some excellent points and I see that you agree with them and so do I. We all wanted something like that. I think we all lived for years having some dream or fantasy that we, too, would be beloved PAMs and wouldn't have to keep working those crappy jobs and quiting them to go to the next festival.

Yes, I at times feel like a major creep with my website and the expose about Michael Dettmers. I've considered removing the Dettmers expose. I have spent some of my cycles pondering the effect and the other factors.

However, I think that there are at least two things that I find disturbing enough not to remove the expose page:

1. I believe that Dettmers acknowledged that at some point while he was in his majordomo position with DLM/Elan Vital that he came to the personal belief that Maharaji was not whom Maharaji wanted us to believe he was - God.

Yet, Dettmers continued for years, I believe, in his exalted position - a position far better off than many, if not most, common ordinary premies who had been sacrificing everything they had for years and years. Dettmers and all those PAMs lived with a quality of life that was far superior of the common premie and these PAMs were acting as the mouthpiece for Maharaji to ask for more and still more from the premies.

And I also suspect as Dettmers wrote in his resume that he was in charge of a Swiss Foundation that he, Dettmers, probably had a hand in working with Bob Jacobs to secret away those funds.

2. The payoff! There's just no other way to describe it. Dettmers' silence was bought and paid for by Bob Jacobs. Dettmers admitted just that in his last conversation with Jim.

Yes, if I was in Dettmers' shoes I probably wouldn't have even done any of what he's done at risk of losing whatever he was given or gets via consulting or positive references. Earning a living is a bitch. Making big money and living well is even harder. Dropping down a notch or two because you open your mouth where there is nothing material to gain is unthinkable.

Finally, I add all this up. I consider how much Maharaji has siphoned off from his sincere, honest, hardworking, and often impoverished premies and I think it really stinks. Maharaji is getting away with just too much. First, you gotta know that Maharaji and Company have evaded income taxes through their clever use of Bob Jacobs and Michael Dettmers. Why? Because they know it stinks. Because they are greedy. Because there was a source of money ripe for the taking - the premies. They couldn't do the right thing and say enough is enough. Really, consider that Elan Vital doesn't benefit anyone except for Maharaji and his entourage and all the others that are being paid off. Nothing to help anybody that really needs help.

And somebody like Dettmers could probably blow Maharaji and Elan Vital out of the water. Dettmers could put a stop to the entire fraudulent operation that keeps taking and taking from innocent people who've been brainwashed. Instead Dettmers really does nothing to stop it. He quietly steps aside and is silent.

I'm going say something that might upset you, but one of the big reasons that people like Jagdeo did what he did and nobody really stopped him was because too many people were brainwashed by the whole personality cult worship thing and because Maharaji and whoever was in charge then (was that Michael Dettmers?) damn well knew that they had to shut everybody up and get Jagdeo out of the country (I think he was sent to the Pacific and Thailand) or things could get really ugly and they could lose everything.

Yeah, the question I would like to ask Michael Dettmers would be was he at the helm at the the time of the Jagdeo incidents? And was he apprised of the situation? Yeah, that's really nasty, but has that question been asked?

Finally, and back to the point that for the suffering and the abuse to be stopped - to prevent any more victims from this cult - Maharaji must be put out of business. No, retirement onto his yacht is too good. Out of business and I do not mean in a violent threatenting manner.

And, unfortunately, only people on the inside like Michael Dettmers have the critical key information to do that. We all know that there is enough dirt on Maharaji to get somebody, some prosecutors, the IRS or somebody to get interested enough to launch an investigation. But there has to be people willing to come forth and testify. And what? If we are nice to Dettmers he might do that? I don't think so. I think that he could, but he won't. He's got too much too lose. I can't blame him. Too much too lose.

Anyway, THAT'S what I THINK, THINK,THINK, THINK, THINK
(Thinking - something we were not supposed to do.)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 05:26:29 (GMT)
From: Susan
Email: None
To: Roger eDrek
Subject: I have a feeling you are typing as I type
Message:
but...just on the Jagdeo thing

I don't think Dettmers knew about Jagdeo. You can speculate, and I can see why you are, but I don't think he did. Obviously, I have talked to him quite a bit about it. That is my opinion. I think Randy told Rawat, and that if Rawat told someone else, or Randy did, it wasn't that part of the chain of command they went up ( or I guess down would be the word). They also did not send Jagdeo away for a very long time, I think likely he did it again and it had nothing to do with my reports. I do not know what happened after my report. Maybe he was scolded. I don't know.

I think that when we deal with this stuff we have to be careful about the assumptions we make.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 05:40:28 (GMT)
From: Susan
Email: None
To: Drek
Subject: more
Message:
Michael also stated to me unequivocally that he did not know about Jagdeo. He treated the subject with incredible tact and caring. He didn't know.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 04:31:17 (GMT)
From: Susan
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: I don't disagree with that at all (nt)
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 04:42:00 (GMT)
From: Susan
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: more
Message:
I am not sure why you think I would disagree with that.

Here is an extreme example. Let's say I am Pro Life. To what degree to I harrass the doctor who does abortions?

Do I bomb his house?
Do I do everything I can to shut down his business? After all, he is killing innocent lives.
Do I make a webpage for his patients to read about him?
Do I just say firmly that what I think he is doing is wrong?

I don't think that Dettmers is remotely in this category anyway...we aren't talking about killing. And I do not want to get into an abortion debate.

I just think it is the same phenomenon at work here on our little forum. We have a cause that we believe in. And I think some of us, and I have to admit people I like very much, sometimes do and say things that are basically unethical and immoral in and of themselves in the name of taking down the cult.

Why does that happen? Probably because we are human. But I really think fanatacism is a big problem here. It is of course no wonder we are prone to it, we after all, were once cult members, we have it in us. But we have to have the guts to see it in ourselves.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 04:57:44 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Susan
Subject: Baby killer!
Message:
Susan,

What is it exactly that even the most fervet, militant, uncouth, wide-eyed barbarian ex is trying to get Micahel to do besides spill the beans a bit more?

And you're comparing that to murder?

Okay, I concede, there is a possible, hard-to-really-imagine but yes, possible, chance that coming out openly about Maharaji for any of them -- Dettmers, Donner, Patterson, Davis (where the fuck is Rennie Davis when you need him?) -- might be a little bad for business. But, I mean really, big fucking deal on that one, isn't it?

Look, we're not talking $cientology. No one's going to get hurt physically. Sure, Michael might get a few cold shoulders from some of his still premie friends but, come on Susan, ... your analogy doesn't really apply, does it?

But then maybe you do want to discuss abortion after all. Is that what this is all about? Hm?? Because, I can tell you right now, I have a firm opinion on that. It's one I picked up from an article in Harpers about seven years ago. I love it. It's this:

naw, I'm not going to tell you. Who needs another topic to fight about?

Would you really have been Durga Ji? Slept with that quarter ton of Gulab Jamon? Not me. But then that's the difference between you and me, isn't it?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 05:15:44 (GMT)
From: Susan
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: no never
Message:
I never fantasized about the Lard, not once, not ever. I would have endured it as 'service' though. Uck. I always found his physical form to be one of those lilas that helped us to see the truth with our hearts rather than our minds.

I did want to be the divine babysitter. That I fantasized about all the time. I even tried to get my mom to write to Durga Ji to suggest it.

( where is repression when you need it)

My use in the analogy is that people obviously feel that Michael shares culpability with Rawats crimes because of the confidentiality agreement and that he recieved money when he left or was asked to leave. They feel he is some level of evildoer because of this and the fact that he has not told all her knows.

He has been threatened with violence ( yves ) who later clarified that he didn't really mean physical violence..when asked to do so.

He has had a webpage devoted to his 'war crimes' made by someone who has never met him that anyone who searches his name on the internet will find.

He has been called all manner of names and compared to a Nazi prison guard here.

He has also been asked some legitimate questions.

But even if he, or the next PAM who comes along, never chooses to answer them, I do not think it excuses the level of villification he has recieved here.

An aside, nothing to do with Dettmers, a friend who has a premie friend was talking to the premie friends non premie husband. This man has always had deep concerns about his wifes cult involvement. He happened upon our little forum on the web. What did he have to say about it? The same thing we hate to hear most from premies. That we seemed like a mini cult unto ourselves, and almost as weird as the guru freaks themselves.

Our cause is just no protection from going to far. We can't let it be an excuse for going too far.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 05:26:43 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Susan
Subject: That's bullshit
Message:
The bullshit part is what your friend's husband said. He obviously knows not of what he speaks. We're a cult, my ass.

But a friend's dropped over .... gotta go.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 08:11:11 (GMT)
From: Monmot
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: That's bullshit--not from an outsider's p.o.v.
Message:
Hi Jim:

Just dropped in after watching 'Female Perversions' on Sundance, and saw that there was quite the gab fest this evening.

That was me whom Susan mentioned who had the premie friend with a non-premie husband. I was visiting them this summer and was talking about M to my friend's husband who knows my position/feelings re Maharaji. He told me that he did a search on M and came across EPO. He cruised the forum and what he told me was that the people here looked just as nuts as the cult members. He, then, made some joke about the posters here looking like they were in a cult also. The cult part was more of a joke, but he was serious about the people on the forum looking nuts and so he logged off never to return.

Granted, he was never a premie, so he's obviously not an ex either, but he certainly wanted to discuss M and the weirdness that he sees around him.

I was away for about a month and, upon my return, I checked into the forum and, for some reason, it was tres nasty for quite a while. I had a difficult time reading anything here. The forum goes through cycles of nastiness, but it's not easy to see any of the cycles if you don't stick around long enough.

I've posted information here told to me by an ex-PAM and I had a virtual tonsillectomy given to me by exes who wanted proof, names, calling me a liar etc., which I know makes me a bit more circumspect and less forthcoming than I normally would be.

C'est la guerre. (Why is war 'feminine' in French, when it's generally men to start them?)

Thanks
M

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 20:30:34 (GMT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: Monmot
Subject: But what about THIS outsider's p.o.v.?
Message:
On the face of it, I am in the same position as they guy you said took one look at the craziness here, and fled, never to return. Yet, as I explained, I came back.

I wondered if, had the guy thoroughly informed himself about the cult, it would have put some strain on his relationship -- especially if his wife is a 'believer' in Maharaji. It certainly made things difficult between MrsT (who calls herself a premie) and myself for quite a while -- and her view is 'there's lots of paths to the truth -- nobody has a monopoly'.

If the wife in question is, ahem, deeply brainwashed, the guy may well have not wanted to look too closely here, for then he would have to face up to the truth about his marriage. Sometimes, you know, a partner doesn't want to face up to their other half's alcoholism, cult involvement, or whatever because of its implications for the general family dynamic.

I don't think it's fair to blame the nature of the Forum for his reaction when clearly not everyone reacts like the guy you mentioned. Maybe they have business dealings with PAMs or premie companies?

I really am curious why the guy reacted as he did, and would appreciate more detail.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 18:32:39 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Monmot
Subject: Just like I thought, the 'cult' part was a joke
Message:
Monmot,

Of course we're going to look like complete fruitcakes to anyone just dropping in. After all, we seem to be obsessed with the weirdest situations, people and issues, many of which are specific and discrete and go back up to 30 years!

But for people who really understand what's going on here, it's all one big accident reconstruction. Like putting together the parts of KAL 700.

I've posted information here told to me by an ex-PAM and I had a virtual tonsillectomy given to me by exes who wanted proof, names, calling me a liar etc., which I know makes me a bit more circumspect and less forthcoming than I normally would be.

Well, we get into these issues here, don't we? Look at what happened with the intervention story. Someone reports that they've heard from someone in the know -- someone that should know, because they were there -- that San Ysidro was a drug and / or alcohol intervention. Then Dettmers denies that. Then we all discuss what the fuck's going on. And like that.

It's like we're all forensic social historians with outselves as subjects.

Your friend's husband didn't get any of that? Too bad.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 21:14:15 (GMT)
From: Monmot
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: The Circle Game
Message:
Jim:

My friend's point had less to do with 'fruitcakiness' and more to do with the nastiness he observed. I think the forum looked like a pond of piranhas to him, definitely not a place you would want to take a dip in.

I certainly don't think we should ever censor ourselves, but I do think we can control ourselves when it comes to excessive nastiness. Granted, some posters can certainly provoke a nasty response, but the continued and pervasive tone of nastiness, particulary to someone checking this place out for the first time, can be very offputting and counterproductive.

Just wanted to make that clarification.

BTW, where's Yves?

Thanks

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 21:21:55 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Monmot
Subject: No wonder this guy can handle his marriage
Message:
Monmot,

Face it: some people find the idea of even respecting, let alone worshipping, Maharaji OUTRAGEOUS. Others don't. If your premie friend's husband thinks it's somehow okay to be a premie (I'm reading between the lines), then, yes, of course, he's going to think things are too harsh here.

That's his problem.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 17:29:33 (GMT)
From: Stonor
Email: None
To: Monmot and Katie
Subject: That's bullshit - from another 'outsider's' p.o.v.
Message:
Hi Monmot and Katie,

It's been a while since I've posted here for all these reasons and maybe even a few more. As a 'non-anything outsider', I've written a number of posts about these issues - and commented that IMO, at times the Forum does not put present a very good, or accurate, picture of exes because of the aggressivity of a few of the posters who intimidate, manipulate and, at times, dominate the Forum, spreading false accusations and twisted truths, antagonizing some, and dragging others into the creation of divisions and distrust and departures. And I fully understand the reasoning behind not wanting to separate the forum from EPO.

Katie, you came out the 'winner' in your 'battle' with Jim hands down, but why is this happening? Some might 'enjoy' this kind of exchange, but I didn't, and I don't think you did, ... did Jim? And why did Jim assume, a while back, that Carol 'enjoyed' using him to make herself feel 'good', or something along those lines? Who has the time and energy to waste on this kind of negative interaction? Why do some seem to feel that they can attack others in ways they would never consider in a 3D social context.

Thinking of Monmot's comment, have either of you read 'Lysistrata' - Aristophanes, 411 BC? It's all about women, men, war, and sex.

Stonor

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 04:25:58 (GMT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Stonor
Subject: That's bullshit - from another 'outsider's' p.o.v.
Message:
Hi Stonor -
You wrote:
Katie, you came out the 'winner' in your 'battle' with Jim hands down, but why is this happening? Some might 'enjoy' this kind of exchange, but I didn't, and I don't think you did, ... did Jim? And why did Jim assume, a while back, that Carol 'enjoyed' using him to make herself feel 'good', or something along those lines? Who has the time and energy to waste on this kind of negative interaction?

First of all, Jim's and my positions are so far apart that I don't think either of us could 'win' an argument - we just end up stating our own positions. I know I'm not going to agree with him, and vice versa. I didn't 'enjoy' the exchange, but I felt that it was necessary for ME to express some things. I had been upset and angry about some things about this forum for days, and was triggered by JW and Way's posts to say it. And I did feel better after I wrote those posts.

I know some (perhaps many) people don't like to read (or hear) arguments, and I hope they just quit reading when they realized what was going on. I am a stubborn, rebellious, and opinionated person and sometimes I just cannot 'let it go' - as you've seen :).

Re: verbal abuse - honestly, I expect to get verbal abuse from Jim and a few other people on this forum - it might make me angry, but it's not hurtful anymore. I have a pretty clear idea of what I'm going to read when I click on a post to me from Jim. What really hurts is when I get blindsided by abuse from someone who I have trusted (for example, someone who I have exchanged personal e-mail with), but that has happened less and less since I've learned to recognize who cannot be trusted. And this is empowering, because these people can NOT control me by verbal abuse anymore.

I grew up in a very verbally abusive environment. My parents were not physically abusive (to me - my brother has some real horror stories) or overtly sexually abusive (to me). My parents NEVER hit each other, but they used abusive words to hurt each other and their children, and to get each other and their children to do what they wanted. I know that several people on this forum have discounted spoken or written words as a means of abuse, but, in my opinion, they definitely are. I spent years trying to 'unlearn' my inherited skills of saying things that I KNEW would really hurt another person when I was angry. I did succeed in learning this, for the most part (although I do still THINK those things, believe me. That is why I say I can be really mean if I choose to be, because I was that way.)

Anyway, the point I am trying to make is that people use verbal abuse as a way to control other people - in general, and on this forum. I can understand why people wouldn't (and don't) want to read or post here because of that - obviously, it's voluntary, and no one HAS to be here. And obviously again, if you don't rock the boat here, you're not going to get verbal abuse, except maybe from premies. But I do not like feeling like I am controlled or silenced by someone's ability to call me hurtful names (especially when those names have been learned by things I have told them privately) or to use profanity. Sometimes I don't think it's worth fighting about, but sometimes I do - and that's what you've been reading.

Take care, Stonor -
Love :),
Katie

P.S. Haven't read Lysistrata, but 'Lysistrata 411' sounds like a great name for a grrrlll group :).

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 18:14:26 (GMT)
From: Monmot
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: The Razor Tongue
Message:
Hi Katie:

You said, 'I spent years trying to 'unlearn' my inherited skills of saying things that I KNEW would really hurt another person when I was angry. I did succeed in learning this, for the most part (although I do still THINK those things, believe me. That is why I say I can be really mean if I choose to be, because I was that way.)

I grew up in both a physically and verbally abusive situation, and from my experience, the words stuck in my mind much stronger and longer than the beatings (although that has its own ramfications). I developed quite the mouth on me in order to defend myself, and later on I had to work quite hard to consciously rid myself of making knee-jerk cutting remarks (though that dubious skill came in quite handy for the 15 years I worked with lawyers :-)).

All this to say that I'm fairly sensitive to how words can either hurt or provide succor, which is why it pains me at times to see some of the verbal dissections which take place here.

And you're right, Lysistrata 411 would make a great name for a grrl band. BTW, just finished 'My Date With Satan' (and I've had a few myself) and loved it.

Take care
M

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 18:30:38 (GMT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Monmot
Subject: Mean Mouth
Message:
Hi Monmot -
Thanks for the corrobration on verbal abuse.

My dad screamed and swore to control my mother, who couldn't handle raised voices (she still can't). She in turn retaliated by learning to make manipulative and cutting remarks that go for the jugular - often disguised as 'jokes' (as in 'can't you take a joke? You have no sense of humor about yourself!') Unfortunately, I learned to do both. I actually can handle the screaming and swearing stuff a lot easier than the manipulative jibes - at least you can scream and swear BACK.

However, I think the worst thing about growing up in my family is that I learned the habit of 'acting nice' to strangers or aquaintances and using my mean mouth only with people who I was close to. And of course, the manipulative stuff is the hardest to 'unlearn'.

I liked 'My Date with Satan' too, as you probably have read. (The twist in the title story - Pippi Longstocking dates Satan - was TOO funny, and has happened to people I know who have met men on the internet.) I also just read 'Cruddy' by Lynda Barry, and thought it was great (she's the same age as we are and lived through a lot of the same things), but wouldn't recommend it to everyone because it is very intense, disturbing, and violent.

