Ex-Premie Forum 7 Archive
From: Sep 29, 2001 To: Oct 04, 2001 Page: 2 of: 5


Nigel -:- NOT Anti-American, ok, Richard? (ot)? -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 14:25:09 (EDT)
__ Original Richard -:- Richard in this thread is not me -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 23:22:01 (EDT)
__ __ Pat:C) -:- Richard, hypertension ...OT -:- Thurs, Oct 04, 2001 at 03:59:32 (EDT)
__ __ Nigel -:- Thanks for clarification, Richard -:- Thurs, Oct 04, 2001 at 01:53:09 (EDT)
__ Dermot -:- Thanks Nige (re:below) -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 17:12:16 (EDT)
__ __ Another Angle... -:- ...to similar question -:- Thurs, Oct 04, 2001 at 06:14:45 (EDT)
__ __ __ Nigel -:- It's that paper again... -:- Thurs, Oct 04, 2001 at 12:26:55 (EDT)
__ __ __ Francesca :) -:- EXCELLENT !!! THANK YOU!!! [nt] -:- Thurs, Oct 04, 2001 at 11:58:59 (EDT)
__ __ Henrik Ibsen says ... -:- The minority is always right. -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 20:23:51 (EDT)
__ __ Scott T. -:- Re: Thanks Nige (re:below) -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 17:16:57 (EDT)
__ Richard -:- My Post..and Moley. -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 16:32:12 (EDT)
__ __ Moley -:- Richard - From a 'contemptible slime' -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 18:05:13 (EDT)
__ __ __ salam -:- Re: Richard - From a 'contemptible slime' -:- Thurs, Oct 04, 2001 at 07:18:42 (EDT)
__ __ __ Richard -:- Re: Richard - From a 'contemptible slime' -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 18:25:32 (EDT)
__ __ JHB -:- Moley's not a Slime -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 17:29:55 (EDT)
__ __ __ Richard -:- John: this is what happened -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 22:17:06 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ JHB -:- Recent exes forum -:- Thurs, Oct 04, 2001 at 19:25:12 (EDT)
__ __ __ Moley -:- Thank you JHB xxx [nt] -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 18:25:18 (EDT)
__ __ __ Rick -:- Re: Moley's not a Slime -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 18:04:47 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ N&M -:- MUST READ * LOL * be a scriptwriter [nt] -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 18:30:37 (EDT)
__ __ __ Richard -:- Re: Moley's not a Slime -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 18:02:23 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Nigel -:- Yes, she is a complete slime, but I love her..... -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 18:19:18 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Peg -:- Nigel?? -:- Thurs, Oct 04, 2001 at 11:39:53 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Nige -:- Re: Nigel?? -:- Thurs, Oct 04, 2001 at 18:43:29 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Richard -:- Re:Yes,sheis a complete slime, but I love her..... -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 18:35:20 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Nigel -:- Complete slime, but I have forgiven her. her -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 18:58:58 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Let's be realistic -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 18:58:38 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Dermot -:- So is it an AMERICAN forum? [nt] -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 18:04:43 (EDT)
__ __ Pat:C) -:- Richard would you please -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 17:01:09 (EDT)
__ Scott T. -:- Re: NOT Anti-American, ok, Richard? (ot) -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 16:24:26 (EDT)
__ Private Forum Participant -:- Nigel You were Misinformed -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 15:26:32 (EDT)
__ __ Moley -:- No Nigel wasn't misinformed -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 15:31:47 (EDT)
__ Recent Exes FA -:- Re: NOT Anti-American, ok, Richard? (ot) -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 15:07:38 (EDT)
__ __ Nigel -:- Re: NOT Anti-American, ok, Richard? (ot) -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 15:31:07 (EDT)
__ __ __ FA/RE -:- Re: NOT Anti-American, ok, Richard? (ot) -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 15:55:39 (EDT)
__ Rick -:- Re: NOT Anti-American, ok, Richard? (ot) -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 14:40:34 (EDT)
__ Pat:C) -:- I apologise, Nigel -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 14:36:42 (EDT)
__ __ NigeandMoley -:- Relax Pat, it's ok.. -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 15:14:55 (EDT)
__ __ __ PatD -:- Re: Relax Pat, it's ok.. -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 21:14:48 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Pat:C) -:- PatD, you are an angel -:- Thurs, Oct 04, 2001 at 04:08:22 (EDT)

Rick -:- Greyhound Buslines Suspends Service OT -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 08:21:05 (EDT)
__ Jerry -:- Was it an Arab? -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 08:59:09 (EDT)
__ __ Rick -:- Re: Was it an Arab? -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 09:10:25 (EDT)
__ __ __ Suedoula -:- Re: Was it an Arab? -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 10:57:51 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ salam -:- Was a Jew from Afghanistan -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 12:41:27 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Rick -:- Re: Was it an Arab? -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 11:25:32 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Hate to ask ... -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 11:38:54 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Rick -:- Re: Hate to ask ... -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 11:48:09 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Rick -:- more... -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 12:00:57 (EDT)
__ __ __ Due to the need to be PC -:- the networks can't say [nt] -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 09:16:18 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Nigel -:- No, the need to be certain... -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 14:47:42 (EDT)

From the Mishler Interview -:- Loss of self -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 07:23:35 (EDT)
__ Ppeg -:- Evidence please -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 09:47:24 (EDT)
__ __ Suedoula -:- Re: Evidence please -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 20:32:15 (EDT)
__ __ Pat:C) -:- Evidence, Peg -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 13:53:21 (EDT)
__ __ salam -:- well -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 12:45:21 (EDT)
__ __ Francesca :C) -:- Mishler is dead -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 11:45:32 (EDT)
__ __ __ salam -:- hey Fran -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 12:49:50 (EDT)
__ __ George -:- There is no evidence -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 10:28:01 (EDT)
__ __ __ XXX -:- So true George! -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 13:46:29 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Chuck S. -:- Maharaji DID ask for money... -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 15:09:11 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ XXX -:- Chuck Please read this quote from EV! -:- Thurs, Oct 04, 2001 at 11:32:36 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Chuck S. -:- Being cynical and honesty... -:- Thurs, Oct 04, 2001 at 14:59:09 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Barbara -:- Re: Being cynical and honesty... -:- Thurs, Oct 04, 2001 at 17:34:22 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ PEG -:- Why are you so stroppy ChuckS? -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 18:09:47 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Chuck S. -:- Oopsy... -:- Thurs, Oct 04, 2001 at 05:14:49 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Pat:C) -:- hey, Peg, Chuck was answering XX -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 19:36:35 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Francesca :o -:- Chuck dear Peg's gd people! -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 18:32:45 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Peg -:- Thanks! Me Chuck Pat Fran all good!! [nt] -:- Thurs, Oct 04, 2001 at 11:06:12 (EDT)
__ __ __ Jim -:- ****FUNNY PREMIE POST TIME**** -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 11:42:55 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Jerry -:- That has to be a parody -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 13:44:47 (EDT)

Is Maharaji pleased -:- like Winston Churchill was... -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 06:01:17 (EDT)
__ Gail -:- Speaking of Sir Winston -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 20:50:05 (EDT)
__ __ Pat:C) -:- Re: Speaking of Sir Winston -:- Thurs, Oct 04, 2001 at 04:13:53 (EDT)
__ Jerry -:- Gary Condit -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 09:07:28 (EDT)
__ nausea -:- OJ plays golf... -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 06:46:37 (EDT)

Dermot -:- Bowing out without a tantrum -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 04:01:44 (EDT)
__ salam -:- tantrum 201. -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 12:54:07 (EDT)
__ Cynthia -:- Re: Bowing out without a tantrum -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 10:44:24 (EDT)
__ __ Scott T. -:- And yet... -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 15:15:00 (EDT)
__ Nigel -:- Come back soon (nt) [nt] -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 07:48:50 (EDT)
__ JohnT -:- Re: Bowing out without a tantrum -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 05:28:45 (EDT)
__ __ Jerry -:- Understanding -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 09:13:08 (EDT)
__ __ __ JohnT -:- Re: Understanding -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 10:27:21 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Myth of objectivity -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 11:41:00 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Jim -:- Yeah, but would YOU say it? -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 11:29:17 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Verstehen -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 11:19:32 (EDT)
__ __ Scott T. -:- Bowing out without a tantrum -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 08:46:31 (EDT)
__ Sir Dave -:- Re: Bowing out without a tantrum -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 04:21:00 (EDT)

Pat:C) reposting Scott's -:- Cultic magical thinking of terrorists -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 03:57:06 (EDT)
__ JohnT -:- Scott T thinking -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 08:58:47 (EDT)
__ __ Scott T. -:- Your leak is showing. -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 11:49:24 (EDT)
__ __ Jim -:- Again, same problem, John -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 11:32:18 (EDT)
__ __ __ test -:- Re: Again, same problem, John -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 15:16:22 (EDT)

Happy Ex -:- Maharaji takes a second wife! -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 18:07:01 (EDT)
__ ()) -:- ROFL -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 06:48:54 (EDT)
__ __ Blonde Gopi #3 -:- That bastard said would be me -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 12:10:20 (EDT)

tommy tucker -:- An Englander Speaks! -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 17:01:49 (EDT)
__ Jim -:- What a dumb post! -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 20:17:02 (EDT)
__ Scott T. -:- You had me 'til the last sentence. -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 19:39:10 (EDT)
__ JHB -:- This is a public service for Americans -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 18:16:51 (EDT)
__ __ Jim -:- Hm, did I say that? -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 19:39:07 (EDT)
__ __ __ JHB -:- Jim, Oh Jim -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 09:26:23 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Jim -:- That's not the question -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 11:35:15 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ JohnT -:- uhhh, well, actually -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 10:39:44 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Jerry -:- Re: uhhh, well, actually -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 12:12:47 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ JohnT -:- Re: uhhh, well, actually -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 17:42:34 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Still, same confusion. -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 11:57:37 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- no -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 11:37:03 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Pat:C) -:- Same goes for IRA, Jim -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 13:16:52 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ JohnT -:- Yes, but ... -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 18:03:22 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pat:C) -:- Sunday bloody Sunday -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 19:43:20 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- So this is about Religion? -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 13:48:55 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pat:C) -:- Re: So this is about Religion? -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 14:02:53 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Samuel Butler -:- from Hudibras -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 18:23:44 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Oliver Protector -:- Thurs, Oct 04, 2001 at 04:39:00 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- And Marxism is a secular religion. [nt] -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 14:53:17 (EDT)

hamzen -:- chillin out in tough times -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 15:53:03 (EDT)
__ Stonor -:- Hamzen ... -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 00:58:17 (EDT)

hamzen -:- New forums required? -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 15:44:50 (EDT)
__ Sir Dave -:- Re: New forums required? -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 15:52:34 (EDT)
__ __ hamzen -:- You can post there without registering -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 16:05:36 (EDT)

suchabanana -:- eiydhiwndy - implications -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 13:44:14 (EDT)
__ Francesca :) -:- Everyone knows it's wndy! -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 01:57:15 (EDT)
__ __ suchabanana -:- rtn wtmycch bssgdmkj jsca wyalfiwy -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 14:26:00 (EDT)
__ __ __ Pat:C) -:- Francesca and Such -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 14:45:04 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Suedoula -:- When You are Happy. . . -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 22:41:34 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ suchabanana -:- m:'When we are happy, the issues don't matter.' -:- Thurs, Oct 04, 2001 at 16:08:13 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Pat:C) -:- isn't it too silly, Sue? -:- Thurs, Oct 04, 2001 at 04:19:26 (EDT)
__ Disappointed -:- Fatman was there in my eiydhiwndy nt -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 15:57:23 (EDT)
__ __ Disappointed (corrected() -:- Re: Fatman wasn't there in my eiydhiwndy nt -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 15:58:34 (EDT)


Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 14:25:09 (EDT)
From: Nigel
Email: nigel@redcrow.demon.co.uk
To: All
Subject: NOT Anti-American, ok, Richard? (ot)?
Message:
I hear I have been accused of making a vitriolic anti-American attack on this forum (referring to my Appleyard post below). The claim has been made by Richard on Recent Exes. Since I do not have posting rights on Recent Exes, I will respond here, since I am concerned some people might take Richard's comments at face value without having read my post.

I am not Anti-American. And it pisses me off I should even have to be saying that.

For the record, I am pro-common sense, pro-democracy, pro-universal human rights, pro- the safety and security of innocent civilians everywhere. I am anti the exploitation of the poor by the rich, anti the persecution of minorities, anti one-party communism, anti the uninvited meddling in smaller nations' affairs by their more powerful neighbours (be it from countries on the left or right), anti-dictatorships of the left, right or fundamentalist nutter. Oh - and I am also anti-organised religion, new-age beliefs and creationist thought. Then there's anti-handgun-law, anti-death penalty, anti-royalist and anti the existence of an unelected House of Lords....and anti-pacifist on the grounds that there is indeed such thing as a just war. And I want every guilty member of Bin Laden's terror org to be brought to justice and suitably punished.

Finally motherhood's ok in principle and apple-pie is nice with blackberries and natural yogurt..

But not anti-American. (No more than I am, say, pro- or anti- British, Albanian or Australian). I am even given to believe many Americans hold similar values to those above. I make no secret of my leftish political views but I know there are folk from both left and right who would endorse all or any of the above, just as and I respect the right of people to disagree with me on these.

So, yes, it pisses me off to see people interpreting my critique of Appleyard as America-bashing. Why do they do that? (BTW: My sister holds American citizenship and I have sent two of my kids to Texas on holiday. Why would an anti-American do that?)

I said I would not be posting any more on the Appleyard thread - partly because there are too many posts to reply to and I don't have time, and secondly because I stand by every word in my original post. Let others read the Appleyard article, read my post and the subsequent replies and decide for themselves. Even if I am wrong in places about Appleyard (which I'm not ;-)) I don't think anyone could say there was any Americanophobia there...

(One minor correction/clarification: I said America came into WW2 'late in the second half' - this is not technically accurate - but it is still less inaccurate than implying that the USA won the war single-handed. It is also true the allies would not have won that war without the USA's involvement. I am not questioning that.)

Anyway, here's a quick summary of my points in that thread. Tell me which is America-bashing, if you can…

(1) Brian Appleyard appears to endorse the view that over 90% of the Arab world believes America 'got what it deserved'. I say this is bullshit. In fact, dangerous bullshit in a world-wide publication, given the current crisis. Is this nonsense likely to reduce such anti-American feeling as might exist? Ok, how about anti-Arab feeling in the west? (It is a bit like confidently asserting that 90% of the world's Catholics support the IRA)

(2) He takes a few isolated cases of clear anti-American hostility - including some admittedly disgusting comments from the general public - and uses them to suggest there is an irrational 'Yankophobe' tendency in GB and elsewhere - when in truth the overwhelming reaction to the WTC attack in Britain and Europe in was of horror, anger and empathy for everyone affected, not to mention enormous admiration for the New York fire service etc.

(3) He then attempts to brand certain writers as anti-American: Rosie Boycott, George Monbiot, Suzanne Moore, Gore Vidal and others, providing no sensible evidence to that effect, at times unwarrantedly nasty as well as plain wrong. Of course, all of the people he cites are politically on the liberal/environmental/left - people he would probably find fault with, whatever they said. But none are anti-American, that I am aware of.

Bugger the emotional tone - truth is important. By all means feel emotional – who doesn’t right now? – but beware of the emotive manipulator of those emotions. So if I sounded vitriolic in places, it was not aimed at the American people or its culture - not remotely - but at what I saw as a shoddy piece of, at times inflammatory, journalism with its own agenda, capitalising on the mood of the moment, rather than improving it.

Also, if you read between the lines - and if you know the people he is talking about - you will quickly realise Brian Appleyard is only pro a certain section of American society with a specific political leaning– not all of them/you by any standards. In that respect he is – by his own definition – no more or less anti-American than those he is bad-mouthing. Civil rights protesters are/were Americans too, no?

(What slightly worries me about that ‘anti-American’ tag, is its resemblance to those ‘un-American activities’ invented by the McCarthy commission fifty years back. I am not saying anything like that will happen again, but what goes around, sometimes comes around…?)

Hope that clarifies a few things.

Now where's that hamburger...? :-)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 23:22:01 (EDT)
From: Original Richard
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Richard in this thread is not me
Message:
I have been posting as Richard since January of this year. Not ever on Recent Exes and not much lately here. (Although I'll take credit for a brief appearance as Blonde Gopi #3.)
For clarity and seniority could the mentioned Richard please find another name to use here? Thank you.

Richard who has been Richard since after I was Postie.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 04, 2001 at 03:59:32 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: Original Richard
Subject: Richard, hypertension ...OT
Message:
I checked out Kavacin and now know what that's for. Have you researched hawthorne for high BP? I am going to try it as the pharmaceutical stuff makes me feel like a zombie.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 04, 2001 at 01:53:09 (EDT)
From: Nigel
Email: None
To: Original Richard
Subject: Thanks for clarification, Richard
Message:
Yes, I did originally think the RE post might have been from you, and was startled to say the least, but having seen the other Richard in action over here it rapidly became clear it must have been someone else. Sorry if I helped perpetuate any confusion, and thanks for the clarification.
Cheers,
Nige
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 17:12:16 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Thanks Nige (re:below)
Message:
Thanks Nige (and Sir Dave)

I was going to add a quick nt thanks in the actual thread but it's been blocked.

Check out this article ....as you mention McCarthyism. Do you think the MAJORITY is ALWAYS right? I think they did think that in McCarthys day and I think they do now.

Best Regards

Dermot
[ No critics please ]

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 04, 2001 at 06:14:45 (EDT)
From: Another Angle...
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: ...to similar question
Message:
http://slate.msn.com/code/BallotBox/BallotBox.asp?Show=10/3/2001&idMessage=8392
[ War and Commentary ]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 04, 2001 at 12:26:55 (EDT)
From: Nigel
Email: None
To: Another Angle...
Subject: It's that paper again...
Message:
At the other end of things, my friend Andrew Sullivan wrote in the Sunday Times of London: 'The middle part of the country--the great red zone that voted for Bush--is clearly ready for war. The decadent Left in its enclaves on the coasts is not dead--and may well mount what amounts to a fifth column.' (My colleague Tim Noah caught this, prompting Sullivan to semi-apologize.)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 04, 2001 at 11:58:59 (EDT)
From: Francesca :)
Email: None
To: Another Angle...
Subject: EXCELLENT !!! THANK YOU!!! [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 20:23:51 (EDT)
From: Henrik Ibsen says ...
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: The minority is always right.
Message:
From the quote for the day in last weekend's paper.

Anna

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 17:16:57 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: Re: Thanks Nige (re:below)
Message:
Dermot:

In McCarthy's day McCarthy was in the minority. That's why he was so damned strident. If you're going to draw lessons from history, at least get your history *right*.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 16:32:12 (EDT)
From: Richard
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: My Post..and Moley.
Message:
Hi Nigel. I dont know you. I am a recent Ex-Premie. Who applied to the PRIVATE Forum, because I wanted to Talk About and Share My Experiences with My Recently Ex Lord Maharaji in a Safe and Sane Context. I often find this Place to Wild and Wooley for My Preferences.

Anyway, The Terrorists Attacked America and everything Changed. Instead of talking about Maharaji and Knowledge. This Forum and to a lesser extent our Private Forum become a Sounding Board for peoples views on the Conflict. Understandable.

I have however been totally appalled and Overwhelmed for what I considered Unfair and Unneccesary Attacks on America. I actually have been Quite Hurt by It. I had Read this Appleyard (whoever) guys column and found it a refreshing alternate view into the Tres Chic Culture of America Bashing that seems to have found Voice Here..

Thus When I read your Comments I reacted. To Protect my PRIVATE Forum from being overwhelmed by the type of Arguments that have affected This Forum..It was Nothing Personal and it was Just My View.

You May Take Solace in the Fact that My Comments have been Thoroughly discredited and that I have been attacked both on the Private Forum and Now here for my Views.

Again, I dont know you...and I dont have Anything Against you..I do Consider Moley however a Contemptable Slime For having Broken his Pledge of Privacy to NEVER reveal the Content of a Post on our Forum..

I am Saddened that my recently found Fellow Exes could be So Venemous....I Was looking forward to being able to talk with people who shared my common history of Knowledge and Maharaji ...and Now..because of this Incident...that does not seem to be Possible...good luck on Your New Forum..You apparently have lots of friends over there...All the Best, Richard.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 18:05:13 (EDT)
From: Moley
Email: None
To: Richard
Subject: Richard - From a 'contemptible slime'
Message:
Richard. Two Points.

1: It is possible to talk about exiting the cult. It's just that, at the moment, everyone is understandably consumed by the terrorist attacks. Terrorists have been attacking large parts of the world for a long time. Why is America any more or less deserving of sympathy???

