Forum V: Archive
Compiled: Sun, Nov 05, 2000 at 03:57:27 (GMT)
From: Oct 26, 2000 To: Nov 03, 2000 Page: 2 Of: 5


Peter Howie -:- Finishing things off for me - fantastic and thanks -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 06:26:19 (GMT)
__ Gail -:- Finishing things off for me - fantastic and thanks -:- Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 01:27:51 (GMT)
__ __ Nigel -:- Finishing things off for me - fantastic and thanks -:- Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 04:57:42 (GMT)
__ Selene -:- good post Peter -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 21:35:13 (GMT)
__ __ gerry -:- good post Peter -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 21:51:59 (GMT)
__ __ __ Selene -:- stay warm (ototototot) -:- Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 00:55:50 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Selene -:- oops I see I'm politically incorrect again - 0t -:- Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 02:21:25 (GMT)
__ Djuro -:- Finishing things off for me - fantastic and thanks -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 20:50:39 (GMT)
__ __ Jim -:- FA, can you get rid of this Djuro .... THING? -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 20:56:08 (GMT)
__ __ __ ham -:- Dribbling methinks -:- Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 09:02:29 (GMT)
__ Charlie -:- Finishing things off for me - fantastic and thanks -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 11:40:57 (GMT)

Salam -:- What I thought of the Video presentation. -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 02:09:52 (GMT)
__ Jim -:- Q: Would he pass a lie detector? -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 03:06:17 (GMT)
__ __ DeProGram Anand Ji -:- Q: Would he pass a lie detector? -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 10:27:19 (GMT)
__ __ __ Steve Quint -:- Q: Would he pass a lie detector? -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 15:34:53 (GMT)
__ __ __ goober--and dettmers -:- would blow ink all over the walls...(nt) -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 15:31:21 (GMT)
__ __ __ JohnT -:- natural lie detectors ... -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 13:10:18 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Steve Quint -:- A True Story -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 15:33:34 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Gail -:- A True Story -:- Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 02:19:10 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Steven Quint -:- A True Story -:- Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 15:35:50 (GMT)
__ __ Salam -:- Q: Would he pass a lie detector? -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 03:39:44 (GMT)
__ __ __ Cynthia -:- Q: Would he pass a lie detector? -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 17:00:17 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Gail -:- MJ can pass a polygraph and pigs fly! -:- Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 03:46:44 (GMT)

michael eisner -:- OK, an answer to everyone's problems (m too!) -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 00:48:57 (GMT)
__ Lurking poster -:- Bob Mishler/plane crash/ reason?? -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 01:35:43 (GMT)
__ __ sucabanana -:- Bob Mishler HELICOPTER crash,on way to expose m(nt -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 02:30:26 (GMT)
__ __ __ Katie Couric -:- More on the helicopter crash.... -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 04:41:22 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Another Lurking Poster -:- More on the helicopter crash.... -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 17:36:34 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Katie Couric -:- You could be done for being humorless (nt).... -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 18:18:56 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ suchabanana -:- that was pretty close to the wire clip! nt -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 04:49:12 (GMT)
__ __ __ Lurking Poster -:- Hey Sucabanana- How do you know that?? -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 04:24:20 (GMT)
__ __ __ gerry -:- I KNEW it !!! (nt) -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 03:30:38 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Lurking Poster -:- Sucha-- How do you know that? ? ? ? ? NT -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 03:48:56 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ suchabanana -:- Chopper death -- Capone and m. parallel to come(nt -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 04:28:12 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Susan -:- I did not hear it this way -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 04:35:02 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Michael Dettmers -:- I did not hear it this way -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 13:03:39 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ janet -:- I got the same report you did-not suchie's -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 07:47:24 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ bill -:- I got the same report you did-not suchie's -:- Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 01:46:29 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Susan -:- Who was the old time Miami premie? -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 08:06:21 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ suchabanana -:- Mishler Chopper death:Capone/m. parallel upcoming! -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 04:33:36 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- That's not what I heard -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 04:36:48 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ suchabanana -:- Mishler was doing exposes, heart prob, then crash! -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 04:46:25 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Come on, Such, what ARE you saying? -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 04:58:55 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Lurking Poster -:- no evidince that M did anything- -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 08:24:47 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ suchabanana -:- I think crash was accident;hammer was NOT! CAPONE2 -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 09:48:52 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Aw, look, you got Gerry all excited for nothing -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 16:44:06 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- OK, it's all my fault... -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 16:54:54 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- You mean you were just kidding? -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 17:07:00 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- Yes, Jimbo, kidding -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 17:21:47 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Are you actually trying to be cagey? -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 17:34:44 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- Are you actually trying to fuck with me? -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 18:01:52 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- OK, so you WEREN'T being sarcastic -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 18:05:38 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- Red herring my ass... -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 18:23:30 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Tonette -:- What you don't understand gerry -:- Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 03:14:28 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ ExTex -:- What you don't understand gerry -:- Thurs, Nov 02, 2000 at 07:30:49 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Nice to see you idiots have found each other (nt) -:- Thurs, Nov 02, 2000 at 16:44:51 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- I was hoping someone would explain that to me -:- Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 05:09:27 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Disculta -:- The buzz at the time -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 16:33:58 (GMT)

Michael Dettmers -:- Response to Joe, Janet and Rob - Part I -:- Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 22:25:48 (GMT)
__ Michael Dettmers -:- Response to Joe, Janet and Rob - Part II -:- Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 22:27:19 (GMT)
__ __ Another Lurking Poster -:- Interesting ... -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 18:04:03 (GMT)
__ __ __ Jim -:- That makes no sense, premie-ji -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 18:07:17 (GMT)
__ __ Scott T. -:- A dynasty founded on infamy. -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 16:23:32 (GMT)
__ __ Charlie -:- Response to response -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 11:32:16 (GMT)
__ __ __ Bin Liner -:- Response to response -:- Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 21:24:18 (GMT)
__ __ __ gerry -:- A true ****Best Of*** in my opinion -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 15:09:03 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Tonette -:- Ditto -:- Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 03:56:05 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Jim -:- In the court of Gerry Lyng -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 16:54:34 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ JohnT -:- But Jim ... -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 17:20:48 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- 'But Jim' nothing -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 17:44:04 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- OK, let's delete that part then... -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 17:13:47 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- That's one way of looking at it -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 17:30:37 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- That's one way of looking at it -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 17:53:12 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- That's it? That's all you got? -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 18:03:45 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- What more do you want? -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 18:31:42 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- A lot more than that, I'm afraid -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 18:40:27 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- Get over your fear -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 18:55:55 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Rick -:- my take -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 19:35:39 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ And On Anand Ji -:- * * * Exactly. Thank You Rick * * * -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 21:21:45 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- my take -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 20:11:20 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JohnT -:- my take, -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 22:29:47 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- my take, -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 23:13:52 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JohnT -:- take two -:- Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 14:09:20 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Rick -:- my take, -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 23:37:19 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ a0aji -:- :) nicely said -nt- -:- Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 01:31:30 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Get over your fear -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 19:07:44 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- That's fucking weak -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 20:02:25 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Hardly -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 20:52:10 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- dettmers the confidence man -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 21:33:56 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- I guess you just had to be there -:- Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 00:38:04 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- OK, I'll buy that. -:- Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 01:57:09 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Sold! (nt) -:- Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 02:36:39 (GMT)
__ __ EddyTheTurtle -:- Aubrey West -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 10:49:17 (GMT)
__ __ __ Susan -:- there was a woman who looked like this Julian -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 14:57:08 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ EddyTheTurtle -:- It is Julian -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 15:22:14 (GMT)
__ __ janet -:- Response to Part II -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 09:03:28 (GMT)
__ __ Rob -:- Extremely interesting - thank you Michael -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 07:22:15 (GMT)
__ __ And On Anand Ji -:- Response to Joe, Janet and Rob - Part II -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 05:25:09 (GMT)
__ __ __ And On Anand Ji -:- To M. Dettmers from AOA Ji Please Read -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 05:29:47 (GMT)
__ __ suchabanana -:- women in charge of EV now, but where did money go? -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 01:53:52 (GMT)
__ __ Joe -:- Small question -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 00:37:59 (GMT)
__ __ __ Jerry -:- Small question -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 11:41:45 (GMT)
__ __ __ Susan -:- yes, Joe again, I would love to hear your answers -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 00:44:29 (GMT)
__ __ Susan -:- really interesting -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 00:25:23 (GMT)
__ __ __ gerry -:- really interesting is right -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 00:41:32 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Jim -:- Gullible? Did anyone say 'gullible'? -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 00:56:33 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- Wanna debate Waco? -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 01:03:24 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- There's nothing to debate -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 01:24:43 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- Yeah, you're right, there all dead anyway -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 03:36:53 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Bad Taste Tom -:- Waco -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 04:27:56 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jerry -:- Waco -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 12:30:08 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Bad Taste Tom -:- Thank you, it's nice to be appreciated (nt) -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 21:21:47 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Susan -:- Hi sweetie (nt) -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 00:45:28 (GMT)
__ __ Bill Burke -:- Response to Joe, Janet and Rob - Part II -:- Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 23:39:40 (GMT)
__ __ __ Comment -:- Response to Joe, Janet and Rob - Part II -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 04:30:13 (GMT)
__ __ Salam -:- May I say. -:- Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 23:31:50 (GMT)
__ __ Jim -:- Thanks for explaining all that, Mike -:- Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 23:17:54 (GMT)
__ __ __ Rick -:- Thanks for explaining all that, Mike -:- Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 23:50:28 (GMT)
__ __ __ Jim -:- Oh yeah, and how about YOU? -:- Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 23:32:27 (GMT)

Susan -:- Guru Cult: the Experience -:- Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 20:35:13 (GMT)
__ Cynthia -:- Guru Cult: the Experience -:- Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 21:02:32 (GMT)
__ __ DeProGram Anand Ji -:- Guru Cult: the Experience/ The movie -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 10:43:27 (GMT)
__ __ __ Marianne -:- The movie -:- Thurs, Nov 02, 2000 at 04:07:10 (GMT)
__ __ Disculta -:- Yup, I was there too, -:- Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 23:41:46 (GMT)
__ __ __ Gail -:- Yup, I was there too, -:- Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 01:38:35 (GMT)
__ __ __ Jim -:- I can't answer that without pictures (nt) :) -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 03:15:41 (GMT)

Joe -:- Strategic Voting Continued -- an Update (ot) -:- Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 18:01:21 (GMT)
__ Joe -:- Update on Nadertrader.com website (nt) -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 17:19:22 (GMT)
__ __ Joe -:- Sorry (again) above should be 'ot' (nt) -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 18:10:20 (GMT)
__ Steven Quint -:- Some Thoughts On The U.S. Constitution -:- Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 22:03:02 (GMT)
__ __ Joe -:- Not Sure what you mean -:- Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 22:22:10 (GMT)
__ __ __ Scott T. -:- Not Sure what you mean -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 07:52:04 (GMT)
__ Robyn -:- Strategic Voting Continued -- an Update (ot) -:- Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 21:30:45 (GMT)
__ __ G -:- I've seen PA shown as a swing state (nt) -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 01:58:59 (GMT)
__ __ __ Joe -:- Bush Strategy?? -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 21:15:16 (GMT)
__ __ __ Scott T. -:- More thoughts on strategy and tactics. -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 17:06:10 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ G -:- the issues, Nader on Roe vs. Wade -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 19:02:54 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- the issues, Nader on Roe vs. Wade -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 22:12:57 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- Nader on Roe vs. Wade -:- Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 05:45:04 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- What is George Bush About -- Marin Olasky. -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 20:53:11 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- Bush's faith-based plans -:- Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 05:46:45 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Joe -:- More thoughts on strategy and tactics. -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 18:26:18 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- Interesting dynamics you are describing. -:- Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 04:26:16 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- More thoughts on strategy and tactics. -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 21:21:47 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- More thoughts on strategy and tactics. -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 21:40:48 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- More thoughts on strategy and tactics. -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 22:41:11 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- Campaign Reform -:- Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 01:05:42 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Campaign Reform -:- Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 12:58:12 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ G -:- environmental disaster -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 20:01:06 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- environmental disaster -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 23:50:39 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- global warming -:- Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 06:12:52 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ hamzen -:- global warming -:- Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 14:56:34 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- environmental disaster -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 20:34:35 (GMT)
__ __ __ Joe -:- It is a swing state (Gore 46% to Bush 43%) -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 16:56:40 (GMT)
__ jondon -:- Yes, I have swapped votes with a guy... -:- Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 20:22:34 (GMT)
__ Gregg -:- BTW, about Colorado...(OT) -:- Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 20:17:52 (GMT)

Joe -:- EV's Contradiction in strategy?? -:- Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 17:53:04 (GMT)
__ Cynthia -:- EV's Contradiction in strategy?? -:- Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 20:20:15 (GMT)
__ cq -:- The implication is that today's current crop of -:- Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 20:09:20 (GMT)

Q -:- If you guys are trying to get rid of me, you're -:- Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 17:08:44 (GMT)

Mili -:- More stuff to moan, nag, whine and bitch about -:- Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 12:12:50 (GMT)
__ DeProGram Anand Ji -:- Does anyone really buy this shit anymore? -:- Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 10:41:41 (GMT)
__ Gregg -:- The Profundity of the Master -:- Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 20:27:58 (GMT)
__ cq -:- More stuff to moan, nag, whine and bitch about -:- Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 19:57:45 (GMT)
__ hamzen -:- Think I just about prefer your website, -:- Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 17:09:09 (GMT)
__ Jim -:- Yes, Maharaji's Toxic, Fractured Fairy Tales -:- Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 16:15:46 (GMT)
__ __ bill -:- Sound like he is still on pot?-nt -:- Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 05:23:32 (GMT)
__ bill -:- More stuff to correctly see for the slop it is.-nt -:- Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 13:35:40 (GMT)
__ An Occassional Observer -:- You're a bit late, it's already been up here.(nt) -:- Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 12:45:39 (GMT)
__ __ Disculta -:- 'Various websites' -:- Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 17:14:01 (GMT)
__ __ __ And it's all brought to -:- you 'Courtesy of Existence'..... -:- Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 18:36:03 (GMT)

Salam -:- I must be dead them. Try again. -:- Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 03:30:33 (GMT)
__ Steve Quint -:- I must be dead them. Try again. -:- Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 04:07:36 (GMT)


Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 06:26:19 (GMT)
From: Peter Howie
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Finishing things off for me - fantastic and thanks
Message:
The recent posts from Mike Dettmers have been a real completion for me. I've been wondering what has really been in it for me to continue to hang around the ex-p site and what it would take for me to move on.

Well its a bit like the 'death of speculation'. There is no longer any speculation, or story, or myth or suspicians - it has been confirmed. I feel enormously energised at the same time and more freed than in a while. And this is 15 years since splitting.

So I am seeing myself in a new way yet again with relation to M and K. I think in my own sweet way I was as shocked as Mel. Shocked and delighted.

I'll be around for a bit yet but thanks to everyone for pretty much everything you have been creating here. I can imagine this site not existing in maybe 5 years time as there is no longer a need - yeah!

Cheers

Peter Howie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 01:27:51 (GMT)
From: Gail
Email: None
To: Peter Howie
Subject: Finishing things off for me - fantastic and thanks
Message:
Great post, Peter. Thanks. I've been away. Has Mel Bourne finally seen the light?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 04:57:42 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: None
To: Gail
Subject: Finishing things off for me - fantastic and thanks
Message:
Hi Gail - nice to see you back.

Has Mel seen the light?

Hard to say for sure, but check his most recent posts. If not still active, then certainly still in the inactive.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 21:35:13 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: Peter Howie
Subject: good post Peter
Message:
I suppose I'll hang around some. I have made a few friends here, and then there is that habit stuff.

But I do know what you mean. It's been almost 3 years as an ex and I do feel as you, that some resolution has come about and a page has been turned.

It would be great for the reason for the site to go away - that being that M and his cult folded big time. but for now I am glad EPO is here and that there are people keeping on.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 21:51:59 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Selene
Subject: good post Peter
Message:
I liked it too.

Hey Selene, I've been an 'EX' now for longer than I was a premie. I like hanging with this crowd better. At least we can disagree.

Shit! I've got to wire in this electric heater for the bathroom while it's not raining and then carve the Jack. We expect fifty or so kids, not bad for a small town. Plus I found out we've been 'targeted' this year. (good treats)

Have fun (subliminal command...)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 00:55:50 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: stay warm (ototototot)
Message:
This is my favorite holiday.
They say it is the time when the veil between the living and the dead is at it's thinnest.
Believe it or not we get a lot of kids trick or treating here.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 02:21:25 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: o oh
Subject: oops I see I'm politically incorrect again - 0t
Message:
As John Leguizamo (sp?) said:
don't ask me how I do it, I just do it :)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 20:50:39 (GMT)
From: Djuro
Email: None
To: Peter Howie
Subject: Finishing things off for me - fantastic and thanks
Message:
There was the time when this site didn't exist.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 20:56:08 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Djuro
Subject: FA, can you get rid of this Djuro .... THING?
Message:
I'm not sure what the proper allegation is but, come on, this guy's just drooling on everyone.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 09:02:29 (GMT)
From: ham
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Dribbling methinks
Message:
This one seems even less on the ball than most of the others, rather infantile really, and obviously even for a premie hasn't had a life at all.

James you might have missed my post the other day, maybe you didn't feel like responding, but I'm interested to know if there are any radical anti-establishment stances you take at all now?
Also eco responses to concerns such as global warming, and the devastation that that's already starting to cause?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 11:40:57 (GMT)
From: Charlie
Email: None
To: Peter Howie
Subject: Finishing things off for me - fantastic and thanks
Message:
By the cringe, I know what you mean but without so much of the 'fantastic' sensations.

Charlie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 02:09:52 (GMT)
From: Salam
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: What I thought of the Video presentation.
Message:
I have not seen m or premies for 20 years or so. I can say that I can be objective in my criticism of him and his mission.

Except for the fact that he has become politically correct, I do not think that anything has really changed since I last heard m, he’s still delivering the same message.

In what sense?

This what EV has to say about m in their FAQ section:

Has Maharaji changed what he is teaching?