Take care,
Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 15:07:41 (GMT)
From: Stonor
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: That's bullshit - from another 'outsider's' p.o.v.
Message:
Hi Katie,

I could well understand why you posted as you did, maybe for some of the same reasons I did, and am doing so again. I feel that there was no reason for a 'battle' in this, or many other contexts, and I wonder why some posters here seem to feel that they have the right to attack other human beings. And it's interesting how often these same aggressors will play the victims even though they are the ones doing the mud-slinging. They ignore the central issues of the discussion and launch a personal attack in order to 'win' against that individual and discredit their p.o.v.. If the main multi-purpose of this site includes a grass roots movement to help premies and exes in transition 'break free' and to encourage everyone to contribute to the sharing and documentation of the m-trip towards a few possible 'ends', why do they insist on creating an unneccessarily antagonistic and repressive atmosphere here?

I apologize for suggesting that you 'won' the 'battle' with Jim, and put those words in quotes to suggest a certain amount of ambivalence about what to call it. Jim addressed none of your well out-lined post and instead twisted the discussion in order to put you on the defensive. There was no discussion, let alone exchange of ideas on Jim's part, but rather he chose to launch a vicious and cheap (not to mention absurd and futile) attack on your personal integrity. Where is the logic or reason in that?

I found Hal/Steve's differentiation between 'respecting' and 'admiring' Jim interesting; it reminds me of a conversation I had with Jim a few months ago, when he suggested that respecting other individuals is 'fluffy new-age stuff' or something. As I remember telling him, especially in interactions with some individuals, it is damn hard work.

I know what you mean about 'verbal abuse' being more 'damaging' when it comes from someone you consider to have become more of a personal friend, but I have a feeling you agree that that doesn't mean it's ever neutral in effect, even if the target is someone else. And yes, people use verbal abuse to control others, aka bullying. Here's what Bully Online has to say about it.

Cyber bullying is the misuse of email systems or Internet forums etc for sending aggressive flame mails. Serial bullies have few communication skills (and often none), thus the impersonal nature of email makes it an ideal tool for causing conflict.

In environments where bullying is the norm, most people will eventually either become bullies or become targets. There are few bystanders, as most of these will be sucked in. It's about survival: you either adopt bullying tactics yourself and thus survive by not becoming a target, or you stand up against bullying and refuse to join in, in which case you are bullied, harassed, victimized, and scapegoated until your health is so severely impaired that you have a stress breakdown (this is a psychiatric injury, not a mental illness - see health page for details on stress, or the PTSD page for details on psychiatric injury), take ill-health retirement, leave, find yourself unexpectedly selected for redundancy, or are unfairly dismissed.

If you can't find a copy of Lysistrata I'll make you a copy - my course had a different number, but it's a must read at some point. It's a comedy, and the props are increasingly explicit. ;-)

Love,
Stonor

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 19:02:25 (GMT)
From: Stonor
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Above post empty - (!). Will re-do if nec. nt
Message:
ffffffff
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 19:41:10 (GMT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Stonor
Subject: It will show up eventually - patiently waiting:)nt
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 21:21:20 (GMT)
From: Monmot
Email: None
To: Stonor
Subject: Lysistrata 411
Message:
Hi Stonor:

Isn't Lysistrata the play where the women refuse to 'sleep' with their husbands until they stop engaging in war? I can never remember the titles to those ancient plays. Antigone is the only one I can remember, mainly because I had to read it in Fwench, and it was so tedious that it carved new neural pathways into my brain. The word 'antigone' sounds like the feeling I had when reading it.

There's a book of poems by Deena Metzger entitled 'The Women Who Slept With Men To Take The War Out Of Them,' which is kind of opposite to Lysistrata, and when you think about it, that might be a more practical approach (and more enjoyable all around). Guess it's a twist on the battle cry of the 60s, 'Make Love, Not War.' :)

M

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 04:02:38 (GMT)
From: suchabanana
Email: None
To: Monmot
Subject: Yes, Lysistrata is that play
Message:
Isn't Lysistrata the play where the women refuse to 'sleep' with their husbands until they stop engaging in war?

Yes, the Greek play by Aristophanes.

I once spent 3 weeks on a 100' boat called the Lysistrata, in the Greek islands. Ha ha -- It was exactly Serenity! Tight quarters and funky -- Spartan, but clean. Nice weather, though, except for one very bad storm that churned up the waters and almost made me heave-ho...

Every time we pulled into port, we'd end up next to this huge ocean liner of a yacht -- complete with liveried servants and uniformed crewmembers, and a swimming pool and a float plane attached at the stern. Just the motor launch on its deck was about the size of most of the other boats in the harbor.

Talk about excessive -- Aristotle Onassis or Nicky Niarchos?

Yachts are this big status thing -- for some, it's their way of affirming when they've arrived in the materialist world. For others, it's planes, or luxury cars, or collections of expensive toys.

Peace,

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 19:13:13 (GMT)
From: such
Email: None
To: Monmot
Subject: was not exactly Serenity
Message:
text should have read: 'It wasn't exactly Serenity!'
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 16:38:13 (GMT)
From: Stonor
Email: None
To: Monmot and Katie
Subject: Lysistrata 411 - Monmont and Katie
Message:
Hi Monmot,

Had a feeling that at least either you or Katie, if not both, would have read Lysistrata. Here's a quote, 'He was wise and never spoke a truer word, who said, 'We can't live with women, but we cannot live without them.'' - a little strange, it going back to 5th century BC. It was produced in the 20th year of the Peloponnesian War (Ancient Greece) and is a pacifist as well as a feminist play, for those who haven't read it.

Interesting about that title of the book of poems - yes, it does seem a little opposite, but not in goal ... Robert Bly claims that this kind of effort doesn't work entirely, and that men very much need older men as role models/guides. He talks about the 'gang mentality' developing among young men because of 'absent' fathers, and a lack of elder male mentors (who, it was conceded, could come to some extent through books). I think I read of parallels to this effect happening in maharishi ashrams because of the absence of parents who were busy practicing and satsanging. It led to a great deal of pshysical, psychological, and sexual abuse of younger children by older ones, usually male. And while we're on the topic, remember Lord of the Flies?

Might either of you have read Lessing's 'The Marriages Between Zones Three, Four, and Five' from her 'Shikasta' series? It's a very strange 'science fiction' that looks at a number of elements within the overlapping frameworks of three very different 'cultures'.

I don't think I've read 'Antigone', especially not in French! But I like the way you describe the process as having 'carved new neural pathways into (your) brain - that's the way I feel about a number of learning processes I've been through. ;-)

It's nice to have the long Canadian Thanksgiving weekend and have a bit of time to socialize!

Stonor

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 18:22:13 (GMT)
From: Monmot
Email: None
To: Stonor
Subject: Lysistrata 411 - Monmont and Katie
Message:
I am super weak in my knowledge of the 'classics,' but I can go to town on contemporary lit.

I've read all of Lessing's work (loved the Martha Quest series), and I've never read her sci fi/speculative fiction, but it sounds interesting from what you described. I'll keep it in mind, although I already have so many books, that if if were placed under house arrest for the rest of my life, I'd have plenty to read.

Enjoy your Thanksgiving weekend (you guys get it in early up there). What do Candians give thanks for (aside from being thankful they're not Americans :-))?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 20:37:53 (GMT)
From: Stonor
Email: None
To: Monmot and Katie
Subject: Oh yes, the Canadian Thanksgiving Day jokes. ;) ot
Message:
Well, now you're asking for Canadian Cultural Philosophy 101.

Let's start with the easy stuff - all seasons come early in Montreal, except Spring and Summer, and we are thankful when those last two come (and even if they come at all), which is one thing some of us celebrate every Thanksgiving, and why we celebrate it 'early'.

What are we thankful for? That probably depends on who you're talking to, but I think that most of us are thankful for the holiday. No, not 'Columbus Day'. Do you get a day off work for that? How do you celebrate it? (you exotic foreign people with unusual customs! ;-) Then again, we get St. Jean le Baptist and Dollard des Ormeaux Days, at least in Quebec! :-)

Happy Columbus Day!

Stonor

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 21:36:23 (GMT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Stonor
Subject: Weird US holidays
Message:
Hi Stonor -
Columbus Day used to be on October 12 and is supposedly the anniversary of the day Columbus discovered America (hah!). Some time ago, the US Government changed almost all the holidays to the nearest Monday so that people could have three-day weekends. Labor Day was already the first weekend in September, but they moved Memorial Day (used to be May 31), Veteran's Day (or Armistice Day - used to be Nov. 11), President's Day (used to be two holidays: Lincoln's Birthday (Feb ?) AND Washington's Birthday - February 22). We also celebrate Martin Luther King's birthday on the nearest monday to Jan. 15. Here in Virginia they combined it with an old state holiday called 'Lee-Jackson Day' for Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson, so now we have Lee-Jackson-King Day (I kid you not!).

Anyway, people in the US generally celebrate all holidays including Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Year's Day and the Fourth of July, which are the ones they didn't move, by massive retail spending, because the stores are open but most people don't have to go to work. (Except for me :).) As you can see, I'm cynical about holidays.

Happy Thanksgiving - it's probably a harvest festival, right? So you do have something to celebrate!

Love,
Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 18:36:53 (GMT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Monmot
Subject: Lysistrata 411 - Monmont and Katie (ot)
Message:
I haven't read the classics either except for English Lit and some Homer. And I haven't been able to get into any of Lessing's fiction, although I like her non-fiction. I have tried and failed several times to read 'The Golden Notebook' - isn't that supposed to be the most accessible?

I do like sci-fi/speculative, especially Ursula LeGuin - and SHE recommends all of Lessing's work (both sci-fi and not) highly, so maybe I'll try again.

It's 'Columbus Day' weekend here, Stonor - surely that's not what you're giving thanks for!

Take care, both of you -
Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 20:53:17 (GMT)
From: Helen
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Lysistrata 411 - Monmont and Katie (ot)
Message:
Lysistrate is also the name of a lesbian bar in Madison, WI where I spent many a night dancing. Saw this thread and just had to put those 2 cents in. Stonor, happy thanksgiving!
Helen
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 18:37:18 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Stonor
Subject: And why would you say that, Stonor?
Message:
I mean, why would you say it beside the obvious reason of trying to get my goat?

Katie 'came out the winner of [her] battle with [me] hands down'? Give me a fucking break!

For one thing, if you really want to get down to it, there's an open issue awaiting her answer. I claim that she has, at times, said she couldn't care less if Maharaji stays in business or not. She hasn't answered that. Well, she did, in a way, by saying that she has said the opposite at times. But my question -- did she ever say what I claim she said -- ...no, she hasn't answered it.

And beyond that? Hey, if that's what winning an argument looks like to you, well, all I can say is I bet you win lots of arguments yourself, Stonor. Lots!

Ha ha hahahahahaha

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 18:34:11 (GMT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: my two cents re Jim and Katie's quarrel
Message:
So Katie has said that 'she couldn't care less if Maharaji stays in business or not'

Why let that be a cause for antagonism between you and her, Jim? It doesn't mean she's any the less aware of how much of a con he is. Just that M means less to her than he does (apparently) to you.

So she's not as avidly anti-M as you, - so? She still contributes a lot to the conversations here, though I must confess to not having given her as much support as I could have, especially when you've come down heavy on her (as is your wont).

We all have something to contribute. That the Forum should deteriorate into in-fighting and recrimination because we're not all coming from the same vehemence of feeling re. the Maha - well, what good does that do any of us? (and if the Maha ever reads this forum, I bet he enjoys the exes fighting among themselves more than anything.) Not that I'm suggesting that fighting among ourselves is off-limits, - simply that, if it's merely one person's over-inflated ego needing to be seen as the winner of an argument that causes such bad blood, then what's more important to this community of exes as a whole? That we can still communicate - or that there's got to a winner/loser outcome to every thread?

Put simply, Jim, you know you're able to rub people up the wrong way. But if it alienates you like it does (and you know it can), then what good does it do you?

And no doubt you too think you win lots of arguments, - like the one where you ended up insinuating that I was unable to read and was autistic too?

That ain't winning nothing, Jim.

(nothing but disrespect)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 19:31:37 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: cq
Subject: Here's why that's a problem, cq
Message:
It's not that Katie isn't interested in 'bringing down the cult'. It's that she jumps in to defend premies when she sees that they're getting really uncomfortable. The reason she's able to do that is that she doesn't care about getting them out of the cult let alone 'bringing it down'.

Go ahead, ask her why in the world she ever defended Mili, for example. This guy actually sent a flase petition to Usenet back when we were a newsgroup trying to get us shut down. What was false about it was that he'd simply lifted all the names from some other pro-M site that was on then. Anyone who'd posted there -- including, funnily, a number of exes -- they all got on.

Mili never apologized for that.

Katie calls him a friend.

I mean what the fuck IS that? I say it's emblematic of Katie's 'comfort over truth' attitude. And, yeah, it bugs the hell out of me.

Don't forget, it's not as if these arguments are hers to begin with. Katie jumps in to heated disputes with premies to protect them. That's her choice, fine. I can respect that. But she has to expect a real argument herself at that point. Instead, she starts talking about how tough her childhood was as if that's supposed to make us all feel sorry for her somehow and just quit arguing because she can't handle it.

Bullshit.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 16:23:35 (GMT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: Monmot
Subject: an outsider's p.o.v.
Message:
Monmot: ...the premie friend with a non-premie husband. ...he did a search on M and came across EPO. ...was serious about the people on the forum looking nuts and so he logged off never to return.

Granted, he was never a premie, so he's obviously not an ex either, but he certainly wanted to discuss M and the weirdness that he sees around him.

Hey, that's just like me! Except I then read the site; got the background information, and (I like to think) a fullish picture. I read all the Journeys that were there at the time. And then I got to work to join in tearing down the remains of the cult. MrsT wasn't too pleased by this effort ('it's a good poem, dear, but I don't like your choice of subject') but there you have it. She never was much of a only-one-way-and-that's-with-maharaji freak, anyway.

I should think the guy would find getting a proper understanding of the whole business would put somewhat of a strain on his marriage. Especially if she's a believer.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 18:53:22 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: With an attitude like that, John ....
Message:
Of course you're right.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 04:06:37 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Roger eDrek
Subject: Why are these ex-PAMs so damn special?
Message:
Roger:

Re: Well, it's worse than that because sometimes in a moment of weakness I still consider that he might be the Lord of the Universe and I'm going to the worst of Hells for being the notorious Roger eDrek. Or maybe I'll be reborn a million times as a third world street orphan addicted to inhalants. You know the drill.

You too? In truth the only time I still think he might be God is when I lose my car keys or get dumped by a woman. I now have one of those key chain alarms and I've stopped dating entirely. No worries.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 03:59:02 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Roger eDrek
Subject: Excellent fucking post!
Message:
But how'd you do those bullet things?

That's the secret technique I'm looking for.

Roger, you got my vote all the way.

24 years? You really are kind of stupid, aren't you? :)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 16:32:22 (GMT)
From: Coach
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Bullet stuff
Message:
An 'unordered list' does it. You can git squares an' circles too.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 18:57:58 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Coach
Subject: Is this it? It looks like a lot of work
Message:
The simplest and most common is an unordered or bulleted list, denoted by a
    tag. This type of list places bullets before each list item, which you designate with an
  • tag (for 'list item'). If we apply this tag to the three reasons to check out more information about E-Z Accounting, the code looks like this:

    Ready to save yourself some money? Let E-Z Accounting tell you more about our

    That looks like a lot of work.

    (It just occured to me that all that stuff is going to make a list now. I was just trying to show the HTML lesson!)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 19:26:59 (GMT)
From: Coach
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Yeah
Message:
That's the one.

The syntax is simple enough

* = a tag, which I can't get the forum to display.

*ul*
*li* text
*li* text
*li* text
*/u*

and so on. 'ol' instead of 'ul' gives an 'ordered list,1,2,3 etc.

Coach

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 19:35:35 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Coach
Subject: Testing
Message:
*ul*
*li* text
*li* text
*li* text
*/u*

let's see...


  • gogog
  • mmmm
  • nnn

    Hey, that's easy!

    Thanks

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 04:10:00 (GMT)
From: Roger eDrek
Email: drek@oz.net
To: Jim
Subject: I think I'm dumb or maybe just happy
Message:
24 years? You really are kind of stupid, aren't you?

Uh, yeah!

I can't tell you how disappointed I was when the ashrams were cleaned up and closed. I had my job finding and recylcing aluminum cans I found in the dumpsters and gave all my money to the secretary general and a had a nice place to live and food and singing and talking. It sure was a shock to me how expensive the real world was.

And, oh yeah, I probably would have died from the drug culture.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 01:37:42 (GMT)
From: suchabanana
Email: None
To: temp
Subject: KINDNESS?! Some people have been through f-HELL!!!
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 00:17:13 (GMT)
From: Tonette
Email: None
To: temporarily anonymous
Subject: I know what you mean
Message:
Yes, I can relate. There is some anger here. I for one have posted some very angry posts. And yes I have counter-retaliated to some people posting to me.

I have also caused myself a few hernia's by some of the humor here. There's been a few posts that would make me laugh all day.

I think Jim contributes alot here to this forum as well as others. Jim seems to be consistently singled out as the 'Hitler' of this venue. I think that is a mistake. He definately knows his mind and opinions and is not hestitant to voice them. I admire him and others here, although I don't agree with them all the time. I would miss Jim, Ex-Tex, Roger, Rob, Katie, suchabanna, Salam, Marianne, Joe to name a few. After all, this forum not only serves as a source of extrememly valuable information but also as a place where one can voice their opinions/thoughts/understanding after 'passivly listeneing to M.'

Remember it's a forum, akin to a debate. It's also anonymous if that is what one wants. But I know that the people here, by and large, are decent human beings. I have found some solace here and have been able to clean house of some shit that I didn't fully realize was plaquing me. This forum is open to all- doesn't matter if your a recent ex, long time ex, premie, wavering premie, ex who lost so much in the ashrams, ex who was just on the fringes, aspirant or ex aspirant.

Oh yes, it does get volatile at times but that is one of the aspects of this forum that makes it oh so interesting and therapeutic.

Sincerely, Tonette
Non ashram ex premie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 22:09:48 (GMT)
From: Bin Liner
Email: None
To: temporarily anonymous
Subject: this forum; its tone
Message:

I'll be all ears. Don't worry about the tone. No-one has to stand on a soap box & have real cabbages thrown at them.

It's cyberspace, not Hyde Park Corner.

Hostility & anger are 2 different things.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 21:59:57 (GMT)
From: Way
Email: None
To: temporarily anonymous
Subject: this forum; its tone
Message:
I find that the hostility here is mostly toward bullshit, not toward people. By all means, please report back and do invite this mystery person to post here if he or she wants, anonymously if desired, and to leave the bullshit at home. Courageous, straight-forward honesty is much appreciated here. Just let them know that this isn't a flame-free zone and some members use 'adult' language.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 21:59:48 (GMT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: temporarily anonymous
Subject: Questions re tone
Message:
There is a high level of hostility here. The recent Dettmer-related exchange is but one example. (Where the tables are turned and Jim is the diplomatic voice!)

The excuse used is: 'The cult abused me, I'm angry, I can vent here.'

Hi Temp,

I just wondered about what you are getting to, above. Are you saying that because some people use swear words that makes the environment hostile? Hostile to whom?

I think both you and your mutual friend would find that there are a lot of different people who discuss things here. Some are angry, and some aren't. Most of the people who express anger have a good reason for doing so, and it probably wouldn't get directed against an ex-PAM, since they would be on the same side, so to speak. He or she would have to be prepared, however, that a premie might attack them, although they don't do it very well, so there isn't much to fear.