2: Do you really expect me to keep from the person I love more than anyone else in the world the fact that he is being dissed on a forum that I am a member of?? Come on!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 04, 2001 at 07:18:42 (EDT)
From: salam
Email: None
To: Moley
Subject: Re: Richard - From a 'contemptible slime'
Message:
that is mighty nice of you, regarding [2]. That the way to go. Love is beyond anything including America, yes?

sheesh, I wish I had a woman like you ()):)())

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 18:25:32 (EDT)
From: Richard
Email: None
To: Moley
Subject: Re: Richard - From a 'contemptible slime'
Message:
yes actually I Do expect you to keep your Agreement about Confidentiality and i Wasnt DISSing this Guy I dont even know him. I simply thought what he said was Blatantly American Bashing and I didnt want that on the Private Forum for reasons I explain THERE.

You knew that Nigels 'good ex premie name' was never in jeopardy from reading the other posts on the forum ..and whatyou did was simply score points with you lover at the expense of your integrity..good work..

If however you actually had perceived that Nigels good name was threatened or that he should communicate with me..there were much better convenient ways as I express to you on our PRIVATE Forum.

As Far As the Stuff about America..I wont Dignify it with a Comment.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 17:29:55 (EDT)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: Richard
Subject: Moley's not a Slime
Message:
Richard,

Moley (female) and Nigel are an item (as they say), so Moley was hardly contemptible for telling Nigel what you had written (whatever it was). The confidentiality of RE is always a delicate issue. When I was an FA on Forum 5 there was blowup when an ex-premie who was not a poster on RE was attacked by the then RE FA on RE. Someone told him, and he quite understandably was annoyed by being attacked on a forum where he couldn't defend himself. Best to attack people to their faces if you're going to do it:-)

All the best, and don't worry about it too much.

John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 22:17:06 (EDT)
From: Richard
Email: None
To: JHB
Subject: John: this is what happened
Message:
John,
Thanks for your Post. Im sorry that this has had to spill over here.
For your Clarification,John, Moley posted on the Private Forum that Nigel wanted to apply to the Forum. I took that as a Formal Application. As Such my Duty is to (confidentially) vote yes or no as to his acceptance. I vote no and very briefly voiced my reasons. I was not trying to attack or in any way Disparge Nigel. I simply stated why I did not at that time feel comfortable with his inclusion. Again, I was not talking behind Nigel's back or trying attacking Nigel. I hear from many people that Nigel is a good guy. But I did tell the truth about how I was feeling at the time.
Hope this clarifies things for you, John.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 04, 2001 at 19:25:12 (EDT)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: Richard
Subject: Recent exes forum
Message:
Richard,

I understand how this happened, and I think I understand your feelings on this. I think the mistake you made is not reading Nigel's posts properly (he's definitely not Anti-American), and giving this as a reason for denying him access to the forum.

The forum was set up to provide recent exes with a secure and safe place for exes to work through the issues involved with leaving Maharaji. Bringing political views in as a basis for membership goes against the principles of the forum, I feel.

John who was expelled from RE by the previous FA for not posting enough (and for privately criticising the previous FA), but then the previous FA was later sacked as well:-)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 18:25:18 (EDT)
From: Moley
Email: moldy_warp@hotmail.com
To: JHB
Subject: Thank you JHB xxx [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 18:04:47 (EDT)
From: Rick
Email: None
To: JHB
Subject: Re: Moley's not a Slime
Message:
Truth is, Moley was browsing on the computer while Nigel was in the old tattered easy chair reading some socialist rag. As Moley perused the Recent Ex Forum posts she noticed Nigel's name.

Snickering, she read how Nigel was really a dastardly anti-American. She'd known it all along, but indulged Nigel is his silly belief that he was really only against injustice. Finally, someone else could see he had skeletons in his closet. She was truly entertained and amused for the first time all day.

'Uh, oh.' Nigel motioned out of his seat, a bit creaky after all those cracks with the billy-clubs his body had taken from facist military troops. Molly jerked forward to cover the computer monitor, lest Nigel discover she was giggling at him in secret.

Nigel, ever-observant, noticed Molly's odd movements. He could read her like a book.

'I'm going to get a cuppa. Would you like one, dear?', Nigel suggested, as cranked his neck upwards to see the computer screen over Molly's coif.

'Sure, Nige', Molly replied. She writhed back cover Nige's view. He darted forward quickly, but Molly countered.

'Over there!' Nige hollered, pointing out the garden window. 'Little Billy from next-door just broke the Bickerson's flower pot with his cricket-stick. Molly fell for it, her voyeuristic nature unveiled. And Nige twisted left, finally able to see his name in bold print... ANTI-AMERICAN.

'Oh, no', Nige screamed as he scurryed towards the back of the house. Molly came running. It was going to be a long night.

Alas, there's no one to snitch on for betraying the secret right of a recent ex to air the dirty laundry of ancient exes.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 18:30:37 (EDT)
From: N&M
Email: None
To: Rick
Subject: MUST READ * LOL * be a scriptwriter [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 18:02:23 (EDT)
From: Richard
Email: None
To: JHB
Subject: Re: Moley's not a Slime
Message:
First off i WASNT Attacking ANybody..somebody ASKED if Nigel Should be Admitted and I simply Responded that I Did Feel Comfortable with Admitting Him with His Anti-American Views...
The Forum is CONFIDENTIAL not Semi-Confidential or Confidential when you like whats being Said What i said Wasnt bad nor was Nigel in ANY Danger of having his Reputation Being Ruined or Being Black Balled From the 'Group'

As for Moley being a Slime..to me..what She did was VERY Slimy...She may have been trying to win points with her Significant Other ..but it was TOTALLY DIsrepectful and Hurtful.
Im not having a Good time with THis and i DONT Appreciate being Called out on a PUBLIC forum for what i Said In Private.

If the Forum Administrator does whats Right she will ban Moley from the Private Forum. Certainly because of Moley's action I will no longer Post there.Hope that explains things.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 18:19:18 (EDT)
From: Nigel
Email: None
To: Richard
Subject: Yes, she is a complete slime, but I love her.....
Message:
So what are you? Talking about a specific post of mine on THIS forum - where you could have replied if you felt like it - where you COULD have seen I am NOT anti-American if YOU had READ it and UNDERSTOOD it and HAD the WHEREWITHAL to do so. By ALL means, quote from my post and explain WHY you have such a MAD interpretation of IT. Yeah do that - IN ALL CAPS if you like, but do NOT lie about me or misrepresent me on your private FUXCKING forum, ok?

Thanks for the apology.

Have you acknowledged Loaf's apology yet? I hear there's been quite a bit of flaming on RE lately, ALL of it coming from one poster only.

Now who might that be?

(BTW: I have no intention of joining Recent Exes

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 04, 2001 at 11:39:53 (EDT)
From: Peg
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Nigel??
Message:
(BTW: I have no intention of joining Recent Exes

Why not? i thought you wanted to.

Peg

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 04, 2001 at 18:43:29 (EDT)
From: Nige
Email: None
To: Peg
Subject: Re: Nigel??
Message:
I was curious as to whether I would be acceptable, that's all. There were a few reasons why it might be a good idea for me to have membership, though I had no great desire to join. Moley floated the idea on the RE forum and look what happened.. Right now seems a bad time for uncensored honest opinions, methinks. It can be tricky enough here where no self-censorship principles apply. Maybe it takes a different type of temperament to fit in with that kind of environment, from Moley's experience (she feels she's had more than enough undeserved shit off people for a while).

Shipping out for a bit - Moley too from RE.

Ciaoferniao..

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 18:35:20 (EDT)
From: Richard
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Re:Yes,sheis a complete slime, but I love her.....
Message:
I See you have kept up with whats been going on on our Private Forum pretty extensively through your Beloved Slime, Nigel. The Point is. It wasnt even a Big thing. I was just SICK and TIRED of having to hear ANTI American Stuff on a forum that is Suppose to Bring us Together through our common Experience and Dissillusionment with Maharaji.
I admit I have been VERY Hurt by what I feel is Unjust Criticism of America on this Forum. but I dont think anyone but your Beloved Slime would Categorize what i said about you or anyone else as FLaming.
The funny thing is..I voted for Nader in 96 Gore in 2000 and I am pretty much a Liberal. I Disagree with a LOT of my Countries Policies..Still It Hurts Me when I see people Hating My Country. I probably jumped a little quickly in my assessment of you. and I Stood Corrected. It was the Animus and Lack of Kindness or Civility towards me in my distress that i find So appalling. I Will Be Fine. But Im very Disillusioned in my attempt to open up on line and share in a Real Way with Ex Premies. Maybe Ill Just Pop in a Maharaji Tape....
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 18:58:58 (EDT)
From: Nigel
Email: None
To: Richard
Subject: Complete slime, but I have forgiven her. her
Message:
Whatever. Read my first post again, and then my second, and tell me what any of what you are talking about has to do with me, or 'Hating Your Country', as you put it.

BTW: I don't read recent exes - but I have a right to know if someone is bad-mouthing me on a worldwide platform. And Loaf is a good friend of mine, so I know about that one too. You are not the only person who has ever felt hurt, BTW. Think about it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 18:58:38 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Richard
Subject: Let's be realistic
Message:
Richard:

Let's be realistic. How many instances will occur where your privacy might be compromised by the lover of someone you've criticized? I mean really, if you think Nigel's anti-American then define the term and go after him. For all I know, he is. At least he's on the right side of the gun issue. I don't see that Applewhathisname is any more in error in his defense of the US than most of the people who've accused the Great Republic of stuff like murdering hundreds of thousands of noncombatants for the sake of profit (couldn't they get a real job) on the flimsiest of highly partisan evidence (something I definitely define as anti-American, anti-Truth and willfully destructive.) I empathize with Nigel's compulsion for truth, since I don't see how you'd hope to resolve anything complex without it. But I might see a slightly different truth that he... and who knows, I might be right. It has happened (usually without much fanfare). If someone has been keeping score I'd like to redeem my coupons for a new bike please, or at least some tires?

--Scott 'It's not the bike, it's the...' T.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 18:04:43 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Richard
Subject: So is it an AMERICAN forum? [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 17:01:09 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: pdconlon@hotmail.com
To: Richard
Subject: Richard would you please
Message:
...email me your controversial post. I would love to read it. I also have been villified here for being a knee-jerk pro-American but have now pledged to stop making anymore political posts so that we can get back on topic.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 16:24:26 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Re: NOT Anti-American, ok, Richard? (ot)
Message:
Nigel:

I had the thought that the tone and style of your anti-Applegate piece was at least partly influenced by the dissertation process, and wondered if you might also be having the migraines yet?