Maharaji has been teaching since he was eight years old. Naturally, over the years his appearance has changed, how he expresses himself has changed and his methods of presenting his message have changed. However the message itself has never changed. What he is saying now is no different from what he has always said.

So True.

But I am talking about something else. About “the something” that we were not told and were not aware of. What I am talking about is that you need to see him to know him. He still thinks that he is the only one that can delivers. Gone is the perfect master and the Krishna custom. No more mahatmas. No pranam. Nothing is left from the old knowledge and “Indian baggage”. The only thing that is left and can not go is he. Because he is the source of knowledge.

He accepts that “that experience” is within us. It is there, but again, without him personally, it, the experience will stay dormant.

The way he says it, sounded like, listen kiddo, I will give it to you, but first you really have to get this in your head, this is mine, get it, and if you want it
there are these conditions. First you gotta beg me for it. And because now you know that I hold something that you want and have begged for, you are really a piece of trash. So here, take this.

This attitude is so fine and subtle; it brings people in because it also holds an underlying mystical feel to it that tells us not to bypass “this thing” without exploring it.

One of the most powerful sales tools is the fear of loss. Sales people practice it all the time and they almost always succeed because they pray on ignorance

Does he believe in what he is saying?
He is the mother of all sincerity. I do not know the guy personally, the only time I have seen my ex-lord the all powerful, caring and loving was in darshan. The time that we have spent together is about 2 to 3 minutes all up.

Is he acting that sincerity? His facial expression, his apparent care and kindness, his poses to think of what to say next all portray a person that is genuine and believing in what he is saying. This is really a strong act, because his words do not appeal to a person’s mind, but to the emotions. He is definitely a guru in the art of manipulation. He is too persistent in his words and expressions to leave any dought as to his sincerity.

He really thinks that knowledge is something sacred. To him it is the thing that all the past masters talked about. I do not understand why he continues to do so, unless his literacy skills are a bare minimum. What does it take to find out that the techniques have been and are being taught by others? So as not to go too far, taught by his own brother. They are part of Kryia yoga. Other Yogis have talked about it and showed it. Some have even said that there is no need for a guru to know this knowledge. So what is the problem?

I have come some time ago to believe that the maharaja secretly and privately thinks that he is the spiritual leader of a religious movement. This new religion was mainly started by his father as an off shot of a split in the main body of a prior split in the Radhasoami religion. The Maharaja’s agenda is to spread this new religion with him being at the helm.

The acts and purpose of an adult whose work is based on childhood conditioning through the impact of his own father as his mentor; through a feeling of absolute supremacy in his surrounding and most likely through the greed of a family that was afraid of losing millions of dollars, should be a matter that concerns anyone who wants to follow him.

Is he living a lie?

Or

Is he a liar?

I think both. He lived a lie until one day he woke up to it. He then became a liar.

I now understand why Marianne passed judgment on him as guilty.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 03:06:17 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Salam
Subject: Q: Would he pass a lie detector?
Message:
Thanks, Salam.

I could be wrong but I do think that Maharaji would flunk a polygraph on questions like:


  • Are you God-realized?
  • Did you ever claim to be God-realized?
  • Are you God?
  • Did you ever claim to be God?
  • Have you ever encouraged your followers to worship you as God?
  • Are you the Saviour of Mankind?
  • Have you ever claimed to be the Saviour of Mankind?
  • Have you ever encouraged your followers to worship you as the Saviour of Mankind?
  • Have you used your role as 'guru' to amass personal wealth?

    Can't see him passing this test, no I can't. As for his acting ability, I think it would be surprisingly easy to play that part if a) you've been raised in it and playing it for years; and b) your audience is a cult dedicated to believing you in the role.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 10:27:19 (GMT)
From: DeProGram Anand Ji
Email: not given
To: everyone
Subject: Q: Would he pass a lie detector?
Message:
I don't think M would ever go near a lie detector. Nonetheless we should ask if he would be willing to take one.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 15:34:53 (GMT)
From: Steve Quint
Email: sequint@home.com
To: DeProGram Anand Ji
Subject: Q: Would he pass a lie detector?
Message:
How would you get in touch with him to ask?

Steve

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 15:31:21 (GMT)
From: goober--and dettmers
Email: None
To: DeProGram Anand Ji
Subject: would blow ink all over the walls...(nt)
Message:
from gerry, of course.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 13:10:18 (GMT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: DeProGram Anand Ji
Subject: natural lie detectors ...
Message:
... are provided by children and dogs. Seriously! Both are able to assess a person by the non-verbal cues that tend to be overshadowed by clever words and acting.

How interesting that (other people's) children and dogs are kept well away from Fatrat!

He knows the truth. His life has been a lie.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 15:33:34 (GMT)
From: Steve Quint
Email: sequint@home.com
To: JohnT and Everyone
Subject: A True Story
Message:
Did you hear the story m told earlier this year about getting a german shephard as a guard dog but the dog would only get behind him and jump up and put his paws on m's shoulders?

Steve

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 02:19:10 (GMT)
From: Gail
Email: None
To: Steve Quint
Subject: A True Story
Message:
It probably thought MJ was a fire hydrant.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 15:35:50 (GMT)
From: Steven Quint
Email: the_avenger55@hotmail.com
To: Gail
Subject: A True Story
Message:
I was thinking along the lines of the dog being a premie in a past lifetime and trying to take the possibly rare opportunity of having physical love with the perfect master of the time.

Steve

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 03:39:44 (GMT)
From: Salam
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Q: Would he pass a lie detector?
Message:
Oh Jim you are so sweet sometimes !!

huh?

(who you callin sweet?)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 17:00:17 (GMT)
From: Cynthia
Email: None
To: Salam
Subject: Q: Would he pass a lie detector?
Message:
I think he'd pass a polygraph test with flying colors. Although I don't believe for a second he'd lower himself to take one.

From Merriam-Webster: (Sorry Steven, I couldn't resist the dictionary)

Megalomaniac:
1) a mania or grandiose performance;
2) A delusional mental disorder that is marked by infantile feelings of personal omnipotence and grandeur.

Italics are my emphasis added.

No sweat for him, no pun intended....:::)))

Cynthia

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 03:46:44 (GMT)
From: Gail
Email: None
To: Cynthia
Subject: MJ can pass a polygraph and pigs fly!
Message:
ZIPPYIDYDOODAH,ZIPPIDYDAY.
Goomeraji had a wonderful way
Of swelling his pockets before turning gray;
By brainwashing fools and collecting their pay.

He's got a vulture on his shoulder.
And its called greed, not need--everything is beautiful
As long as brainwashees stay in the dark
He can get what he wants--even a yacht.

And his rein of shame's not over.
He's barking on and on--everything is beautiful.
But sooner or later, his gig will be gone.
As more and more munmuts perceive his con.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 00:48:57 (GMT)
From: michael eisner
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: OK, an answer to everyone's problems (m too!)
Message:
OK, let's see, you want a guru ride at Disneyworld,a 70's cult classic movie, maybe a newly mixed and engineered take on frampton's greates hits or live or whatever....

Listen you guys, this is gonna take money...

Now I've got plenty, but I'm no fool...we can do it, but it's gotta work out for everyone, especially me!

Here's what we do:

forget danny devito...we go with the guru himself, kinda like howard stern playing himself in 'private parts'....

and the honchos, gopis, security etc?...they all play themselves too!

I can pay everyone an industry standard (I know that's not much, but most of you guys probably aren't making much anyway, since you gave away the most productive years of your life to fatso)

we bring in frampton, who's broke now (I know, I just saw a m-tv special on him and he's got nothing)....bring him and give him a pittance for the rights to his music...

we have the guru and his boys design the rides...they're good at that stuff....

dettmers can mastermind the whole thing, he's good at that stuff....

we make a ton of money,(especially on video sales in India)...pay balbhagwanji a few rupees, bole ji too (he can back frampton on the new 'devotional' 'can you feel it?' tune...)

But here's the deal with the 'guru'...

Listen pal, your days are numbered....

Especially in the west, they are quite numbered....

So let's cut to the chase, OK?

You're a fraud, and we all know it.

But we're going to give you one last chance to get out of the business, and get out in style....

We make a ton of money, we give you a final 'severance package', a golden parachute of a few million.

The tens of millions we make on the other stuff goes to all the former premies, pro-rated, starting with those in the ashram the longest, down to the least, then community premies etc....

Lots of money for therapy, especially for david smith and joan apter...and lots of others....

Pain and suffering, lost wages, lost brain cells, lost everything, you name it...

Guru admits what a fraudulent jerk he's been, apologizes, then gets his money, sells the 'former dilapidated bungalow', plane , yacht, classic carts, residences etc....

He keeps amaroo, and we let him stay there...slap a restraining order on him if he approaches any premie within 1000 ft....

Anyway, something like that...I don't know...maybe we make him wear 'mouse ears' while he's gettin stoned with the pams and groovin on frampton, or in the darshan line....hey, it' s start....

Mike Eisner

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 01:35:43 (GMT)
From: Lurking poster
Email: None
To: thread
Subject: Bob Mishler/plane crash/ reason??
Message:
If Mishlers intent was a threat to Maharaji-
Was there is report on that crash and does anyone have it.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 02:30:26 (GMT)
From: sucabanana
Email: None
To: Lurking poster
Subject: Bob Mishler HELICOPTER crash,on way to expose m(nt
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 04:41:22 (GMT)
From: Katie Couric
Email: None
To: sucabanana
Subject: More on the helicopter crash....
Message:
DENVER (AP)

Robert Mishler, a well-known speaker on cults, and former President of Denver-based Divine Light Mission, a cult headed by the cherubic child-guru, Maharaj Ji, was killed Tuesday when a helicopter in which he was a passenger crashed off the coast of Central Florida. Ji and Mishler apparently had a falling out in 1976.

The cause of the crash is unknown, but surveillance cameras show an extremely short and fat man with greasy hair waddling in and out of the hanger where the helicopter was stored and serviced, carrying what look like small explosive devices. The identity of this individual is unknown.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 17:36:34 (GMT)
From: Another Lurking Poster
Email: None
To: Katie Couric
Subject: More on the helicopter crash....
Message:
You could be done for libel.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 18:18:56 (GMT)
From: Katie Couric
Email: None
To: Another Lurking Poster
Subject: You could be done for being humorless (nt)....
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 04:49:12 (GMT)
From: suchabanana
Email: None
To: Katie Couric
Subject: that was pretty close to the wire clip! nt
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 04:24:20 (GMT)
From: Lurking Poster
Email: None
To: sucabanana
Subject: Hey Sucabanana- How do you know that??
Message:
And was there a crash investigation released to the public.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 03:30:38 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: sucabanana
Subject: I KNEW it !!! (nt)
Message:
(snicker)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 03:48:56 (GMT)
From: Lurking Poster
Email: None
To: suchabanana
Subject: Sucha-- How do you know that? ? ? ? ? NT
Message:
NT
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 04:28:12 (GMT)
From: suchabanana
Email: None
To: Lurking Poster
Subject: Chopper death -- Capone and m. parallel to come(nt
Message:
It was in the regular news all over the Rockies and West US at the time (back in the 70s).

Mishler was doing ex-cult expose seminars and speaking engagements, they rented this chopper to go to/from an event, and it crashed -- boom. m. sent regrets to Bob's family.

Capone sends bouquets to families of Valentine's Day massacre victims.

next sequel: Al Capone and Guru Maharaj ji -- 2 Godfathers, their shell companies, and the IRS interest. HOT HOT HOT!!!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 04:35:02 (GMT)
From: Susan
Email: None
To: all
Subject: I did not hear it this way
Message:
What I heard was Mishler was in Key West and had a heart attack. He had a ongoing heart condition of some sort. It sound like he might have had supraventricular tachycardia. Anyway, they medivac'd him to Miami, and the helicopter crashed, killing him, his pregnant wife, Eileen?,and the medical team. I also heard Mishler has a son from a previous marraige, pre Eileen.

If that story is true than it makes foul play a whole lot less likely. As 'they' would have had to engineer the heart problem and 'get to' a medical helicopter. I just think there were easier ways to do him in.

This is third hand info so it may not be what happened, but that is what I have heard.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 13:03:39 (GMT)
From: Michael Dettmers
Email: dettmers@gylanix.com
To: Susan
Subject: I did not hear it this way
Message:
Susan,

That is exactly what happened. Bob did have the heart condition you identified and twice, while I knew him, he had attacks that required hospitalization.

Michael

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 07:47:24 (GMT)
From: janet
Email: None
To: Susan
Subject: I got the same report you did-not suchie's
Message:
I was living in Denver when Bob died. I never had a personal relationship to him, but his death came so suddenly it stayed with me a long time. I kept an ear peeled for years, wanting to know more. When we moved to ( more like got stranded blindside and were forced to remain in) Miami in 1979, I heard the version you just told , from a Miami premie who had lived there for years before Maharaji moved his operation to Miami. I beleive he had been in the area when it happened and so knew more than the rumor mill and speculators did.

One odd note that sticks out in my mind though--
In the wake of MJ's getting married to Marolyn in 1974, there was a rash of premie marriages, right afterwards, and among them were certain PAM's who asked Maharaj to be the one to perform their wedding ceremonies. Bob and Eileen were among the first of these couples. I recall photos of Maharaji in all indian whites, with a long orange scarf draped down over both his shoulders, in a look halfway between a catholic priest and a hindu sadhu, presiding over Bob and Eileen, saying their marriage vows to each other. And word had it that when they got to the traditional 'till death do us part' lines, after they repeated them, Maharaji chillingly commented to them, 'and if you part sooner, I'll kill you.'


????????????????????
I think Bob's death ranks among one of our greatest losses. He was legitimate, he was sincere, he was honest and he had integrity.I hope he sees us from wherever he is, now, and endorses our work. We could use him here.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 01:46:29 (GMT)
From: bill
Email: None
To: janet
Subject: I got the same report you did-not suchie's
Message:
HI Janet,
When you get the impulse to type up the Heathrow 73 story again, make sure you post something about that in the subject line so I dont miss it.
Some days there are so many posts I cant read them all.

Bob wrote a book on m and was still working on it when he died.
I bet his family has the manuscript somewhere.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 08:06:21 (GMT)
From: Susan
Email: None
To: janet
Subject: Who was the old time Miami premie?
Message:
I was one too....pre Miami Mecca! ( or Deca!)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 04:33:36 (GMT)
From: suchabanana
Email: None
To: everyone
Subject: Mishler Chopper death:Capone/m. parallel upcoming!
Message:
suchabanana responded:

It was in the regular news all over the Rockies and West US at the time (back in the 70s).

Mishler was doing ex-cult expose seminars and speaking engagements, they rented this chopper to go to/from an event, and it crashed -- boom. m. sent regrets to Bob's family.

Capone sends bouquets to families of Valentine's Day massacre victims.

next sequel: Al Capone and Guru Maharaj ji -- 2 Godfathers, their shell companies, and the IRS interest. HOT HOT HOT!!!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 04:36:48 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: suchabanana
Subject: That's not what I heard
Message:
Such,

The story I heard was that Mishler had a heart attack and the ambulance chopper crashed en route to the hospital.

How does your story jive with this?

(Better hurry. Gerry's almost finished building the gallows!)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 04:46:25 (GMT)
From: suchabanana
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Mishler was doing exposes, heart prob, then crash!
Message:
That's it:

yeah, Bob Mishler had a heart condition and was doing exposes! He was traveling around doing these exposes on m. with other corresponding cult deproprammer types, apparently. Then he had a medical emergency, the chopper picks him and others up, then crashes. Godfather m. sends regrets to the family.

Peace,

PS wait till you see the similarities between m.'s setup and Al Capone's 'foolproof' financial arrangements! Later this week...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 04:58:55 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: suchabanana
Subject: Come on, Such, what ARE you saying?
Message:
Plese, Such, give it to us straight. Are you saying the heart attack was rigged? The chopper ride to the hospital, was that booby-trapped? How? And how do you know?

Listen, don't get me wrong. If Mishler was killed by his former cult leader it would be only slightly weirder than that story in the news yesterday about the Russian grandmother caught trying to sell her grandson for parts ($70,000). She told him she was taking him to Disneyland. My favorite part is that the kid's uncle knew about the vile scheme but did nothing. When asked why he simply said that she was the kid's grandmother, after all, so he figured she knew what was best for the boy!

Or the one about the 300 pound pig in firstclass on the Airwest flight that these two women took on board on the pretense that he was like a 'seeing eye pig'. At one point he tried to make his way into the cockpit. (Why does the idea of a spoiled pig in a cockpit sound vaguely familiar somehow?)

Or the one about the kid doing backflips off his dresser onto his bed but missing and flying out the window.

Those are all weird stories but, yeah, I believe them. And if there was any evidence that Maharaji killed Mishler I'd believe that too.

But where's the evidence?


Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 08:24:47 (GMT)
From: Lurking Poster
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: no evidince that M did anything-
Message:
but in those days nothing would have been out of the realm of possibility- ie hammers and devotees et all.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 09:48:52 (GMT)
From: suchabanana
Email: None
To: Lurking, Jim, et al
Subject: I think crash was accident;hammer was NOT! CAPONE2
Message:
WHOA, HOLD YOUR HORSES, DON'T JUMP TO CONCLUSIONS NOW!!!!

M. and his agents did NOT have sexual relations with that young helicopter. m. is NOT a crook or criminal. Let me make that PERFECTLY CLEAR! m. did not tell Fakiranand to bash in the radical brains of that despicable and drugged-out Detroit reporter the next day. m. was NOT aware of sexual abuse by Jagdeo and never sent him back to India to hush it up. m. was disappointed with Bob Mishler but still loved him madly, as the official DLM statement clearly indicates. m. never drank or smoked anything - that was just a magical illusion; he is above that sort of thing. Remember, he told us we didn't need alcohol or drugs - it was all stupid. If he ever actually did it, it would be a lila, yes? Not like you or me, right? m. has never consorted with loose women, fast cars, or 106-foot yachts. OK?! We are all crazy and in our minds, ok?

r.e.CONSPIRACY FREAKS:
Boy, did some of these guys here on the Forum take a leap. NO one said m. did Bob in (or via m.'s agents). Some people just want to believe something sinister like that. Shots from the grassy knoll, right?! Reagan/Bush's deal with Iran for hostages? Nixon's deal with Thieu for the '68 election? Catherine de Medici's potions? No, according to his attorneys, m. didn't do anything wrong, and he's not giving back that little dog Checkers, either...