This is an 'open' forum and you can't prevent people from speaking their minds. Actually, that's one of the things that's so powerful about it. You might find that your friend might like that kind of thing.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 02:13:40 (GMT)
From: temporarily anonymous
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Questions re tone
Message:
No, Joe, foul language doesn't bother me. I use it myself frequently, though I try to tone it down when my daughter is around. Ever since I called someone an asshole on the highway when she was one and she tried out the word in response.

Some of the responses on this thread have made me think...you know, free speech, open discussion, etc. I guess no one can really change the direction of an unmoderated forum such as this.
Maybe you all are right, maybe unfettered expression is ultimately a good thing.

Still, I wonder if our purpose here (which is...?) might be better served by giving more emphasis to reason than emotion.

After all, wasn't it emotion (certainly not reason!) that led us to the Lotus Feet in the first place?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 02:29:43 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: temporarily anonymous
Subject: Haven't you noticed?
Message:
Temp,

Let's be fair about this. When there are no premies around very, very few fights break out. Ever. Sure we have the odd atheist / believer argument and they can get a bit nasty. And sometimes something way off-topic and political starts up. But, by and large, people just talk here. It's nice.

But then one of those funny guys with the funny ideas comes by. Still, we're willing to talk nice and reasonably with them. But, guess what? They're cult members!! Wooo wooooo .... just like on the TEEvee. Real, live cult members. Unfortuanately, just like we used to be.

You want more 'reason'? Tell them that. We're reasonable just fine. But, like Anth says, they've got these birds on their heads. Now how you gonna talk with someone like that?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 03:13:49 (GMT)
From: temp. anon
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Haven't you noticed?
Message:
Agreed, agreed, agreed.

But what about Dettmers, to whom, of course, you have been unfailingly polite?

He came forth, and forumists blasted him because he didn't blast GMJ. Fine, some people want to vent...but doesn't that discourage other DLM'rs from coming to the table?

I'm asking you this because you used diplomacy in order to bring at least a little light (pardon the expression) to the table (pardon the cliche).

So, isn't moderation a virtue here? You practiced it yourself, you know. Why did you practice moderation? For the same reason I am asking others to do so here: to further dialogue.

To further dialogue.

Period.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 03:27:33 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: temp. anon
Subject: Great question
Message:
The only reason I've been the least bit respectful of Dettmers (he, you or anyone else might differ on how respectful that's been) is because he actually talked to me like a real person. Every talk I've had with him has been rational and responsive. Yes, I've hit a certain wall with him regarding some of his 'consulting' jargon but then maybe it's just me who doesn't understand that stuff. I'm open to that possibility (but I'd bet against it!). And I've also hit the wall with him regarding the real stuff I'm interested in -- dirt. But we've talked about that, he and I. He's a whole lot better than some of the other goofs who've tried to somehow defend Maharaji. Mind you, he's held back so much good stuff it's almost like we never really got going in the first place.

But was I 'moderate' with Mike? No, I don't think so. After all, here I am, a total stranger pretty well, trying to tell him what to do and why. What's moderate about that?

Civil, yes, but, like I say, I'm always civil when people are civil with me.

I consider irrationality and evasiveness extremely uncivil. Don't you?

Hey, do I know you? You look a little familiar somehow.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 15:20:02 (GMT)
From: temp. anon.
Email: binduesque@yahoo.com
To: Jim
Subject: yes, you do
Message:
x
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 23:48:21 (GMT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Joe, Way, et al.
Subject: Hostility on the forum
Message:
Dear Joe, Way, TA, and all -
I have personally found the tone of this forum to be very hostile - and if not hostile, belittling. If I post something that is contrary to the conventional wisdom of this forum (such as sticking up for a premie - and I am NOT talking about Maharaji here, I'm talking about a person), I get ridiculed, called names, and told to fuck off. And I am an EX-premie who cannot stand Maharaji!

Way, you wrote:
I find that the hostility here is mostly toward bullshit, not toward people...Courageous, straight-forward honesty is much appreciated here.

Honestly, I have not found that to be true. If I agree with the majority opinion here (and I do sometimes), I don't get flamed. If I disagree with something, even (and sometimes especially) when it's something I honestly feel, I get flamed and ridiculed. I am not talking about you or Joe here - you two and others are capable of disagreeing without resorting to personal attacks or ridicule. But I generally feel that I am going to get a hostile response from Jim and others no matter WHAT I post. I feel that this is a personality conflict and has little to do what I say - maybe it's how I say it (I'm a technical writer and tend to write that way too). Or, more likely, it's about WHO I am, and the fact that I am female.

Joe, you wrote to TA:
I just wondered about what you are getting to, above. Are you saying that because some people use swear words that makes the environment hostile? Hostile to whom?

I think both you and your mutual friend would find that there are a lot of different people who discuss things here. Some are angry, and some aren't. Most of the people who express anger have a good reason for doing so, and it probably wouldn't get directed against an ex-PAM, since they would be on the same side, so to speak. He or she would have to be prepared, however, that a premie might attack them, although they don't do it very well, so there isn't much to fear.

Joe, I don't agree with you here. I don't care about swear words, although getting told to 'fuck off', or 'go fuck myself', or that I'm 'full of shit', or that I'm a 'dumb bitch' gets pretty tiresome. But, as I've said before, I can go home and visit my family if I want to hear that kind of stuff - in other words, I've heard it my whole life and have chosen NOT to live around people who say those kinds of things to me.

Re ex-PAM's - I don't agree that because they are 'on the same side' they will not get attacked by other ex-premies. If they have ANY ambivalent feelings about Maharaji, they will get attacked. If they don't agree with the dominant opinions on this forum, they will get attacked.

For example, I've been really turned off at some of the things that people have written about Michael Donner here. I do not know Michael at all, and I certainly don't agree with most of the posts he has put on the forum. But it certainly seems to me that he is being victimized for actually posting on this forum and communicating with ex-premies.

I cannot understand how this is seen to be a productive approach, and I certainly cannot understand why anyone who was ever a PAM or close to Maharaji would ever want to post here, or even talk to any of the ex-premies here after what has happened to Michael. It's my feeling that Michael is getting a lot of anger that people feel towards Maharaji. (Unless I'm missing something, and he was the equivalent to a Goebbels or Eichmann of DLM/EV?)

Basically, I've been turned off on posting here after MANY attempts because I don't feel that there can be a free exchange of ideas here - at least for me. I do not feel that I can express what I really think or feel without being attacked or ridiculed. This bothers me, because I really like a lot of the people who post here, and I'd like to be able to talk to them. It also bothers me because Brian and I are responsible for collecting the money, maintaining the software, and paying the fees which keep this forum and site on-line, and the last time it went down I was severely tempted NOT to whip out my credit card and get it back on-line ASAP, simply because of the personal abuse I and other people I know have gotten here. I just felt like walking away and letting someone else figure it out after a couple of weeks or so. Obviously, I didn't do this, but it bothers me that I even WANTED to.

Anyone who knows me real well knows that I have the capability to be extremely nasty and hateful in the real world when provoked to extremes. I choose not to be, because I don't like myself when I am, and because I feel remorse for the times when I've really hurt people. However, because I choose NOT to be that way, even when 'speaking my mind', does that mean I should be ridiculed or belittled? Obviously, on this forum, the answer has been yes. Not from everyone, or even a majority of people, but enough so that I don't feel comfortable posting here, and am embarassed to tell other ex-premies I know about this forum - especially the fact that I'm involved with it in any way.

End of rant!
Katie


Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 11:11:28 (GMT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Hostility on the forum
Message:
Hi Katie,

I know some exes don't think this a good idea, but have you considered the possibility of separating the main ex-premie.org site and the Forum into two separate entities?

A lot of hard work's been put in by a lot of contributors (not least yourself and Brian!) and the usefulness of having M's history and the K techniques online means a lot - especially to people who want to find out what M's story really is. It would be a shame to lose all that simply because of the nature of the Forum.

(PS, I'd like to contribute to the cost of EPO's upkeep. What's the best way to get a cheque to you?)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 12:36:32 (GMT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: cq
Subject: Forum and site
Message:
Hi cq -
I would never pull the plug on the site (it would only be temporary anyway - someone else would figure it out and get it back on line ASAP) because of the forum - it was just tempting at the time (hey, I'm human). The point I was trying to make is that I did not like feeling that way.

I think the site is very valuable too - we just got e-mail from some people who asked if they could use it as a model for another unrelated anti-cult site. They're even going to use some of our material verbatim - what a compliment! (And we're not going to sue them for copyright infringement - snicker!)

Yes, I would prefer it if the site and forum were two separate entities, but even Brian disagrees with me there. This would require someone to pay for and maintain a domain name with associated web server, and would definitely complicate the mutual contribution/support process.

Re contributions to ex-premie.org, please e-mail brian@ex-premie.org and state your willingness to contribute. He likes to collect all the contributions at once and forward them to the server directly. (Also, thanks very much!)

Take care, Chris -
Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 03:27:13 (GMT)
From: temporarily anonymous
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Hostility on the forum
Message:
Yeah, K, I know what you mean. I was a premie for a mere five years, and am not emotionally invested in this forum. It's just fun for me. And I'm sure that is offensive to some who have been involved with this cult for decades. Some are very angry.

Well, more than 'fun.' I hope that some aspirant (as I once was) reads this site and understands what is behind GMJ's deceptively simple claims.

But I agree that attacking ANYONE, ex-premie, premie, or pseudo-premie is counter-productive.

Counter-productive! Contrary to our goals!

(And what are our goals, he asked rhetorically?)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 02:20:56 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: EPO -- the ridicule center of the universe
Message:
Q: What is more ridiculous than thinking that a fat, spolied teenager from India is the LORD OF THE UNIVERSE and SAVIOUR OF MANKIND?

How about still following him years later and denying that he ever said that?

Or how about still thinking it in spite of the ugly grub's blatant denial that he ever said any such thing?

Premie thinking was made to be ridiculed. It's like training ground for new ridiculers. Never ridiculed anything or anyone? Well, maybe you should start on something easy. Why not go over to the ex-premie forum and take on a few cult members. It's easy, doesn't cost anything. No one ever gets hurt (they're cult members don't forget). In fact, it'd be a healthy thing if they did feel hurt but I wouldn't hold your breath on that one. And, if things go well, you can be ridiculing other strange ideas in no time. But, yeah, premie thinking is definitely the place to start.

Katie, you and I have often clashed when you did decide to stick up for a person, usually a premie. Mili, who tried surreptitiously and completely dishonestly to shut us down (with his whole fake list of supporting 'petitioners'), CD, who played Yoda and refused to ever give straight answers even though he knew the people he was supposedly communicating with were pulling their hair out in frustration, Mel, who has harangued us with his patently fake 'concerns' for a couple of years now, all of them have been your 'friends'.

Remember that time that I got you to ask your 'friend' CD if he was aware that he was irritating people so much with his evasive, off-topic platitudes? Remember how we actually thought that maybe the guy really was brain-damaged? It wasn't either of our strongest guesses but it was a possibility, he was just so stubbornly obtuse. So what happened? You asked him, as nicely as you possibly could, and what'd he do? He hissed at you, Katie. Told you to back and mind your own business. But did that stop your protecting him? No. In Katie's world no one has to answer hard questions if they don't want to.

Well, as someone else has said here, this is a discussion forum. Logic simply has to reign supreme in such a format. We're not sitting around just kind of being with each other; we're talking. Just talking. Discussing, debating, arguing, agreeing ... and we're also campaigning somehow, someway, for some truth and accountability in the Maharaji cult. People with fluffy ideas supporting the cult necessarily have a lot of work justifying them here. Is that the 'conventional wisdom' you're up against?

Tell me, Katie, what part of the 'conventional wisdom' do you take issue with? That Maharaji is a predator? That many, many people have been his prey? That many, many people are still his prey? Maybe you disagree with that. Fine. We can talk about it. And maybe your ideas will be ridiculed in the process. Big fucking deal.

You say that ex-PAMs with ambivalent feelings about Maharaji will 'get attacked'. You're damn right they will. I'll do it myself. Any ex-PAM or any premie who tells me that Maharaji was a good force in their life is in for an argument. So what? Again, big fucking deal.

But anyway, here I am again, answering you when I still await your answer to my first question. What's your goal here? Do you have one?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 02:22:30 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Same post (the other came up blank)
Message:
Q: What is more ridiculous than thinking that a fat, spolied teenager from India is the LORD OF THE UNIVERSE and SAVIOUR OF MANKIND?

How about still following him years later and denying that he ever said that?

Or how about still thinking it in spite of the ugly grub's blatant denial that he ever said any such thing?

Premie thinking was made to be ridiculed. It's like training ground for new ridiculers. Never ridiculed anything or anyone? Well, maybe you should start on something easy. Why not go over to the ex-premie forum and take on a few cult members. It's easy, doesn't cost anything. No one ever gets hurt (they're cult members don't forget). In fact, it'd be a healthy thing if they did feel hurt but I wouldn't hold your breath on that one. And, if things go well, you can be ridiculing other strange ideas in no time. But, yeah, premie thinking is definitely the place to start.

Katie, you and I have often clashed when you did decide to stick up for a person, usually a premie. Mili, who tried surreptitiously and completely dishonestly to shut us down (with his whole fake list of supporting 'petitioners'), CD, who played Yoda and refused to ever give straight answers even though he knew the people he was supposedly communicating with were pulling their hair out in frustration, Mel, who has harangued us with his patently fake 'concerns' for a couple of years now, all of them have been your 'friends'.

Remember that time that I got you to ask your 'friend' CD if he was aware that he was irritating people so much with his evasive, off-topic platitudes? Remember how we actually thought that maybe the guy really was brain-damaged? It wasn't either of our strongest guesses but it was a possibility, he was just so stubbornly obtuse. So what happened? You asked him, as nicely as you possibly could, and what'd he do? He hissed at you, Katie. Told you to back and mind your own business. But did that stop your protecting him? No. In Katie's world no one has to answer hard questions if they don't want to.

Well, as someone else has said here, this is a discussion forum. Logic simply has to reign supreme in such a format. We're not sitting around just kind of being with each other; we're talking. Just talking. Discussing, debating, arguing, agreeing ... and we're also campaigning somehow, someway, for some truth and accountability in the Maharaji cult. People with fluffy ideas supporting the cult necessarily have a lot of work justifying them here. Is that the 'conventional wisdom' you're up against?

Tell me, Katie, what part of the 'conventional wisdom' do you take issue with? That Maharaji is a predator? That many, many people have been his prey? That many, many people are still his prey? Maybe you disagree with that. Fine. We can talk about it. And maybe your ideas will be ridiculed in the process. Big fucking deal.

You say that ex-PAMs with ambivalent feelings about Maharaji will 'get attacked'. You're damn right they will. I'll do it myself. Any ex-PAM or any premie who tells me that Maharaji was a good force in their life is in for an argument. So what? Again, big fucking deal.

But anyway, here I am again, answering you when I still await your answer to my first question. What's your goal here? Do you have one?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 02:42:37 (GMT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Same post (the other came up blank)
Message:
Jim, I will answer both your posts here.

My goal in working on both ex-premie.org and this forum was to provide support for ex-premies, or exiting premies, or friends and relatives thereof. Despite your flagrant and constant miquoting and distorting of things I have said, I would like to see Maharaji retire, and I HAVE STATED THAT MANY TIMES ON THIS FORUM. I would also not like to see him recruit new members - something which he is NOT very successful at, and I have also said this many times. However, my primary goal is not to put him out of business - it has been to help the people that have been hurt by him. Maybe that is what you don't understand.

No, I don't like the way some (not all) premies are treated on this forum, especially people who seem like they are really trying to communicate, and I will say so in public, as you know. But when I was talking about ridicule, I was talking about personal ridicule - YOUR personal ridicule of me and other EX-premies on this forum.

The conventional wisdom on this forum that I was referring to is that everything a premie says is wrong BECAUSE they are a premie - I do not agree with that. I also don't agree with YOUR idea that any kind of spirituality leads one on the slippery slope to cult thinking. Frankly, I think you turn a whole lot of people off from this forum with your dogged and often flaming insistence on the idea that ex-premies SHOULD be atheists. You could do a lot better if you'd focus on Maharaji rather than trying to take on the whole idea of spirituality.

So, Jim, what is YOUR goal on this forum? To get the attention, noteriety, and importance in the ex-premie community that you never got when you were in DLM? To finally get noticed by Maharaji? Sometimes it sure seems that way.

By the way, please don't tell me what Laurie thinks about this post or anything else I write - I already know the answer.

Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 03:03:55 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Funny, I guess you've said it all then
Message:
Fact is, Katie, you have indeed said just what I said you have, that is, you don't care if Maharaji stays in business or not, and many words to that effect. Now, tell me right now, are you calling me a liar? Because we can and should deal with this. I'd hate to put those words in your mouth but, somehow, I don't think I am.

So you want to 'provide support' for exes. Fine. How? By being nice, showing them a little kindness? Poor, poor ex-premies ...

Katie, you don't have some sort of monopoly on sympathy. Did you know that? Sometimes I get the feeling that you think you do, that you actually think that you're some warm earth mommy for all and sundry. If premies come here 'really trying to communicate' they get respect. Challenged for sure but they do get some respect. They are respectfully given every opportunity to follow the yellow brick road of overwhelming evidence straight out of the cult. If they don't want to take that walk, they're not going to feel comfortable here. And that, Katie, is a good thing. How could this forum ever exist with premies, comfortable in their faith, co-existing with angry, young men who want to cut, slice and dice the thing to smithereens? It could if it were a bowling league but it's not, it's a discussion board.

Thank you, by the way, for your speculation as to why I do this. To tell you the truth, Katie, I don't know why the fuck I do this. I just do, that's all. I like the idea of rocking Maharaji's world and I know how to type. Maybe you're right. Maybe I have some sort of sick, personal agenda. Thanks for asking. But, as far as I know, I just kind of follow my nose, or, more properly, my mind here and that's what I've been doing all along.

You want to help me stop? Pleas do that, Katie. PLEASE say the magic words so that all of this will go away and I can go back to my farm. The problem is that I just can't stomach the idea of letting up on you-know-who. I guess you could say he was really special in my life (puke!).

Finally, I do NOT say that all spiritual thinking leads to cult involvement. I only say that it sure helps and I don't buy it myself anymore and this IS a discussion board and, well, like I say, I just follow my nose. Talking, you know? Just talking.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 04:52:03 (GMT)
From: The Munificent Mr. Hole
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: BWWHAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAA
Message:
You are hilarious man. Do you ever stop to reflect on anything you say? 'I don't know why the fuck I do this. I just do, that's all.' That's precious. You are a gem.

Check out alt.gardens.roses on Usenet. Get a clue.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 05:00:45 (GMT)
From: The Munificent Mr. Hole
Email: None
To: The Munificent Mr. Hole
Subject: correction: rec.gardens.roses
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 05:06:46 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: The Munificent Mr. Hole
Subject: You poor fuck
Message:
You mean you've got to type 'The Munificent Mr. Hole' everytime you want to write your name?

What's your checkbook look like?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 06:22:42 (GMT)
From: Salam
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: With caps lock for a laugh
Message:
Real admirer, hay Jimmy?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 03:14:44 (GMT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: You are wrong, Jim.
Message:
I don't think you're lying, but did you even READ my post?