(1) Brian Appleyard appears to endorse the view that over 90% of the Arab world believes America 'got what it deserved'. I say this is bullshit. In fact, dangerous bullshit in a world-wide publication, given the current crisis. Is this nonsense likely to reduce such anti-American feeling as might exist? Ok, how about anti-Arab feeling in the west? (It is a bit like confidently asserting that 90% of the world's Catholics support the IRA)

Well, I don't think the US is as unpopular as most lefties (and some righties) believe it to be. I'm not sure there's a specific item on the Inglehart survey to prove it, and the only Muslim country included is Turkey (and some of the Russian Republics in the latest round?), but I'll bet I could make a case anyway with correlates of pro-America sentiment.

(2) He takes a few isolated cases of clear anti-American hostility - including some admittedly disgusting comments from the general public - and uses them to suggest there is an irrational 'Yankophobe' tendency in GB and elsewhere - when in truth the overwhelming reaction to the WTC attack in Britain and Europe in was of horror, anger and empathy for everyone affected, not to mention enormous admiration for the New York fire service etc.

I think he got his time sequences mixed up. There was probably a lot of Yankophobe sentiment prior to the attack that dissipated after the event. It's easier and more acceptable to criticize a friend if he's not in a battle for his life. At least you acknowledge (and I imagine most Brits would acknowledge) the total impropriety of those incidents.

(3) He then attempts to brand certain writers as anti-American: Rosie Boycott, George Monbiot, Suzanne Moore, Gore Vidal and others, providing no sensible evidence to that effect, at times unwarrantedly nasty as well as plain wrong. Of course, all of the people he cites are politically on the liberal/environmental/left - people he would probably find fault with, whatever they said. But none are anti-American, that I am aware of.

Have to disagree about Vidal, at least in a general sense. I mentioned above about the acceptability of criticizing a friend in prosperous circumstances, but somehow the tradition of criticism that began during the anti-war Vietnam period became institutionalized and now amounts to something like a worldview. It is anti-American to the extent that it trivializes such contributions as the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, and other founding values. Vidal is up to his eyeballs in that crap, though in other respects he is prototypically American. There is a certain irony in the fact that the most anti-American of US citizens are just as obviously American in their basic mistrust of authority and fundamental commitment to individualism (in the form of self-reliance) as Thoreau, Emerson or Margaret Fuller. But to miss the linkage with the founding values is to impoverish oneself. So there are A and B strains of liberalism, with a great deal more in common than is usually supposed.

Bugger the emotional tone - truth is important. By all means feel emotional – who doesn’t right now? – but beware of the emotive manipulator of those emotions. So if I sounded vitriolic in places, it was not aimed at the American people or its culture - not remotely - but at what I saw as a shoddy piece of, at times inflammatory, journalism with its own agenda, capitalising on the mood of the moment, rather than improving it.

Also, if you read between the lines - and if you know the people he is talking about - you will quickly realise Brian Appleyard is only pro a certain section of American society with a specific political leaning– not all of them/you by any standards. In that respect he is – by his own definition – no more or less anti-American than those he is bad-mouthing. Civil rights protesters are/were Americans too, no?

They were at the time, but things have changed. Again, if you cut yourself loose from the founding values to toddle along after the likes of Derrida (who is a lot of fun, but not very admirable) you have become anti-American, without realizing it. I'm alarmed that things have drifted this far.

(What slightly worries me about that ‘anti-American’ tag, is its resemblance to those ‘un-American activities’ invented by the McCarthy commission fifty years back. I am not saying anything like that will happen again, but what goes around, sometimes comes around…?)

Don't worry, you have to be American to be un-American. And the fact that we haven't started a witch hunt for 'Islamic Sympathizers' probably means that we're not all that threatened. I also saw Lipset's unparalleled analysis of the McCarthy period that gets to the heart of it. The Republican Party had been out of power for a long time, with little hope of getting back in. That's the backdrop to the McCarthy era that most people forget. It was an act of political desperation and paranoia. Not the same thing today.

Hope that clarifies a few things.

Danke. Take care of those headaches.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 15:26:32 (EDT)
From: Private Forum Participant
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Nigel You were Misinformed
Message:
Nigel,
Regarding your Post on this Forum, There may have been a discussion about your admission to our Private Forum but the content was not what you have alleged. All conversations on that Forum are private by mutual agreement. I can assure you that If you applyto our forum, you will be considered as are all other applicants.

Could you please inform us as to the source of your information, Nigel? It is vitally important that Our Forum remain PRIVATE and it is a Pledge that all who are Admitted to Our Forum take to Not Reveal the Discussions and Posts that are Communicated. Thank you for your assistance.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 15:31:47 (EDT)
From: Moley
Email: None
To: Private Forum Participant
Subject: No Nigel wasn't misinformed
Message:
What do you mean misinformed? No he wasn't. I informed him. Who are you?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 15:07:38 (EDT)
From: Recent Exes FA
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Re: NOT Anti-American, ok, Richard? (ot)
Message:
Dearest Nigel,
Lest people get the wrong impression, it's not that big a deal to become a member of Recent Exes. You could become a member by simply emailing me via recent exes.

And I really don't think you need to worry too much about people casting aspersions upon your good name on another forum. It's been nipped in the bud.
Love from,
Yer American Freedom-Lovin' Pal

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 15:31:07 (EDT)
From: Nigel
Email: None
To: Recent Exes FA
Subject: Re: NOT Anti-American, ok, Richard? (ot)
Message:
Thanks REFA. Appeciated, though I am not sure what 'nipped in the bud means' - has Richard's post been removed? Either way, I thought I deserved the right to reply, and since I can't do that there (other than by proxy), I just wanted to set the record straight. Otherwise I wouldn't bother about, or pass on any bit of info gleaned from RE members. Think about it - wouldn't you want to do the same? (I know I would)

Yes, I know how to go about joining the RE forum if I want to, assuming they'd have me, and I wanted to - but the point is, Richard is talking about me now regarding a forum post I did over here at a time when I am not a member of the upper chamber..;)

Best, Nige

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 15:55:39 (EDT)
From: FA/RE
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Re: NOT Anti-American, ok, Richard? (ot)
Message:
Dear Nige--
By nipped in the bud, I meant that your good name was defended by all on the forum.

I do understand how you feel. We can talk about this more by email if you wish.
FA,RE

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 14:40:34 (EDT)
From: Rick
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Re: NOT Anti-American, ok, Richard? (ot)
Message:
Great post, Nigel.

For the record, I am pro-common sense, pro-democracy, pro-universal human rights, pro- the
safety and security of innocent civilians everywhere. I am anti the exploitation of the poor by
the rich, anti the persecution of minorities, anti one-party communism, anti the uninvited
meddling in smaller nations' affairs by their more powerful neighbours (be it from countries on
the left or right), anti-dictatorships of the left, right or fundamentalist nutter. Oh - and I am also
anti-organised religion, new-age beliefs and creationist thought. Then there's
anti-handgun-law, anti-death penalty, anti-royalist and anti the existence of an unelected
House of Lords....and anti-pacifist on the grounds that there is indeed such thing as a just
war. And I want every guilty member of Bin Laden's terror org to be brought to justice and
suitably punished.

This part's a masterpiece. I think the only thing you missed was anti-dripping-causting-shampoo-ingredients-into-the-eyes-of-rodents, which I would have mentioned. But really, in my view you've just been vaulted into saint-like status above even Joe.

(What slightly worries me about that ‘anti-American’ tag, is its resemblance to those
‘un-American activities’ invented by the McCarthy commission fifty years back. I am not
saying anything like that will happen again, but what goes around, sometimes comes
around…?)

You hit the nail on the head there.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 14:36:42 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: I apologise, Nigel
Message:
I can't speak for any of the others who responded to you but I never for one minute thought that you were anti-American. In fact I never for minute think that you are anything but intelligent, thoughtful and responsible.

I must apologise for posting my message as a response to your Appleyard critique. It should not have been placed there and rightly belonged in another thread. I was being smart alecky and as a result my response to you appeared to be a snub of your post. The fact is I cannot find fault with you critique of Appleyard.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 15:14:55 (EDT)
From: NigeandMoley
Email: None
To: Pat:C)
Subject: Relax Pat, it's ok..
Message:
Nige: I was only mildy irritated by the focus of your Applejack reply, Pat, and a bit too, by Pat D's post. I don't think any the less of either of you. But thanks for the apology - that always shows character, IMO. But to be described as vitriolically anti-American on a forum I am not a member of was something I felt the need to respond to. Cheers (and thanks Rick for the hagiographic moment above. I'll go and polish my crown, now)

Moley: What Nige has just said is weird cos I was, at the time of his writing that, thinking about one of my heroes, Dennis Potter (the TV playwrite) and the last interview he gave before he died (too young) of pancreatic cancer.....

He quoted the hymn ' Will there be stars in my crown, will there be stars in my crown?' I thought that was a beautiful line. He was talking about knowing he was going to die pretty immanently, seeing the blossom outside his window, and thinking it was the blossomest blossom he had ever seen.

He also said that (although a lifetime left-winger) he had lately awoke in the mornings not knowing if he was on the left or the right.

All this, a long-winded way of saying I don't care what political views anyone holds here - but I like people with stars in their crowns! And so sorry if I upset you. I know I said I'm gonna Email you, and I will tonite, if the rum doesn't get to me first. xxxxx Moley

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 21:14:48 (EDT)
From: PatD
Email: None
To: NigeandMoley
Subject: Re: Relax Pat, it's ok..
Message:
It's difficult to have a bar room conversation between pen pals which is what we have at the monent imo.

I'm sorry about the left/right supermarket shelf jibe....that was a cheap shot.

I suppose my own feelings about all this are based on the notion that terrorism is always wrong regardless of 'root cause' i.e I don't subscribe to the idea that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Also my gut feeling was that certain sections of the British media showed a totally insensitive & offensive reaction to the attacks on America so soon after they had happened , by attempting to find a rational analysis as to why , based on their own prejudices .

Also I think it's difficult for people on this side of the Atlantic to appreciate just what a profound blow this has been (& continues to be ) to the American psyche . I've had phone conversations with a couple of my American friends since the 11th & they are totally shattered.

It would be nice to get together in a real bar room sometime & shoot the breeze .

All the best : Pat Dorrity

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 04, 2001 at 04:08:22 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: PatD
Subject: PatD, you are an angel
Message:
You have no idea what a treat it is to hear from a Brit who actually FEELS something and is not just being abstract and academic about this stuff. Even here 3,000 miles away we are hurting.

Yes, NO terrorism is justified. It is all barbaric including the IRA and the ANC. Mandela was tried (the Rivonia trial) and jailed for planting a bomb which killed civilians. His 27 years in prison seemed to have turned him into a human being. Perhaps 27 years in prison may civilize Bin Li..oops Laden. ;)

Thank you. I hope one day to take your hand in friendship.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 08:21:05 (EDT)
From: Rick
Email: None
To: All
Subject: Greyhound Buslines Suspends Service OT
Message:
Seems a Greyhound driver's throat was slit by a passenger causing the bus to crash resulting in 10 deaths, and around 30 injuries needing hospital attention. The Tennessee Bureau of Investigation and the FBI were called in. Details are still sketchy.