Yeah, 1) Mishler left and began doing the fledgling cult deprogrammer speaking circuit. 2) His heart acted up, 3) the chopper came, 4) they got on, 5) it crashed mysteriously. 6) m. sent condolences to the family. That's all we have officially. You got something else substantive on that matter? Then, somebody spill it out...

CAPONE THREAD BEGINS:
Now, if you want the Godfather information/connection, that's another story. Look at the photos of m. from the last 'And It is Divine' magazine to see the direction of where m. was heading. r.e. Al Capone: The client's high-priced tax attorneys had it all figured out, right? Wrong. Will explain the precedent -- anyone else can look it up and re-interpret it, too, for themselves.

The SMUGGLER AND HIS GIFTS:
Remember how m. and rajaji started dressing up like mafia gangsters and posing for pictures that way. Then, look at the DLM shakeup and the resulting setup of EVI and Seva and all the tens of millions of dollars in assets m. has used that are superficially disconnected from him technically.

AL CAPONE SIMILARITY:
Al Capone had the best tax attorneys and accountants money could buy. The US federal government spent years trying to nail him for even a single crime; they couldn't. Capone set up his business this way: his lieutenants, attorneys, accountants, and extended family thugs held the official posts or shares of all these little businesses set up with laundered Chicago gangster money.

Capone's name did not appear on any of the businesses -- none, nor legally relating to the numerous material assets he personally used, all generated from illicit syndicate revenues.

Finally, the federal government decided to go after Capone for tax evasion. They concluded that: despite the fact these corporations and assets were not officially owned by Capone, he controlled those assets anyway, through his direct hierarchy of agents and employees and family members, and he derived personal actual benefits from these material resources. Thus, Capone had engaged with others in a conspiracy to evade federal (and state) income taxes. The preponderance of evidence corroborated Capone's control of many diverse assets, his exclusive use of luxurious properties, cars, boats, his expense accounts, and his absolute (though clandestine) authority over the individuals supposedly in charge of these allegedly unrelated entities and properties.

Now, in the case of a Colorado church, as Michael Dettmers has stated, DLM finally had to scramble to get things straightened out for the impending IRS audit -- since m. was using way too much of the 'church's' resources. Hence, the reorganization and subsequent setup of shell corporations also served related functions: for the reallocation of church and pastorial resources, and the means by which money would be diverted and channeled in the future.

If you look at the financial organization and tactics of EVI, Seva Corp, Premo Marine, and the network of assets utilized by m. (both in the USA and globally), there is a striking resemblance to the organization set up by Al Capone's tax attorneys and accountants -- Millbank, Tweed, Garroto and Stiletto (something like that).

I think tax evasion is a good starting point, naturally using updated statutes and legal opinions. Any federal tax experts out there who would like to weigh in?

Peace,

Peace,

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 16:44:06 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: suchabanana
Subject: Aw, look, you got Gerry all excited for nothing
Message:
You can stop with the 'jumping to conclusions' shit right now, Such. You started all this by suggesting that there was something sinister and 'Capone'-like in the circumstances. If you concede that the crash as most likely an accident, then why all this talk about m's alleged gangster tendencies? What's the connection? I think the answer is that there isn't one.

Your sarcastic rendition of the facts as we know them suggests that you don't accept the official story. Yet at the same time you say that you DO accept it. It sounds like you don't know what to think about this. Is that right?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 16:54:54 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: OK, it's all my fault...
Message:
I DID put (nt) in the subject box. But if you click on the message, you'll see my true feelings about this 'conspiracy.'

Sorry to get YOU all excited, Jimbo...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 17:07:00 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: You mean you were just kidding?
Message:
Even that 'snicker's ambiguous. Are you laughing at the idea of expecting foul play or at those who never thought that way?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 17:21:47 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Yes, Jimbo, kidding
Message:
There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE of any kind that there was any sort of 'conspiracy' to kill this man.

This is obvious and in stark contrast to the vast amount of evidence for a missile having shot down flight 800 over Long Island Sound. (That's just a 'for instance' btw. I'm NOT interested in arguing this case, unless you've done your homework and by that I don't mean 'following' TV news reports...)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 17:34:44 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: Are you actually trying to be cagey?
Message:
What the fuck are you saying? Look, either you say that there IS reason to believe Mishler was murdered or you don't. Once again, your sarcasm makes it impossible to know where you stand. So, what's it going to be? You say Mishler was murdered? Fine, let's hear why. He wasn't? Then what's with all this oother conspiracy shit?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 18:01:52 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Are you actually trying to fuck with me?
Message:
Jesus fucking christ what part of this don't you understand ???

There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE of any kind that there was any sort of 'conspiracy' to kill this man.

The 'other conspiracy shit' was an example of a clear cut case of conspiracy (the denial and cover up of the accidental missile downing of flight 800 was the conspiracy--not that the navy intentionally killed all those people.)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 18:05:38 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: OK, so you WEREN'T being sarcastic
Message:
It was hard to tell. I still don't know why you'd mention that other matter though. Red herring?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 18:23:30 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Red herring my ass...
Message:
What part of

The 'other conspiracy shit' was an example of a clear cut case of conspiracy... don't you understand ???

An example, in opposition to the lame, unsupported Mishler death 'conspiracy.'

You know Jim, after that 'Are you actually trying to be cagey' post of yours, I'm starting to think you don't want discuss things in good faith but do so for the main purpose of one-ups-manship and to dominate, control and yes, manipulate people.

I'll tell ya, I've had enough of that shit in my life and homey don't play those games no mo'. Go have fun with your new best friend dettmers. You guys could learn a lot from each other. I've got work to do...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 03:14:28 (GMT)
From: Tonette
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: What you don't understand gerry
Message:
Is that this is Jim's forum and unless you pass muster with a few key people your posts will never be accepted as crediable. You obviously haven't been accepted into the clicke yet. I have to say it doesn't look good for you either.

Don't bang your head against the wall too hard, sincerely, Tonette

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Nov 02, 2000 at 07:30:49 (GMT)
From: ExTex
Email: None
To: Tonette
Subject: What you don't understand gerry
Message:
Oh Tonette, you put that so well. Hit the nail right on the head. I agree completely. (Good to see you posting.)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Nov 02, 2000 at 16:44:51 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: ExTex
Subject: Nice to see you idiots have found each other (nt)
Message:
gggggggg
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 05:09:27 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Tonette
Subject: I was hoping someone would explain that to me
Message:

All these headaches, that is !!!

Hey, despite my incredible foolishness at times I have real affection and admiration for several of the people here and I think you just made the list!

:)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 16:33:58 (GMT)
From: Disculta
Email: None
To: suchabanana
Subject: The buzz at the time
Message:
In the ashrams where I was living at the time, which were not in the U.S., the buzz was that Bob Mishler had died because he had gone against MJ. Not that MJ had rigged the helicopter, but that you can't go against the Lord and live.

I'm serious! I heard it in satsang!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 22:25:48 (GMT)
From: Michael Dettmers
Email: dettmers@gylanix.com
To: Everyone
Subject: Response to Joe, Janet and Rob - Part I
Message:
Notice: The following response to Joe, Janet and Rob could not fit in one post so I have issued it in two parts. This is Part I. Part II follows below this post.

Joe, Janet and Rob

I am going to answer all of your questions in this one post. If I understand the questions, Joe is interested in my perspective on what took place between 1975 through 1980 with specific emphasis on the changes that were initiated in 1976 and then abruptly reversed. Rob wants to know if and why Élan Vital qualifies for church status in the USA. Rob, I do not know what status Élan Vital currently holds. I will address Élan Vital’s, then known as Divine Light Mission (DLM), status as a church and why it qualified during the period from 1975 through 1980. Janet is interested in learning more about “the chilling mood of brute efficiency” that she experienced, and Sophia Collier wrote about, concomitant with my arrival in Denver in 1975. She is also interested in what I learned and what I would do differently based on the organizational experience I have gained in the past 25 years. Other than not getting involved in a cult in the first place, I will address that point at the end of Part II of this two-part post.

Bob Mishler brought me to Denver from Canada in March of 1975, principally to get on top of DLM’s finances. DLM had incurred huge debts following the Astrodome debacle and, more than one year later, it still carried much of that burden. To gain control of the situation, I immediately instituted a budget system. That involved segmenting the organization into departments and assigning one person in each department as a manager responsible for all of its activities and expenditures. I held meetings with each of the new departments and explained how this new system worked using organization charts and procedures manuals as aids. Final responsibility for setting priorities and approving the budget rested with a newly constituted Executive Committee, chaired by Bob Mishler. There was a degree of urgency to implement these changes, not just because our financial situation was perilous, but also because the IRS (the Internal Revenue Service for our non-American readers) had notified us that we were going to be audited. At the time, DLM’s books and records were a mess and we weren’t in a position to respond to their initial requests for information. That pretty much explains the reason for the top-down manner in which I implemented the financial control mechanisms at DLM International Headquarters or IHQ, as it was then known. I can appreciate that many people reacted negatively to this rather draconian and somewhat unfeeling approach to wresting financial control of a “spiritual’ organization that had previously operated in a more relaxed and often unaccountable manner.

There was, however, a bottom-up component to our strategy. For the Executive Committee to set overall priorities, we needed to articulate a clear mission that could be understood by everyone. The mission provided a focal point against which departmental goals and objectives could be established, thereby enabling all of us to focus our efforts in the same direction. But I knew that it would not be very effective to impose a mission and assume that everyone would understand it and, more importantly, buy into it. To address this concern, we engaged the services of a premie named Jerry T. who was also a professional trainer in organizational development, and a graduate of the National Training Lab, better known as NTL. Jerry instituted a series of workshops throughout the organization, using basic brainstorming and synthesizing techniques to engage everyone in the process of “thinking” about what we were actually trying to accomplish as an organization.

As constricting as my budgeting procedures were, these workshops proved to be a breath of fresh air and struck a chord in most everyone who participated in them. Perhaps for the first time, people began to reflect on their experience of Maharaji and knowledge and several questions began to emerge including what is Maharaji’s role in spreading knowledge, what is the best way let new people learn about Maharaji and knowledge, why is it necessary to be in the ashram to do service, etc. Many people decided to leave that ashram during this time of questioning and reflection and we encouraged them to do so. Although everyone on the Executive Committee except Bob was an ashram resident, most, including myself, were involved in relationships and we were confident that it was just a matter of time before Maharaji abandoned the ashram structure all together. In short, a cultural revolution had been unleashed throughout DLM in 1976.

It was out of this process that a consensus began to emerge that the best way to present Maharaji was as a humanitarian leader. I remember experiencing resistance to this idea, but Jerry coached me to trust the process and not try to control the outcome. My resistance was based on my belief that our purpose was to promote “higher consciousness” or “god realization.” If we presented Maharaji as a humanitarian leader, I felt we would be in the same business as the United Way. Although I had great respect and love for Maharaji at that time, he never struck me as the humanitarian type. Eventually, the humanitarian leader approach won out and I acquiesced to that consensus of opinion.

During 1975 and 1976, I had very little personal contact with Maharaji. I spent most of my time in Denver and attended some programs in the USA, Europe and Australia. Bob spent most of his time with Maharaji and came to Denver once or twice a month. He approved and supported our efforts to shift the culture of the organization (that’s what I call it now. I don’t know what, if anything we called it then). Bob leaned towards the humanitarian leader approach and strongly advocated that we do whatever was necessary to dismantle the perception of Maharaji and his mission as a cult of personality. Our understanding was that I would handle the finances and organizational changes and he would make sure that Maharaji was informed about what was going on and garner his support.

My first inkling that Maharaji was not happy with the changes that had been launched in Denver and ultimately throughout the USA and Europe came during his tour of Europe in the summer of 1976. I got to spend some time with Maharaji on that tour and it was clear to me that his relationship with Bob was very strained. Bob expressed to me his totally frustration with Maharaji. Even though Maharaji had agreed to the changes in their discussions, he did not feel comfortable with them when they were actually implemented on tour. Nevertheless, Bob told me to keep my focus on the audit and he would work out whatever difficulties he was having with Maharaji.

As part of my preparations for the audit, I worked with a lawyer who was well versed in the principles and practices that must be adhered to by organizations that are incorporated as churches in the USA. As we analyzed DLM’s operating procedures it became clear that DLM had not been paying much attention to those principles and practices, not out of any nefarious intent at wrongdoing, but simply out of ignorance of the rules of the game. The issue was not so much a question of DLM qualifying as a church. It was easy enough to deconstruct DLM activities and practices as a set of beliefs with a group of believers who supported the church financially and engaged in its specific religious practices. As a practical matter, the strict separation of Church and State in the USA makes it very difficult for the US government to challenge the legitimacy of any religious practices unless they are extremely bizarre, anti-social, and/or unlawful. I realized that deconstructing Maharaji and knowledge in these terms completely contradicted his claim that knowledge was not a religion nor was he instituting a belief system, but I was in no position to worry about such technicalities then. It was clear that the implications of setting up DLM as a church had not been carefully thought out at the beginning, but at that moment, I had to deal with the consequences of that choice.

My real difficulty centered on Maharaji’s role in this church and specifically the manner in which it supported him. Let me put this in context. In 1976, Maharaji was a US permanent resident. Because he married an American in 1974, he became eligible for US citizenship in 1977. In the interim, he had to spend at least six months out of every year in the USA. To satisfy that requirement, DLM purchased a small three-bedroom bungalow in a residential community in Denver for Maharaji. It also purchased an estate in Malibu as well as a motorhome and several automobiles including a Rolls Royce for his personal use. And it paid for the food and clothing for him and his family as well as anything else he needed or wanted.

After reviewing all of the numbers we had compiled, our lawyer became very concerned that the Chief Minister, which is what Maharaji was in this structure, consumed a disproportionate amount of the church funds, according to IRS guidelines. Applying the rules that govern churches, Maharaji’s residences were classified as “parsonages”. Our lawyer opined that the bungalow in Denver was appropriate under the circumstances. However, he could not see how DLM could justify the Malibu estate. He also felt that a Chevrolet better suited the position of Chief Minister, and certainly not an expensive motorhome or a Rolls Royce. Finally, he said that Maharaji should have been paid a salary by the church, and that he should have paid for his and his family’s personal expenses, including food and clothing, out of his salary. He was afraid that DLM may be perceived by the IRS, not as a church, but more like a scam set up to benefit a private individual. He frankly told me that he did not see how we could survive the audit which was now only a few months away. Clearly, a crisis was upon us and I immediately called Bob in Malibu to inform him of my findings. As I told him of our situation, I was aware that Bob, as the President of DLM, as well as the other Officers and Directors would be held responsible if the IRS established any wrongdoing.

A day later, Bob came to Denver and notified the Executive Committee that Maharaji was coming to Denver in two days. He informed us that he had met with Maharaji, told him of the situation, and gave him an ultimatum to move out of the Malibu residence. He told Maharaji that he would have to relocate himself and his family to Denver within two weeks because DLM was selling the Malibu residence. He said that Maharaji was shocked and very angry, and that he was coming to Denver to find out for himself what was going on. I, too, was shocked that Bob had given Maharaji such an ultimatum because that decision had never been part of our conversations. Bob explained that the issues that were brought to the surface by the pending audit finally gave him the courage to tell Maharaji exactly how he felt – that Maharaji was out of control and that his spending was destroying his organization and making it impossible to fulfill its mission.

To be continued in Part II (below)

Michael Dettmers

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 22:27:19 (GMT)
From: Michael Dettmers
Email: dettmers@gylanix.com
To: Everyone
Subject: Response to Joe, Janet and Rob - Part II
Message:
My response to Joe, Janet and Rob – Part II

Needless to say, the mood was very somber when Maharaji came to Denver two days later. He immediately assembled the Executive Committee and told us in no uncertain terms how disappointed he was in all of us and that he was in Denver to get to the bottom of the situation. He made it clear that no one should take their positions for granted and that before he left, there would be changes. He then scheduled individual meetings with each member of the Executive Committee. We knew he meant business when he fired the first two people he met with. I was the last person to meet with him and I fully expected to be fired as well. Much to my surprise, that is not what happened. His first question to me was, in effect, what the hell is going on around here? And he wanted me to fully explain my findings regarding the audit. I responded by carefully recounting all I had done to assemble a credible set of financials and the interpretation our lawyer had made of them. He listened carefully, periodically asking questions.

When I finished, he commented on how Shri Maharaj Ji (his father) had always hated DLM. He went on to explain that DLM was not the same as Maharaji - that Maharaji was the focus of knowledge and that if DLM had any role it was to be at the service of Maharaji, not visa versa. He said he realized that we had lost our focus based on the changes that were implemented during his summer tours. He explained that knowledge without devotion to Maharaji is nothing and that all of us have forgotten that. He asked me what I thought about our current dilemma. I told him that we faced a serious problem. I also acknowledged that it was absurd that he should find himself in a situation where he is considered to be the Chief Minister of a Denver-based church. I also added that, based on his views of DLM, his entire organizational structure needed re-thinking. He said he agreed and he asked me if I would like to take on that task. I must admit I was amazed that I was having this conversation with Maharaji and I readily accepted. “Good”, he said. “You’re fired from your current position in DLM but you’re hired as my personal manager.” So, in a sense, I was fired but not with the consequences I had anticipated.

In my newly created position, Maharaji gave me two priorities. The first was to meet with Bob and tell him that Maharaji had no intention of moving out of the Malibu residence. As far as Maharaji was concerned, the Malibu residence had been a gift from his premies. He felt the same way about the motorhome and the cars as well. I can vouch for his claim about the motorhome, because it was a gift from the Canadian premies at the time when I was the National Organizer in Canada. He added that if Bob was so enamored with the Denver residence, he could live there himself as the President of DLM. Meeting with Bob was no easy task because I considered him a friend. When I told him what Maharaji had said, he bore no ill will towards me. He was obviously saddened that all of his efforts to serve Maharaji had come to this. Clearly, he had no interest in heading up an organization that Maharaji was now bashing at every opportunity and he decided to leave shortly thereafter.