I said:
my primary goal is not to put him [Maharaji] out of business - it has been to help the people that have been hurt by him.

That does NOT translate to 'I don't care if Maharaji stays in business or not' in ANY way shape or form. Are YOU calling ME a liar here? Obviously, helping to run ex-premie.org and participating in this forum certainly are not HELPING Maharaji stay in business - get it? I just said I wish the guy would retire - does that translate to 'I don't care?'

Jim, I'm not self-employed, and I obviously don't have as much free time as you do. You may have all the time in the world to post on this forum, but I don't. You might have time able to answer all the posts here AND answer all the e-mail you get relating to ex-premie.org, but I don't. That is why I stated my goals as PRIORITIES.

And as far as the 'monopoly on compassion' and 'earth-mommy' stuff goes, that may be your idea of me (or, rather, what you would like other people to think of me) but you're completely off base. I believe that you're intelligent enough to have figured that one out by this time.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 03:32:04 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Well I guess I am
Message:
Calling you a liar, that is.

Yes, Katie, I distinctly recall you saying that you didn't care one way or the other if Maharaji stays in business. Now I'm not saying that you haven't, at other times (perhpas when I wasn't looking) said the opposite. But, come on, Katie, you know I'm right. For what it's worth (perhaps very little), you said it.

Anyway, .... what were we talking about?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 03:23:05 (GMT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Oh yeah, Jim - 'angry YOUNG men'??? Where??? (nt)
Message:
(nt)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 03:32:36 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Touche! (nt)
Message:
ffff
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 03:45:15 (GMT)
From: Salam
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: That was very refreshing.
Message:
I enjoyed this match thoroughly. Call it a draw.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 04:02:38 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Salam
Subject: Fuck you! Draw nothing! Where is she???? (nt)
Message:
gggg
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 13:20:45 (GMT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: I went to bed
Message:
We live on the East Coast, if you recall?

And (not kidding) I had remorseful dreams about a couple of the mean things I said to you, Jim. That's disgusting, IMHO.

Anyway, you said:
Katie, I distinctly recall you saying that you didn't care one way or the other if Maharaji stays in business. Now I'm not saying that you haven't, at other times (perhpas when I wasn't looking) said the opposite. But, come on, Katie, you know I'm
right. For what it's worth (perhaps very little), you said it.

I don't remember, but it certainly sounds like something I would say when I was pissed off about something on the forum (probably you) or incredibly bored with Maharaji. And actually, Jim, there are times when I do NOT care - mostly after watching the news or reading about something horrible. If I had the power to change 1000 bad things that were going on in the world, Maharaji would be pretty low on the list - I don't even know if he'd make it.

I am guessing that most of the people who post here probably feel this way, at least at time. As it happens, though, we apparently DO have the power to affect Maharaji's further progress through the medium of the site. I see the EV FAQ and other statements by EV and Maharaji as direct responses to things written on this site and forum (and on the two Davids' and Roger's sites as well.) This is amazing to me - and it is certainly not a battle I would have ever imagined that I'd be fighting.

Jim, you and I disagree about many things, especially regarding how to treat people who post here. I do not ridicule your approach, evem though I often disagree with it, because I know you get through to some people. I wish you wouldn't ridicule mine - you never know what people might respond to.

Katie


Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 04:04:34 (GMT)
From: Same to you
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: I do not know, gonne fishing?..nt
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 07:01:58 (GMT)
From: Salam
Email: None
To: Same to you
Subject: I changed my mind, I thing she won by a point.
Message:
Geeeeeeeeeeeee.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 19:03:01 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Salam
Subject: I'll make it easy, Salam : TAKE my fucking goat!
Message:
Yes, Katie definitely won THAT one.

Whew! Tough work all around.

Go for a beer anyone?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 01:30:07 (GMT)
From: Salam
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: It OK Jim, you can keep the goat.
Message:
You not pissed off, are you?

This hardwork, you know, trying to keep it together.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 03:28:31 (GMT)
From: Susan
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: LOL LOL good one!!!(nt)
Message:
It reminds me of the time someone talked about the 'young premie Chicks' and someone said there haven't been any of those since the seventies.

I guess we all look in the mirror and see our younger selves trying to get out of that aging body.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 01:16:31 (GMT)
From: Sir Dave
Email: sirdavid12@hotmail.com
To: Katie
Subject: Maharaji was right about one thing
Message:
You can't make an omelette without cracking a few eggs, they say and I don't think it's necessary to keep this forum abuse free because people are going to leave Maharaji anyway, regardless of how people are here and let's face it, nobody can control the kind of anarchy which goes on here.

It's because it is anarchic that it gets such a big audience. Abuse doesn't bring down the ratings - it only increases the audience. Such is human nature.

This forum and web site has one major function - that of showing Maharaji up in the clear light of day. There's no need to be 'nice' to do that and indeed, if you're too nice you won't do it.

It is more than a coincidence that the people who complain about the abuse are the ones who attract it. That's the nature of this law of the cyber-jungle. Can you see that glaringly obvious fact, Katie?

However, if you brush the abuse aside and see it for what it really is - often the rantings of an angry person - then it need not affect you.

I wouldn't worry about other premies being put off from reading this forum because of its style. If they want to leave Maharaji & Co then they will, regardless of how many fights there are here. There's one thing Maharaji once said that really was true:

'It's just between you and Guru Maharaj Ji.'

Any abuse here doesn't really enter into the equation because it's when a person realises that their Guru Maharaj Ji is a fake, a con man and a shallow charlatan - that's when the illusory connection is severed forever and they become an ex-premie - whether they like it or not.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 02:26:26 (GMT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Sir Dave
Subject: Maharaji was right about one thing
Message:
Dear David -
I wasn't suggesting that the forum be kept abuse free, or even become less abusive - I realize that is impossible. I was just stating my feelings, because I am very angry about this whole situation.

And, by the way, I don't agree with this:
It is more than a coincidence that the people who complain about the abuse are the ones who attract it. That's the nature of this law of the cyber-jungle. Can you see that glaringly obvious fact, Katie?

The ex-premies who ARE abused here are the ones who complain about it - and often not in public. Most of these people just quit posting, post elsewhere, or communicate with other ex-premies via e-mail support groups.

You also wrote:
However, if you brush the abuse aside and see it for what it really is - often the rantings of an angry person - then it need not affect you.

David, of course I realize that much of the abuse here is misplaced anger (and since most of the posters are men, women often tend to get more than their fair share of abuse.) The question is should we just brush this aside, or be quiet and take it? Frankly, I don't think so. I don't put up with my boss yelling at me because he's mad at his wife - why should I put up with it here?

I really don't care if premies want to read this forum or not - obviously many of them won't want to unless they have some secret doubts. I do think that EX-premies - ALL of them - should be able to read and post on it and I do not feel that it is that kind of place now.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 08:48:21 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Maharaji was right about one thing
Message:
Katie:

The place has a culture. I drop by every once in awhile, since the Forum III blowup, and it blows up again. I don't know whether other Ex-cult sites are better or worse. A friend of mine dropped by to take a look recently, an atheist and anarchist who was never a premie, and he liked the site. But, knowing him, he'd probably tire of the insensitivity and lack of consideration frequently shown other exes. It's not attractive, and I don't think it's necessary. Perhaps it's unavoidable though. If I were Maharaji the antagonisms would give me a note of comfort, especially since they may prove to be a fatal flaw.

What's really peculiar is that Jim ends up being a sort of apologist and mediator with Michael. And I agree with most of the criticisms of Michael, especially Joe's. However, I have another friend who was one of the more notorious defectors from Scientology. I kinda expect that he'd agree with Michael about the lack of professionalism here. I'm more concerned about the people who never show up, but who might have something to contribute that would be genuinely effective vis toppling Maharaji's little scheme. But, it is what it is.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 09:10:00 (GMT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Steady on, Scott T!
Message:
Jim: (in The APPARENT Dettmers paradox -:- Thurs, Oct 05, 2000) What bugs me about Mike -- and I hope you're reading this, Mike, because, I mean it sincerely and I'd love for you to think about this and then maybe one day we can talk about it, if you're still interested -- is the way he's just got so much pride and self-satisfaction for how he helped run the cult in his day. He can't see past that to really understand how simply ugly, wasteful, ridiculous and downright destructive it was for people.

Scott T.: What's really peculiar is that Jim ends up being a sort of apologist and mediator with Michael.

Steady on mate! Mediator, I grant you. But apologist -- I don't think so!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 23:18:40 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: Steady on, Scott T!
Message:
Mr. T. (also):

An apologist may not even agree with the person or group he's making the apology for. He must, however, at least find a saving grace. I think the term applies here, don't you? The odd thing is, who else has Jim given such treatment? Personally, and he may well bear me out on this, I think he sees a bit of himself in Dettmers. I see Richard Hatch there too. Don't you? Bear in mind, I only saw the last episode of The Survivors, and then some catch up material afterwards run during the Olympic coverage. What is there to say about a guy who had a plan and used it to win a million damn dollars? At the same time, it's kinda creepy.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 02:34:53 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Bullshit, Katie
Message:
Why an intelligent person like you can't see past a certain point really befuddles me.

Katie, any ex in the world can post here. But what are they going to post? Their ideas, right? And maybe those ideas are completely at odds with others', right? So then what?

By the way, do you think shp, for example, is treated unfairly here? If so, how? Please explain with some concrete examples if you can. Maybe start with today. Was shp mistreated today in your opinion? How?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 02:50:16 (GMT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Jim, you remind me of Dr. Laura
Message:
I am sure she is plenty intelligent too, but she can't see past her own viewpoint. It is possible to disagree with someone without flaming or ridiculing them OR feeling like it is an argument you have to win - lots of people do it every day.

And I haven't been reading the forum so don't have the slightest idea what shp is doing or what you are doing with him - I don't really care either.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 00:14:36 (GMT)
From: Susan
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: I totally agree
Message:
That was very well said Katie. I really think that the nastiness on the forum is also often counterproductive. I do not believe there is a good solution to it. But it is a shame.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 16:47:24 (GMT)
From: Helen
Email: None
To: Susan/Katie
Subject: I totally agree
Message:
Been following this whole thread. Seems ridiculous to me that Jim has to call Katie's motives for being here into question. Katie has spent hours working on the site so that people like Jim can post here at their pleasure. This is ridiculous.

The forum is still VERY valuable IMO. Many decent people post here and I enjoy hearing what they have to say. But it's a hostile environment a lot of the time, no question about it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 19:08:41 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Helen
Subject: Hold on there, Helen
Message:
Helen,

Sorry, ,luve, but that's exactly what's at odds between us. Katie and I have argued many times over me going for the jugular, as she tends to characterize it, and often it's Katie that raises the issue about our disparate goals here, i.e. that I want to 'tear the cult down' and she doesn't really care about that.

Look, I'm not lying. This is indeed what's happened and not just once either.

So it's a completely fair issue.

Sorry for defending my integrity to you at Katie's possible expense. Guess that just shows how ruthless I can be, huh?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 20:46:47 (GMT)
From: Helen
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Hold on there cowboy
Message:
Here's how I see it: Katie would like to see more kindness demonstrated in the process of helping people exit the cult. Whereas you go for the jugular. Now let's see, which style would I prefer if I were a newly exiting premie? Hmmmmmmm, now which would it be: to be personally attacked or to have someone treat me in a welcoming, kind way? Would I rather have someone call me names and attack me personally, or question my IDEAS?

Hmmmm...personal attack or kindness, personal attack or kindness?

Oh hell, I go for being torn to shreds, why not? It's the best way to let the healing begin!
Come on, Jim, get real.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 21:19:07 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Helen
Subject: Well, that's pretty damned simplistic, isn't it?
Message:

  • Katie has often said she doesn't necessarily WANT to help people exit the cult. That is, if they're happy there, fine. Okay, sure, if they're leaving anyway, Katie wants to 'be there' for them. But only to the extent that they want her to (if that makes any sense).
  • I am completely polite to people if they're polite to me. And by polite, I mean fairly responsive and rational in discussion. Yesterday I gave examples of three premies who Katie's defended who I say aren't polite: CD, Mel and Mili. All three, for reasons I've already explained, are impolite in the extreme.
  • It's not as if Katie and I are doing the same thing only she's doing it kindly. Katie never argues with premies. At best, she might post one argumentative post but she doesn't follow it up and chase down evasiveness or stupidity. And that's because, as she herself has said, she doesn't really care about the future of the cult or the people who are content within it.

    Now I distinctly recall a time that Katie said she's much more interested in saving cats and dogs from abuse than Happy Clappers.


Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 03:46:28 (GMT)
From: Helen
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: so what?
Message:
To tell you the truth I am a lot more passionate about dogs and cats than I am about forum 5 and saving the world from Maharaji and his ilk. So what? What is the point of dredging up every instance that Katie has not demonstrated utmost allegiance to the same goals you have regarding the forum. In bulleted format, too!

If I don't continue arguing with you, don't take it personally. I forget to check the forum much anymore. Too busy with other stuff.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 04:37:14 (GMT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Helen
Subject: took the words right out of my mouth
Message:
'So what' was going to be my answer too. I do care a lot more about abused animals (not to mention children) than bringing down Maharaji and EV. And about a lot of other issues too - in my opinion, Maharaji is not the ultimate evil facing this world.

Also, Jim, you're correct that I'm not out to convert anyone (been there and done that), and that I don't usually argue with premies unless they attack this forum, this site, or cast aspersions on someone like Susan. Maybe I need to take a loyalty test to determine if I'm committed enough to keep participating here.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 05:06:21 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Take the spin off and look at this fairly
Message:
The fact is, Katie, that a lot of people here quite enthusiastically share a goal that you have a mere passing interest, at best, in. For example, a lot of people here want all the premies to quit being premies. Full stop.

You have said, as I've said, that you don't care about that. If someone wants to follow Maharaji that's there business, means nothing to you.

And so now you're trying to make me out to be some sort of blood-thirsty Jacobin or something? Forget it, Katie, it won't work. You threw the animal thing at me before as your example of how this isn't really an important issue for you. Well it is for others. So there. So there really IS a different agenda, a different goal, if you will that YOU have compared to many others here.

And guess what, Katie? It shows! It shows in your posts where you really side with warmth and comfort EVERY TIME when that's juxtaposed with vigorous argument that might, just might, get a little closer to the truth.

You've always been like that and that's always been an issue between us. Those premies I mentioned before that you call 'friends', you can call them that because you've got nothing to argue with them about. As if you care what they believe, right? It's their business. So long as they're happy and don't hurt anyone, right? Am I mischaracterizing your views here? Tell me. I'd hate to be unfair about this. Wouldn't you?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 07:21:41 (GMT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Oh for god's sake, Jim - face the facts
Message:
You wrote:
The fact is, Katie, that a lot of people here quite enthusiastically share a goal that you have a mere passing interest, at best, in.

The fact is, Jim, that I have spent almost three years and quite a bit of money working on Ex-Premie.org and the forum. If I had a 'mere passing interest, at best' in ex-premie issues, would I have done that? Give me a break! Why do you think I'm doing that anyway? For fun??

You wrote:
For example, a lot of people here want all the premies to quit being premies. Full stop.
You have said, as I've said, that you don't care about that. If someone wants to follow Maharaji that's there business, means nothing to you.

I did say it's their business, but NEVER said it 'means nothing' to me. If you would bother reading my posts and quit adding your OWN spin (and words) to what you think I think, you'd know that by now.

I'm not interested in prostelyzing to people about ANYTHING. Like I said, I did that when I was a premie. I'm not interested in forcing people to believe or not to believe in anything. My view is that ex-premie.org is there for people if and when they need it or are interested. That is why I have put so much time into the web site, and believe me, we haven't had to drag people kicking and screaming into finding and reading it.

And so now you're trying to make me out to be some sort of blood-thirsty Jacobin or something? Forget it, Katie, it won't work. You threw the animal thing at me before as your example of how this isn't really an important issue for you. Well it is for others. So there. So there really IS a different agenda, a different goal, if you will that YOU have compared to many others here.

What's this 'so many others' stuff, Jim? What *I* see is that I have different goals than YOU. I don't think you can speak for 'many others' - it's possible that you may be one of the only people, if not THE only person, on this forum whose primary goal in life is to bring Maharaji down.

And guess what, Katie? It shows! It shows in your posts where you really side with warmth and comfort EVERY TIME when that's juxtaposed with vigorous argument that might, just might, get a little closer to the truth.

You've always been like that and that's always been an issue between us. Those premies I mentioned before that you call 'friends', you can call them that because you've got nothing to argue with them about. As if you care what they believe, right? It's their business. So long as they're happy and don't hurt anyone, right?

Yeah, I know it bugs you that I'm like this, Jim - so what? Does every ex-premie have to agree completely with you - is that really so important? I see lots of other people on here who don't agree with you about all aspects of being an ex-premie, and for some reason, it doesn't seem to bother you as much as what *I* think, do and say. Why is that, anyway?

Am I mischaracterizing your views here? Tell me. I'd hate to be unfair about this. Wouldn't you?

Jim, I am tired of your oft-used misplaced sarcasm. You KNOW you often mischaracterize my views, misquote me, label me, and you know that you do it all on a public forum where everyone can read it precisely because you want everyone to share YOUR view of me. I sincerely doubt that your negative attitude towards me has much, if anything, to do with my view of Maharaji.

I think it's clear to me, to anyone who's been posting on here for a while, and to anyone who reads the archives that you just plain do not like me. You've made this readily apparent to both me and many other people, both in public and in private for quite some time. And I feel that this undercuts the veracity of your so-called vigorous argument that might, just might, get a little closer to the truth.

Face it, Jim - I'm never going to agree with you on these issues. And, like Helen, I don't follow this particular forum that much anymore, so don't get insulted if I don't continue the argument - I really don't see what else I can say.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 00:08:21 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: The facts are the very things I'm talking about
Message:
How silly of you to suggest that I might possibly be the only person here interested in toppling the cult (or coming as close to it as possible). And how sneaky of you to suggest that I've ever said that bringing Maharaji down is my main purpose in life.

So why does it bug me that you've protected dumb-ass deceitful premies here? Because, it's the wrong thing to do. It's a cheap nicey-nicey feel good thing that you can't resist.

You don't want to continue this discussion? Fine, suits me. As usual you jump in on your own, start whining about how everyone yelled when you were a kid, get your usual knee-jerk coffee klatch support and everyone feels all good and bittersweet again.

You ask why I think that you have been doing this for three years? I don't know. Maybe you were lonely or something. Maybe you just wanted to make some new friends. And that you have, haven't you? You got a new relationship, a new life out of EPO. What are you complaining about?

My idea of a good forum, by the way, is one where poeple like shp never feel comfortable spouting their new-age drivel here for too long. I'd like to see the page downright sizzle in that respect. You, on the other hand, want everyone to feel comfortable. No matter what, just let them all feel comfortable.

What about this standard, Katie? What do you think about this one:

Zero tolerance for Maharaji cult thinking.

Do you like that? No, of course you don't.

Well I do. So what? So nothing. We'll do this all over again when someone else posts a 'Be Kind to the Animals' post. Then you and your supporters can remind us all how kind you all are; others (NOT just me) can reiterate that sometimes it isn't ABOUT being nice and on we go.