Talk amongst yourselves.
[ Bus Crash ]

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 08:59:09 (EDT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Rick
Subject: Was it an Arab?
Message:
I'll be the one to ask since we're such a politically correct bunch. But seriously, folks, isn't that the first thing you want to know? Come on, now, be honest.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 09:10:25 (EDT)
From: Rick
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: Re: Was it an Arab?
Message:
That was my first thought. Then I remembered that those in Afghanistan and Pakistan aren't Arab, so my next thought was 'was it a Muslim?'
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 10:57:51 (EDT)
From: Suedoula
Email: None
To: Rick
Subject: Re: Was it an Arab?
Message:
Ok -- I'll admit that was my first question when my husband told me this morning. And when everyone I know was whining about how afraid they are to fly, my comment was, 'Next, it will be a Greyhound bus.' I should kept my mouth shut.

Best,
Susan

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 12:41:27 (EDT)
From: salam
Email: None
To: Suedoula
Subject: Was a Jew from Afghanistan
Message:
some say a Christan from Saudi Arabia.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 11:25:32 (EDT)
From: Rick
Email: None
To: Suedoula
Subject: Re: Was it an Arab?
Message:
Just showed you're a smart cookie. The latest is that the guy had a Croatian passport.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 11:38:54 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Rick
Subject: Hate to ask ...
Message:
Just showed you're a smart cookie. The latest is that the guy had a Croatian passport.


---

Was that MUSLIM croat?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 11:48:09 (EDT)
From: Rick
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: Hate to ask ...
Message:
Yeah, naturally that's the next question, but no news on that yet. So far the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation is downplaying that there's any connection at all to the recent terrorism.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 12:00:57 (EDT)
From: Rick
Email: None
To: Rick
Subject: more...
Message:
The bus driver told doctors the attacker slit his throat with a razor or boxcutter, took control of the steering wheel and drove the bus into oncoming traffic.

Sound familiar?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 09:16:18 (EDT)
From: Due to the need to be PC
Email: None
To: Rick
Subject: the networks can't say [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 14:47:42 (EDT)
From: Nigel
Email: None
To: Due to the need to be PC
Subject: No, the need to be certain...
Message:
Simplistic equations/speculations like Croat = Muslim = Arab = Fanatic = Apocalyptic nihilst = Threat are only going to spread unneceaasry fear of fresh Bin Laden attacks among the US public and risk the possibly fragile allegiance of some strategically essential Muslim countries in the alliance. Unless, of course, you are certain of a connection in which case people should be alerted.

There were Muslims killed in the Trade Towers. The father of one - lives in the UK - has been constantly harrassed and threatened by strangers since Sept 11 for his Mullah-like appearance.

The networks seem to be behaving responsibly.

BTW: Did you hear Blair's speech? Way to go, Tony..!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 07:23:35 (EDT)
From: From the Mishler Interview
Email: None
To: All
Subject: Loss of self
Message:
I found this an interesting segment in the interview with Bob Mishler:

'Well, the kind of peace he's offering is not real peace. It's called annihilation of your individuality. If you can call that peace... well, I guess a frontal lobotomy would do the same thing. It would be a lot quicker, and would probably have very sure results.

He wants people to continue working because it's by them coming to the festivals, paying their admissions and giving their donations when they're kissing his feet that he makes his money. He doesn't have any other income. He lives a very, very extravagant lifestyle.'
__________________________________

Maharaji still works in this manner. Preaches the dumbing-down mumble jumble and calls on everyone to come to Amaroo to kiss the feet and leave the envelope (cash preferably; visa and mastercard accepted but preferred through Visions International; no checks or money orders).

I still see the dumbing down of the mind in new recruits and especially in the old timers who still follow the herds to slaughter. But the new recruits have doubts and a place to pursue them, which the old-timers never had.

Hi Glen, how's your bunions?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 09:47:24 (EDT)
From: Ppeg
Email: None
To: From the Mishler Interview
Subject: Evidence please
Message:
He wants people to continue working because it's by them coming to the festivals, paying their admissions and giving their donations when they're kissing his feet that he makes his money. He doesn't have any other income. He lives a very, very extravagant lifestyle.'

Forgive me but I am quite new here and when people say things that imply that M is cold bloodedly milking his premies for money I get suspicious, curious, and sick at the thought. I am imagining that he is just deluded and trapped.

I know Bob Mishler could possibly have evidence for this but he could also just be angrily sounding off.

If anyone has any more solid evidence that m is actually consciously doing this could they tell me or direct me to the info.

If there isn't any I think its best not to imply that there is... it only gives weight to the premie view (which I held when I first visited here) that we are all just a load of angry and dissapointed people who wanted him to be God for us.

after all there's enough true stuff isn't there?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 20:32:15 (EDT)
From: Suedoula
Email: None
To: Ppeg
Subject: Re: Evidence please
Message:
Hi Peg,

I'm pretty new around here, too. I don't know if I have any answers to your concerns, just wanted to let you know that there is a wide range of experience among those of us in this forum. When I first started coming around I was a little surprised by the intensity of the feelings of some who post here. Accusations were made against M that I had never considered.

I moved out of the Ashram before M officially closed them. I was slipping away from M and his teachings bit by bit and I think I must have been already out the door when he started to deny saying the very things that had drawn me to him and kept me around for almost 10 years. So although I sometimes regretted losing those years I spent in servitude, I didn't feel the anger I was hearing from some who post on this board. I have also been away from M for more than a decade. But I was intrigued by the banter and camraderie on this Forum and many of the experiences of people here reflected those of my own.

I have been spending some time surfing through the EPO site (thank you, John and all who have put the time and effort into such a multi faceted site.) I keep thinking I have read all there is to read and then discover there is more. Peg, you might find some of the answers to your questions about M and his motives in some of the other interviews on the site, specifically those from Michael Dettmers. I found them eye opening to say the least. I have also gained much from reading the Journeys. Anth's was particularly moving for me.

So I hope you'll feel like hanging around with this diverse bunch. One thing is for sure, it's never a dull moment!

Best,
Susan

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 13:53:21 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: Ppeg
Subject: Evidence, Peg
Message:
BTW have you read the whole of Bob Mischler's interview? It's on EPO. The first time I read it about 2 years ago I dismissed it as the words of someone who had obviously not experienced Knowledge and was therefore judging Rev Rawat with his mind. After I left the cult I re-read it and suddenly understood it very clearly. Parts of it are angry (just as many of us exes have felt angry for being conned.) But most of it is quite calm and matter of fact.

Like you, I prefer first hand evidence and do not like to be swayed by others. So I took a look at what has led up to Rawat's owning over one hundred million dollars of property (supposedly he is also an investor but I don't know the value of his portfolio of stocks.)

He arrived in the west practically penniless. Have you ever heard him tell the story of having to sleep in his car in San Francisco in Aug 73 because he was a house guest of some gay guys in the Castro whose demands he did not like? He had nowhere else to go so he slept in his car at Ocean Beach. He later lost any money or property coming from Shri Hans' estate in a court battle with his brother who got the whole lot, Premnagar etc.

30 years later he has a 25 million dollar house in Malibu. I don't know how much the Reigate house is worth. He has a 7 million dollar yacht and a fleet of luxury cars, artwork and Rolex watches worth god knows how much. He sold the house in Malibu back to the people who had bought it for him for 8 million more than they originally bought it for, pocketed the cash and then leased it back from them.

Meanwhile tens of thousands of us westerners have given him money over the past 30 years in the form of monthly pledges or trust funds or inheritances. All this money was given to spread Knowledge to every land and bring peace to this world. Well, there are a lot more Indian premies but a lot fewer western ones. Knowledge really has not been spread and in fact has become so twisted and secretive that it is now impossible to tell sane westerners about it.

So where did all his wealth come from and why was it spent on him for more luxuries than he can ever hope to enjoy in one life time while Knowledge has not been spread the way we all once hoped it would be?

I never was happy with Rawat's profligate spending on himself but justified it by saying to myself that he was god and deserved everything he wanted. It never really bothered me until I left the cult and then I began to see that his lavish lifestyle really was grotesque and totally unnecessary especially since the money was not used for the purpose for which it was collected.

No, Peg, the evidence all points to Rev Rawat's being a cold-blooded and greedy conman.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 12:45:21 (EDT)
From: salam
Email: None
To: Ppeg
Subject: well
Message:
Next time you meditate, go into the spirit world [you really got to be there, if you know what I mean] and summon Mishlers' spirit and ask him. Can you also ask him to come to f7, it is cyber after all.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 11:45:32 (EDT)
From: Francesca :C)
Email: None
To: Ppeg
Subject: Mishler is dead
Message:
Peg,

That is a radio interview with Bob Mishler, who was the president of DLM and close confidant of Maharaji for a number of years. But he died a number of years ago.

I have no reason to disbelieve him -- the information was probably true at the time, and still, I don't think M does much to make a living except 'spread K.' DLM/EV will not open its financial books to followers and has a church exemption which keeps it from having to file with IRS in the US.

So it is really easy for EV and premies to say that those types of allegations are not true, because the truth is in the books.

I would imagine that his finances are a tangled web. The white pages on EPO has information on the shell corporations that own his yacht, and even the homes he lives in.

Francesca

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 12:49:50 (EDT)
From: salam
Email: None
To: Francesca :C)
Subject: hey Fran
Message:
Did you you know that he died in suspicious circumstances. Yes ma'am, his plane crashed while he was going to some anti cult meeting. Some people say that ^%6&6 !@#$%^ was involved.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 10:28:01 (EDT)
From: George
Email: None
To: Ppeg
Subject: There is no evidence
Message:
There's not one scrap of evidence that Maharaji is living off money from premies and he never asks them for any money and never ever has. Maharaji has his own source of income (he is a pilot) and I believe he's also a watch designer. Add to this the fact that he's a musician, having made several highly successful music CDs and also music videos and anyone with half a brain can see that he doesn't need money from premies.

Knowledge is free, as it always has been and Maharaji generously gives his own hard-earned money to help propogate his free gift. He takes time out from his busy pilot's schedule to talk freely to people when he's asked to by Elan Vital.

He's even tried to save money by buying a yacht so that he can travel to speaking venues more cheaply and give even more money to help propogate his free gift of knowledge. No, Maharaji is an extremely generous man.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 13:46:29 (EDT)
From: XXX
Email: None
To: George
Subject: So true George!
Message:
There's not one scrap of evidence that Maharaji is living off money from premies and he never asks them for any money and never ever has. Maharaji has his own source of income (he is a pilot) and I believe he's also a watch designer. Add to this the fact that he's a musician, having made several highly successful music CDs and also music videos and anyone with half a brain can see that he doesn't need money from premies.