My other priority was to continue dealing with the audit. To help me with that challenge, Maharaji instructed me to fly to London and meet with a premie named Aubrey West, (Aubrey passed away a few years ago) and to tell him about our problem. He was confident that Aubrey would be very helpful in dealing with the situation. His daughter had introduced Aubrey to knowledge and Maharaji came to know him because he was the principal architect of the strategy that successfully wrested control of DLM in the UK from Maharaji’s mother. Aubrey was one of the most brilliant and interesting people I have ever met. In 1976, he was probably in his late 50’s. He was educated in the law at Cambridge and had established a very exclusive and successful investment banking practice. He was also a published and world-renowned calligrapher.

I met with Aubrey over the course of several days where he interrogated me over every detail of my findings when preparing for the audit. Eventually, he latched onto a single detail that I had never given much thought to. When I first came to Denver, the person who had been handling the finances handed over to me all of his files and records. Included in the transfer was a small endorsement stamp with the facsimile signature Prem Pal Singh Rawat aka Guru Maharaj Ji. It had been the standard practice at DLM to deposit all checks into a DLM bank account including all of the checks that had been made payable to Guru Maharaji. Those particular checks were recorded on a separate deposit slip and endorsed over to DLM with the endorsement stamp bearing Maharaji’s legal signature. Aubrey made that fact the cornerstone of his strategy to deal with our problem. In Aubrey’s opinion, there was a fundamental and legal difference between gifts of love made out of devotion to one’s guru, and donations made to an organization created to spread the guru’s message. He argued that those two different and distinct sources of funds should never have been co-mingled within DLM donations.

Aubrey, through me, instructed Maharaji’s lawyer and accountant to re-classify all of the checks that had been made out to Maharaji, but deposited into DLM’s bank account, as Maharaji’s personal funds that were simply being held in trust for his personal use by DLM. When the financial records were re-categorized in this manner, the records clearly showed that Maharaji had more than enough funds to personally pay for the Malibu residence, the cars, and his personal expenses with his own money. During the audit, we acknowledged to the IRS that, after consulting with our lawyers, we realized that it was not a good idea to have had DLM act as a trustee in this manner, and that we were in the process of transferring all of the assets that were rightfully Maharaji’s into a separate structure that properly reflected his beneficial interest in them. The IRS was completely satisfied with this explanation, confirmed the principle that Maharaji and DLM were two distinct entities, and that gifts to Maharaji qualified as such under IRS codes. With that issue settled, we sailed through that audit without difficulty or incident.

In the meantime, Maharaji was busy consolidating his base. He moved with avengence to un-do all of our efforts to present his as a humanitarian leader by making it abundantly clear to all premies that knowledge and devotion to Maharaji were inseparable. He was determined that he would never again find himself in the position where he would be given an ultimatum by anyone. DLM in Denver was disbanded as an IHQ, with instructions from Maharaji not to re-constitute it anywhere else. As Maharaji explained to me and other organizers, he was the headquarters of his mission. Wherever he was, that was where the headquarters was. To that end, he secured residences in the UK, Australia and India to emphasize that, just because he was now an American did not mean that American premies should feel they had any special rights on his time or his person. With that, a new era of devotion, along with a reinstatement of the ashrams, was launched.

Janet asked me what I have learned and what I would do differently based on the organizational experience I have gained in the past 25 years. Forgetting for the moment that we are talking about a cult, here’s what I would have done differently. First, I would not have begun the organizational changes without first ensuring that the CEO (in this case, Maharaji) was fully committed to the process. Today, I will not work with an organization unless the CEO and his/her Executive Team are fully committed to, and participate in, the process of transformation. Second, I would have taken more time to build relationships. I came to Denver as an outsider and it was foolish of me to move forward as aggressively as I did without taking the time to build bridges and establish trust. Third, I would have put more women in positions of responsibility. There were several outstanding women at IHQ at the time but I was too blind to see how much easier the process would have been if I had cultivated their trust and support and positioned them handle much of the implementation. This blindness was further reflected in an all male Executive Committee. Finally, I would not have lived in the “executive ashram” thereby lending credibility to the charges of elitism and fostering and “us and “them” mentality.

Michael Dettmers

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 18:04:03 (GMT)
From: Another Lurking Poster
Email: None
To: Michael Dettmers
Subject: Interesting ...
Message:
I am most interested to read your account of your history. It confirms to me that so many of the decisions in the those early days and the motions that were set up were set by various individuals, not M himself. Especially on the business side of things.

Back then, how old was M? 14, 15, 16? As you pointed out DLM had, in fact, been inadvertently mixing the personal gifts with the charitable trust funds. Once this was discovered though, it was corrected and the money that had been 'held in trust' separated from the income of DLM/EV.

And so it is, I believe, today.

Once M realized, as he got older and more experienced in the western world, how his affairs were being mishandled and misrepresented he stepped in to change things.

Something else he does, to this day as well.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 18:07:17 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Another Lurking Poster
Subject: That makes no sense, premie-ji
Message:
Maharaji steps in to keep his money safe. That's the only stepping in he's ever done.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 16:23:32 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Michael Dettmers
Subject: A dynasty founded on infamy.
Message:
Michael:

As Maharaji explained to me and other organizers, he was the headquarters of his mission. Wherever he was, that was where the headquarters was. To that end, he secured residences in the UK, Australia and India to emphasize that, just because he was now an American did not mean that American premies should feel they had any special rights on his time or his person. With that, a new era of devotion, along with a reinstatement of the ashrams, was launched.

It was during this period of upheaval and uncertainty in 1976 that I 'escaped.' As a result of your narrative it occurs to me that I really owe Bob Mishler and the IRS for that result, and had I stayed only 6 months longer I might well have been caught in the totalist clutches of the Guru for several more decades. It also challenges my unconcern about the behavior of M as the primary mover in this totalist capture of a large number of people. This is probably the very core of his crime, for a crime it must be called in all but the strict legal sense.

It reminds me a little of William the Conquerer's takeover of Britain after the Norman Conquest, and the preparation of the 'Doomsday Book' that accounted every asset in Britain in order to wrest (steal) all control of resources from the Anglo-Saxons and establish a centralized Norman rule. William eventually died in Normandy, stripped and abandoned on the bare floor of a church. Before dying he is said to have 'come clean' about the atrocities he had committed in order to achieve his position, and for that reason refused to name a successor, that a dynasty founded on infamy should end with him.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 11:32:16 (GMT)
From: Charlie
Email: None
To: Michael Dettmers
Subject: Response to response
Message:
Dear Michael,

Around about September time if you were reading this page you might have seen a pile of tributes that flooded in following the announcement of the death of Nick Seymore-Jones. Perhaps you knew him, he was well respected in the UK community and certainly seemed to be a memorable character for many people who read this page including myself, although I did not care to pass any sentiment or comment at the time of the announcement. I was however transported back through my memories to an occasion early one morning (3.00 am) in 1980 when I sat on a beam in the roof of a stage being built in a field at a race-course in Lingfield, Surrey UK. On that morning all the feelings of respect I had had for Mr. Seymore-Jones faded away as he screamed at me and the assembled tradesmen to work ever harder to complete the monumental stage he had designed so that it would be ready for 'the Lord of the Universe' to come and sit on in a few hours. I had been working twelve to sixteen hour shifts each day, sleeping in a tent and eating a very poor diet for a week on that project, only to be screamed at like a galley slave for not working hard enough to realise his crazy dream. I was in the roof of the stage that morning fortifying it's beams so that they could support the weight of the sound monitors which would normally have been placed on the floor but would have obscured the audience's view of the sacred lotus feet of the Lord. While perched up there I became irate, I had the overwhelming desire to throw something heavy at Mr. Jones and curse him to his face but in the end I bit my tongue and tried to remember the holy name. My premie colleague sitting with me could see my emotion and indicated that I should 'surrender'.

So why am I telling you about this Michael? Well because as I see it, you like Mr. Jones, were an officer in the army of the Lord of the Universe, whereas I was merely an enlisted man, a small man who never spoke back to those in authority and never (until now) had the chance to speak back. I regret that I was an uneducated kid from a religious background who got caught up in a spiritual scam headed up by a megalomaniac Indian, assisted by a team of clever university educated manipulators, such as yourself. While reading your posts I can see that in the early years, you, like me also believed in a hippy dream of god consciousness, but, as far as I can see, that dream ended for you sometime in the late seventies. However, for years following your wising up to Maharaji's mortality you continued to assist him in the calculated exploitation of people like myself to continue their deluded lives giving all their spare cash to your boss while knowing there was NO reward for them in either heaven or hell. You bastard! You complete fucking manipulating shit! Shame on you!!!

In the 1970s all I knew was cutting wood but your more valuable skill was organising corporations. Like me you seemed to want to make your abilities available to the Lord of the Universe in the mistaken belief that you were helping humanity in some way, but you unlike me, having such a special skill, were drawn closer to the control centre, you got to see behind the curtain of the wizard whereas I did not. I believe that if I had seen what you saw, I would have been out that door faster than greased lightning, so, just what good did you think you were doing during your remaining cult years? I just can't see what the attraction was. Did you see some kind of career opportunity? What were you doing it for? Didn't the word integrity mean anything to you?

There are quite a few exes here who think M is a victim of the whole show as much as any of us. Well I don't reckon so. No matter how unusual his upbringing and family life was, with even a smattering of intelligence he understands when he is taking somebody for a ride or not. He knows that he is a regular man who is able to live the life of a king by tricking people into believing his fantasy story. You must have understood that fact long ago while I was a true believer!

The last couple of years have been among the most difficult of my life as I have faced up to the unfolding reality of the worthless pursuit I invested so much time and energy in since my teens. First the belief in the manifestation of God almighty in human form, come to save humanity. Then there was the slow realisation that the promise had been broken, followed by years of no explanation, just a brazen new manifesto where M was never the Lord but just a Master (whatever that is supposed to mean) while he continues to collect millions of dollars.

Michael, I cannot tell you how grateful I am that you have come clean about so many issues that simple premies like me were shielded from. I, like so many here am feeling the weight easing from my mind as you put the pieces of the jigsaw together - in slabs.
Your input here is without doubt, exceedingly valuable and I will continue to read what you have to say, but sadly despite my 'gratitude' to you, Michael, I don't see you as my friend. No, you were one of the architects of a machine built to hurt me, and whether or not you were unwitting in your role, I care not a hoot. The biggest beneficiary of your catharsis must be you, I hope you enjoy the feeling of relief and release in becoming an exe, that is the most positive thing I can say to you.

Once I had it in my head that being bitter about my experience in DLM/EV was wrong, that it was somehow a bad thing for me to harbour such feelings, so for years I worked at burying those feelings, to forgive and forget, to progress positively in my life. Well let me tell you this, I discovered that trying to be positive and 'getting a life' after DLM doesn't work for me, it's a crock of shit! What I have learned is that I have responsibility and I must accept the accompanying consequences of all my actions but I have also learned that I have been the unwitting mark in a deception that has robbed me of some of the most valuable years of my life. I refuse to take the blame for that, as so many cultists believe I should, no. I feel entitled to my bitterness and feel justified in wanting to see Maharaji have his arse whipped.
Michael, I am comfortable to say that I do not forgive you for your part in this deception (should I?) and sorry, but I would not welcome you to stay under my roof when you are in London as others here would do. You are lucky to find such sweet natured people to greet you, still, I am sure you would be able to pay for a good quality hotel room.

Charlie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 21:24:18 (GMT)
From: Bin Liner
Email: None
To: Charlie
Subject: Response to response
Message:

You're SO right Charlie .

Thanks for reminding me.

All the best.


Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 15:09:03 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Charlie
Subject: A true ****Best Of*** in my opinion
Message:
Charlie, I can't thank you enough for your eloquent and moving post. You explain my own thoughts and feelings so clearly and elegantly.

I have to wonder what you may have accomplished if you hadn't been so deceived by the likes of Maha, dettmers, et al. Your clarity and writing skills are truly first class.

I too think dettmers has zero integrity. He's still a con man with his 'management consultancy' and his matchbook college degree. He was a fraud then and he's a fraud now. It pains me to see all the fawning over this main architect of the cult, who realised as early as 1974 that Rawat was just an ordinary bloke and it was all a scam.

I also want to thank Roger Drek for forcing this low life out into the light. I doubt very much that dettmers would have ever said a word to put people here at ease if he hadn't been confronted by Roger's expose. It was beginning to hurt his bottom line and now he's accomplished his goal of getting it removed, unfortunately.

And I believe Roger really did see him at a program in the late nineties

Now for the crude lout in me: Fuck you, you rotten bastard dettmers !!! You're still a fucking con man and a liar. I hope you rot in hell !!!

Ah I feel better now....

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 03:56:05 (GMT)
From: Tonette
Email: None
To: gerry and Charlie
Subject: Ditto
Message:
I was wondering if I was the only reader here who felt skeptism about MD. I guess M would have found someone else if it hadn't been Michael in order further his 'mission' and his pockets.

Michael is not all clean and holy. People here are so hungry for 'the scoop' that they are embracing him with open arms. The Ex's wouldn't dare risk chasing him away. But it is apparent that Michael is unable, unwilling to give any information that might be used to bring M to his knees. Too bad.

But I suppose it might make Michael breathe a little easier now that any damming infor about him is somewhat buried. Perhaps his conscious is a little better off too. Dunno about his 'character and integrity' these days. Maybe he has done a 180.

I think that Michael has just about thrown us enough scraps that Michael feels fairly confidentially that we, as Ex's, will shut up and at least leave him alone.

Yes, I bet his visits here are just about over

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 16:54:34 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: In the court of Gerry Lyng
Message:
And I believe Roger really did see him at a program in the late nineties

Why do you believe that? Where's the evidence? Even Roger concedes that he may have been wrong or may have been wrong about either the person or the year.

But you know nothing about weighing things carefully, do you? Your whole trip is to believe what you want to believe. Evidence? Who needs evidence?

That's a really bad trait you've got, Ger. You should smarten up.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 17:20:48 (GMT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: But Jim ...
Message:
Gerry was praising Charlie's words to MD which include ... for years following your wising up to Maharaji's mortality you continued to assist him in the calculated exploitation of people like myself to continue their deluded lives giving all their spare cash to your boss while knowing there was NO reward for them in either heaven or hell.

Now, I'm not able to say much about that - I always thought the Kid was up to no good. But Gerry's clear he thinks MD spins on this - and it does looks to me as if other folk either agree with the likes of GL and Charlie; or wish to skate over this point.

I accept MD is sincere now. But are you sure the point has really been dealt with? What's your take?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 17:44:04 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: 'But Jim' nothing
Message:
John,

I wasn't commenting at all on Charlie's post. I was commenting on the specific part of Gerry's post whee he now says that he 'believes' Dettmers was lying about being at a program much more recently than he admits. That's all. That's all I was talking about.

Does Dettmers have 'blood on his hands'? I don't know. It's an interesting question. I wonder what HE thinks. Maybe he does in a way. Maybe that's a question for him -- and anyone else who cares -- to wrestle with for years. I don't know. It's a little complex this right-hand man to a cult leader shit. I think that Dettmers would be the first to agree with that.

But is he actually lying about things? No, I don't think so. I think that Mike's trying his best possible to deal with the cult honorably now. He can't undo the past and he well might be at fault for al the things that Charlie describes. I have to think about it more, I think. Or maybe I would need to know more to really have an opinion.

But I don't think that Michael's lying now. I sure couldn't see why he'd do so, if he was. And no, I don't for a moment buy the idea that he might be trying to some how placate us, etc. That theory's got a lot of holes in as far as I can tell.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 17:13:47 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: OK, let's delete that part then...
Message:
I agree in this instance the evidence is only Roger's ID, which we all recognize to be questionable, but not completely worthless, in my opinion. Yes, I do care about evidence, and that's why I take great pains to look into the things that interest or disturb me. And unlike you, I'm willing to entertain non-mainline views. Alternate explanations, if you will, that are not available in the monopoly press.

You seem to have an especially strongly vested interest in believing and touting the establishment concensus. I believe this is a reaction on your part for having been duped and ripped off for such a long time by the 'counter culture.' You will not even consider anything that is not acceptable to the 'powers that be.' This is a shame, a blind spot and one of YOUR great weakness. IMO Jim, YOU better smarten up.

You have a remarkable talent for honing in on the insignificant to ignore the obvious. Dettmers was a crook and he still is a crook. His own words condemn him. How much more evidence do you need for that? You all are tripping over yourselves to kiss his ass. And you Jim, are leading the charge. I say you are being conned--again. I feel sorry for you.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 17:30:37 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: That's one way of looking at it
Message:
You seem to have an especially strongly vested interest in believing and touting the establishment concensus.

I think that's bullshit although I can see how you think that. Mind you, that's all part of your problem, as far as I can tell. You're the one with the bias. You might not be clinically paranoid or paranoid in your dealings with people off-line but you've bought into this paranoid kind of style of approaching issues. You're the one who assumes that there must be something wrong with the general consensus on things. Even the way you try to dismiss it by calling it the 'establishment consensus'. You're the one with the big bias, Ger.

But let's talk specifics. You say that Dettmers is 'conning us or me. How? Come on, spell it out. Not in vague terms but really spell it out. What's the con? The onus is on you.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 17:53:12 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: That's one way of looking at it
Message:
Well, I prefer, 'healthy skepticism' over 'paranoid style' but that's beside the point.

The con is that dettmers knew as early as 1974 that goober was a fraud yet he continued to tout him as something other than a mere mortal. That's a con job.

Dettmers uses his fake degree as part of his qualifications as a 'management consultant.' That's a con job.

I believe his sole motivation for doing what he's doing is purely self-interest. And that his main reason for 'coming clean' is so no further damage will be done to his professional reputation. That's a con job.