Don't bother replying. I know you're busy.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 05:51:16 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: A toast, with jam and bread.
Message:
Jim:

Several observations:

1. It is possible to change someone's opinion on a subject without even engaging them in conversation about it directly. I'm pretty sure you don't know *how* to do this, but that doesn't mean it's not possible, or even preferable. (It's not really my style either, mind you.) I suspect that Dettmers knows though, given what he does for a living.

2. If this site somehow conformed precisely to the ideal for it that you seem to espouse, you'd be talking to yourself. Well actually maybe a couple of others would hang around and chew the fat with you, but it wouldn't be any fun.

And I never thought it was very worthwhile to argue with CD, Mili or SHP even though I did it. I regarded it as being weak in the face of temptation. There have to be more productive things one can do. So perhaps being nice to them is just heaping coals of fire on their heads. Maybe just maybe and all that stuff...

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 01:02:17 (GMT)
From: Monmot
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: C'mon Jim, Let's Bifurcate Here
Message:
Jim:

I assume when you said, 'get your usual knee-jerk coffee klatch support, that you're referring to several of our's conversation up a bit. I think that that's unfair. First of all, we were talking about verbal abuse etc. and how it can turn people off. Here, you're talking with Katie about your and her motives, two distinct topics.

I don't think discussing our past necessarily constitutes a coffee klatch, unless it's just because it was all woman 'talking' up there. The coffee klatch thang is a bit of an ad feminem attack.

Gotta run, Sex and the City is on.

Thanks
M

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 03:56:41 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Helen
Subject: Nothing. Forget it (nt)
Message:
fff
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 03:04:33 (GMT)
From: suchabanana
Email: None
To: Susan
Subject: I totally agree
Message:
YES, YES, YES, AND YES AGAIN!

Respect and Kindness to others who have suffered or endured, or dared to face denial, or dared to face the facts, or dared to even question, or dared to confront the imbeddded guilt and reinforced indoctrination -- and the resulting deep emotional traumas -- without fear, mysogynist harassment, immature semantic gamesmanship, or other b.s. Dig?

Some consciousness raising, yes, as well as revealing the facts and bogusness. That means: any insincere jerks and word nitpickers -- please, just kindly buzz off, resist the impulse, or just get on the latest rocket ship with M. himself flaming up to Uranus.

That seems to be the consensus of respectable, well meaning folks here.

Regardless, wishing everyone (especially emotionally insecure flamers -- who need it) well and some Peace,

da lil' ol' swami

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 03:08:14 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: suchabanana
Subject: And let me jump on that bandwagon too!
Message:
Yes, yes, YES!

Respect all around.

I'll tell you the truth, I wish all the people I ever knew in the cult could join hands and sing a song or two. Have a coke. Talk about the funny, funny cult we were in.

It hurts me, it honestly hurts me, at times, that so many of my old premie friends want nothing to do with me.

Mind you, they're all cult members so it can't be that big a loss, can it?

Ha ha ha ahaaaaa ha ha!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 09:34:32 (GMT)
From: janet of venice
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: ..'and it honestly hurts me...'
Message:
of course it hurts , jim. and your attempt to cover the wound by saying they're in the cult, so how much could it matter, doesnt begin to touch the pain--it exacerbates it. those are real human beings, and so are we, here, , as well. we may have had our CONCEPTS about relationships warped and deformed and perverted by the brainwashing, but the relationships themselves were real. of course it hurts.
there is no real 'love' operant in being a 'premie'. there is judgement, there is an 'us and them' mentality, there is artificial separation and ostracization-- between real human beings, who, in their natural state, would be able to like each other and associate without reservation. isnt it bizarre that the whole presentation is the opposite of what it claims to be? the 'lovers' aren't loved, the 'enightened' are deluded, the 'deluded' are enlightened, the 'giver' does all the taking...? it is so weird.
everything lies!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 19:10:56 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: janet of venice
Subject: 'Everything lies'? Ain't that the truth, Janet?
Message:
Yes, I agree. It never feels good to be shunned and dissed by my former cult colleagues just because I choose to think a bit and because I won't whitewash the past at the cult's urging.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 02:52:20 (GMT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Susan
Subject: Thanks, Susan
Message:
I think we agree about Michael Dettmers. What bothers me is that he's been taking the heat that ought to go to Maharaji and EV - and he's not even IN EV anymore! EV must be pretty happy about THIS little turn of events.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 08:35:21 (GMT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: The price of silence
Message:
Katie: I think we agree about Michael Dettmers. What bothers me is that he's been taking the heat that ought to go to Maharaji and EV - and he's not even IN EV anymore! EV must be pretty happy about THIS little turn of events.

JohnT:
I very doubt that, myself. They would not have paid him off unless his silence was important to them. That such silence can (quite rightly, by my lights) involve heavy costs to the vendor's reputation and business will be of concern... if only because it pushes up the price EV must pay to silence senior cult operatives in future.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 17:06:54 (GMT)
From: Susan
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: I think you are wrong
Message:
I think the people who are having the most success at silencing him are right here on the forum.

I have good reason to think that current PAMs are reading posts like yours ( you know, the ones with the BIG BOLD NASTY WORDS at the end ) and hoping that people like Michael Dettmers are reading them.

I can assure you that you are completely wrong. Current PAMs are reading what you post John T, and it is exactly what they want to see. You are doing their work for them.

But of course, I am foolish and soft hearted, nice, and all that. I couldn't possibly have any insight into the truth of this matter.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 17:38:33 (GMT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: Susan
Subject: I think you are unfair
Message:
Susan: But of course, I am foolish and soft hearted, nice, and all that. I couldn't possibly have any insight into the truth of this matter.

If you are meaning readers to gain the impression I have described you in those terms, you are being very unfair.

I think PAMs, like people generally, will act in what they see as their own best interests. We can hope to appeal to that, as well as to their sense of ethics and decency.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 17:42:50 (GMT)
From: Susan
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: you are right
Message:
you never have described me like that or implied such. But I have at times felt like I am being branded as such when I am critical of the harsher tactics. But actually, I do not recall you being one of those people and I am sorry I implied it.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 18:06:55 (GMT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: Susan
Subject: and you
Message:
It is not nice stuff -- the tabloid style. I can understand you dislike it. It's comparatively unimportant here, of course, serving merely as a warning (should the obvious have been overlooked) that the path of silence has real risks in a webbed world.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 13:50:27 (GMT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: The price of silence
Message:
Hi John -
You may be right about what Michael D. knows and how harmful it could be to EV. However, one of the points I was attempting to make is that trying to force, threaten, or shame someone into revealing information doesn't usually work. Thus I think putting pressure on Michael D. by means of this forum is counter-productive, and also is taking the heat off of what EV is doing NOW.

I would guess that quite a few of the ex-PAM's (and Jim has talked to several of them) have signed confidentiality agreements in exchange for severance pay. Michael D. has at least admitted it, which I appreciate.

Personally, I would have real trouble breaking a confidentiality agreement of any kind - whether money was involved or not. It's not something to be undertaken lightly, or because someone else tells you it's the right thing to do. Several people on this forum have made the case that Michael D. is OBLIGED to break this agreement - I don't think this is right. In the end, it's his decision, and I think it might take some time for him to come to terms with it, no matter what he decides. In the meantime, I don't think continued public harassment will help.

Take care,
Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 08:25:07 (GMT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: The price of silence
Message:
Hi Katie,

I was talking this over with MrsT (no anti-m fire-and-sword militant, she). Her take was that of course a deacon who loses 'faith' should resign with his integrity (like Mishler) rather than continue to go through the motions and later retire having negotiated a secrecy payoff with a racket he's seen through as a fraud.

Can one, in good faith, defend keeping an arrangement one has made in bad faith? I would suggest not.

Is this what Dettmers is doing? I can understand it must be very painful for those of us here who have considered MD to be a friend even to think about THAT possibility. He can clear things up anytime he likes, and I hope he does. But I am not going to hold my breath.

With respect and grateful thanks for all your work and committment to the ex-premie cause which has made it possible for me to express my views here.

JohnT

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 18:13:46 (GMT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: The price of silence
Message:
Hi John -
I agree with your wife, really. However, I think the process of determining whether you made an agreement in bad faith can take a while. For example, it took me a long time to feel OK about revealing the knowledge techniques (even after I was very angry at Maharaji) because I am very serious about promises and commitments, no matter who they are made to.

I don't know Michael - and I think almost all of us here are on the outside looking in, and naturally making assumptions about what he has done in the past and should do in the future. I do think it would be very difficult for someone who has seen (or sees) Maharaji as a friend to reveal information that might be damaging to him. I also know that there are people who post on this forum that have taken 10 or 20 years after leaving to come to terms with their own involvement with Maharaji. So it can take a long time.

Take care, Mr. T -
Love,
Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 06:36:21 (GMT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: The price of silence
Message:
Thanks for that Katie.

I too am loyal to the point of um, well, you know, I can be over loyal sometimes.

The problem with the price of silence in the present context, it seems to me, is that the price is paid by the bewildered survivors of the fraud. The real cost of Dettmer's silence is paid by the (often financially challenged) people the now wealthy Dettmers helped hurt in his climb to comparative riches.

I hope you can forgive this razor tongue for finding his, ah, sensitive prevarications grotesque and obscene, from that perspective. Open your eyes Dettmers. The view is ugly, but you will survive, and gain something you presently lack.

Respect.

JohnT

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 23:37:42 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: The price of silence
Message:
Katie:

It's not something to be undertaken lightly, or because someone else tells you it's the right thing to do. Several people on this forum have made the case that Michael D. is OBLIGED to break this agreement - I don't think this is right.

I took mediation and arbitration as part of my MBA and was somewhat chagrined to learn that if, in the process of a mediation, I were to hear of a murder already committed, or even a murder being planned, I would be bound by the ethical strictures of the profession to refrain from revealing that to anyone. The only exception, it seems, is child abuse. I decided that if something like this were to happen I'd probably reveal the information, and then resign the profession. But you're right, the decision and it's consequences would be totally mine. I suppose that a nondisclosure agreement has somewhat the same force.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 00:00:56 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: I find that very hard to believe, Scott (ot)
Message:
Scott,

Even lawyers are duty bound to report crimes their clients tell them they are PLANNING to commit, well, especially serious ones like murder. I can't imagine that any code of conduct for any organized group would say otherwise.

You have a source on this?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 00:33:25 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: I find that very hard to believe, Scott (ot)
Message:
Jim:

I took the course from Beryl Blaustone, one of the founders of CUNY law school. I remember the heated debate well. Now this was early in the ADR movement, and I recall thinking and arguing as to how this was a ridiculous ethical rule, but she was quite adamant. I hope they've changed it, but her argument was that a mediator who can't be approached with trust by both sides is worthless, and revealing information discovered during the process undermines not only that negotiator, but the entire profession. Negotiation and mediation have far more value than impeding any particular crime, including murder. (Here mediators and negotiators play a different role than legal counselors.) Anyway, that was her argument. I can understand this in terms of what Michael seems to regard as professionalism (though I have to infer some stuff about his profession that I don't really know in order to buy it). The resolution of the dilemma for me is to follow my own conscience and then find another profession.

I haven't been connected with ADR for years, so they may well have changed this by now. It wouldn't surprise me if they hadn't though.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 19:32:28 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: A little fuzzy thinking perhaps, Katie and Susan?
Message:
Okay, maybe John didn't say it but I will: I think both of you are suffering from niceness cataracts.

Katie, you say this:

You may be right about what Michael D. knows and how harmful it could be to EV. However, one of the points I was attempting to make is that trying to force, threaten, or shame someone into revealing information doesn't usually work. Thus I think putting pressure on Michael D. by means of this forum is counter-productive, and also is taking the heat off of what EV is doing NOW.

To your first point, I can only say that, yes, trying to 'force, threaten or shame' someone into doing anything often doesn't work. I won't say 'usually' because it really depends on the circumstances, doesn't it? But, anyway, why don't you deal with the alternatives here?

Probably because you also think:

Several people on this forum have made the case that Michael D. is OBLIGED to break this agreement - I don't think this is right. In the end, it's his decision, and I think it might take some time for him to come to terms with it, no matter what he decides.

It's trite to say that its Dettmers's decision to do what he does. Like, DUH on that one, Katie. Of course it's his decision. The question is what should he do. You know? Like in 'moral imperatives' and all that? Or don't you do 'should'? Like it's too much pressure or something. Not nice to be telling people what they should or shouldn't do. Someone might feel a little uneasy or something, huh?

And you, Susan, are starting to go really overboard with sentiments like this:

I think the people who are having the most success at silencing him are right here on the forum.

Give me a fucking break! It's not as if Dettmers was a fountain of open disclosure before Yves came along. That's absurd. The real history is that we've tried for a fairly long time now -- what, half a year? -- to give Micahel all the space in the world to tell his story HIS way in HIS time. Sure, there's always been a bit of crowding, a bit of restlessness expressed as various among us demanded that he get to the point, get it all out, quit being so cagey and all that. But there was a fairly healthy dynamic going on.

Then there was the MRC letter and there, too, we all waited to see how, if at all, Maharaji night respond to this admittedly softest of confrontations. And it was then that Michael promised me that he would, sooner rather than later (but, in his own time, all the same, let's never forget that) find some one way attempt to establish his own, uncompromised contact with his former 'client'.

And we waited.

And we waited.

And nothing .......

Okay, so he sent your letter on. But, as he told me himself, he never expected that that would serve as any sort of foot-in-the-door for himself. That's why, as he's told me, he's not the least bit surprised or disappointed that it hasn't. He never thought it would.

So where's the effort on his part he said he'd make?

Oh, I see, it's all Yves' fault. Michael was just about to do something, say something more, really stand up for something here, and Yves et al. (Drek, Joe, Salam, who else?) ruined it?

If you believe that, Susan, you really do deserve all the goody-goody appellations you accused JohnT of throwing at you.

And this, by the way, from someone who, you know, likes you.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 19:37:31 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Katie and Susan
Subject: Replacing another blank post
Message:
Okay, maybe John didn't say it but I will: I think both of you are suffering from niceness cataracts.

Katie, you say this:

You may be right about what Michael D. knows and how harmful it could be to EV. However, one of the points I was attempting to make is that trying to force, threaten, or shame someone into revealing information doesn't usually work. Thus I think putting pressure on Michael D. by means of this forum is counter-productive, and also is taking the heat off of what EV is doing NOW.

To your first point, I can only say that, yes, trying to 'force, threaten or shame' someone into doing anything often doesn't work. I won't say 'usually' because it really depends on the circumstances, doesn't it? But, anyway, why don't you deal with the alternatives here?

Probably because you also think:

Several people on this forum have made the case that Michael D. is OBLIGED to break this agreement - I don't think this is right. In the end, it's his decision, and I think it might take some time for him to come to terms with it, no matter what he decides.

It's trite to say that its Dettmers's decision to do what he does. Like, DUH on that one, Katie. Of course it's his decision. The question is what should he do. You know? Like in 'moral imperatives' and all that? Or don't you do 'should'? Like it's too much pressure or something. Not nice to be telling people what they should or shouldn't do. Someone might feel a little uneasy or something, huh?

And you, Susan, are starting to go really overboard with sentiments like this:

I think the people who are having the most success at silencing him are right here on the forum.

Give me a fucking break! It's not as if Dettmers was a fountain of open disclosure before Yves came along. That's absurd. The real history is that we've tried for a fairly long time now -- what, half a year? -- to give Micahel all the space in the world to tell his story HIS way in HIS time. Sure, there's always been a bit of crowding, a bit of restlessness expressed as various among us demanded that he get to the point, get it all out, quit being so cagey and all that. But there was a fairly healthy dynamic going on.

Then there was the MRC letter and there, too, we all waited to see how, if at all, Maharaji night respond to this admittedly softest of confrontations. And it was then that Michael promised me that he would, sooner rather than later (but, in his own time, all the same, let's never forget that) find some one way attempt to establish his own, uncompromised contact with his former 'client'.

And we waited.

And we waited.

And nothing .......

Okay, so he sent your letter on. But, as he told me himself, he never expected that that would serve as any sort of foot-in-the-door for himself. That's why, as he's told me, he's not the least bit surprised or disappointed that it hasn't. He never thought it would.

So where's the effort on his part he said he'd make?

Oh, I see, it's all Yves' fault. Michael was just about to do something, say something more, really stand up for something here, and Yves et al. (Drek, Joe, Salam, who else?) ruined it?

If you believe that, Susan, you really do deserve all the goody-goody appellations you accused JohnT of throwing at you.

And this, by the way, from someone who, you know, likes you.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 23:56:25 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Hostility on the forum
Message:
I cannot understand how this is seen to be a productive approach...

Productive for what, Katie? You've stated your position here several times which, as I recall, is that you don't give a fig if Maharaji stays in business or not.

Some of us feel differently. We're into muckraking, dirt-slinging and basically trying to jam the cult's machinery as best possible. Naturally, we feel like we've got somewhere to go, a destination, if you will.

Do YOU have a goal here, Katie? What is it?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 00:30:13 (GMT)
From: anonymous
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Logical and right on target
Message:
as usual. But you might have hurt her feelings with that retort Jim.
Should that be a concern? I think not. Should you sugar your words? Please don't! Put a spin on the truth in order to spare or slow someone's emergence from delusion? Then that would make you a liar. Keep on keeping on. I've grown fond of reading your posts.
An admirer
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 09:57:36 (GMT)
From: Hal
Email: None
To: anonymous
Subject: Logical and right on target
Message:
I accept that you admire Jim but why the hell you can't have the courage to say who you are? I really don't understand the anonymity.

I also have a respect for Jim if not an admiration but you actually made a remark about Katie rather snidely I thought and it would show much more integrity on your part to reveal yourself, don't you think?

I've had a few snipes made at me by anonymous posters and it really pisses me off.
Hal ( Steve Mulley )

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 01:40:23 (GMT)
From: Salam
Email: None
To: anonymous
Subject: Logical and right on target
Message:
I do not thing that is the right thing to say to Kaitie

Do YOU have a goal here, Katie? What is it?,

becuase you have already answered the question yourself.

Some of us feel differently. We're into muckraking, dirt-slinging and basically trying to jam the cult's machinery as best possible. Naturally, we feel like we've got somewhere to go, a destination, if you will.

Which what Katie cares about and is providing through this forum, or do you thing that the site runs by itself?

Kaite I appreciate what you doing. I am not FA, but if I was talked to this way I put the 'GONE FISHING' sign up.

Jim I am not aginst you. I think you contribute a lot to this place. I also fail to see why are you accussed of being dominant.

I am very tolerant, but sometimes I do know that I go off the top of my head but that is when some totally idiotic thing has been said.

I think we fail to see, that posting by itself is a stressful thing to do, let alone for someone that knows that he/she going to be rejected, such as a premie. That makes it worst with people who have been on the forum for a long time. They think that the forum belongs to them and have the right to protecte it from 'undesired elememts'.

Sure it is public, but this publicity is very biased. There is no dought about it.

Perhaps we are seeing different types of exes emerging, on one hand there is the die hard, those that want to scrutinize every letter and dot that is being said and see if that will conform to the down fall of gm, and on the other hand there are those exes that have come here then gone somewhere else, becuase they felt that they have overgrown their stay on f5.

I do not know, just an observation. Maybe if we can have a civilised exchange of ideas then we can find out.

All in all. it is OK. Katie and Jim and Anonymous and the onlookers, we all make this place the way it is.