Knowledge is free, as it always has been and Maharaji generously gives his own hard-earned money to help propogate his free gift. He takes time out from his busy pilot's schedule to talk freely to people when he's asked to by Elan Vital.

He's even tried to save money by buying a yacht so that he can travel to speaking venues more cheaply and give even more money to help propogate his free gift of knowledge. No, Maharaji is an extremely generous man.


---

Just a few quotes from EV to prove that Maharaji is independently wealthy and doesn't need premies.

'Today, Maharaji continues to volunteer his time as speaker and teacher on behalf of several nonprofit organizations, which arrange speaking engagements for him, and distribute video, audio and satellite broadcasts of his addresses. He maintains a full travel schedule, often traveling around the world up to three times each year.

However his work continued, as did the process of putting down roots in America. In 1974, when being driven up the Pacific Coast Highway in Malibu, he saw a dilapidated structure atop an isolated mountain and it caught his eye. The leaking bungalow, built as a weekend retreat by a Hollywood director, was some way off from the celebrated beachside community. Maharaji was unaware of the prestige of the area, but the beauty of the landscape was breathtaking and gave him a sense of refuge from the very adult responsibilities that he had to face on a daily basis.

The family still lives in the same house, now rebuilt and added to. Maharaji relishes it as his quiet family retreat, when taking a break from his busy schedule of relentless travel and tours.

In private he comes across as a shy person though with an outrageous sense of humor.'

I'm sick and tired of the loosers here criticizing this ordinary human being, who is no different from anybody else. There is also not a scrap of evidence that he once claimed to be Lord of the Universe!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 15:09:11 (EDT)
From: Chuck S.
Email: None
To: XXX
Subject: Maharaji DID ask for money...
Message:
Maharaji asked for money directly, during one of the Long Beach programs, '96 or '97. It was memorable, because it was unusual. He usually gets other people to ask for money for him, behind the scenes. I remember thinking at the time, that I would never be able to say to people ''Maharaji never asks for money'', because here he was, asking for it! It may have been the same program where he was whining about how hard it is to be a millioniare. I remember thinking, ''We should ALL have such problems''.

Money comes to Maharaji indirectly though holding companies, which own various properties and luxury items which he has full use of, without paying taxes on them. All the benefits of ownership, without the responsibilities

Any questions about what happens to money collected for the purpose spreading Knowledge could be settled once and for all by simply making the books open to public inspection. Many non-profit organizations, even Churhes, do this, even though they are not required to by law, because they want there doners to see that they have nothing to hide. But if you try to find out anything about M's finances or the finances of the various non-profits under his control, there is a wall of secrecy around them. The PAM's maintian that there is nothing hidden in the books, while refusing to disclose their contents.

There is plenty of evidence of Maharaji's greed and unethical behavior, on the EPO website and many other places. If you can't be bothered to read it, or simply refuse to believe it because you don't want to doubt the purity of The Master, that's your problem. Don't bother running those old saws by us here; they have no substance, and are just too boring.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 04, 2001 at 11:32:36 (EDT)
From: XXX
Email: None
To: Chuck S.
Subject: Chuck Please read this quote from EV!
Message:
According to EV 'Today, Maharaji continues to volunteer his time as speaker and teacher on behalf of several non-profit organisations, which arrange speaking engagements for him, and distribute video, audio and satellite broadcasts of his addresses.'

Do you know what 'non-profit' means Chuck? It means he doesn't make any money from these organizations. His money comes from his watch patent, his hugely successful CDs sales, his skills as a pilot, and lastly from free-will love offerings from devotees.

You are so cynical!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 04, 2001 at 14:59:09 (EDT)
From: Chuck S.
Email: None
To: XXX
Subject: Being cynical and honesty...
Message:
Does M fly planes COMMERCIALLY for a living? Who does he fly for? And how much money does a watch patent and a few obscure CD's bring in? Enough to support the extravagant life style he and his family enjoys? Not even close. And every premie knows, Maharaji is NOT a teacher, he has told the premies so many, many times. He's only spoken about like that to aspirants and outsiders. It's another LIE.

Of course I know what a non-profit is, don't be obtuse. M doesn't own anything on paper, it's all held by non-profits FOR him, so he gets the benifits of ownership without any of the tax liability. There are various ways to filter cash to M, that don't count as PAYMENT. Most likely all perfectly legal, he has lawyers to keep him out of trouble. But what about ethics, don't they count?

Any question about what happens to funds donated for the purpose of spreading Knowledge can be answered by simply opening the books, which many non-profits do voluntarily. If there is nothing to hide, then hide nothing.

I know you and many premies think it is cynical to 'question the purity of the Master'. That was my point to Peg. That was one of the reasons I left. That's one of many things that makes it a cult. Stick with it if you want to. But I don't believe anyone has to sacrifice honesty to experience the truth. If you think that is cynical, so be it. I think sacrificing honesty in the name of the truth is cynical.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 04, 2001 at 17:34:22 (EDT)
From: Barbara
Email: None
To: Chuck S.
Subject: Re: Being cynical and honesty...
Message:
Chuck:

I think Mr./Ms. Tres Equis is spoofin' ya. I sure hope so for Tres Equis' sake.

B

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 18:09:47 (EDT)
From: PEG
Email: None
To: Chuck S.
Subject: Why are you so stroppy ChuckS?
Message:
Thanks for the first part of your reply.

The last bit 'If you can't be bothered to read it, or simply refuse to believe it because you don't want to doubt the purity of The Master, that's your problem. Don't bother running those old saws by us here; they have no substance, and are just too boring.' pissed me off.

are you asking me not to have doubt in my mind about anything said here...or not to post unless I have something riveting to say? Well tough! I don't do riveting! if you find me boring just don't read my posts! I have read epo I believe what i read there mostly I think but I hadn't found the definite solid proof that he was totally cold blooded ..that's what I was asking about.

Personally I would like to ask these mundane questions just because they are there in my head, and I am grateful for anyone bothering to reply and accept it if people haven't got the time or inclination. I know i sound a bit like Pauline Premie sometimes... I am Not a premie but I was not so long ago and am still finding my feet.

Peg with a stamp of her foot

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 04, 2001 at 05:14:49 (EDT)
From: Chuck S.
Email: None
To: PEG
Subject: Oopsy...
Message:
Sorry Peg. The comment you found offensive was in response to George 'No evidence...' and XXX. There is plenty of evidence, and I just get tired of premie trolls saying there isn't. No offence to you indended, this IS a place to ask questions, and discuss M related things.

I had in fact, been thinking, the forum should get back on topic so that comments like yours:

''Forgive me but I am quite new here and when people say things that imply that M is cold bloodedly milking his premies for money I get suspicious, curious, and sick at the thought. I am imagining that he is just deluded and trapped.''

... could be given more attention, instead of being lost in the shuffle of war politics. I had felt the way you describe too, for a long time. I think as a premie you are -we all were- conditioned to always give M the benifit of a doubt, and it can take a while to learn to look at him and his motives more objectively. There is a LOT of information, and it takes time for it to sink in and assimilate. And old habits (making excuses for M) can die hard.

It's not like you have to start hating him. Everyone is different. Even now I don't really hate M, not with any passion. I just don't like his lies, and I want alternate information to be available, so others may extract themselves, if they want to.

I think the final turning point for me was the CAC website. I had pretty much stopped posting here, and would have just kept in touch occasionally, but the CAC website affected me personally. It convinced me finally that Maharaji is just plain greedy. I still have trouble using the 'evil' word, but I don't think it's too strong. He knows what he is doing. He KNOWS.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 19:36:35 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: PEG
Subject: hey, Peg, Chuck was answering XX
Message:
.....not you. His response was to the one just above his which I told him was probably a parody but he thought it was real. Yes, we still disagree after being together for 20 years.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 18:32:45 (EDT)
From: Francesca :o
Email: None
To: PEG
Subject: Chuck dear Peg's gd people!
Message:
I know that words on the screen get in the way -- Peg's a recentex and a great heart and spirit. She's new here and asking some of the questions others have asked long ago.

Oh, and Peg, Chuck GOOD PEOPLE too. :p

LOVE to YOU both good peoples,

Francesca

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 04, 2001 at 11:06:12 (EDT)
From: Peg
Email: None
To: Francesca :o
Subject: Thanks! Me Chuck Pat Fran all good!! [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 11:42:55 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: George
Subject: ****FUNNY PREMIE POST TIME****
Message:
There's not one scrap of evidence that Maharaji is living off money from premies and he never asks them for any money and never ever has. Maharaji has his own source of income (he is a pilot) and I believe he's also a watch designer. Add to this the fact that he's a musician, having made several highly successful music CDs and also music videos and anyone with half a brain can see that he doesn't need money from premies.

Knowledge is free, as it always has been and Maharaji generously gives his own hard-earned money to help propogate his free gift. He takes time out from his busy pilot's schedule to talk freely to people when he's asked to by Elan Vital.

He's even tried to save money by buying a yacht so that he can travel to speaking venues more cheaply and give even more money to help propogate his free gift of knowledge. No, Maharaji is an extremely generous man.


---

Ah for the good, old simple days of dumb premie posts like this one! Maharaji the watchmaker; Maharaji the musician ....

Peg, the evidence is overhwelming. Start with the multi-million dollar yacht he had John Miller secretly find and buy for him at the very moment when he was sending out fundraisers to shake down deep pocket premies. No, there are no blatant admissions on Maharaji's part that he's fleeced his flock for thirty years. The circumstantial case is undeniable though.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 13:44:47 (EDT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: That has to be a parody
Message:
It just has to be.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 06:01:17 (EDT)
From: Is Maharaji pleased
Email: None
To: All
Subject: like Winston Churchill was...
Message:
...when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. He knew this would bring the U.S. into the war.

Maharaji isn't being held accountable for his actions like before Sept. 11. Gary Condit is another one who has been forgotten.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 20:50:05 (EDT)
From: Gail
Email: gcmacdougall@yahoo.com
To: Is Maharaji pleased
Subject: Speaking of Sir Winston
Message:
MJ once told us that he was given an ashtray that had belonged to Churchill. Since it was valuable, he said he stashed it in his safe.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 04, 2001 at 04:13:53 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: pdconlon@hotmail.com
To: Gail
Subject: Re: Speaking of Sir Winston
Message:
Hi Gail. Yes, I remember that. Was it in Long Beach in 97?