He didn't give a damn about the rank and file premies when he was rawat's 'personal manager' and he could care less about ex-premies now.

He's a 'confidence' man through and through, he's certainly gained your confidence. You'll never get me to change my mind on that.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 18:03:45 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: That's it? That's all you got?
Message:
I believe his sole motivation for doing what he's doing is purely self-interest. And that his main reason for 'coming clean' is so no further damage will be done to his professional reputation. That's a con job.

Gerry,

I thought you at least had a theory or something. Some way of seeing all of Dettmers' disclosure as farudulent and offered for some nefarious purpose.

Look, I completely expect that Mike's got several motives for talking with us now and yes, one of them is indeed a desire to not have some angry ex-premie embarrass him to his clients, legal or not. But as I see it that's only one of Mike's motivations and a much smaller one than the desire to actually tel the truth for its own sake, to come clean and try, to some extent anyway, to right some of the wrongs of the past. They were Maharaji's wrongs but Dettmers played along. He realizes that. I think he feels bad about it as well. That's the sense I get from him. Not to say that anything could or should be done about it now other than apologize and try to give the truth soem fresh air.

If that's how Detmmers is conning me, you're right, I'm all for it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 18:31:42 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: What more do you want?
Message:
The guy was clearly lying his ass off for years. He did it for his own profit. He deliberately misled and hurt thousands of people. He's as rotten as goober is, only smarter.

He can go fuck himself.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 18:40:27 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: A lot more than that, I'm afraid
Message:
You said that Dettmers was 'conning' us somehow so I asked you how. It looks like you simply don't have an answer.

And your description of Dettmers' role is inaccurate and misleading. Where in your description of his activities do you factor in the fact that this was a cult, that Dettmers, at least initally, worshipped Mahraji exactly like the rest of us? And where do you mention the obvious confusion and cognitive disssonaance Dettmers must have felt doing what he was doing (for once, that term seems appropriate and not just a fancy way of saying 'confusion')?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 18:55:55 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Get over your fear
Message:
I told you my answer. You just didn't like it.

And show me one shred of evidence of dettmer's 'confusion' once he figured out Rawat was just another 'mere mortal.' Sounds pretty clear-headed to me.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 19:35:39 (GMT)
From: Rick
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: my take
Message:
I read Charlie's post and I've read yours and Jim's exchange. Charlie raised some really good questions and so do you, Gerry. I think Jim is giving Dettmers the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise, and I think that's okay.

The biggest culprit in all of this, right from the start in the early 70's, was a lack of information. Obviously, the more information we get on maharaji, the worse he looks.

But we still have so little information. I don't really care that much if Dettmers is a lying cheat. There's lots of lying cheats and he'd just be one more. If he wasn't a lying cheat, then maybe Bill Patterson was, or David Smith. I'm sure there were a few in there... there always is.

But whatever Dettmers' motivation is, I think he's giving us some credible information. I don't see any particular slant on his accounts of what happened in the upper echelons of the cult. Some of the info is damning, some of it is surprising, but it's all enlightening. And I'm happy to get it.

So, Gerry, you want Dettmers to admit he's a creep? I'll bet he'd do it to a certain extent, wouldn't you? I would. But any admission like that will primarily benefit the creep, to identify and change the way he/she lives. No one's completely clean and I'm sure Dettmers isn't. How unclean is he? Who cares and how much does it really matter? Not that much.

Personally, I'd like to hear more from Dettmers, including more of his personal experience of maharaji as 'enlightened' and/or 'unenlightened'. It also wouldn't hurt to hear to what extent he understands he was deceived, and to what extent he himself participated in deception.

I can't help but think that if Dettmers had never set foot into maharaji's organization that it wouldn't have mattered that much. Everything that transpired still would have happened, basically the same as it did. Dettmers was just a cog, like so many others. There were lots of people standing in line to do exactly what he did, and many were just as ambitious.

What we don't know are a lot of the details about how we were cheated. The more details we get shed light not only on how it happened, but continue to saturate us with the knowledge that we WERE cheated.

I think Dettmers information so far has been helpful, and that we'd benefit from more of it. He hasn't claimed he's done nothing wrong so it's only fair to ask him to continue, without giving him a lot of shit.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 21:21:45 (GMT)
From: And On Anand Ji
Email: and_on_anand@yahoo.com
To: Rick
Subject: * * * Exactly. Thank You Rick * * *
Message:
Very nicely said. While people are framing their 'Hall of Fame' posts from this forum, let us add yours! You speak for me, in your eloquent post. I appreciate what you've said, here.

And On Anand Ji
aka Chris Hafey

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 20:11:20 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Rick
Subject: my take
Message:
OK, Rick. That's legit. I'm really not trying to chase the guy away. I just get this sick feeling in my stomach reading all these fawning posts to this guy. Hell, somebody here's even taken to calling him 'MR.' dettmers.

I'll back off.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 22:29:47 (GMT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: my take,
Message:
Rick's words: It also wouldn't hurt to hear to what extent he
understands he was deceived, and to what extent he himself participated in deception.

Yeah. Really. And I've got a suspicion, no more, that MD never bought it, no more than I did. Could be why he didn't just GET OUT FAST once Rawat's mortality became evident.

But, heh, check all of Rick's post if THAT thought makes you feel ill.

Like, so what?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 23:13:52 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: my take,
Message:
I hear ya John, I think. The 'so what if he is a liar and a cheat' does bother me on a second, more careful reading of Rick's post. Are we THAT hungry for information that we must kow-tow to another con man?

I hope I'm understanding you correctly here, it was a little tough to get the gist of your post. Could you clarify it a bit if I haven't?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 14:09:20 (GMT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: take two
Message:
Hi Gerry,

I'm afraid you read my meaning OK.

It seems to me the worst case scenario (if one is taking an ethical viewpoint) is that MD never fell for the Kid's spiel. I think it's a possibility, and one that does not seem to do violence to the facts as we know them, and the circumstances at the time. For example, MD came along after Bob Mishler and rather stepped into his shoes. Should I believe that MD had no interest in his predecessor's thoughts and perceptions? That seems unlikely to me. MD does not come over as so arrogant!

Nor has MD spoken of any epiphany or Damascene conversion. By itself that means little -- many people experienced a 'drip, drip, drip' of experiences that eventually eroded their beliefs. But MD has not spoken of any experiences like THAT either, right?

So maybe he never believed in Rawat's divinity. Like I say, I'm deliberately waving the 'worst case' scenario around here.

But now he's here, and he's talking frankly and reasonably about stuff. Perhaps he was a cynical and aware operative for a false messiah. Perhaps (I really don't know) he was such, but foolishly thought some general or personal good could come out of playing the role he was offered. Maybe, for whatever reason, he was blind to the harm the organisation did to its ah, clients.

So, lots of questions about just what kind of guy MD was. Even so, now, the way I see it, MD's words are helping folk straighten out stuff that has bedevilled them for years. That is a Good Thing.

It's a wicked world of shades of grey, Gerry. But, you've probably noticed that already.

Even if we are right, MD's contribution here is of value, and it's in ex's best self-interest that we should treat him with civility.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 23:37:19 (GMT)
From: Rick
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: my take,
Message:
Gerry,
I just wanna know more, as much as possible about what the guru did, what he understood, and when those things took place (the things we didn't get to see). I'm not willing to kiss anyone's ass or compromise what I think is right, to get it.

On the other hand, I don't get the feeling that Dettmers is being defensive. His posts, as of late, have been pretty matter-of-fact; he calls it a cult and that automatically includes deception.

Give the guy a chance. You've got nothing to lose. Everything that was stolen was spent a long time ago (meaning it's gone, you're not getting it back... even Marianne's grandmother's watch).

So roughing up one of the lesser defendants won't get you much. Think of it like you're the black guy on the TV show, Homicide. You make the suspect comfortable, get him a coke, say you're a Mets fan too, and get him to tell you all about it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 01:31:30 (GMT)
From: a0aji
Email: None
To: Rick
Subject: :) nicely said -nt-
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 19:07:44 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: Get over your fear
Message:
I told you my answer. You just didn't like it.

No you didn't. I asked you to specify how Dettmers was conning us. All you came up with was a possible 'motive' for him doing so ('self interest' as you put it). But you never explained the supposed con itself. Did you?

And show me one shred of evidence of dettmer's 'confusion' once he figured out Rawat was just another 'mere mortal.' Sounds pretty clear-headed to me.

Dettmers has talked about this a couple of times. His realization that Maharaji wasn't divine didn't happen cleanly, all at once. It didn't happen that way for anyone I know of, PAM or grunt. Did it happen for YOU that way? Well same goes for Dettmers.


Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 20:02:25 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: That's fucking weak
Message:
Dettmers has talked about this a couple of times. His realization that Maharaji wasn't divine didn't happen cleanly, all at once. It didn't happen that way for anyone I know of, PAM or grunt. Did it happen for YOU that way? Well same goes for Dettmers.

He realized rawat was a 'mere mortal' in 1974. And he continued to misrepresent him for YEARS afterwards. What part of THAT don't you understand.

So he was a con man then, but he's not now? Look at his resume again.

PS I hard a real hard time ever believing the divinity thing. I thought it was all about 'realizing god' ala Yogananda. I bailed when I found out it was something else. Not that I understood it all back then, but I just wasn't getting what I signed up for.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 20:52:10 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: Hardly
Message:
He realized rawat was a 'mere mortal' in 1974. And he continued to misrepresent him for YEARS afterwards. What part of THAT don't you understand.

He explained that process which isn't really surprising in the circumstances. You must not have noticed but he explained it. I'm sure he could explain it all further but I think the bottom line has to be that Dettmers was confused about Maharaji as were we all for years. That doesn't make him a liar. Was Dettmers uncompromising and unflinchingly brave in his pursuit of the truth no matter the consequences? No, of course not. He was in a cult.

So he was a con man then, but he's not now? Look at his resume again.

You're so full of shit sometimes! How you get from Dettmers relating to Maharaji as he did, worshipping him as divine at times yet treating him as some sort of vaguely 'advanced' mortal at others, a state of confusion more than anything else, to him, Dettmers, being a 'con' is beyond me.

You sound as if you have no sense of proportionality. And the way you use the resume-adding is an example of that. Was Dettmers forthright and honest about his past on his resume? No. Does that make him a 'con'? Yeah, right. Tell me, Ger, have you ever fudged a resume at all? Do you think that everyone who's ever done so is a 'con'? Now you sound like Mike calling anyone who's taken an extra ketchup from McDonalds a 'criminal'. Be reasonable, please.

PS I hard a real hard time ever believing the divinity thing. I thought it was all about 'realizing god' ala Yogananda. I bailed when I found out it was something else. Not that I understood it all back then, but I just wasn't getting what I signed up for.

Okay, this is great. You now say that you had a hard time 'ever believing the divinity thing.' So if were to find some satsang letter you wrote when you were a premie, listen to some miraculously found tape of you giving satsang then, say one existed, would we or would we not hear you support the 'divinity thing'? And if we did, given your frank admission today that you never really bought into it, would that make you a 'con'?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 21:33:56 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: dettmers the confidence man
Message:
Sorry, I'm unshakeable about this. He knew it was a scam and continued to support it. I sensed it was a scam and bailed out. Sure, it took some time to get over it, but not that long. But then I didn't have a cushy job in the cult and I didn't get out with a golden parachute.

If I had actually promoted rawat as divine when I knew he was a mere mortal, yes, I'd be a con man too. And no, I have never fudged on a resume. Look I'm not trying to set myself up as a paragon of honesty here, I've taken that extra package of ketchup myself, but we are talking about a decades long pattern of deliberate deception.

OK, dettmers is smart and glib, I'll give him that. But I'd say he's demonstrated a willingness to deceive others for his own benefit and financial gain. My main point is that while he may be handing us some juicy tidbits, I don't trust him and take everything he says with a grain of salt like I would any other confidence man. Shit, it's not like he was the only one and I do give him credit for at least participating in the dialog here.

But he just can't stay at my house, either.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 00:38:04 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: I guess you just had to be there
Message:
Sorry, I'm unshakeable about this. He knew it was a scam and continued to support it. I sensed it was a scam and bailed out. Sure, it took some time to get over it, but not that long.

Unshakeable? That's funny. You're normally so open-minded. But anyway, you just don't know what it was like then, Ger. I think it's fair to say that you were only involved in the cult in a much simpler time. Everything was unqualified over-the-top proclamations and promises. There were no gray zones.

But things really changed in '75, '76. We started having several layers to choose from. Sure, the subtextual foundation to everything was that Maharaji was divine but we started getting fuzzier and fuzzier direction about how to think about that. And, because we were in a cult, we depended on that direction. The upshot is that we were all succumbing to some weird hypocrises and murky, mental compromises. It wasn't just the PAMs, it was all of us. What else explains the way we shrugged off so many so-called 'Hindu concepts' only to grab them right back in '77? Truth is, we didn't know what to think.

Dettmers shared in that confusion just like the rest of us. Your effort to tar him with the same brush as the cult leader as exploitative doesn't ring true to me. It simply doesn't fit. What likely happened is that Dettmers, like the rest of us, saw discrepencies between Maharaji's image and the actual person behind that image. Sounds like he saw more serious and numerous ones than most premies. But he still had the same cult conditioning that prevented him from thinking it through bravely, independently and clearly.

I think the real measure of the man has to take into account all that stuff which you seem to almost relish ignoring.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 01:57:09 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: OK, I'll buy that.
Message:
And I do appreciate what dettmers has brought to the table and laud him for whatever courage it might have taken to do so.

I'll not disparage him further. I'll be looking foward to reading any futures posts of his with the appropriate relish and hopefully, an open mind.

That was a nicely stated post, btw.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 02:36:39 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: Sold! (nt)
Message:
ddddddd
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 10:49:17 (GMT)
From: EddyTheTurtle
Email: None
To: Michael Dettmers
Subject: Aubrey West
Message:
I met Aubrey West once. A remarkable man by any standards. He was the father of Julia West, the girlfriend of Charles Cameron when charles first took big K.

Julia is one of the sweetest woman you could ever imagine meeting. Very inteligent, half european/asian, beautifull both physically and spiritualy (just shows how dumm Charles was in dropping her)...

Last I heard of Julia she was living with a heroin addict and had a major, major heroin problem..I dont know how she is now...But I wondered if M helped her during that time..after all her Dad Aubrey really did alot for M...Did M ever call Julia to find out how she was...did he invite her to his mansion in Malibu...did he tell her he will look after her???

What a beautifull Soul, hope she is ok now....Julia..if you are reading this...Hi...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 14:57:08 (GMT)
From: Susan
Email: None
To: EddyTheTurtle
Subject: there was a woman who looked like this Julian
Message:
could you have forgotten the 'n' or are they two different people?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 15:22:14 (GMT)
From: EddyTheTurtle
Email: None
To: Susan
Subject: It is Julian
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 09:03:28 (GMT)
From: janet
Email: None
To: Michael Dettmers
Subject: Response to Part II
Message:
thank you michael. most edifying.

you know, it strikes me, here, that our outrage, at least on US soil, seems to conform to some kind of an absorbed understanding of what is considered legally decent in America, in the eyes of the public and the IRS.

Reading your clarification of what the IRS had legally codified as acceptable for a minister of a church, it strikes me that a minister is expected to serve a being higher than himself(i.e., God,) and to endeavor to serve his congregation as an example of his understanding. Hence, the modest furnishings, house, more average car, etc, that the IRS, the public and the laws delineated as appropriate.

But here we have an individual who clearly considers no one and nothing to be above himself. He feels himself to be the purpose and the recipient of all service, having absolute authority and total obediance.

Not the image of humble dedication the public expects of a minister. One has to conclude he is no minister, and he serves no God, perhaps doesnt even cotton to the notion of there being a God. It would seem by behavior that he really moves through the world in the sense that he is the unchallenged, highest being and that all exists to serve him. I am surprised that the IRS didn't think it strange that the minister of a church would be the recipient of such 'gifts' as would allow him to own a hilltop mansion in malibu, a rolls-royce, a motorhome and all the other lavish appointments he enjoyed at the time they came in to do the audit.

In light of the scandals that went through the more flamboyant ministries in America, later in the 80's--the Oral Roberts campaign to raise millions of dollars 'or God was gonna call him home'; the wretched excesses of Jim and Tammy Faye Baker, televised direct from their sumptuous living room, bought and paid for by the donations of the faithful, et al;...one has to wonder how Maharaji escaped the dragnet.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 07:22:15 (GMT)
From: Rob
Email: None
To: Michael Dettmers
Subject: Extremely interesting - thank you Michael
Message:
I will have a few comments to make if, but it is late now so I'll leave that until tomorrow.

I do appreciate all the work this must have taken to put together. It's like layers of mystique are being peeled away. Keep up the good work.

Rob

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 05:25:09 (GMT)
From: And On Anand Ji
Email: and_on_anand@yahoo.com
To: Michael Dettmers
Subject: Response to Joe, Janet and Rob - Part II
Message:
That was a great post, Mr. Dettmers. Thank you for that, and for all that it took to make that possible (well, in recent times, anyway! :)

A few words about the Active Membership Program would be interesting. Also, I have questions about the details wrt the immediate next part in the narrative of these matters, where there is clearly and legally no longer any Church.

What entities were there, instead? What were they, if not Churches? What was Elan Vital and/or DLM after that audit? What was Maharaji then, if not a Church Minister, under the law? What is he now, under the law?

Is Elan Vital, today, essentially what it once was (in terms of status as a Church or other entity) during your time?

I'm not looking for specific answers to any individual question here; just as a whole, if you can synthesize your response to the things I've inquired about into a narrative (just as you've done) that would be, I think, an interesting narrative!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 05:29:47 (GMT)
From: And On Anand Ji
Email: and_on_anand@yahoo.com
To: Mr. Dettmers
Subject: To M. Dettmers from AOA Ji Please Read
Message:
Dear Mr. Dettmers -

I realized after I posted the above, that it wasn't addressed to you in the title. Above, please find the same post, quoted. Thank you.