(I forgot to add myself)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 20:55:27 (GMT)
From: BullShp Detector
Email: None
To: shp
Subject: Are you bald and used to sell lightbulbs in Miami?
Message:
hey shp,if you are sanford pass, did you used to sell energy saving devices to put in light bulbs?
Did you live in Miami during the early 80's?
Just curious, I think I know you...
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 21:09:05 (GMT)
From: shp
Email: None
To: BullShp Detector
Subject: Are you bald and used to sell lightbulbs in Miami?
Message:
Yes.
Who are you?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 00:45:19 (GMT)
From: Gordon Showcase
Email: None
To: shp
Subject: I'm not bald and I sell drugs to schoolkids
Message:
I've never met a more winging bunch or loosers anywhere. I've tried to reason with them and tell them that Maharaji isn't like he was in the old days but has matured like a good cheddar but all I get back is abuze and I'm sick of it.

At least I'm doing somethink with my life which is more than can be said for these winers. They never practiced or had faith in there master and they'll never listen to my wize council so I wont waist my time here any more because I've got better things to do.

Why don't they just get over it? So wat if knoweledge wazn't all it was cracked up to be? So wat if Maharaji turned out to be human after all and not the Lord of the Univers? Just get over it and get a life!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 01:00:31 (GMT)
From: Tonette
Email: None
To: Gordon Showcase
Subject: Hey, I never belived he was Lord of the Universe!
Message:
And guess what? I am not a loser. Oh no indeed! How do you want to judge it? Morally? Financially? Spiritually? By my health? Emotionally?

He isn't like he was in the old days? In what way?

We never practiced? I, for one, can say that I have realized Knowledge, for the circus bag of cheap tricks it is.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 17:28:12 (GMT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: What's original about the 'knowledge' then?
Message:
And you thought the swan symbol was Shri Hans'/Prem Pal's own symbol?

Check out http://www.hamsa-yoga.org


The FAQ page is worth a look too.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 20:03:11 (GMT)
From: Bin Liner
Email: None
To: cq
Subject: What's original about the 'knowledge' then?
Message:

Just took a look , fuck him too .

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 19:53:03 (GMT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: Bin Liner
Subject: Let's face it ...
Message:
... these techniques of meditation - the very same that Shri Hans peddled, and his sons (Bal Bhagwan too, don't forget) - have been knocking about for donkeys' years.

No doubt in a hundred years time there'll STILL be 'teachers' who'll peddle those techniques to people who have never heard of the likes of Maharaji, et al. Even though they're available from many many sources (even ex-premie.org).

But what (apart from ignorance) makes people fall for the idea that the experience is
'of God'
in the first place?

The first stumbling block for would-be seekers ('would-be' in that thinking they've found the answer, they consequently stop seeeking) - is quite simply:

the all-important Pre-Sales Pitch.

The one that tells them what to expect.

They (as were we) are told that the experience they'll get from meditation is of having experienced QUOTE 'God' ENDQUOTE
(though Elan Vital would nowadays deny any such claim, unlike the Divine Light Mission that it replaced).

The rest is easy.

Just because the meditation is new to the aspirant, and he/she hasn't seen/felt anything like it before, and (more importantly) because of that all-important pre-sales pitch, the poor suckers (such as we were) think: 'Oh wow! I've just experienced God!'
.
.
.
Oh really?

What they've experienced may be new, may be more real, more 'true' than anything they've heard about 'God' before.

But what makes them think the experience is 'of God'?

.
.
.
.

Only because it's what they were told to believe.

.
.
.

So they believe it. And anyone challenging their belief-system is not only challenging their meditation or their 'teacher'. Those who challenge that belief are taking on ... guess what?

Oh, what am I saying? How could a premie be motivated by something as gross as pride?

;)

(and guess who they might have learnt it from, after all these years?)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 18:19:24 (GMT)
From: shp
Email: None
To: cq
Subject: Nothing new under the sun, conservation of energy
Message:
...and matter. And all good ideas come from the same place, the same highest place inside of us all, which is a point of transmission and reception of energy and information. Two guys invented the steam engine at the same time, Robert Fulton and some guy in England, Bessemer or Besseler, neither aware of the other. I heard that Paul and John pretty much the same song at the same time one two sides of the Atlantic as well wuithout knowing at the time. Big f*cking deal, two peaceful guys use a swan for a symbol. You are one sharp cookie. Nothing gets past you.

Stretch your imagination. Think of peaceful images. A swan comes to mind. Brilliant. Add to the mix the fact that the swan is a sacred animal in certain cultures and is even associated with the age we are entering. Stir in the possibil;ity that one saw the other's and really liked it and adapted it, or one of their students migrated with it. So what????

I mean, I'll bet there are other sites like yours that also use sick dim yellow for a background and dried blood color type accented by black, blue and magenta, the color of bruises. There are probably thousands of them, but you can look them up if you want to question my veracity. I'm just banking on the law of averages. As for the uncomplimetnary use of images of your object of scorn, you must have learned that from politicians. It's an election year, and you don't have to look far to see somebody trying to create negative imagery through the wonders of photography. Does that make you un-original too?

The articles about the techniques somewhere else below this thread, hell-oooo? Both articles urge folks who want to proceed with their practice to do it under the guidance of a 'guru', or teacher. We all did that. You just have a problem with the teacher you chose. That does not invalidate the Knowledge or its importance. We all have free will and are using it all the time, whether we use our free will to lose consciousness or gain it.

So what's new you ask, cq? Wait a miunute, something new is coming around the bend....hang on, cq, anytime now.....just a but longer and we'll have it...BANG, HERE IT IS, THIS VERY MOMENT OF LIFE WHICH HAS NEVER BEFORE IN THE UNIUVERSE EXISTED EVER EVER EVER AND WE ARE HERE AS WITNESSES TO OUR OWN EXISTENCE IN THIS WORLD FULL OF BLUE SKY, SINGING FLYING CREATURES, FOOD THAT COMES OUT OF THE GROUND, WATER THAT FALLS FROM THE SKY, SUNRISES AND SUNSETS THAT MAKE THE WHOLE SKY A RAINBOW DAPPLED WITH MARSHMALLOW PUFFS OF CLOUD, OTHER PEOPLE WHO LOVE US AND CARE ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS TO US...AND THE SUBTLE BUT STRONG AWARENESS OF AND GRATITUDE TO OUR HOST WHO HAS ALLOWED US TO BE IN ITS CREATION...THAT AWARENESS BEING HEIGHTENED AND INTENSIFIED BY THE PRACTICED OF SOME TRIED AND TRUE TECHNIQUES UNDER THE CARE AND GUUIDANCE OF A OR TEACHER, CALLED KNOWLEDGE..AND THAT KNOWLEDGE BEING THE SPICE THAT MAKES LIFE PALATABLE, THE EXPERIENCE THAT GIVES A DEEPER MEANING AND DIMENSION TO LIFE, THAT RAISES US UP BOTH INSIDE AND OUT TO SEEK MORE THAN A 9 TO 5 LIFE, KEEP OUR CREATURE COMFORTS STOCKED, AND DO IT ALL OVER AGAIN ON MONDAY...LIKE 'YOU HAVE SOMETHNG GREEN STUCK IN YOUR TEETH', ONLY IT'S 'YOU HAVE SOMETHING STUCK IN YOUR BODY RIGHT NOW CALLED LIFE'...ooops, there it goes...but here comes another one, and another one and another one...and I yearn for the day when I can be in THIS experience of which I speak 24/7 and still walk and chew gum.

What's new, cq? Everything, all the time. Only we have to be in a certain perpsective to tactily experience it, and Knowledge works to this end for me and many others. Maharaji has said he is not for everybody, so shop around. But I urge you like a brother to plug into something or someone who can help you do the same if you have not already.

Gotta love ya,

shp

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 20:16:51 (GMT)
From: Way
Email: None
To: shp
Subject: shp - do you miss sitting in the satsang chair?
Message:
shp,

It takes two open people for the flow of satsang to happen. But when you start trying to cram it down, in capitol letters, to people that have heard it a million times already and have had enough, you only end up iritating people.

You know what you are like, with all your 'loving' advice and satsang at the ex-premie forum? It's like two young Mormon men knocking at some poor guys's door. He opens the door and politely says 'No thanks, I already have my own ideas about truth and love and God.' So the two Mormons go the guy's window and start singing Mormon hymns. The guy goes to the window and says, 'really, guys, I'm a mature person who has my own connection to my own soul, thanks anyway and please stop with the Mormon stuff.' So the two guys say, 'Oh, we love you so much, Sir, and God loves everybody, and the clouds in the sky look just like marshmallows, don't you think?!' So the guy says, 'Yes, I'm very thankful that food comes out of the ground and all that, but I personally think that Joseph Smith was a dirty fraud and I'm not interested in Mormonism.' So the Mormons offer the guy a free copy of the Book of Mormon and say: 'speaking of Master Joseph Smith, did you know...?

So, shp, if you didn't get my point, let me spell it out for you:
NO MORE SATSANG. Go write a poem for ELK's expression line. Or print off Mike Donner's six page letter and tape it to your bedpost. And leave us in peace.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 20:57:27 (GMT)
From: shp
Email: None
To: Way
Subject: No more truthtelling at all or just re Maharaj?nt
Message:
afdf
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 22:10:59 (GMT)
From: Way
Email: None
To: shp
Subject: No more truthtelling at all or just re Maharaj?nt
Message:
I rest my case.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 19:04:18 (GMT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: shp
Subject: It was a short post, Sandy. Try reading it
Message:
'So what's new you ask, cq?

No mate, my question was: 'what's original?'

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 19:32:09 (GMT)
From: shp
Email: None
To: cq
Subject: I did read it. Substitute 'original' for 'new'.
Message:
And everything will be just fine and literally and grammatically correct within your syntax. This moment is both new and original. And so are you, every moment.

The Knowledge is definitely not new, as we both know. Maharaji has said so thousands of times in front of thousands of peoiple. It's not a secret.

I believe it is the original Knowledge, but not the only way or time it has been introduced to humanity. So to be more specific about the words, as you seem to have a special sensitivity to,
the original Knolwedge is being presented in a new way. I think that's a major problem for people who have concepts about how it's s'posed to be. Gotta trust the teacher or find one you can or hike it on yer own, but do take the trip. I know you want to or are already on it and trucking...I just feel it from you.

ATTENTION: THIS IS NOT AN ATTACK. THE HELLER ANTI-PREMIE RESPONSE SYSTEM IS IN NEED OF REPAIR. IT MAY MALFUNCTION AND SET OFF ALARMS WITHOUT CAUSE. PLEASE BE ADVISED.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 20:02:41 (GMT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: shp
Subject: Substitute 'original' for 'new' I see ...or do I?
Message:
May I take the liberty of ammending your warning to this, Sandy?:

ATTENTION: THIS IS A DEFENCE. THE HELLER ANTI-PREMIE ATTACK SYSTEM IS ALIVE AND WELL AND IN NO NEED OF REPAIR. A MAJOR SYSTEMS RE-EVALUATION, PERHAPS, BUT IF IT AIN'T BROKE, WHY FIX IT?

IT HAS NEVER MALFUNCTIONED AND WILL ALWAYS SET OFF ALARM SYSTEMS. WITH GOOD CAUSE. PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT IT WORKS ... FOR SOME.
.
.
.

Tee hee.

Yup, Sandy, you're absolutely right, this nanosecond of momental experience is entirely new and original.

And, as you say, the Knowledge is not.

.
.
.
Incidentally, it's not so much words I have a sensitivity to, as their meaning. The meaning of the word 'Knowledge' being a case in point.

If you say I'm 'lacking Knowledge', as in 'playing in the shallow end of understanding', well, I don't claim and never have claimed to be all-knowing, unlike Maharaji, who encouraged us ex-ashram premies to sing Arti every morning and night (and don't forget those dreadful non-scanning lyrics that were applied to the tune of 'Away in a manger' that went:

I love you Maharaj Ji,
Your grace is overflowing
I love you Maharaj Ji,
You are all-knowing'


(Now what are all the exes going to do with all that puke that's just exploded over their keyboards?)


And for QUOTE 'people who have concepts about how it's s'posed to be' ... how come you don't include yourself in that description Sandy? Are you really too dyed-in-the wool to see this whole trip from a different angle now and again? Or is the concept of re-evaluation too much of a concept for you to handle?

Here's a good question for you, and (imagining myself as a premie again) me too:

What are 'we' protecting by sticking with the Maha?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 21:08:07 (GMT)
From: shp
Email: None
To: cq
Subject: Your criticism is riddled with inaccuracy, oh well
Message:
I said it works for me and others.
I didn't 'puke' out amything, but if your head is full of puke already about a partricular subject, everything sounds and smells like it. -shp

I didn't say Knowledge was not new and original, I just didn't mention that particular attribute of it its infinite essence.
It is both ancient and new, like life itself. And if you don't want to hear responses about Maharaji, then uninvite premies to post. What the hell do you espect us to say, for Christ's sake? I mean what is this, a place where some premies and ex-premies agree to come and fight? The body lives in space, the mind in time and the soul in energy. 'New and old' are of a measurement that Knowledge lives beyond, and you cannot measure it with that sort of device. Here's one for you...I have heard and read many of the unpleasant experiences you and others have had and blame Maharaji for. Do you remember any good ones? Care to share?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 10:33:39 (GMT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: shp
Subject: YOU said: 'The Knowledge is definitely not new'
Message:
three posts above.

Now you contradict yourself.

You also say: 'I said it works for me and others.' So? What's that got to do with my post to you?

Next time,how about looking at your own inaccuracies before criticising mine?

And, Sandy, do feel free to answer the question - for a change.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 15:01:49 (GMT)
From: shp
Email: None
To: cq
Subject: YOU said: 'The Knowledge is definitely not new'
Message:
OK, try this:

Air is not new but the breath you just took is, and the moment of life it affords you is original, new, unique and will never happen again.

You are too literal when it is convenient for you. The letter (of what is said) kills and the spirit (of what is said) gives life.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 23:41:29 (GMT)
From: Bin Liner
Email: None
To: shp
Subject: 'Care to share'
Message:

I've had many good experiences with Shitler down the years.

Forgive me for not giving you chapter & verse, but my typing speed isn't up to the task.

For ME , my experience is essentially my own business, & not something to bore other people with.

For HIM,it's the means by which HE kept ME in thrall to HIM for 28 years.

I don't want to exaggerate, because I haven't been as screwed up (but who can say) , or as ripped off , as a lot of other people.

I was talking to my wife about this the other day , & she said, ' if this knowledge stuff was so great , why didn't you just say 'thanks' & walk away'.

Needless to say I'd rarely spoken about it during 15 years of marriage because she'd never been interested. (clever girl)


But you know ,& I know ,& everybody else knows who visits this site, that it's not about the 'experience'.

It's about 'Who is GMJ'.


There's enough information here to convince me, at least, that he's a complete crock of shit.

Why not you ? Or do you think your experience takes precedence.

I was going to finish off with a nasty remark, but I'll refrain.

Just look at the evidence , would you , that is if you're really interested in finding out more about your 'Perfect Master'.

I was, thats why I looked here in the 1st place.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 18:23:13 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: shp
Subject: What ABOUT the yacht, shp? (nt)
Message:
gg
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 18:29:11 (GMT)
From: shp
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: What about it? (nt)
Message:
abcdefg
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 00:42:30 (GMT)
From: Tonette
Email: None
To: shp
Subject: A question
Message:
You are obviously a person who has respect,faith,devotion(for want of a better word) to M. Allright then. I do not want to dispute that since you are not a loved one of mine or a friend. There's really no point. Agreed?
I am curious though. How much money did you contribute to the yacht? In fact, I'd be interested in knowing how much money you give yearly to Elan Vital as a tax deduction? How much money do you give directly to M?(non-tax deductible)
Surely you are not shy about posting here. Would you answer these questions?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 05:18:26 (GMT)
From: shp
Email: None
To: Tonette
Subject: More than one question, T, and some answsers 4U
Message:
Tonette,
Although the questions you asked me are very personal and you have no real right to my private information, I will indulge you
for the sake of openness here, so you know that all premies are not alike in all ways.

How much money did you contribute to the yacht? -Tonette

None. -shp

In fact, I'd be interested in knowing how much money you give yearly to Elan Vital as a tax deduction? -Tonette

Not much. I never made that much money, and we lived close to cost. We never gave enough to claim a deduction that I can remember. As a matter of fact, your questions have inspired me to start giving more regularly. I was giving less and less when my jobs would change, out of a lack of faith in the infinite supply. As I recall, whenever I did give, something cool always happened shortly after that more than covered me in the form of an opportunity to make more. Your questions have reminded me to give whatever little I can, because it's not so much the amount as it is the action and intent. Thanks for the inspiration. Now I am in a position to potentially make more and give more too.
-shp

How much money do you give directly to M?(non-tax deductible)
-Tonette

Aside from a token birthday present now and then, zilch for years. -shp

Surely you are not shy about posting here. Would you answer these questions? -Tonette

I just did, as honestly as I could. Enough about me, what's up with you? How you doin'? -shp

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 18:39:24 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: shp
Subject: What ABOUT it???
Message:
Come on, shp, don't play dumb. You know what I'm asking. How do you reconcile Maharaji's outlandishly expensive indulgence with his history of squeezing money out of his flock in the name of the cause?

Very, very simple question, shp. Well?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 18:50:32 (GMT)
From: shp
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: WHAT about it?
Message:
You know what I'm asking. How do you reconcile Maharaji's outlandishly expensive indulgence with his history of squeezing money out of his flock in the name of the cause? -jh

When you give somebody something, especially a gift of love, you let go of it. It ain't yours anymore. When you REALLY trust somebody, you trust them even when things look weird and circumstances suggest that trust is unwise. As a lawyer, I am sure you can especially appreciate this, and I am not saying this
about your work to slam you, but to make a point. The devotee is not the judge of the teacher. If that is what your experience was, then you were wise to leave rather than be untrue to yourself. -shp

Very, very simple question, shp. Well? -jh

I believe I answered it, but if you are still unclear about my answer, please let me know. -shp

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 10:56:05 (GMT)
From: aJanet of venice
Email: None
To: shp
Subject: WHAT about it?
Message:
shp--a gift isnt something demanded for. it isnt something you ask for, or put out pressure for, guilt to manipulate for, it isnt something you assume is yours for the wanting or for the asking . it isnt something you calculate your projected yearly budget by, or base your management policy and future expenditures by.imagine going to the bank for a loan and they ask you what your income sources are. and you can only tell the bank officer ' gifts i will receive'.a gift, by definition is a surprise, unlooked for, unkown, unexpected. unpredictable. no bank would accept that as a reliable, steady, good- risk source of return.yet GMJ does. that isnt faith. thats arrogance.shp, do you see the strangeness of doing without, yourself, while being relentlessly pressed to produce the fruits of your labors to someone who already has more than any human being needs??here's an illustration from real life that might get you thinking.there was a bandit in new york city they took to calling the ecology burglar. the person broke into the homes of obscenely wealthy people, not to take anything from them, but to force them to relinquish their planet-depleting appetites as a result of the trauma he forced them to undergo. he would make them eat and eat and eat , at gunpoint, from their own kitchen, until they were sick and sobbing and begging for surcease. This done, he then would force them into their closets, and force them at gunpoint to dress themselves,to put on every piece of clothing they had in their drawers and closets, until no more could be forced on. they would be bound like a stuffed doll, left helpless on the floor or bed, unable to bend arm or leg, grossly overheated, unable to piss or shit unless they let go in their pants, and he would leave them, bound, that way, in their own profligate excess. no ropes needed, no duct tape, no bullets fired. they were wretched de facto prisoners of their possessions.how much does one human being need in order to live..?another story, from my own life. i entertained a beutiful young girl, one time, up in my house, who asked to look thru my clothes, just to admire what she saw. she found an outfit she just wanted to borrow, terribly, and tried for hours to persuade me to let her take it, to wear at a grateful dead concert. i repeatedly said i couldnt let her. she cried, she made drama. she wheedled. she pleaded. when she finally gave up, she was sitting on my bed with a tearstained face, apologizing for making such a scene, when one of my cats strolled into her lap . while she stroked it, i found myself saying to her,'see?? now theres someone who will never have to worry about what they are going to wear. cats have worn the same outfit for millions of years, and they're always dressed exactly right for the occasion. they are ready for formal, casual, sporty, athletic and business, all in the same outfit. they never have to buy a new one,do laundry, go shopping,change sizes,worry about shrinkage, closet space,throw out last year's wardrobe, run up a charge card, worry about theft, or packing a suitcase for travel. they can sleep, fight, make love,take a walk or work out in the same outfit. their birthday suit is also their funeral suit, and it looks equally magnificent on either day. now THERE'S an outfit to envy !'
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 19:39:57 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: aJanet of venice
Subject: Will someone show Janet the HTML for paragraph?
Message:
Janet,

Come on, now, funny is funny but, really, you're torturing us. You write stuff worth reading then you hide it in these long, LONG breakless posts.