I don't know you but I'm Patrick Conlon from San Fran and I've been posting here for 9 months.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 09:07:28 (EDT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Is Maharaji pleased
Subject: Gary Condit
Message:
Gary Condit already was old hat. In fact, if there ever was a case of lynching by journalism, Gary Condit's was it. It's just as well he's no longer in the public spotlight. As for Maharaji, I doubt he cares. We'll get back to him soon enough.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 06:46:37 (EDT)
From: nausea
Email: None
To: Is Maharaji pleased
Subject: OJ plays golf...
Message:
The problem is that he has too many people say he is great and that humans have learned to say something is wrong with them and they need a savior. Inheritance of the ignorants before us: We all need a savior! (NOT!)

Look at the Chatolic Church. All the Chatolics I know are pathetic beings, gray in sorrow and fear but for generations were not able yet to overcome 2000 years old lies. Words, empty words and a strong faith... Believers, and look at the state of the world. I blame craziness, wars and separations between us humans on religions.We, the ones who think he is fake are a minority compared with the thousands who depend on him, and the story keeps rolling. How bad can it be?:-)

Two years after leaving the cult I am still disgusted with the fact that he manipulated us, many of us for more than 2 decades, and cannot let go, cannot accomodate what I know. It is not resentment or hate as most premies seem to believe, but a need for justice. How can it be that he can get away with what he did to us? How can it be that we are such a suckers that cannot do something about it? Even after leaving the cult we remain scattered and without a common goal. Many groups gather for a cause. We gathered to spread the lie but cannot gather to fight the 'ENEMY'...and he continues making others fall in his trap. aughhhh

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 04:01:44 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: All
Subject: Bowing out without a tantrum
Message:
I'm just sick of this place. It reminds how I felt when I had enough of the LG forum.

I tried to be as polite and reasonable as possible but with a loopy fucking feminist on one side and ultra Pax Americanas on the other ....I just don't belong here.

And NO Scott I don't owe you,any other person or AMERICA any apologies.

I was true to my beliefs, thoughts, feelings.

If anyone is upset by that ....TOUGH.

Ciao

Dermot

PS: To all the decent folks here, either side of the argument....nice knowing ya.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 12:54:07 (EDT)
From: salam
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: tantrum 201.
Message:
sorry jhb.

you don't need to agree with nobody. Look at me.())())())

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 10:44:24 (EDT)
From: Cynthia
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: Re: Bowing out without a tantrum
Message:
I'm just sick of this place. It reminds how I felt when I had enough I tried to be as polite and reasonable as possible but with a loopy fucking feminist on one side and ultra Pax Americanas on the other ....I just don't belong here.

And that's not a tantrum? Come on Dermot. It's good for you to take a break. Breathe some fresh air. Loopy fucking feminist? Thank you for the compliment. Btw, I don't belong to any feminist groups or organizations. Have you read When God Was A Woman yet? IT's not a feminist book. It's a book written about ancient history. Or isn't that scientific enough for you?

Why the hate toward women? I don't blame all men for the power they have in the world. I am quite disappointed, however, when any man cannot understand why mothers in Afghanistan have no power over their stone throwing boys. Get it? Women have no power to do anything. And lots of women and men have worked hard over the years to try to change their plight.

I am not a scientific person. If you and the others here think you will break this terrorist situation down to science, you're not thinking clearly. It's about people who are in a fanatical, dangerous cult. Not everything in the world is cut and dried.

Every word you read or receive through the media isn't fact, either. Loopy feminist? Thank you. I appreciate it, truly. Read some history. You are not to blame as an individual for the world situation as it is, vis a vis, women being suppressed in the past and present except to the except to the extent that you are immediately critical of any views that are based in fact, about the suppression of women in world history. Err...when did women get the vote right in the USofA? When did they get the right to own property? Why? How? Women. And men, but mostly women.

Sexism happened in the Maharaji cult. It even happens here, right on F7. Get some fresh air. Get some new thoughts and read something that expresses a view you seem to despise about womanism or feminism.

Go work on a sexual assault hotline...that'll educate you, too. Do something active other than keyboarding.

I had a temper tantrum. Wow. Sorry for being human.

And your above post is not exactly a tantrum, but it is filled with anger.

Think about it...
Cynthia, (just call me loopy the woman)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 15:15:00 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Cynthia
Subject: And yet...
Message:
I am not a scientific person. If you and the others here think you will break this terrorist situation down to science, you're not thinking clearly. It's about people who are in a fanatical, dangerous cult. Not everything in the world is cut and dried.

And yet I maintain it's within the purview of social science. In the so-called 'natural (physical) sciences' (which is probably what you mean by science) you look for correlation coefficients (percentage of variation in the dependent variable explained by the model) along the lines of 0.9 and above. In social science you're lucky to get a correlation coefficient above 0.3, but that's more than enough to begin to solve serious problems. So if you say empowering mothers will have an effect on the behavior of stone throwing boys, and by experiment or other empirical means you can demonstrate that you've explained 30% of the variation in that male behavior by your model, and the coefficient for the 'female empowerment' variable is high, then you've got a wedge to start changing things on both sides of the equation. Don't write science off just because it doesn't always agree with you.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 07:48:50 (EDT)
From: Nigel
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: Come back soon (nt) [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 05:28:45 (EDT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: Re: Bowing out without a tantrum
Message:
Dermot,

you have been great. There is a real problem here with those who confuse understanding (meaning a scientific, amoral, value-free view of how things work or have come about) with justification (considered as the moral basis of sentient action).

To understand is not to justify. This is true whether one is talking of a volcanic or a social explosion. I feel a grave danger that understanding as such, is being made into a Thought Crime.

But to say such a thing is most unwelcome to Crusader ears.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 09:13:08 (EDT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: Understanding
Message:
There is a real problem here with those who confuse understanding (meaning a scientific, amoral, value-free view of how things work or have come about) with justification (considered as the moral basis of sentient action).

That's an interesting statement, John. Do you think there's really a chance to understand this issue given the sources of information we have about it. It's not as if a scientific experiment has been performed to get to the roots of terrorism. So how do you propose we come to a scientific conclusion on it?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 10:27:21 (EDT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: Re: Understanding
Message:
The major point I find myself emphasising again and again is just this distinction between understanding and justification.

It is clear enough when expressed in the abstract. Unfortunately, when a wrong is done to us, we are likely to feel attempts to understand the assailant amount to some sort of justification for his action. But it is baby thinking, magical thinking, to imagine that by ignoring the surrounding circumstances and conditions we in any way make ourselves safer.

To develop an amoral and scientific understanding of the roots of terrorism, a helpful first step might be to define the term exactly.

Presently, it is used in a patrisan and political way (crudely put -- our guys are freedom fighters; their guys are terrorists). Unless the term can be applied consistently by a disinterested outsider we are unlikely to be dealing with anything real -- what constitutes 'terrorism' would be more a matter of relativistic perception and taste.

That the attack on the WTC was terrorism, I do not doubt. But what definition would exclude our demand that bin Laden be turned over on our say-so (without indictment or evidence) or a military bombardment will follow? Some would argue that that is merely to use terror to persuade the Taliban Govenrment to do what pleases us.

There will be attempts to define the term, the better to be objective. But there are many distinguished jurists who wonder whether any useful definition could exclude the activities of Mssrs North; Kissinger; Sharon and Gurion; not to mention our very own Mrs Thatcher.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 11:41:00 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: Myth of objectivity
Message:
. But there are many distinguished jurists who wonder whether any useful definition could exclude the activities of Mssrs North; Kissinger; Sharon and Gurion; not to mention our very own Mrs Thatcher.

Lots of harm has been done by political actors of various kinds, with good intentions and bad. To define this as terrorism causes needless confusion. If there are distinguished jurists wondering about that send them to me. Again, you can define terrorism in such a way that many political actors will incorporate some small element of it, but by and large conventional religious or political zealotry is outside the phenomenon. We might quibble at the margins, but we aren't dealing with a marginal situation here, in spite of your conflating Thatcherism with al Queda. It reminds me of the Marxists who defined capital as 'congealed labor.' It seems a very minor mistake, until you look at the consequences.

More on the difference between 'magical thinking' and conventional religious and political zealotry later.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 11:29:17 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: Yeah, but would YOU say it?
Message:
That the attack on the WTC was terrorism, I do not doubt. But what definition would exclude our demand that bin Laden be turned over on our say-so (without indictment or evidence) or a military bombardment will follow? Some would argue that that is merely to use terror to persuade the Taliban Govenrment to do what pleases us.

There's always someone who'll say anything but what do YOU say? I'd say that this would be a silly comment, myself. The evidence against bL is overwhelming and the Taliban knows it. Not just for this attack either, don't forget the embassies and the Cole. Harbouring him is akin to an act of war in my books. After all, who needs an army when you've suicide terrorists capable of turning domestic airlines into a Kamikazee air force?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 11:19:32 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: Verstehen
Message:
John:

I don't know how to state this more plainly. You don't understand, whether you're justifying or not. Your distinction might be relevant if that were the central issue, but it isn't. And the reason you don't understand the phemomenon is simply that you've jumped to the conclusion that it is essentially a political phenomenon. That might be true of the terrorists' *audience* but not of the terrorist themselves. The two groups are related, but it's their differences that are significant not their similarities.

See my post below under 'Reconciliation -- On Topic'

You guys are so wound up in your anti-Americanism, and I was so preoccupied with defending against it, that we missed the basic mechanism. In my defense, I've always felt it had more to do with cult thinking than political grievance but I didn't come up with a 'thick description' until yesterday. The whole thing is very counter-intuitive. I think the mechanism I've outlined will be more or less true depending on the mix of motivations of the actors. That is, some terrorists are more motivated by conventionl zealotry than others. As a first approximation I think the mechanism is basically applicable to 'suicide bombers.' I think it also has relevance to other sorts of terrorism, but probably to a lesser degree.

So again, any suggestion that you were 'justifying' the attack was an over-reaction, either on my part or yours. You were only justifying it in the very narrow sense that responding to the attack as though it's a political demand reinforces the magical thinking, and also sets up a situation where terrorism becomes a tool in negotiation. I maintain that terrorism actually *interferes with* and *obstructs* any genuine desire for reconciliation on the part of the offended group. It does exactly the opposite of what it's 'audience' within the minority community wants done. I don't know how open you are to that, but to my mind it pretty much wraps it up. Reconciliation, if it is to exist at all, has to be decoupled from terrorism and has to separate the terrorist from his/her audience in order to break the cycle. I didn't just jump to this conclusion. I've been pulling the pieces of it together since I first began posting on Forum II, back in early 1998. Ask anyone.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 08:46:31 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: Bowing out without a tantrum
Message:
John:

There is a real problem here with those who confuse understanding (meaning a scientific, amoral, value-free view of how things work or have come about) with justification (considered as the moral basis of sentient action).