-And On Anand Ji
aka Chris Hafey

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 01:53:52 (GMT)
From: suchabanana
Email: None
To: Michael Dettmers
Subject: women in charge of EV now, but where did money go?
Message:
Michael:

Where did all the contributions go, both within DLM-EVI: proportionately, and the expenses, transfers, accounts for m. There was $100 million raised in 1982, for example, right?

What about the setup of offshoot premie (or other) corps. benefitting m. and rajaji?

How about monthly personal checks to m.? any royalties?

The nitty gritty r.e. Malibu residence purchase by Seva (or its antecedent) in 1978? the various residences in UK and Australia? How many residences, cars, vehicles, aircraft, hi-tech stuff and value? Servants, employees?

Monthly m. expenses from the non-profit org.?

Actual purpose of Seva and the marine companies?

Doobies and drinks? Monica Lewis?

Nuts and bolts -- that concern a lot of contributors and other folks.

Thanks,

Peace,

suchabanana

PS Now, hard-ass women run EVI; same thing...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 00:37:59 (GMT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Michael Dettmers
Subject: Small question
Message:
Thank you Michael, that was very informative and helpful. I have a couple of additional questions, however. You said:

Clever argument, and I realize that in the USA the IRS, and most of government in general, doesn't want to get near a religion and make waves because of the Constitutional protections and the controversy, but didn't the IRS note the problem that many of us, when we made checks out to 'Guru Maharaj Ji' (prior to about 1976, I know I did) deducted the donations from our taxes, because, to us, there was no, (and in fact legally there wasn't any) distinction between DLM and Maharaji, and he was, in effect a religion? If you separated the two donations, one being tax-deductible and other other not, did the IRS ever suggest that it might be owed some back taxes, in that the donators didn't pay taxes on the money and neither did Maharaji because they were 'gifts?'

I also realize that donations were therafter handled this way. Donations to Elan Vital were tax deductible, but donations to Maharaji were not. Nevertheless, DLM and Elan Vital continued to SOLICIT donations from premies to Maharaji individually, using DLM and Elan Vital resources (including initiators, and ME as a coordinator for Elan Vital), using tax deductible donations for that purpose. I guess the IRS didn't have a problem with that either?

On a related note, I recall that in the ashrams we were told, many of us, not to have federal income taxes withheld, because we were exempt, being that we were monastics of a religion. Of course, that was later disallowed, and we had to pay back those taxes.

In the meantime, Maharaji was busy consolidating his base. He moved with avengence to un-do all of our efforts to present his as a humanitarian leader by making it abundantly clear to all premies that knowledge and devotion to Maharaji were inseparable

Well, he surely did. With a vengence, for at least the next 6 years, if not longer, to the point where Maharaji actually changed his message drastically and literally, from practicing knowledge for God-realization and peace, to devotion and worship of him as the very purpose of our lives. More than being merely 'inseparable', devotion became vastly superior and more important than knowledge, according to what Maharaji preached for at least the next 6 years.

I guess part of my question was: do you think Maharaji overdid all the 'devotion' business beginning in 1976, which he clearly did (to the point where he now has to try to lie about it), because he was freaked by almost being thrown out of his Malibu mansion and cutting back on his lifestyle and control?

Also, Maharaji clearly cooperated with the 'toned-down' Summer tour in 1976. Did he just go along with it, and why did he if he wasn't into the 'humanitarian leader' business?

Thanks again,

Joe

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 11:41:45 (GMT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Small question
Message:
I guess part of my question was: do you think Maharaji overdid all the 'devotion' business beginning in 1976, which he clearly did (to the point where he now has to try to lie about it), because he was freaked by almost being thrown out of his Malibu mansion and cutting back on his lifestyle and control?

Don't mean to butt in here, Joe, but I think that is THE question. Michael can only give a personal opinion on this, but I think it's pretty obvious that the answer is 'yes'! How could it be otherwise, given the circumstances? The fatboy just bugged when his trusted servants were threatening to take away all that he cherished and valued above all else, including those who served him most untiringly, the fat fuck. What a scumbag!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 00:44:29 (GMT)
From: Susan
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: yes, Joe again, I would love to hear your answers
Message:
to those questions.

I wonder how many other people, besides Rawat, can get people to send them money, sign over trust funds, deeds, make him part owner of businesses, all for just 'being'.

For example, I do not think Jim and Tammy Faye Baker at any point could have said, we want an Aston Martin, and a jet, and could you send checks to us, made out to Jim and Tammy Faye, so we can have what we want.

It is so bizarre now, to even think about all these people sending him money because they think he is, the Perfect Master.

Weird weird weird.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 00:25:23 (GMT)
From: Susan
Email: None
To: Michael Dettmers
Subject: really interesting
Message:
and it does explain a lot of what trickled down to us peons. Michael have you read the Mishler interview posted on ex.premie.org recently? I think you find it interesting. I sense that Mishler also came to have a friendship type relationship with the guru, and a time after that when the guru backed away from this friendship. Yet, I am sure, that makes sense, because Mishler was trying to take away M's family home, the Malibu residence, and that must have been incredibly threatening to him. There is a part in the interview where Mishler describes M crying on his shoulder.

I would like to know, if you ever at any instance saw M express any doubts about his 'divinity' to you. Did he ever express any remorse about anything, or hurting anyone, ever? The Mishler interview, as I recall it, makes it appear Rawat went along with the humanitarian leader routine until it threatened him financially, and actually, what you are saying fits with that. I just wonder if Rawat ever verbalized a 'conciousness of guilt'.

Like Jim, I think it must have been terribly bizarre, to sing arti, kiss his feet, work out his finances, and smoke doobies with him. It is amazing all you guys didn't crash and burn. Do you recall how you coped and what you thought? How you rationalized things?

Compartmentalization? Lila? maya? test of faith?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 00:41:32 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Susan
Subject: really interesting is right
Message:
...Like Jim, I think it must have been terribly bizarre, to sing arti, kiss his feet, work out his finances, and smoke doobies with him. It is amazing all you guys didn't crash and burn. Do you recall how you coped and what you thought? How you rationalized things?

Compartmentalization? Lila? maya? test of faith?

How 'bout 'deliberate co-conspirator?'

Or maybe con-man-in-training for a 'management consultant' business with a matchbook degree from Kennedy-Western?

The gushing over this dude reminds me of a certain group of gullible hippies in the seventies...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 00:56:33 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: Gullible? Did anyone say 'gullible'?
Message:
What was that you were saying about Waco, Ger?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 01:03:24 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Wanna debate Waco?
Message:
I suppose you accept the government's whitewash, right?

So tell me, what books, videos, lectures, etc have you studied, before we begin.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 01:24:43 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: There's nothing to debate
Message:
I haven't 'studied' anything. I followed the recent litigation that threw the anti-government conspiracy buffs' case out on its ass. That's enough for me.

Should be enough for you too unless, of course, you've got evidence that the judge and jury who found for the government were pawns or dupes of the Great World-Wide Conspiracy.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 03:36:53 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Yeah, you're right, there all dead anyway
Message:
Actually the case was initiated by relatives of the victims.

Such inflammatory rhetoric, James.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 04:27:56 (GMT)
From: Bad Taste Tom
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: Waco
Message:
Q: How many Branch Davidians can you fit in a Volkswagen Beetle?

A: 87 (Two in the front seat, two in the back seat and 83 in the ash tray).

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 12:30:08 (GMT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Bad Taste Tom
Subject: Waco
Message:
That really is bad, BT. But like lots of 'bad taste' jokes, fucking funny.

Loved it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 21:21:47 (GMT)
From: Bad Taste Tom
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: Thank you, it's nice to be appreciated (nt)
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 00:45:28 (GMT)
From: Susan
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: Hi sweetie (nt)
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 23:39:40 (GMT)
From: Bill Burke
Email: None
To: Michael Dettmers
Subject: Response to Joe, Janet and Rob - Part II
Message:
Thanks for that Michael,
Did you come into the consulting business by meeting Jim Emerson and his business of restructureing companies that were not profitable or not as profitable as they could be.

He came to DECA and made changes and bad mouthed Jim Hession and his staff, and Jim Hessions response was that the lord had personally directed him to do what he did.
And also, that the lord kept wanting all the money that would come in and have it put towards his desires. So, DECA was not in good shape when Jim E arrived.

Jim H. would call prem 'father' and when he would be in the deca large shop, prem would be standing at the table in the center of the room looking over papers and Jim would be kneeling beside him. Any comments you would like to make about DECA and Jim E or Jim H?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 04:30:13 (GMT)
From: Comment
Email: None
To: Bill Burke
Subject: Response to Joe, Janet and Rob - Part II
Message:
Jim Hession was mentally ill.

Jim Emerson was on a HUGE ego trip most of the time.

DECA was a hell-hole, slave camp.

Nuf said.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 23:31:50 (GMT)
From: Salam
Email: None
To: Michael Dettmers
Subject: May I say.
Message:
This is all very good stuff. Would it not be a good idea if you put all this stuff together and send to FA/JMK to have a special section on the ex-premie site, instead of it being spread out on the forum?

Tell us more.

Oh by the by, do you still meditate. What do you think of no-lije?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 23:17:54 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Michael Dettmers
Subject: Thanks for explaining all that, Mike
Message:
Mike, could you comment, please, on how Mishler, in particular, reconciled whatever residual faith he had in Maharaji's divinity with the prospect that he was 'out of control'. Did you guys ever talk about that? It sounds as if the more time people spent with Maharaji, the more that Three-O mystique (omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient) got back-burnered.

In a way, life was much simple for us troops in the field, wasn't it?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 23:50:28 (GMT)
From: Rick
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Thanks for explaining all that, Mike
Message:
Once again some very juicy material. Based on this account, maharaji had some leadership skills and was also clever.

He acted decisively when faced with apparent impending doom by not flinching, and he came up with a resource to resolve the adversity. At the same time, he was consistent with his earlier claims to being the Lord.

Although informative, none of this is surprising. But it does shed light under the facade that ordinary premies were only allowed to see.

The cornerstone that would be even more interesting is when maharaji shut down the Western ashrams, eliminated satsang by premies, and changed his tune about being the Lord.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 23:32:27 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Oh yeah, and how about YOU?
Message:
Mike,

Did you ever think that all of the business affairs that you handled for Maharaji were nothing more than 'lila'? Did you ever think, for example, that, while you had to play the role with a straight face, that it was really just that, a game, and that Maharaji could and would engineer whatever outcome he wanted, if and when he wanted?

And did you and your fellow PAMs ever talk about this supposedly cosmic nature of Maharaji, his ability to turn the world upside down and paint everyone blue (not unless he really wanted to, of course)?

And what ABOUT Maharaji's promise to bring peace to the world, as evidenced by a million satsangs and matters such as Millenium, the Peace Bomb or the DUO Proclamation? Did you guys ever talk about THAT goal, THAT objective and if and when it'd ever be realized?

I guess what I'm wondering about is what you all thought and talked about back when you still thought that Maharaji was the Lord but still had to deal with all these worldly affairs for him?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 20:35:13 (GMT)
From: Susan
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Guru Cult: the Experience
Message:
from a thread down below: to Michael Eisner

if Michael you do decide to Produce 'Darshan Dreams' maybe you could spin it of at Walt Disneyworld with 'Guru Cult: the EXPERIENCE'
I am not sure it would be an e ticket though. well, maybe..

The guests can queue through a Darshan tunnel, smell gardenia blossoms, walk on a soft carpet, and then 'kiss' the feet as someone whisks them away. The cast members can play all the essential roles, security ( I think that you could make a dress code exception and let them have mustaches for the theme )It works too because the line becomes part of the ride. Just as it was. Cool huh?

I think after the guest kisses the feet he should drop down a big tunnel, ( sort of like being John Malkovitch) and then get to be Michael Dettmers! Suddenly you are now in the Divine Living Room toking with the Lord! Peter Frampton is blasting. But your seat is really a roller coaster.....and next you are sent a the speed of light ( light!!!) through a giant roller coaster....along the way you see scary things Mahatmas, Joan Apter, David Smith, rotting vegetables...this part is like Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory's boat ride...or the scene in the Wizard of Oz where the house is spinning

Holi! yes, it is a WATER ride....the guest is then blasted with perfumed colored water to the theme 'Do Ya think I'm Sexy' after you go by the Animatronic guru with a water gun and get squirted

the finale will be ALA Splash Mountain as your SWAN car goes down a flume of colored water and you land softly on a big Lotus Flower!

Well, get back to me Michael. I think it would be quite a ride.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 21:02:32 (GMT)
From: Cynthia
Email: None
To: Susan
Subject: Guru Cult: the Experience
Message:
Hi Susan,

Speaking of Holi, you reminded me of a DECA experience right before holi when goomraji decided to test out his water guns.

All the premies at the complex were blissed out (such an opportunity), but m aimed the water gun directly at one woman who was knocked against the building and hurt her back quite badly. When she related this story to me a few years ago, I asked her if M had seen what he had done and she said yes, but didn't even stop to ask if she was okay.

He's a sadist too. But, that would be a great element to your movie.

Cynthia

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 10:43:27 (GMT)
From: DeProGram Anand Ji
Email: not given
To: everyone
Subject: Guru Cult: the Experience/ The movie
Message:
All kidding aside, a think a movie that captures the DLM/Cult experience is viable concept for a good script writer. There was such a movie in the early 80's called ' Pennies From Heaven ' which depicted the one man's experience with the Rev. Sung Young Moons cult. It showed their recruiting methods and the efforts of the recruits familiy and friends to abduct and deprogram him. They still show this movie frequently on BRAVO an independent film channel. 3 *** stars and a thumbs up for this film!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Nov 02, 2000 at 04:07:10 (GMT)
From: Marianne
Email: None
To: DeProGram Anand Ji
Subject: The movie
Message:
The movie was called Ticket to Heaven. It is about Ford Greene, a law school classmate of mine. His law practice is devoted to anti cult cases.

Marianne

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 23:41:46 (GMT)
From: Disculta
Email: None
To: Cynthia
Subject: Yup, I was there too,
Message:
and I was quite scared of those intense guns, so close. I remember that sista who got hurt, and I had a 'divine experience' that same day. He knocked my camisole off! The water was so intense that it knocked off whatever I was wearing on top (remember this is Miami, in summer!). I'm quite sure he didn't mean to do it (although I thought so at the time) but I can attest to the very macho quality of those Holi games, and how scary they were if you were up close.

I had completely forgotten about this until I read the above. The kicker is that I thought it was incredible divine grace (a la sexy lila) that MJ removed my clothing with his 'gun.'

Does this seem sick to anyone?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 01:38:35 (GMT)
From: Gail
Email: None
To: Disculta
Subject: Yup, I was there too,
Message:
It pales in comparison to the brain rape you were subjected to.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 03:15:41 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Disculta
Subject: I can't answer that without pictures (nt) :)
Message:
dddd
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 18:01:21 (GMT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Strategic Voting Continued -- an Update (ot)
Message:
Okay, so all you potential Nader-voters, the California poll that just came out today shows Gore ahead of Bush by 10 points. So, I'm beginning to think it's safe to plan to vote for Nader again, although over the weekend I saw a Bush ad on television (white innocently watching the Raiders game). It made me want to gag, but I doubt Bush would be spending the money if he didn't think he had a chance here.

Has anyone visited one of those vote-swapping sites? They are kind of cool. The one I saw connects up Gore voters in states where Gore is either way ahead, like Massachusetts or New York, or states where he can't win, like Texas, with Nader voters in swing states, like Wisconsin and Oregon. I idea is that people agree to switch their votes, depending on where they live. The goal is to get Gore elected, but get the Greens the 5% they need or matching funds.

I shared a couple of emails with a woman from Austin, Texas, who wants me to agree to vote for Gore in California, and in exchange she will vote for Nader in Texas. Of course, to do this, I need to consider California a 'swing state' and I'm not sure it is.

I site I visited said they had facilitated the swap of 2,000 votes. Has anyone done this?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 17:19:22 (GMT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Update on Nadertrader.com website (nt)
Message:
The California attorney general today banned that website, saying it violates California election laws. So much for that idea.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 18:10:20 (GMT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Sorry (again) above should be 'ot' (nt)
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 22:03:02 (GMT)
From: Steven Quint
Email: sequint@home.com
To: Everyone
Subject: Some Thoughts On The U.S. Constitution
Message:
It's not my habit to give my opinion on U.S. government in public, but what the hell.

The Americans amended their constitution in 1947 (22nd Amendment) to disallow a president to serve for more than two terms.

This is a paradox. The best man shall not always win if he has already served for eight years.

I am not a constitutional scholar but I do know that there is something called 'Murphy's Law' - when there is even one flaw in something it is likely to cause problems - maybe big ones.

The reality is a lot more complex that this, but it is relevant in that a similar situation exists in the separation of 'church and state'. The U.S. spends billions on education and has a standard curriculum in its public schools. University education is also standardized to some degree. For example someone trained as a doctor in New York should be able to practice medicine in California the same way as a doctor trained in that state. But the so-called separation of church and state seems to imply that a body registered as a church can teach people, often of school age, anything they want to even if it contradicts the education promoted so diligently in the massive public school system.

This is obviously a big topic, but the U.S. is clearly not as advanced a country as I once thought. There are fundamental serious flaws in their system which are not being addressed as far as I know.

Steve

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 22:22:10 (GMT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Steven Quint
Subject: Not Sure what you mean
Message:
The Americans amended their constitution in 1947 (22nd Amendment) to disallow a president to serve for more than two terms.

Yes, the impetus behind this was that Roosevelt was elected to four terms and served all but the last third of his fourth term because he died in office. I think Americans have a bias against kings, and if someone is in office too long, it starts to look like that. Often the best man doesn't win, but that isn't necessarily because of limits on terms.

Speaking from my populist bias, I think the amendment was passed because Roosevelt inspired so many people to turn out and vote who never had before, that he developed an almost inpregnable base as these people had almost a religious faith and support for Roosevelt. The US has seen nothing like it since.