Please!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 12:48:19 (GMT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: Janet
Subject: the HTML for paragraph breaks
Message:
There's a couple of ways to break up text posted here into paragraphs. I am assuming you're interested, of course, though I would recommend paragraph breaks because

  • If the intent is to communicate (you know...) it's smart to make it as easy as possible for the recepient

  • ... and paragraph breaks etc help to break up one's message into easy-to-digest chunklets

OK. First off just use the 'ENTER' key a couple of times to put in a blank line where it's needed.

OR, if that does not work with your kit or for whatever reason, try using the HTML for a paragraph break. It's like this...

<P> or <p>

Line breaks can also be used. They can have a slightly different effect depending on your browser. Anyway, line breaks are written like this...

<BR> or <br>

That's it. Happy posting, and welcome to the Forum, Janet!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 15:48:28 (GMT)
From: shp
Email: None
To: aJanet of venice
Subject: WHAT about it?
Message:
Hi Janet,

Thank you for the cordial tone of your informative post.

In answer to you, all I can say is that I don't judge Maharaji, being a teacher of Knowledge, and do not rate him as I would an obscenely paid corporate executive or rich corrupt politician.

Moneymaking/material plane accumulation has not been one of my strong talents. And being of the '60's, I never held material wealth as being something to aspire to in the first place. But I also don't judge those who have wealth as being automatically bad, which I used to do in my impetuous youth. I have heard that in Sweden they are into something called post-materialism. I have always been into that, but never called it such.

I never coveted Maharaji's accumulated wealth, even though the seed money was mainly from us - and I was very aware of it, living in Miami from '77-'85 - saw the house, the cars, the Armanis, the watches etc. I thought it was fitting and proper for Maharaji to have whatever the hell he wanted...maha/great raji/king...great kings are ususally surrounded by opulance. And despite his allegedly aberrant and arrogant behavior as you put it, I do not judge him.

Something tells me (not voices, thank you) that this is all more about us than about him. I am not stupid or naiive. I am not now nor ever have been afraid of speaking my mind about things,
regardless of the surroundings or the players. You can ask anyone who knows me. I did not live my whole life the way I have only to become a lackey for an 'eastern businessman' with expensive tastes. I think Maharaji is a hell of alot more than that, and only time will tell, and the experiences of our own lives.

I you want to check out obscene wealth being held by alleged religious or spiritual authorities, I suggest you check out the Roman Catholic Church for starters. They did not invent the game, as it has been around since way before them, but they have really perfected it and brought it into the 21st century with bells on. There are others like them, too. But the difference between them and Maharaji is that in my experience, he delivered the goods of Knowledge and the others just put on a show of ritual and tradition.

I hope that you can understand where I am coming from and am not disrespecting you or the time and energy you took to post to me.
I actually appreciate your time in doing so. I hope you feel likewise, even if we continue to disagree. Your riff about the cat crawling on that girl's lap reminded me of Ram Dass' Be Here Now book....there was something like that in there too. Nice
analogy. I see Maharaji as being unique as we all are, but with very special circumstances which I cannot put entirely into words. I welcome your response if you want to continue.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 19:42:41 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: shp
Subject: Moneymaking's not one of your strong suits??
Message:
Really, shp? That's startling.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 03:36:16 (GMT)
From: suchabanana
Email: None
To: shp
Subject: 'The Giver and the Gift' -- was bull, brother
Message:
That's absolutely right, bro', when you give a genuine Gift (e.g. Knowledge), you don't expect (or demand or authorize or emotionally extort) anything in return -- like idolatrous devotion, tens (maybe hundreds) of millions of dollars, 6+ mansions/residences, 12+ luxury cars, Rolex watches, 7 planes, and 3 yachts.

You don't authorize a money scam, tax evasion, offshore hidden assets, etc. -- and if you are a true master, you don't feast and pig out grossly materially while your devotees get raped by your instructors and your ashram premies live in dire poverty and ill health - while you and your pals benignly gorge their fat asses on the naive devotion of the premies. Got it, oh guru junkie in blatant denial?! Wake up, and smell the coffee! You're addicted -- get some professional help!

M. gave Kn. with strings attached. Again, Wake up -- you're in denial, man. Have you seen the mansions, the cars, the inside documents and maneuvers, the many lies and spin doctoring for 28 years? Well, I have...

May the light of sensibility and wisdom shine in your brain, again.

Peace,

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 18:56:30 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: shp
Subject: Just what I thought. You're too stupid for words
Message:
It's always a hard choice with your posts, Shp, but this is my favorite part this time:

When you REALLY trust somebody, you trust them even when things look weird and circumstances suggest that trust is unwise.

One could write volumes and volumes about how stupid that is. Volumes.

But I won't. I'll just ask you this: is it ever the case that all those weird looking things and circumstances which suggest that trust is unwise would make you reconsider that trust?

Ah, who cares what you say? You're just a new-age idiot, proven here better than I could ever hope. Absolutely amazing to see you attack cq or anyone for being dull. How bloody ironic!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 14:36:58 (GMT)
From: Hal
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Just what I thought. You're too stupid for words
Message:
'When you REALLY trust somebody , you trust them even when things look weird and when circumstances suggest trust is unwise ' shp

Jim Jones
Adolph Hitler
Joseph Stalin
Idi Amin
Bagwhan Sri Rajneesh
President Milosovitch
Saddam Hussain
The Pied Piper
Guru Maharaji

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 21:41:23 (GMT)
From: shp
Email: None
To: Hal
Subject: Just what I thought. You're too stupid for words
Message:
As usual, you take your thing to the max.

I said trust, not sheer stupidity and ignorance.

If I was an ex-premie, you'd think I was one of the most eloquent ones here. This is pure bullshit you come forth with, all because you take whatever I say in the absolutely worst light as
possible with the most distortion you can tweak.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 07:22:17 (GMT)
From: Hal
Email: None
To: shp
Subject: You're right shp
Message:
I did take that one to the extreme. The point gets through though doesn't it ?

I'm not comparing Maha to Stalin or Hitler obviously but just pointing out that many times trust is misplaced by gullible folks.

Sometimes it pays to look at things objectively and see when there is a mass con going on, not carry on trusting regardless of the evidence. I think that it's gonna be a big shock to loads of current premies when they wake up to the fact that they've been milked by a megolomaniac false Messiah.

That's why this forum is invaluable. To help those on the comedown.

Best wishes faithful shp
Hal

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 14:44:31 (GMT)
From: shp
Email: None
To: Hal
Subject: About trust
Message:
Hal,

Out here in cyberspace, we don't always know who we are talking to, and our online persona is determined and limited an in large part by our ability to articulate our thoughts. I think we all have very incomplete pictures of who we all are and I think that most of us deserve the benefit of the doubt. I think our vibes come through with our words for those sensitive or open enough to feel them. Then there are those who revert and regress to namecalling, cheap shots and the like. I thnk they are to be admonished and then avoided and shunned, like an unruly child.
But I thnk most people here really want to talk about things and not attack anybody.

As for the trust issue, being trusting and being gullible are two different things. The Japanese symbol for 'love' is a circle with a slash going through it. The circle is the heart and the slash is a sword. It (the symbol) was explained to me that in order to feel love one must allow to become vulnerable to pain.
That is what I was talking about, being willing to take a chance on something or someone that all the facts are not in about yet, because you feel something in your chest, not your head, that tells you it's OK.

I was born at 6:00 am, but not this morning.

shp

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 19:42:00 (GMT)
From: shp
Email: None
To: cq and Jim
Subject: to cq and Jim. gotta go now, see yas later...,
Message:
This thread otta be around be a bit and I have some committments I have to keep right now. So I will catch up to any further attacks, insults (jh), questions, comments,(cq) later.

The way I see it, this whole thread started with a questioning of Maharaji possibly copping his logo from somebody else, and the negative characterization of same. For what? Just another log on the fire? Why not research it and then post fact? Speculation is harmful and a little knowledge a dangerous thing.
I did enjoy the linked articles cq, and was benefitted by reading them. Ya learn something new every day. Thanks for the 'original' post of this thread and the links thereon. -shp

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 19:19:36 (GMT)
From: shp
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: If I'm too stupid for words, don't post to me.
Message:
...but you don't really mean that or you would not waste your time. If you are a hypocrite here, you are probably a hypocrite in other realms of your life. Your problem, not mine. You own it. -shp

It's always a hard choice with your posts, Shp, but this is my favorite part this time:

'When you REALLY trust somebody, you trust them even when things look weird and circumstances suggest that trust is unwise.'

One could write volumes and volumes about how stupid that is. Volumes. -jh

Volumes could be written on both sides of the argument of trust in the face of suspicious circumstances. The 'right' one for you is the one you agree with. You can take a simple statement and convolute it into anything you want, like the clown at the mall with the long balloons. -shp

But I won't. I'll just ask you this: is it ever the case that all those weird looking things and circumstances which suggest that trust is unwise would make you reconsider that trust? -jh

Not now. -shp

Ah, who cares what you say? -jh

Obviously, you do for one, or else you would not post to me and read mine. -shp

You're just a new-age idiot, proven here better than I could ever hope. Absolutely amazing to see you attack cq or anyone for being dull. How bloody ironic! -jh

This is where the conversation goes DUE SOUTH by your steering, just for the record. To exascerbate the situation, you further characterize my post to cq as an 'attack', which it was not. You are merely a negative agitator, no more no less, on this thread. Or if not, you are one messed up guy trying to work out your shit on whoever's back you are nearest, with real questions but no room for any other answer but the one you have already accepted. -shp
And where have you been? It's not the 'new-age', it's the 'now
age' and we are creating it. Get with the program! -shp

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 02:43:28 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: shp
Subject: Liar!
Message:
To exascerbate the situation, you further characterize my post to cq as an 'attack', which it was not.

Oh yeah? Then what's this:

Big f*cking deal, two peaceful guys use a swan for a symbol. You are one sharp cookie. Nothing gets past you.

Fact is, you are accusing cq of being dull. Just like I said you were.

You're a bogus disgrace, shp. Get the fuck out and stay out this time.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 05:31:43 (GMT)
From: shp
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: At the very worst I'd call it a snide remark, but
Message:
not an attack. You of all people should know the difference.
-shp
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 05:58:20 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: shp
Subject: Face it, asshole, you're caught in a lie
Message:
Nice watching you squirm, worm.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 06:16:20 (GMT)
From: shp
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Your shock, shlock tabloid ways will fool a few...
Message:
You must have these cartridges like DJ's have that spit out predigested lines at certain times. Once engaged in a 'dialog'
with you, at a point in time you just start getting all bitchy and calling names and all the same old shit all over again.
You go for the headline, the tabloid shock that casual readers will catch and some will buy (you hope).

Try some saw palmetto tea for your male stress. Maybe it's your prostate acting up. And some liver cleaner might mellow you out a bit too.

No assholes here but the ones we are sitting on. No lies here but the ones you are listening to in your own head.

You are the kind of guy who would criticize a teacher if he had a yacht or whether he lived in a cardboard box in Manhattan, or anything inbetween. You fail to realize the relationship between a teacher and a student has nothing to do with any of that stuff.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 13:02:30 (GMT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: shp
Subject: the realationship between a fool and his money
Message:
shp: You fail to realize the relationship between a teacher and a student has nothing to do with any of that stuff.

...so the reason he asks his 'students' for such stuff is...?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 21:44:12 (GMT)
From: shp
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: the realationship between a fool and his money
Message:
For his father's work and for fun.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 21:47:48 (GMT)
From: Mark Appleman
Email: None
To: shp
Subject: Dont give the new/now age a bad name!
Message:
Its always entertaining to see Sanford Pass do his thing here.
And I'm here not to defend him or maharaji of the Giant Pleasure Boat. I'm here to defend and clarify the New Age.Its definitely getting a bad name here.

Sanford is a textbook Aries. When I last saw him ( 15 years back )he had a shaved head ,a 1000 watt smile,and two young children.He is very provocative,but in person, playful.Even then there were people who felt he looked or was too weird intense, etc. He is restless,a headbutter,a satsang giver type,an agent provacateur and I'm sure not happy with the legal eradication of SPEAKING THE GLORY OF THE LIVING LORD. So here he is swearing at and then swearing off the Forum, and then - right Back at you. Excitement, passion , vitriol- & then gone. Standard Sanford Aries operating procedure. But definitely an asset to the Forum's purpose.

As the Maharajis and Miloviches - those who took and maintain power under false premises and false claims - slowly but inevitably get their just reward ; and the Donners and Dettmers
have their selective memories jarred by the type of CRIMINALLY DEVOTIONAL stuff( resurrected by Bill - thanks!) that you Mikes wielded and YOU and M profitted by ( yes Mikes ,it was with your help that Maharaji raised the $ 100MM ! How could we not cough it all up in the face of the LORD ! The all powerful Lord that you and he currently deny ever existed !!! ) - I am happy that historical evidence and common sense exist .Bullshit is bullshit .They are all doing the same thing. Covering their asses ! playing 1984 ! Anything they can to not own up to what they are REALLY doing. Its like these big lawsuits that get settled for Billions of $'s, but everyone 'denies any wrongdoing.'
Sanford Pass , believe it or not, is in his own way is covering his ass and conscience, and getting to 'speak the glory' to himself with his behavior here.

How could Sanford Pass possibly justify desperate fund raising/raiding meetings taking place ,sqeezing middle class premies ( hope I'm not sounding like Gore! ) of funds at the same time that the $ 7,000,000 yacht is SECRETLY, with utmost Serenity,purchased and transported ( no big community phone tree messages on the yacht purchase? I wonder why ? ). He can't.God couldn't. It sucks,and is the real/intention of this mission.

I remember living at the City of Love and Light 1975-6 and spending a remarkable afternoon with a woman called Bea who weeping explained that she was in charge of obtaining real jewels for Maharaji's crown, so that when Maharaji took the throne as world spiritual leader,he wouldn't have the phony jewels in his Krishna Crown.It was a privilege to witness such pure devotional emotion.I 'got' the gopi thing.Its power and beauty.

Now we were - in retrospect - Bea, Mark, Maharaji,John Hampton,Mark Lerner,Dettmers Donner ,Jim, his friend who did himself in,Sanford, Durga Ji,and 10's of thousands of others ALL WRONG! We were under the TOTAL DELUSIONAL INFLUENCE that Maharaji was IT the ultimate thing during that period.Read those Dettmers letters and dissagree.that how we spoke and thought at that time.

Sanford defends the guru thing as necessary. I disagree. I think this is a no middleman period. Maybe a teacher or helper
or facilitator, but definitely not an authoritative power sucker
type -slick and westernized,or in white dhotis. and definitely Not 'He of the Big Boat who may one day soon with A STRIGHT FACE on his website say the boat is for islands without plane runways,or Cuban boatpeople or baseball players. Unfortunately hes that predictable ( even tho he's an enigma)
Anyway what is to be done with the PURITY that Bea has, the intelligence that Katie Darling has ( visit www.motherwave.com), the passion for connection that I have , the restlessness longing of Sanford ) The Best Kisses that got given to the wrong guy.

Emerging from my 'Maharaji is it' cocoon I didn't want to lose the various positives that came out of my association with the whole experience. Though I felt Toxic in Maharaji's presence,and with premies as a group,I had made inroads in what I now call experiencing myself as a multidimensional being; seeing the human capacity as basically divine ( though first seeing M the Perfect One as such ),practice of a Yoga form, increased concentration skills,etc. Also for reasons right or wrong I had been in a love current ( not unlike a Jesus or ' X ' freak ) for 20 years. So I didn't leave thr party empty handed.

Which brings us to the fact that the planet and airwaves are
teeming with biologists,mathematicials,archangels,TV hosts,ascended masters,healers,and philosophers, who are offering
from their perspectives new unprecedented data; that we are all biologically or mathematically or spiritualy or magnetically or compassionately whole,part of one organism that communicates to and thru itself thru Love or emotion or thought. Intuitive healers are seeing energy bodies,reliable trance mediums are regularly addressing UN sessions, NEW forms of Meditation are being used with great efficacy in medicine,improvement of wellbeing, connection /interactive with one's OWN Higher self, remote viewing,merkabah activation,light and electronic activation,...

A whole new generation is being tuned into what we used to call Grace-without our collective delusion ! - and without planting themselves at the 'holy lotus feet' of the master.

Now This too may be a delusion of a greater magnitude - or the ongoing evolution/awakening of the planet of true lovers of god, who outgrew the training wheels of transparent predator/gurus and decided to become it themselves instead of devotionally 'Vogueing' the rest of their lives away, defending the indefensible.

Anyway thats the new/now age to me. Not defending an outright liar , or his apologists !

Mark Appleman

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 05:50:42 (GMT)
From: shp
Email: None
To: Mark Appleman
Subject: It's always good to hear from you, Mark
Message:
I thoroughly enjoyed reading your post, as you are particularly articulate. I see much of what you see despite my regard for Maharaji. There are just a few things I want to correct you on:

I have alopecia, which is premature and almost complete hair loss. It started when I was 15. I did not shave my head to look intense, as you implied. You know better than to judge a book by its cover. Shit man, I'd have a beard and braids to my blades if I could grow hair!

Although I have an Aries nature due to my birth date, I strive to manifest the opposite of my inclinations, which I believe can provide balance. Knowledge smooths out the starbumps too. Remember when you analyze someone by sign or otherwise that you too live in a glass house.

How do you know you'd be where you are at if you had not received Knowledge and practiced it for years? Why do you deny Maharaji's part in your soul development and mine? Over a stupid yacht?
Come on, Mark, whether the teacher comes in rags or robes, there will always be critics.

Thank you for your continued unconditional love and acceptance of me even though we are not of one mind here and now as we used to be, as manifested in the way you said what you said.

Your brother,
Sandy

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 15:42:30 (GMT)
From: Mark
Email: None
To: shp
Subject: It's always good to hear from you, Mark
Message:
Sanford,

To me he's not a teacher,he's a marketer of a belief system.
As he is still either lying or delusional (witness his self description on his website), that quality permeates some decent yoga techniques and everything around him. Unfortunately,you too .
Secondly ,you mention Knowledge like its an ultimate thing ,or REALITY. I promise its not. That's from the fundamentalist Hindu belief system you and I swallowed whole.
I turned lemons into lemonade , by owning my part in a 20 year self imprisonment in a belief system that separated rather than delivered . And finally experienced the Soul and other internal levels after leaving ( you can't with a Savior figure ). Maharaji in retrospect (though marketing knowledge ) , did absolutely nothing for my Soul except delude and imprison it. And probably since 1975 , he's been aware of deluding and imprisoning the premies , tho probably paternalistically thinks his 'Enlightened' philosophy manufactured Lineage and yoga techniques outweigh it.
By revisiting the printed material from the 70's you can see where and how these erroneous assumptions were planted in our heads. Everyone still active has those erroneous beliefs still circulating in them . They fuel the 'Knowledge' experience .

I wouldn't want OJ to teach my kids football. Or Tammy Faye About Jesus . Or Maharaji about 'that feeling'. Do you understand ? These people can't face themselves. Because of this they block the EVOLUTION people associated with them , forcing those people to omit, avert , deny, dissociate ,AVOID, and selectively remember. Why. Because on some level they think Maharaji is the keeper of the magic tree. Why. Because that's how he trained and reinforced the training.

He's dirty Sanford.And he knows it ( so does Mike Dettmers )And there are clean teachers and helpers around . A vast community of them. And SO MUCH MORE available beyond knowledge
and Hindu Bahkti fundamentalism ! ( tho you've got it down ! I know , because I did too )

My kids growing up helped me wake up . I also stopped defending and reframing Maharaji and saw he was a sick dishonest dude with his needle stuck . God bless him. He's obviously a part of the universe too, and I forgive him his trespass on your and my Souls , but I can't give him a sweet spin . They taught me back in hindu training camp that false gurus like M come back as snakes, and there students can pounce on them.
I don't believe that , but I do believe he qualifies .Or maybe sites like this fast forward the snake thing to present-time cyberspace. Instant Karma !

we can always chat some time by phone. I can give more specifics. My email is in Journeys/white page section.

Jim, hope my punctuation gets at least a B+ .

Mark

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 19:46:39 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Mark
Subject: The universe is unfolding perfectly right here!
Message:
Marvellous!

Why didn't someone think of siccing (sp?) Mark on shp earlier.

Ha ha Ha, shppie! Let's see you wrestle with this new age champion of truth (God, did I really say that?!), you stupid sack of potatoes!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 16:04:26 (GMT)
From: shp
Email: mcpass1@earthlink.net
To: Mark
Subject: From one bongo to another....
Message:
Mark,

You always reminded me of Elliot Gould's character in the original Mash movie....partly your appearance and partly your demeanor...I remember hanging with you or just watching you in auditoriums prior to events on more than one occasion...the lights were low, people were streaming slowly into the room to find their seats, the devotional music was low but audible, service premies were running around checking last minute details, all the rich, suited premies were filing into flagged areas where no one else could go....and there you were, in a loud, beautiful Hawaiian shirt, standng very relaxed in the center aisle in probably the very geographical center of the building, sensing the atmosphere as if Maharaji himself had sent you out there to check the vibe in the room. You were doing it for yourself, but your sense of purpose was very strong and alive. Many called you a bongo. They called me one too. I called you my friend and still do. Yes, we can talk some more, but I am not here to convince you that you are wrong about him, and I hope that you do not try the same thing. Rather, if we just present facts and information to each other, I think we are both smart enough to use the information wisely.

Sandy

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 19:49:12 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: shp
Subject: Wow! They actually called you a 'bongo', shp?
Message:
This is getting more amazing all the time.

What's next? They didn't call you a 'looser' by chance, did they?

Too fucking much....

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 03:16:17 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Mark Appleman
Subject: You mean shp is an aries???
Message:
God, Mark, I had no idea. That really explains things. ....

No, seriously, Mark, you are indeed my favorite new-age guy. Thanks for your sentiments. It's always fun to read your musings. AND, it'd be even more fun to read if you put a few spaces between sentences. Two is right but one works too. Try it, you'll like it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 04:07:48 (GMT)
From: Danny
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Just curious, Jim
Message:
Hi Jim,

Mark Appleman wrote, 'Which brings us to the fact that the planet and airwaves are teeming with biologists,mathematicials,archangels,TV hosts,ascended masters,healers,and philosophers, who are offering
from their perspectives new unprecedented data; that we are all
biologically or mathematically or spiritualy or magnetically or
compassionately whole,part of one organism that communicates to and
thru itself thru Love or emotion or thought. Intuitive healers are seeing
energy bodies,reliable trance mediums are regularly addressing UN
sessions, NEW forms of Meditation are being used with great efficacy in
medicine,improvement of wellbeing, connection /interactive with one's
OWN Higher self, remote viewing,merkabah activation,light and
electronic activation,...

to which you replied, 'No, seriously, Mark, you are indeed my favorite new-age guy. Thanks for your sentiments. It's always fun to read your musings.

Here's a simple question for you as you clearly pride yourself on your reasoning skills and intellectual honesty.

If the above had been written by soneone who disagreed with you about Maharaji, and there are many, or by a 'fence-sitter' such as Elaine, is there any chance at all that you would characterize the above quote from Mr. Appleman as anything but the mush-brained ramblings of a mentally deficient, fish-headed asshole?

Isn't it only the fact that Mr. Appleman, for this fleeting moment at least, is a card-carrying member in good standing of the Maharaji-bashing, ex-premie club that you would respond so tolerantly and cheerfully to him?

Take a look at it.

I'm interested in your response. A one word answer would suffice.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 05:53:27 (GMT)
From: shp
Email: None
To: Danny
Subject: Bravo, Danny. Bravissimo! (nt)
Message:
youhitthenailontheheadwithoneshot
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 04:31:50 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Danny
Subject: No, you're absolutely right, Dan
Message:
I DO have a bias against cult members .... woo woo wooo woo!

And yes, I DO cut Mark slack because he's such a cute, new-age FORMER cult member.

You're right. Entirely. Human nature, no?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 22:02:28 (GMT)
From: Danny
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: No, you're absolutely right, Dan
Message:
Jim,

Thanks for your honesty. I applaud you for that.

So, it'd be fair to say that it's not really the content of what's expressed that's germane to you. How you treat the poster is determined by whether the person speaking agrees with your overall viewpoint.

True?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 23:56:57 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Danny
Subject: No cigar on that one, Danny
Message:
Let's not exaggerate here, huh? Especially when you have dunces like shp watching.

Yes, I'm the first to admit that I'm biased towards people I like and I like people whose 'overall viewpoint' agrees with mine. Do you know anyone who's any different? I don't.

But to move from there to:

... it's not really the content of what's expressed that's germane to you.

is unjustified and untrue. Think about it. I'm sure I don't have to explain, do I? Maybe, then, -- only if you agree with me, of course -- you can explain to your idiot friend why he should stop drooling.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 02:24:53 (GMT)
From: Danny
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: No cigar on that one, Danny
Message:
Hi again, Jim,

No, that wasn't an exaggeration. Here again is what Mark Appleman wrote:

''Which brings us to the fact that the planet and
airwaves are teeming with biologists,mathematicials,archangels,TV
hosts,ascended masters,healers,and philosophers, who are offering
from their perspectives new unprecedented data; that we are all
biologically or mathematically or spiritualy or magnetically or
compassionately whole,part of one organism that communicates to and
thru itself thru Love or emotion or thought. Intuitive healers are seeing
energy bodies,reliable trance mediums are regularly addressing UN
sessions, NEW forms of Meditation are being used with great efficacy in
medicine,improvement of wellbeing, connection /interactive with one's
OWN Higher self, remote viewing,merkabah activation,light and
electronic activation,...

Is there anything at all that you agree with here? And, if a premie wrote this, wouldn't you rip the living daylights out of it?

Therefore, the content isn't necessarily relevant, it's whose mouth it comes from that dictates your reaction.

True?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 04:12:06 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Danny
Subject: No, Danny, not in this context it's not true
Message:
Danny,

The reason I didn't 'rip the living daylights' out of Mark for that new age shit is that he only said it in passing. His main point was that Maharaji's a fraud and with that I agree. It wasn't a whole lot different than some other still-meditating ex saying 'I still meditate and think the techniques are indeed powerful and divine but I realize that it has nothing to do with Maharaji who is, in the final analysis, worthless slime.' In another moment, another discussion, I might take issue with his lingering faith in the 'divine power' ascribed to the techniques but in this moment, in this discussion I probably wouldn't. I'd be too focused on the immediate point in the immediate argument.

Do I believe in any of the shit that Mark's talking about? No, of course not. But am I obliged to attack his position when we're both aiming at a common target? No. That's just the way things go. Call it prioritizing and agenda setting, I see nothing wrong with it.

Now, if I had somehow condoned or even supported those beliefs of Marks when I wouldn't do so for a premie or anyone else I'm supposedly against, then that WOULD smack of prejudice or hypocrisy but that's not what I did.

See?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 21:55:42 (GMT)
From: dhp
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Keep going Danny, soon you'll be an idiot, too,
Message:
drooling right alongside me on the curb here in ex-premieland.
Jim will never agree with you, no matter how cool and calm and sensible and bottom-line truthful you are. Even if his own conscience tells him you are right, do you think he'll admit it here? Hell no. He has too much invested in his ego here to admit he is wrong on this. Sooner or later Jim will tire of this banter, realize (internally only) that you are totally right-on, then think he got over on you by hurling some epithets your way and calling you a few names to cast a bad light on you to any casual passersby. That is his M.O....but to anyone who is seriously reading and analyzing what is actually being said here, you point is taken and well spoken at that.

With IQ well into 3 figures, heart, mind and third eye wide open,

shp

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 23:28:40 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: dhp
Subject: Very pathetic, shp, even for you (nt)
Message:
hhh
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 02:28:12 (GMT)
From: shp
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Very pathetic, shp, even for you (nt)
Message:
You sit there and type 'very pathetic' and address it to me and think it has any bearing on anything in reality? You are a deluded and frustrated critic. Try movies or restaurants..folks love to read cutting shit whether it's true or not. You could be rich, famous and malicious at the same time if you play your cards right.

Go ahead, prove me wrong on this one. Cop to Danny. You know he's right on.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 04:42:07 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: shp
Subject: Can you read, Mr. New Age Imbecile?
Message:
'Cop to Danny'? I RESPONDED to Danny. If you were smart enough you might even understand what I said.

But, anyway, get lost as you've promised before, shp. Go try to sell some more new-age lightbulbs or something. Get in line for the soup kitchen. Whatever.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 14:52:47 (GMT)
From: shp
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: This haughty yet somehow slapstick thing you do
Message:
is very funny yet boorish in a country club sort of way, n'est pas?

You just can't stand it that I see you. You did not cop to Danny and he said something true; thus, in this scene you damn yourself.

So it is written, and so it is done.
It's a wrap.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 18:09:08 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: shp
Subject: For the last time, Mr. New Age Looser ....
Message:
I 'copped to' Danny just fine. He and I were having a discussion and he dropped out. I'm quite happy with my last response to him and look forward to his reply. I've tried to be as honest as I can about this and expect that Danny will take my point fairly (that being that if a theistic ex and I are both arguing with a premie it's only natural that I won't pick a fight with the ex. That's not to say that at some other time I won't argue with him, but that it's only natural that I'd fight the immediate fight first.)

Your stupid 70s new-age dummy talk means nothing. 'Cop to'? What the fuck is THAT? Are you saying that I didn't agree with Danny? Well of course not. What's wrong with that? I disagreed with him and explained why.

You're on the fringes of reason, shp. No one here respects you yet you stick around because you have nothing else. Too fucking bad for you. Actually, though, to be quite honest, I find it funny as well. Funny and pathetic -- that's shp.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 18:29:05 (GMT)
From: shp
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Do you promise it's the last time, and learn to
Message:
spell.....it's loser, not looser. I am looser and you are a loser. And you did not admit (cop) to Danny that you had a double standard that sabotaged any chance of a fair conversation between your own damn self and any ex-premie? You either entirely missed the point, are consciously hiding from it and playing possum, or you are just stupid. Which one is it?

If even I understood it and you deem me an idiot, what does that make you? You stand here naked in the juices of your pus-filled ego before anyone with any sight at all, all the while thinking that you are robed in light, invisible behind the mask of your highly overrated intellect. You need to put someone down to feel big. That's a classic plotline and you are an archetypal asshole.

You have to respond to me and degrade me because I make sense when I bust on you and you know you have to respond or what I say will be there hanging in the air for people to consider. And if it is not tampered with by you for a bit, we both know that some here will realize how full of shit you really are. Prove me wrong and ignore me already, like YOU said...for the last time.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 19:43:48 (GMT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: shp
Subject: shp has shit for brains. He's a form of pollution.
Message:
nothing here for you shp
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 22:24:12 (GMT)
From: shp
Email: None
To: Danny
Subject: Once again Danny speaks truth in few words! (nt)
Message:
thisguyisgreat.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 06:06:27 (GMT)
From: shp
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: You hide your ugliness behind 'human nature'
Message:
I DO have a bias against cult members .... woo woo wooo woo!
And yes, I DO cut Mark slack because he's such a cute, new-age FORMER cult member. You're right. Entirely. Human nature, no?
-jh

You, Jim Heller, claiming 'human nature' compels you to be a
double-talking-out-of-both-sides-of-your-face-judge-and-jury-
wannabe-lord-of-this-site-wannabe-hypocrite-officer-of-the-court-with-freedom-and-justice-for-all-except-premies-phoney....

I don't think so, James. You are busted whether you admit it or not. Danny got you and you try to slide out sideways like the reptile you are with that weak reply? Anyone with one eye open can see what you did. I just wish I could use as few words as Danny to get as much across as he did. You are so busted it's both funny and sad to watch how you squirm and avoid your own evolution because of your ego.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 06:11:55 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: shp
Subject: Fuck you, doofus
Message:
Shp,

Mark is an extremely more likeable and honest new-ager than you are. See, it's all in the personality, shp. You're a creep, he's not. How else can I say it?

Now, that doesn't change the fact that I'm biased against premies. Of course I am. Being a premie isn't a birth thing, it's a choice, a mental thing. You're an idiot by choice, not by birth and yes, I'm biased against that.

SEVEN AND A HALF FUCKING MILLION DOLLARS FOR THAT YACHT, SHP!

And all along he was squeezing the regular wage-earning premies for more.

Okay, so you fell off his financial map because you're a complete new-age loser. Sorry, 'looser'. Maharaji probably hates you, you know that? You're as worthless to him as you are here.

Think about it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 06:40:59 (GMT)
From: shp
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: More canned crap from the Heller factory
Message:
Mark is an extremely more likeable and honest new-ager than you are. See, it's all in the personality, shp. You're a creep, he's not. How else can I say it? -jh

I think he's way more likeable and honest than you too. -shp

You're an idiot by choice, not by birth and yes, I'm biased against that. -jh

I get it...this is to see if I can take lies and truth, shit and compliments with equanimity. You are just being used here, Jim. Sorry to minimize your place here, but I have passed a milestone and really want to savor it now... Let's see now, I am being insulted by a hypocritcal-talking-out-of-both-sides-of-his-head-
bigoted-prejudiced-narrow-minded-small-minded-god-complexed-
rough-around-the-edges-thinks-he's-hot-and-we're-not-thinks-he's
smart-and-everybody-else-around-here-is-a-step-or-two-behind-him
mouth-on-two-legs-big-fish-in-a-small-pond....no biggie.

SEVEN AND A HALF FUCKING MILLION DOLLARS FOR THAT YACHT, SHP!
-jh

Yeah, bet it's a beaut. -shp

And all along he was squeezing the regular wage-earning premies for more. -jh

I never felt a squeeze. And Knowledge still works for me when I practice. It's not like I don't have an experience if I don't give money. And from all this talk, I am inpsired to give more now, not to buy another yacht or a space shuttle, or island or anything else...but to just to give and let go of it.

I have given historical examples of those devotees who lavished expensive things on teachers, only to be criticized by other devotees who thought the money could have been better spent, then admonished by the teacher who said that it was cool to give him nice stuff. But you don't want to hear it. That's cool. -shp

Okay, so you fell off his financial map because you're a complete new-age loser. Sorry, 'looser'. Maharaji probably hates you, you know that? You're as worthless to him as you are here. Think about it. -jh

When you say stuff like this I realize even deeper that I understand something that you either know about and deny or just are blind to despite your intelligence in other areas. I'd feel sorry for you, but I know that's not good to do. I gotta have compassion on you as I would any person blind to the fact that money is not the real bottom line to Maharaji. You will no doubtedly continue your rants and raves, unaffected by anything I have said here now. So this is just for the record. -shp

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 13:31:00 (GMT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: shp
Subject: 'money is not the real bottom line to Maharaji'
Message:
Hmmm. Well, we can safely conclude reason is not the real bottom line to shp.

What a twit! Priceless!!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 22:09:04 (GMT)
From: shp
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: 'money is not the real bottom line to Maharaji'
Message:
It always amuses me when someone who has forsaken and abandoned his own dream tries to superimpose that experience and the cynicism it spawns onto others. My heart goes out to you, even though I know you won't appreciate that either. I'm doing it for selfish reasons, so that I stay open myself and don't become like you.

Someday I hope that you will understand the physical world is for our pleasure, but due to the intense greed for and misuse of it, we associate bad attributes to anyone who is having a really good time, such as Maharaji. Any fool who takes food out of his kid's mouth to get to a program should not be judged as a worthy example of a devotee. Common sense is a most uncommon thing...
I think he said that over 20 years ago and that went over alot of heads. Too simple, too easy. Easier to blame him for everything, right?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 18:04:35 (GMT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: shp
Subject: Well, thank you, flower.
Message:
shp: I'm doing it for selfish reasons, so that I stay open myself and don't become like you.

How unkind. And so arrogantly presumptious.

And this is what you mean by being 'open'? Are you in a cult, by any chance?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 18:15:16 (GMT)
From: shp
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: This bud's for you!
Message:
'Hmmm. Well, we can safely conclude reason is not the real bottom line to shp. What a twit! Priceless!!' -JohnT

shp: I'm doing it for selfish reasons, so that I stay open myself and don't become like you. -shp in response to above

How unkind. And so arrogantly presumptious.
And this is what you mean by being 'open'? Are you in a cult, by any chance? -JohnT, again, pretty much describing himself.

So JohnT,

You must be one of those people who think that people who profess a 'spiritual discipline' are doormats and they all act like Ghandi when attacked. Surprise!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 19:36:16 (GMT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: shp
Subject: You are a fuckwit. Piss off back to your false God
Message:
Waste of space.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 00:50:30 (GMT)
From: Tonette
Email: None
To: Mark Appleman
Subject: I enjoyed that post Thanks!
Message:
Something more to cogitate on. Your name sounds familiar. Did you live in the Washington, DC community, 1978-1980's?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index