And the corporate power structure hated Roosevelt. They have undone and are still trying to undo some of the things he did, like social security, labor laws, banking regulation etc. Anyhow, I think that amendment was directed toward somebody like Roosevelt and trying to prevent that from happening again, in my opinion.

The highest voter turnouts this century were in the 30s and 40s and have been on a downward slide ever since. I think the corporate power structure is quite happy with low voter turn-out.

For example someone trained as a doctor in New York should be able to practice medicine in California the same way as a doctor trained in that state. But the so-called separation of church and state seems to imply that a body registered as a church can teach people, often of school age, anything they want to even if it contradicts the education promoted so diligently in the massive public school system.

It isn't the education that allows someone to practice as a doctor, it's the license they get from the state. For doctors, they have to go to a certified medical school, certified by the state as providing the appropriate courses, whether the school is sponsored by a religious institution or not. So, they can't just 'teach anything they want.' They have to meet the state-mandated requirements for curriculum.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 07:52:04 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Not Sure what you mean
Message:
Joe, Steve:

Not that I'm going to convince anyone, but I subscribe to Louis O. Kelso's explanation of the FDR presidency, and the 'welfare state.' That is, rather than relinquish their share of power the people who ran the country decided it would be better to give up two-thirds of their wealth. They begrudged it, and were never completely of one mind to be sure, and have been attempting to take back as much as possible since Eisenhower. But basically, if you don't have in place a means for broad and diverse [private] control of capital then you have to have some sort of redistributive system because, comparitively speaking, labor is just not able to keep up either in terms of productivity or income production. (To this extent, I agree with Marx, except that state control of capital is still narrow control.)

Rather than give up their share in the control of capital they chose to give up income through a system of redistribution. Thus, something like 5% of the population still controls 95% of the capital, a sytem that we misconstrue as 'capitalism.' Kelso called it 'divine right of kings, American style.' In a nutshell, that's what the welfare state is all about. Ultimately we'll have to decide to end poverty, rather than just ameliorate it's effects.

BTW, I originally thought I'd do my dissertation on the work ethic and read part of the huge volume of correspondence that was sent to FDR during the early days of the depression. Some of it is quite heart wrenching. One guy, bless his heart, had a cure for Dutch Elm Disease and felt that application of the cure would employ a large number of people and would save the shade trees in the US. Don't know if it would have worked, but the Elms are all gone so I guess they never tried. A few letters were pleas for help, but the majority were offers to help, letters of support, etc. You're right in the assessment that FDR had a very deep following, and almost religious support.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 21:30:45 (GMT)
From: Robyn
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Strategic Voting Continued -- an Update (ot)
Message:
Hi Joe,
I am from PA, a republican state and I have been going back and forth about voting for Nader anyway. Hadn't heard of those vote swapping sites. Don't know if I trust enough to do that, could be Bush voters masqurading. :) I am leaning toward just voting for Nader anyway. Guess I won't know for sure until the moment.
I am working on becoming a CA citizen but it won't happen before 11/4! :) If I do we'll have to get together again sometime.
Love,
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 01:58:59 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Robyn
Subject: I've seen PA shown as a swing state (nt)
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 21:15:16 (GMT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: G
Subject: Bush Strategy??
Message:
I have a hard time understanding what Bush is doing spending precious time and money in California, unless he feels he has to. Maybe it's the following:

The latest poll shows Gore 11 points ahead in Florida. Amazing. This was not even supposed to competetive and Bush felt he could win Texas and Florida and win without California and New York. Is Bush writing Florida off? Well, if he does that, he is in trouble, because it is very hard to see how Bush can win the electoral college without Florida. If he doesn't win Florida, and Gore wins California, Bush would probably have to carry all three of the states of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Missouri.

Bush is leading by a couple of points in Missouri, but Gore is 3 points ahead in Pennsylvania and one point ahead in Michigan. So, could it be that Bush has decided it is easier to try to win California than to get back Florida? I wonder.

But I don't think he has a prayer of winning California, although he could make it closer. Bush is anti-choice and CA is fiercely pro-choice. The last time an anti-choice candidate won a state wide election was 12 years ago (that was Bush's father) and in 1998 the anti-choice republican candidate for governor only got 38% of the vote.

Plus, Bush is in favor of the idiotic idea of school vouchers. There is a voucher plan on the California ballot which is losing by over 20 points. (By the way, there is a much more moderate one on the Michigan ballot which is also losing by 20 points.) These are very unpopular positions, about which the electorate is very informed. And then there is the Bush environmental record. I just don't think he has any chance of doing it. But maybe he feels he has to because he is losing in Florida. Or maybe he just has unlimited money.

I understand Gore is taking no chances and is here today and that Clinton is going to campaign for him later this week. Meanwhile, Gore is in Florida and Bush is not. Hmmm.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 17:06:10 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: G
Subject: More thoughts on strategy and tactics.
Message:
G:

There's an important Senate race in Michigan that may bring Gore voters to the polls. I have to say though, I've been watching Gore to see if he presents anything that I consider interesting or worthy of my vote and I find almost nothing. The guy has to stop and reflect three or four times before completing a simple sentence, and I get this very powerful sense that he really doesn't give a damn about any of these issues he's trying so hard to sound passionate about. If Gore has anything going for him it's probably the last minute fear many people will have in the voting booth when confronted with the prospect of a fundamental change in leadership that might derail this economic gravy train we've been on. Ultimately it may be a conservative vote for Gore that pulls it out for him, and Bush has positioned himself all wrong to counter this last moment of indecision. The more I see of Gore though, the less I'm impressed with him. Geez, what a muck-up. I almost think it's worth putting up with Bush for 4 years just to get to the point where we have some kind of intelligent choice for president someday. (May not work anyway, though. See below.)

The vote-swapping thing is interesting, but I agree with Robyn that it's easily exploited. The bottom line is that there's approximately zero chance of ever having a powerful Green party that does anything other than 'spoil' in key races. They're going to have to sacrifice one or two election cycles anyway, in order to have any impact. If that is unacceptable to Nader voters then it makes little sense to 'build' for the future by voting 'tactically,' unless they hope to spoil a future election in a bigger way. There's some logic to that...

Let's say they got 5% in this election without causing Gore to lose, so they qualify for federal matching. They might aim for 15-20% in the next election, in order to give the presidency to the Republican nominee in 2004 so as to move the Democrats decisively in their direction on key issues, and then join ranks with the Ds in 2008. That's asking a great deal of a Green voter's sense of strategy, but ultimately it has to come down to something like that.

The problem with being a spoiler with only 5% of the vote in 2000 is that you present the Ds with the dilemma of moving away from the center and toward the left for the sake of that 5%, which may not be a net gain for them if they lose moderate votes to the Rs. In other words, without gaining upwards of 15% of the vote they may not move the Democrats anyway, in which case the spoiler strategy is valueless. And as for a Green Party candidate ever being elected, that's just plain fantasy, unless there's a civil war or something.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 19:02:54 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: the issues, Nader on Roe vs. Wade
Message:
What Gore presents are his stands on the issues, which are much better than Bush's stands. It's the issues that matter to me, not whether Gore walks like he's got inflexible clothes on nor a perception that he's passionless. What matters is the decisions he would make as president, not whether he 'gives a damn' about his decisions. It's results I'm looking for, not emotions. I've never seen him stop and reflect four times before completing a sentence, and 'muck-up' sounds meaningless. A Bush presidency would be more than just something to put up with, real damage would be done to peoples' lives. The idea of giving the presidency to the Republicans in order to move the Democrats to the left makes no sense to me.

Regarding the abortion issue, Nader said

'Even if Roe vs. Wade is reversed, that doesn't end it. It just reverts it back to the states.'

(see Democrats Ask Nader to Back Gore in Swing States)

That sounds like a conservative talking. Some people contend that Nader has not been active in advocating gay rights and that he has a weak record on women's rights, gun control and civil rights.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 22:12:57 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: G
Subject: the issues, Nader on Roe vs. Wade
Message:
G:

For me it's pretty much a wash on the issues. I agree with each of them about 20%. That means that I'm in 80% disagreement with both, so I'm not exactly your conventional D or R. I honestly don't think Roe v. Wade will be overturned. If it were, it'd be political suicide for a *second* Bush term. Furthermore, I think they both represent a somewhat perverse devolution of leadership and I feel distinctly uncomfortable about being held hostage to that. Don't you? But it's really not the candidates that make this election interesting. It's the voters.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 05:45:04 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Nader on Roe vs. Wade
Message:

I honestly don't think Roe v. Wade will be overturned. If it were, it'd be political suicide for a *second* Bush term.

The quote from Nader shows that he doesn't care about the abortion issue. If Bush gets elected, there will be an increased likelihood of Roe vs. Wade being overturned. Why else would Planned Parenthood be pouring millions into campaigning against Bush? He would like it overturned. He claims that he wouldn't apply a litmus test to appointees to the supreme court, but he's lying.

I think they both represent a somewhat perverse devolution of leadership and I feel distinctly uncomfortable about being held hostage to that. Don't you?

I don't agree that Gore represents a 'somewhat perverse devolution of leadership', so the question doesn't apply to me.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 20:53:11 (GMT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: G
Subject: What is George Bush About -- Marin Olasky.
Message:
G,

I agree with you that there are distinct differences between Bush and Gore and that Gore is vastly superior, although I consider Bush a disaster on his policies and that he is also stupid. A really bad combination. I have my problems with Gore, but he really is much, much better.

By the way, if you want an idea of what Bush really stands for, at least domestically, you might want to read a book by one of his key advisors, Marvin Olasky, called Compassionate Conservatism: What it is, What it does. Sound familiar? What to know where Bush got that meaningless term 'compassionate conservatism?' Well that's where he got it, and, in fact George Dubya wrote(I doubt he WROTE it, but his name is on it) the introduction to the book.

Olasky is a Professor of Journalism at U. Texas. He is Jewish, but has become a fundamenalist Christian. His basic argument, is that we should go back to the kind of welfare programs we had in the late 19th century, when all welfare programs were 'faith-based.' Basically, the view is that the government should get out of helping people with any services, especially for the needy, and just let churches and the Salvation Army do it, perhaps with some funds from the government. It's madness, but that is the position, and if we elect Bush, you can expect to see a lot more of that coming to fruition.

What is especially offensive, is Olasky's basic idea that poor people have some kind of flaw in them that has to be corrected. So, we have to get them to accept Jesus and to work, in return for giving them 'free' services. We have to humiliate them into accepting their inherent flaws and to change them spiritually. It is essentially the 20th century equivalent of 'white mans burden.' So, essentially, Olasky sees welfare programs as a means of forcing religion down the throats of poor people, who, being that they are defective, need to be indoctrinated into fundamentalist Christianity for their own good, whether they want to or not. It's really appalling.

In reading the book, after throwing it at the wall a few times, I got a better sense of just how scary, and incredibly stupid, Bush really is. Apparently, as governor of Texas, Bush has already instituted some of these programs, shifting public money to 'faith-based' organizations to 'help' people.

We should be afraid, very afraid.

Joe

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 05:46:45 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Bush's faith-based plans
Message:
Check this out: Bush's Faith-Based Plans
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 18:26:18 (GMT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: More thoughts on strategy and tactics.
Message:
Scott,

You are overlooking that the Greens may also bring some of the 50% who don't vote back into the process and if the Democrats adopt some of the Green's positions (especially campaign finance reform and the environment) to deal with their insurgence, they might also attract those voters. Plus, the world isn't standing still and there might well be an environmental disaster or two that could change the political landscape drastically, in favor of the Greens.

Also, I think it's on the local level that the Greens are having the greatest impact, people running for city council, school boards and the like. At least on the West Coast, I think they will be very influential. They absolutely cannot be overlooked.

Even in this election, to the extent that the close election and the fact that the Greens may hold the balance is forcing Gore to talk about the environment, make specific committments, even. He wouldn't be doing that if it weren't for his need to attract some of the Nader voters, because he would much rather just say platitudes about the environment in order to not offend people whose jobs might be affected by limiting environmental destruction.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 04:26:16 (GMT)
From: Stonor
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Interesting dynamics you are describing.
Message:
Thanks Joe, G, Scott and others in this thread - I finally understand some of what is going on in the American election!

Stonor

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 21:21:47 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: More thoughts on strategy and tactics.
Message:
Joe:

You make some good and provocative points. Thanks for responding.

I don't know the figures on whether a lot of the Green voters were formerly 'disaffected.' It might be true. It's not difficult to imagine that the two party winner-take-all system has disaffected a lot of voters. My gut tells me that the numbers being brought back in by Nader aren't huge though, at least this time around.

It also had not occurred to me that a potential disaster might become part of an overall strategy. Many of the environmental effects that are of greatest concern are those that, in the words of Medard Gable, 'go critical before they ever become serious.' Still, it definitely shows some sophistication to use a potential collapse as part of a strategic scenario. I guess either I'm just not that sophisticated, or I'm too impatient.

In addition to some local wins the Greens have been quite successful at playing the spoiler role at the local and even the congressional level. Didn't they help to change some of the election laws in New Mexico recently? I'm just thinking about the national electoral strategy. It would seem that the two-party logic would have them least likely to vote Green where they actually have the *most* electoral influence. At least, it would dampen their ability to exercise electoral strength where their numbers are largest, because that's more likely to be a 'battleground' state.

There *are* positions they can take on issues that are either left/right neutral, or that at least have minimal impact on moderate voters. That would give them the greatest leverage. Campaign Finance Reform is such an issue. Since that is my field, however, I've became rather cynical of what we might be able to do in that area that would not have serious risks or unintended consequences. I don't want to get into a big debate about this, but it's an area where my sympathies are with the reformers, but the research is against the idea of big reforms like spending caps and government financing. On the other side of the controversy the presumption that money is buying legislative votes or is even buying a lot of influence, is false, at least on a superficial level. That's because candidates already wield a lot more influence and 'clout' than than contributors. In other words 'extortion' is much more likely than 'bribery.' They can say, in effect: 'Unless you give me a contribution your side of the argument won't even be heard.' And I'm not all that sure that we care whether a candidate can extort money from contributors, do we? I mean, it does seem icky, but do we really care?

I've almost given up the idea of doing any further research on CFR. The latest work by Ansolabehere, Malich, Snyder, Grossclose, et al seems pretty daunting to the reformer perspective and seems to undercut the popular conception of the problem. These were mostly guys who started out as sympathetic to reform.

Still, I think the Greens stand to make the most headway from left/right neutral reforms, issues, and programs: electoral reform (Proportional Representation and Campaign Finance), social security, taxation, guaranteed income, demogrants, etc. If they could take votes from both sides they'd be in the strongest position. That also represents the most interesting scenario in the sense that it opens up whole new areas for cross-cutting alliances. Now, if I could just put this all into a book proposal or something...

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 21:40:48 (GMT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: More thoughts on strategy and tactics.
Message:
I don't know the figures on whether a lot of the Green voters were formerly 'disaffected.' It might be true. It's not difficult to imagine that the two party winner-take-all system has disaffected a lot of voters. My gut tells me that the numbers being brought back in by Nader aren't huge though, at least this time around.

The polls say that about half of the Nader voters would not vote if Nader weren't running. This is especially true of the under-30 voters, and Nader has a disproportionately large number of them. The thing about Nader is that he is a well-known figure, and hence draws attention to the Greens. The Greens have increased their voter registration in California by 30,000 just since September. That isn't huge, but not insignificant.

I think the huge Seattle demonstrations, along with Nader, and to a lesser degree Buchanan last time around, is addressing the corporate globalization that neither the Republicans or the Democrats are addressing. 5% isn't insignificant and I think that if the election weren't so close, the Greens would be doing even better.

I don't think a disaster is part of any kind of plan for the Greens, but personally, I think we will see one before too long that will cause people to see that the environment and how we live, may start to affect their very lives. That hasn't happened much yet, except in the areas of air and water pollution, and we have actually had progress in those areas.

I think campaign finance reform is the number one issue. And I'm actually confident we will see some reform there. I think the sentiment is growing and the pressure is on. I really do care, because I don't see how a politician cannot be influenced by huge campaign constributions that are his or her very life line.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 22:41:11 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: More thoughts on strategy and tactics.
Message:
Joe:

I think campaign finance reform is the number one issue. And I'm actually confident we will see some reform there. I think the sentiment is growing and the pressure is on. I really do care, because I don't see how a politician cannot be influenced by huge campaign constributions that are his or her very life line.

Intuitively one feels that this has to be true, but even Malich doesn't believe it any longer. Mind you, no one has really investigated this from a sort of 'systemic' perspective. What would happen, and how would politicians and contributors act, if you had a basic change in the rules? How would voters act under those conditions. But, I don't really want to get into this. It's a real morass. I suppose we will get some sort of reform.

Regulating soft money will probably undermine the role of the parties while strengthening the hold of candidate personality and emphasis on district constituency politics vs. the good of the whole electorate. Parties are what keep those forces in line. They discipline legislators, and their leverage is already pretty weak, compared to, say... England. Spending caps may make it even more difficult to get rid of incumbents. This latter isn't an idle conjecture. Nearly all of the evidence points in this direction, although there's enough uncertainty that we don't really know what will happen for sure. We certainly don't have any clear idea about where to put the caps, and then there's Buckley v. Valeo... which says spending caps are unconstitutional anyway.

To settle most of these big questions about the potential impact of CFR we'd have to spend a lot of money. Only a fraction of what's actually spent on an election mind you, but still more than anyone thinks it's worth at the moment. Says something about our priorities, and our faith in conventional wisdom.

Frankly, there are some forms of proportional representation that might be more promising... but again, if it's not *completely* broken no one's going to bother to fix it.

Heck, those last two paragraphs represent two cross-cutting positions that an independent party might take: spend some money to get to the bottom of campaign finance in terms of potential systemic changes; and promote some innocuous form of proportional representation. At least it'd be refreshing to hear an in depth debate about those issues for once.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 01:05:42 (GMT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Campaign Reform
Message:
. I suppose we will get some sort of reform.

Not if Bush gets elected we won't. At least not while he is in office. At least Gore would sign McCain-Feingold.

I think the key issue is the appearance of money corrupting politics and the effect that appearance has on the electorate. That, in itself, is a reason for the reform and I actually think it's the most important reason. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence of money influencing votes, but you can't really prove it. It's better to try to reduce the amount of money thrown around in elections.

Soft money has been so abused to get around FECA, that it has no credibility and it should be banned. The idea of using that money for 'party-building' is a discredited joke. McCain-Feingold recognizes this, but McCain is a pariah in his own party for saying so, because the Republicans get so much more soft money than the Democrats do.

I don't think anyone is talking about spending caps, except for the right to get matching funds. Those are voluntary. Getting rid of incumbents is now so rare that to say reform might make it 'harder' is relatively meaningless, and when incumbents are defeated it usually isn't because the opponent spent more money.

Buckley outlaws spending caps, but doesn't outlaw voluntary caps to get matching funds. There isn't any reason we couldn't institute those laws, along with requirements that television stations be required, as part of getting their FCC license to use the public airwaves, to offer a certain amount of free air time to candidates. Political advertising is so lucrative for the networks, they won't like it, but I say they ought to be forced to do so.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 12:58:12 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Campaign Reform
Message:
Joe:

I think the key issue is the appearance of money corrupting politics and the effect that appearance has on the electorate. That, in itself, is a reason for the reform and I actually think it's the most important reason.

Is there evidence for this? Teixeira, Ferejohn, et al believe the primary reason for the disappearing voter is the perception of the inefficacy of leaders. I agree that the perception of money's influence leads to a certain cynacism, at least anecdotally. I may need to catch up on this stuff though.

There is plenty of anecdotal evidence of money influencing votes, but you can't really prove it. It's better to try to reduce the amount of money thrown around in elections.

Well, you *can* prove that money influences elections. I wrote a dissertation on it. The effect is about the same magnitude as the effect of incumbency and of district ideology: about 10 percentage points per standard deviation. The effect is mostly concentrated in districts that are not determined by district ideology, so it's sort of a substitution effect. What we don't know is the marginal elasticity for incumbents. It appears to be low, or even negative in some years, so it is quite conceivable that a cap would actually help incumbents because in reduces the fighting odds of challengers who get a lot more bang for the buck.

The reason we don't have good estimate of elasticity, BTW, is because there's a two-way effect between money and votes. Money effects votes, but expected votes also effect money. This is a nasty statistical problem, usually solved with something called an 'instrument.' In elections all of the potential instruments for money suffer from the same 'dual causation' problem. A debate raged about this for over 15 years, but people have almost all given up short of the following solution:

If we did a continuous voter survey during all or most congressional elections at regular intervals and matched these to spending we could probably solve the problem of marginal elasticity, and would be able to determine a point that still allowed challengers to mount an effective compaign to overcome incumbency advantage, while aiming at an overall reducton in spending using voluntary caps. It would cost, however, 'big time.'

Don't have time for the rest right now.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 20:01:06 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: environmental disaster
Message:

... there might well be an environmental disaster or two that could change the political landscape drastically, in favor of the Greens.

You would think that the clear evidence of global warming and the damage to the ozone layer would be enough to turn America much more environmentally friendly. But too many Americans are just not that smart (PC term for stupid) and/or too selfish. The Republicans don't seem to have changed their tune at all. The only change I've seen is that they don't call Gore the 'Ozone man' anymore. Unfortunately I think you're right, it might take a disaster before people will wake up, kind of like someone ignoring a disease until it becomes life threatening.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 23:50:39 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: G
Subject: environmental disaster
Message:
G:

What 'clear evidence of global warming?' Not that things mightn't have changed, but the last I heard the results were still within the range of statistical probability for a 'null hypethesis' and were likely to remain there. This includes the argument that fluctuations in global temperature of a similar range have occurred before, so are within the 'normal' range for a mult-millennial period. So, it comes down to whether you're convinced by the logic of the argument and the statistical evidence weighed together with the risk of being wrong. I think it's convincing, but clear? Maybe I'm just not up to date. Is there new evidence, better estimates, better data, more realistic model...?

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 06:12:52 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: global warming
Message:
By 'clear evidence' I did not mean absolutely proven, I meant that there is a high probability that it is happening, high enough to warrent action.

See EPA - Global Warming - Fundamentals

'... the IPCC concluded there is a 'discernible human influence' on climate. This means the observed global warming is unlikely to be the result of natural variability alone and that human activities are at least partially responsible.'

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 14:56:34 (GMT)
From: hamzen
Email: None
To: G
Subject: global warming
Message:
Exactly g, it's pretty much agreed now, and even if you take the sceptical approach that the mexican volcano and sunspot activity are higher contributing factors than are presently accepted, our lifestyles sure as hell aren't helping matters, and we don't even have india, china and brazil fully gung-ho industrialised yet.

Rising sea levels are my major concern, expectations are that numerous pacific islands will be gone within 20 years, Bangladesh within thirty (with 80 million people), even large parts of great britain (east coast) will go the same way. Here in britland we're looking at marbella/spanish weather, and increasingly violent (that's the same for everyone), over the next 25 years, then turning to siberian weather (the gulf stream is being diverted by the artic melting, toward the bay of biscay).

The World Wildlife Fund yesterday put out a report that earth will be uninhabitable to people within 75 years!

On a lesser scale (??!!) no primates apart from people living wild within 25 years, millions of years of evoluytion destroyed within 100 years, it's almost impressive.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 20:34:35 (GMT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: G
Subject: environmental disaster
Message:
You would think that the clear evidence of global warming and the damage to the ozone layer would be enough to turn America much more environmentally friendly.

Yes, you would. But then we have Bush saying, when he is pushed on the issue, to say it just has to be 'studied' and uttering some jingoistic position the the Kyoto requires more of the USA than developing countries and that isn't fair. What bullshit. He fails to mention that the USA is more responsible for the destruction that has already happened, and perhaps ought to be required to do a tad more.

Then, Bush goes to Michigan and tells auto workers that Gore's environmental positions will cost them their jobs.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 16:56:40 (GMT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: G
Subject: It is a swing state (Gore 46% to Bush 43%)
Message:
Robyn, if I were you, I would vote for Gore in Pennsylvania, because otherwise it probably helps Bush. But of course, it's completely up to you.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 20:22:34 (GMT)
From: jondon
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Yes, I have swapped votes with a guy...
Message:
from Oregon. We can afford to stuff Nader's ballot box up here because Gore is far and away the leader. I will vote for Ralph and he will vote for Gore and hopefully keep the Bushman from taking Oregon. We Yankees remain true democrats (thanx to the Kennedy mystique instilled upon us by our parents).

It is amazing what this internet can do; possibly influence the outcome of some key electoral colleges and hand the seat to Al and still give the good guy at least 5%. I'm up for anything to help my guys out....now if we can just do something to score more points for ny Bruins.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 20:17:52 (GMT)
From: Gregg
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: BTW, about Colorado...(OT)
Message:
Yeah, you were right last week....W. has our fair state by the throat...I think I was reading a local poll, showing it tight in the Denver area.

This morning's paper said Bush was ahead 43 to 34 with Nader at 5: so I guess Ralph has my vote after all.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 17:53:04 (GMT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: EV's Contradiction in strategy??
Message:
La-ex pointed out below that Maharaji/Elan Vital are about to engage in a trinket-sales campaign. I understand that the 'trinket-division' of Elan Vital, called Visions, is the entity running this. If this is true, why is Elan Vital also running a 'Perspective' by Andy Perl, which seems to criticize the strategy when he says, as quoted by Jim:

The interested people I know are generally successful and clear-headed. They are also inquisitive by nature and something inside them continues to search for the experience of Knowledge. However, they are not interested in joining a spiritual group, as promoted by souvenirs, logos, and language that implies a membership identity.

Since all those trinket-sales so just that, (promote souveniers, logos, and implies a membership identity), why is Elan Vital posting the criticism. Is is to show how open to criticism they are?

Also, what does Andy Perl think about the new trinket program celebrating Shri Hans' birthday? And doesn't Maharaji think ANYTHING is disrespectful of his own father? Does he really condone having coffee cups dedicated to Shri Hans?

The only conclusion is what La-ex said. Anything for money.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 20:20:15 (GMT)
From: Cynthia
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: EV's Contradiction in strategy??
Message:
Hi,

The statement:

'The interested people I know are generally successful and clearheaded'

is very weird. Is that a euphemism for 'they have money, and are educated?'

Cynthia

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 20:09:20 (GMT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: The implication is that today's current crop of
Message:
...current crop of suckers who DO go for the trinkets are consequently only worthy of being milked for whatever they've got (since their thirst for Knowledge obviously isn't the most important thing in their lives).

This kind of 'justification' would be absolutely typical of the kind of thinking that goes on around the Maha.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 17:08:44 (GMT)
From: Q
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: If you guys are trying to get rid of me, you're
Message:
doing a pretty good job of it.' Just quoting Steve Quint from a couple years ago. (It seems.)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 12:12:50 (GMT)
From: Mili
Email: None
To: Ex-premies
Subject: More stuff to moan, nag, whine and bitch about
Message:

Elan Newsletter

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 10:41:41 (GMT)
From: DeProGram Anand Ji
Email: not given
To: Mili
Subject: Does anyone really buy this shit anymore?
Message:
vomit, puke, gag ect.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 20:27:58 (GMT)
From: Gregg
Email: None
To: Mili
Subject: The Profundity of the Master
Message:
'There are so many ideas in the world.'

Wow. Never thought of it that way. Thank you Maharaji!

Did I take that zinger out of context? No! It only gets worse!

See Jim's response below for a more thorough translation of the Master's insipidities.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 19:57:45 (GMT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: Mili
Subject: More stuff to moan, nag, whine and bitch about
Message:
Hey Mili, that's the same website where he's quoted as saying (did I say 'quoted'? - man, excuse me, they've even got a video clip of him saying it):

'as clearly as the sun shines in the sky, I said 'I'm not God

.
.
.
When did he say that then?

(Personally, I remember him saying at Houston airport that quote 'the time has come for everybody to realise who is God'. copyright, Lord of the Universe)

So when DID he say he wasn't God? (can't have been in rehearsals)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 17:09:09 (GMT)
From: hamzen
Email: None
To: Mili
Subject: Think I just about prefer your website,
Message:
also seems funny that he repeats this basic message about being open like a child, but doesn't actually practice what he preaches, highly amusing.

Why Mili, are the pictures so nauseatingly 'nice', no stormy skies, no hutus slicing off some kids arm with a machete (pretty relevant from a childs experiential take no?), no tornadoes? I reckon it's total denial of the shadow side of life, a complete inability to deal with lifes difficulties, just so people can hang onto this cartoon fantasy reality.

Also I know many adults, including myself, who have no problem 'experiencing' the magic of being alive, so what's the beef?

But thanx for caring about us so much, you obviously know how as rotting vegetables we have no other choice!

Managed to shag any spare premie females recently?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 16:15:46 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Mili
Subject: Yes, Maharaji's Toxic, Fractured Fairy Tales
Message:
You're right as usual, Mili. This is definitely something to bitch about. Consider the Hamster's philosophy a bit:

It will bring me joy

Edited excerpt, Maharaji in Auckland, New Zealand, 10th September 2000

WITHIN ME is this most beautiful and profound thing. And if I connect to it. . . it will bring me joy.

There are so many ideas in this world. And sometimes, at first, we don't even realize that these ideas surround us. They're there, and we accept them. They seem familiar. And as the time goes by, these ideas take more and more and more of a stronghold in our lives, until everything else takes on a priority.

Until one day, what we held to be so true and real no longer matters.

Obviously, the transition is smooth. Too smooth. It would be better if one day, you woke up and said, 'Bam! I'm going in the wrong direction.' But it isn't like that. It's ever so slow. It's ever so evolving. Because there was a time when the only thing that mattered was to be alive.

Although Maharaji pretends to have abandoned the Hindu foundation for his superstitious cult, the thing didn't spring from nowhere. The truth is, Knowledge is still the 'antidote to the mind', just like it always was. This is still an extremely radical mind-numbing, mind-fucking operation. The only problem now is that, by removing all the Hindu tradition, such as there is, for this kind of religious practise, he's left his cult members with nothing but an amorphous extreme form of infantilism. He'd have everyone reject their minds wholesale, turn back the clocks on all life experience and revert to something almost unimaginable.

There used to be this wickedly brilliant comedian who'd show up on shows like Johnny Carson's in the sixties pretending to be some sort of weird, German-accented, intense Nazi-like preacher. It was all schtick as he'd never break out of his role. He'd get all worked up doing these earnest, emotional 'sermons' pleading to people to give up the 'false ways' of the last few hundreds of thousand years and to return to all fours. When we stood upright we lost something. Get it? It was hilarious. Really, really hilarious.

So tell me how Maharaji's any different than that? He's actually trying to get people to jettison their intelligence and everything essential about being an adult human being in exchange for this chimeric false goal of a 'simpler, more childlike' mentality. Thank God, that's impossible.

What does Knowledge do?
It takes that which was lost and makes it found again.

I know when I say this, a lot of people look at me and say, 'Huh?' as though they have forgotten what it was like to be a little child. All that mattered was, 'I'm here.' There was no judgement of what today meant. It didn't need to be defined. It was, it is, 'I'm here. I don't know about tomorrow. I don't know what was yesterday, but I am. I am alive, and that's all that matters.' That was a simple time. That was a real time. And everything was in real time.

And then.…you know the story. All of the other things become priorities, and the one thing that mattered the most—being alive—got pushed back and back, and back.

But there is good news. And the good news is that there is Knowledge. The good news is, there is a Master. And what does this Knowledge do? It takes that which is so lost and it makes it found again. Where the focus, where the understanding of what this existence is all about—what this life is all about—becomes real. And to accept. To actually accept that 'I exist'. That, within me—within me—is this most beautiful and profound thing. And most importantly that, if I connect to it, it will bring me joy.

Yeah, wish I could think of that guy's name. He was always wild-eyed, wild-haired. Wore a preacher's outfit. It was so funny. Someone must know who I'm talking about. 'Get down on your knees, my brothers and sisters. Leave behind this false, lonely world, this pretense of stability, this upright indignation. Come home, come back down. Come feel the earth on your knees. Be humble, be true. Listen to me!....'

Anyone?


Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 05:23:32 (GMT)
From: bill
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Sound like he is still on pot?-nt
Message:
dfgnfs
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 13:35:40 (GMT)
From: bill
Email: None
To: Mili
Subject: More stuff to correctly see for the slop it is.-nt
Message:
ersjsx
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 12:45:39 (GMT)
From: An Occassional Observer
Email: None
To: Mili
Subject: You're a bit late, it's already been up here.(nt)
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 17:14:01 (GMT)
From: Disculta
Email: None
To: An Occassional Observer
Subject: 'Various websites'
Message:
I loved the part (couldn't copy and paste for some reason?) where it says that you can stay up on Maharaji and knowledge through 'various websites'

That is certainly true! Hehehehehehe

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 18:36:03 (GMT)
From: And it's all brought to
Email: None
To: me
Subject: you 'Courtesy of Existence'.....
Message:
WHAT NERVE!! He never stops.

Cynthia

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 03:30:33 (GMT)
From: Salam
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: I must be dead them. Try again.
Message:
So I made it half an hour late. Took me ages to get there.

Any way, I thought the place was nice and well presented. Two or three table with stuff on them (videos, tapes and cute little recycled hand mad paper bags, I had to have one of these)

Some overly polite and blissed out person came to see what was all the commotion all about. I felt a bit embarrassed as I felt like a bulldozer inside the hall. So before the some filled the room I killed the engine and said where was my friend. It was bloody dark and I had to step on some feet. But hey, I forgot to say, as I entered the room I heard this screeching noise. It took a moment before it registered. I arrived in the middle of a money thing. He was saying something like this thing (the program) needed money for it to happen, and how he wished that they did not have to charge for it. He woofled about other things which I can not remember. Some very eerie song came on at I got the shits. Kept repeating the same rhythm while some very polished American female voice said some words, I am not sure if I was his poetry or one of his satsangs (is there a difference?).

As a production, the video was as polished as his dumb ass web site. And I would say it is very successful in being introductory. Gee I am glad I was late, it took me ten minutes, before I wanted to ask where the toilet was. My friend (god bless her) said to me if I want to come out with her. Which I did before she managed to finish her last word. Hey there were 50 people in the room. Any way, while everyone started exchanging bliss cards, I went coffee hunting. I was served the coffee in this nice large glass cup. So I fished a newspaper lit a cigarette and waited until my friend came. She had someone with her that was there for the first time. I invited both for more coffee (coffee coffee coffee). I had a nice chat with the fellow. Anyway I ended up selling him a computer (shit). But then I said something that sounded really good. The fellow said I am still not convinced about your knowledge (speaking to my friend). She started say something, which sounded like a satsang, so I put my foot in the puddle and splashed mud on their faces. I said what I believed in. That everyone has the right to think the way he wanted. And that we need to respect each other’s believes and should not attempt to change that. Basically prolysizing. Well that put a whole damper on the situation because the purpose of bringing a new person to m and k was to change what a person believes in.

This and that happened, some blissed out characters came to say hello and give me their blessing, I told them to get fucked too, but in a nice way. I did end up with two free tapes and I am proud to say that I managed to secure the bag that I wanted.

Does anyone think that maharaji looks a bit like a toad? I am not sure if you noticed at a close up how he shuts his oversize eyelids, exactly like a frog. Rabbit, rabbit.

I was invited to go today also, but I do not think I’ll be going. I do not want to put on weight. So anyway I am looking forward to see my new premie friend on Thursday. Shish, she is coming to my place.

Rob, I am getting worried here. Do you think I should switch tactics and get laid? I really do want to exchange body fluids with a premie, I am pure now.

This Salam reporting live an alive from downunder

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 04:07:36 (GMT)
From: Steve Quint
Email: sequint@home.com
To: Salam
Subject: I must be dead them. Try again.
Message:
You mean they're selling barf bags now at the concession stand?

Steve

Return to Index -:- Top of Index