To understand is not to justify. This is true whether one is talking of a volcanic or a social explosion. I feel a grave danger that understanding as such, is being made into a Thought Crime.

Now hold on a minute here, pardner. I claimed you were insensitive to start recounting the manner that the US had brought it on ourselves before the rubble had stopped bouncing. If I defended the US from your ideological nonsense then I'm truly sorry. That defense apparently diverted you from the understanding that you were on the wrong track anyway. I would never lynch someone for pissing on my front door. My real concern was not with your insensitivity but your failure to understand the event, because of your need to *categorize* it or pigeonhole it into your pre-existing ideological cosmology. In a word, you got it wrong. You don't understand the attack, because you jumped to conclusions (as did Dermot and a number of others). I still think you're jumping to conclusions, and no I *don't* think you understand the attack or how to deal with it (the second misunderstanding being determined by the first). I've pretty much been saying that since day 1.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 04:21:00 (EDT)
From: Sir Dave
Email: sirdavid12@hotmail.com
To: Dermot
Subject: Re: Bowing out without a tantrum
Message:
I don't belong here either. What did you think of Tony Blair's speech? I thought it was right on the button. Email me if you want and/or try and post something in The War Room.
[ The War Room ]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 03:57:06 (EDT)
From: Pat:C) reposting Scott's
Email: None
To: All
Subject: Cultic magical thinking of terrorists
Message:
Scott posted this below in a thread that is fairly inactive and it may get lost. (He suggested it as a way of returning to topic.) It's too good to be missed. He certainly said it all for me and I no longer need to add anything more to this discussion in political terms. I definitely see terrorism completely in cultic terms. Scott calls it ""magical thinking"" which I think is too charitable. I call it religious insanity and superstitious sociopathy. Here are Scott's words:

Fortunately we know that the ultimate cause of terrorism is not our actions either historically or now. The ultimate cause of terrorism is 'magical thinking.' It's the conviction that something going on in your life in the everyday world is linked to great cosmic events. Not the other way around mind you, because that's just political empowerment. The basic cause of terrorism is the notion that history has you by the ears and it's marching you through the gates, swamping your individual will. It's not merely a delusion that *you* know the direction that this cosmic course must take, although that's what Hannah Arendt thought. It's more than the notion that it's *your* responsibility to compel God's will, because if that's all it were then it might be simple patriotism which would peter out as everyday events pulled you this way and that. No, it's the notion that everyday events are pulling you in one direction, and one direction only, constantly reinforcing the conviction that there's no room for doubt or questioning or discussion. I don't see how there's much wiggle room for a liberal attitude in response there, do you? However, one thing you can do that might save fighting a battle or two is treat the magical thinking directly. You can 'bust' it, and you can do things that demonstrate that the 'magic' just isn't happening.

So if you can demonstrate how our analysis of past US actions (accurately recounted) serves that goal then I'll buy it. But every scenario I can think of serves the opposite goal, because our acknowledgement of a wrong convinces the terrorist or recruit that their thoughts are magic, and their will is destined. The irony here is that terrorism does precisely the opposite of what the terrorist's 'audience' wants, because it binds the hands of the opponent from taking any sort of conciliatory action.

On the other hand, if we make clear our intention to not negotiate and not seek any reconciliation, committing ourselves to the destruction of the opponent, then we can afford to be conciliatory to those interests not expressed by the terrorist, or not seen as their primary objective. We can win his audience away from him, break his pattern of magical thinking, and restore sanity.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 08:58:47 (EDT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: Pat:C) reposting Scott's
Subject: Scott T thinking
Message:
Scott: The ultimate cause of terrorism is 'magical thinking.'


---

---

Very useful Scott. Do tell the President. You'll be able to give him a demo too, I'm sure.

ahahahahahahahahahaha!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 11:49:24 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: Your leak is showing.
Message:
Suggests I talk to the President and then launches into maniacal laughter. 'Nuff said.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 11:32:18 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: Again, same problem, John
Message:
Who cares what the PRESIDENT thinks? How about you? Scott's right and you know it. These guys start with a very bizarre cultic proposition and find justification as they need it.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 15:16:22 (EDT)
From: test
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: Again, same problem, John
Message:
test
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 18:07:01 (EDT)
From: Happy Ex
Email: None
To: All
Subject: Maharaji takes a second wife!
Message:
Just kidding. Thought it might bring things back on topic here.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 06:48:54 (EDT)
From: ())
Email: None
To: Happy Ex
Subject: ROFL
Message:
He cannot be that honest to do something like that: The appearences are too important to be a successful cult leader.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 12:10:20 (EDT)
From: Blonde Gopi #3
Email: gopi3@krishnalila.com
To: all
Subject: That bastard said would be me
Message:
He promised me that I was to be the next Mrs. Rawat. He said he was leaving Marolyn this time for sure.
HE PROMISED. HE REALLY DID! That bastard!!! So who is the unfortunate victim?

Blonde Gopi #3

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 17:01:49 (EDT)
From: tommy tucker
Email: None
To: All
Subject: An Englander Speaks!
Message:
Why did this war against terrorism not start sooner?
Why didn't the U.S. come to the aid of England in fighting terrorism these past 30 years?
We have been exposed to many attacks from the IRA and felt in danger of our lives but there was no rallying together of American forces off the coast of Ireland with an ultimatum to Gerry Adams and crew to hand over those who bombed the City of London, Guildford and the many others - or else they would send in troops and destroy the christian fundamentalists.
No more likely the U.S.A was funding them
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 20:17:02 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: tommy tucker
Subject: What a dumb post!
Message:
This doesn't deserve any greater reply.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 19:39:10 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: tommy tucker
Subject: You had me 'til the last sentence.
Message:
And which Christian fundamentalists are you talking about, Protestant or Catholic? Personally I think there's a lot of evidence to support the theory that the US is behind the fact that such a high percentage of condoms break during the last 30 seconds of intercourse, and why do so many people over 60 need Viagra to get it up anyway? What's up with *that* America?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 18:16:51 (EDT)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: tommy tucker
Subject: This is a public service for Americans
Message:
To most Americans, Ireland is a romantic island where the bad British (and they certainly have been in the past) continue to prevent a united Ireland. The cold fact that the the majority of the population of Northern Ireland do not want a united Ireland escapes them, so they continue to arm the IRA, the continuity IRA, and the Real IRA, and innocent people continue to be killed as a result. Irish terrorism is a difficult problem that requires clear minds, an understanding of the root causes of the problem, and an ability to rise above emotion to find a long term solution. Those who donate in the Irish bars in Manhatten need to understand this.

Of course the vast majority of Americans do not support Irish terrorists (I hope). In fact, the Good Friday agreement was negotiated thanks to the efforts of the US government and Senator Whatshisname. But those of us who have lived through the IRA campaign in England would just like ordinary Americans to think a little about the effect of terrorism outside their borders.

Jim earlier claimed that the Irish terrorists had a legitimate cause so were qualititavely different from the IF terrorists. This sounds dangerously close to supporting the IRA. I replied that they do not have a legitimate cause (the unification of Ireland) but he didn't reply.

As I have said, I support American and NATO action against the IF terrorists. I also support Blair's vision of action to eradicate the causes of terrorism. I hope and trust that the US government have wise counsel, and that a better world will arise from this crisis.

John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 19:39:07 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: JHB
Subject: Hm, did I say that?
Message:
Jim earlier claimed that the Irish terrorists had a legitimate cause so were qualititavely different from the IF terrorists.

John,

Here's what I said the first time you asked:

I don't have any problem seeing the IRA and Islamic fundamentalist (IF) terrorist threats as qualitatively different. The former arises from a legitimate political agenda and is an expression of legitimate political grievances. Britain has a very tricky path to walk in that it has to address the political problem without seeming to dance to the terrorists' fiddle in any way, shape or form. The IFs, on the other hand, do not have a legitimate political grievance much as so many people are eagre to project one on to them.

and here's how I tried to explain myself further when you asked:

First, who cares if the IFs think their cause is legitimate? I don't and that's what matters when you're asking how I distinguish them from the IRA. The IRA are fighting for a united Ireland which, they believe, they'd enjoy were it not for historical English domination and oppression. I might not even agree with their views but I really don't even know all that much about the situation. I do know, though, that they're not just espousing the brain-washed nonsense of a killer religious idea. And, while I also don't agree at all with their terrorist history, the point is I believe that it stems from a rational agenda. Might not be my agenda but it's rational.

The IFs, on the other hand, are fighting for something that's sublimely ridiculous, in my opinion. So, to me, it's not a rational goal and their activity does not invite speculation as to how the U.S. could behave better in the future.

And, no I'm not anti-British and you can't derive that from my opinion.

The point I was trying to make, however poorly worded, was that the IRA have a rational agenda, one that's based on a reasonable grievance -- as best I understand. I accept the goal or reuiniting Ireland as a legitimate and rational goal. I don't accept the goal of destroying the 'evil and sinful United States of America' as such. That's what I meant. Again, I'm not saying I agree personally with the IRA goal but I think it's rational in a way that the IFs' isn't.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 09:26:23 (EDT)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Jim, Oh Jim
Message:
Jim,

You are correct when you say that you don't know much about the situation in Northern Ireland. The central point here is that the majority of the people who are living there now (and who's forebears have lived there for hundreds of years) DO NOT WANT a united Ireland. Is that clear? So how in hell can you describe the terrorists cause as rational and legitimate?

You are worse than those you criticise here. At least no one here is saying that the IF terrorists have a rational or legitimate cause. No one is saying that - do you agree? But, you, without even knowing much about it, describe people who have routinely blown up parts of the city I lived in for 20 years, as having a rational and legitimate cause.

Shame on you.

John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 11:35:15 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: JHB
Subject: That's not the question
Message:
It's not simply a matter of whether the majority supports their view that makes their cause rational. Anyway, though, would you say that the majority of all Irelander's, North and, ahem, 'regular', don't want unity? In any event, that's not the deciding factor.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 10:39:44 (EDT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: JHB
Subject: uhhh, well, actually
Message:
no one here is saying that the IF terrorists have a rational or legitimate cause.

I have suggested that opposition to American partisanship over the Israel/Palestine issue; opposition to sanctions against Iraq; and opposition to US troops in Saudi Arabia are each legitimate and rational causes.

I mentioned these issues as they were mentioned by bin Laden in interviews I have read.

Can one not be rational and oppose these policies and practices? To use violence to further one's opposition may indeed be illegitimate, but to work peacefully to oppose those policies and practices is still allowed.

Or have I missed something? I've not been watching ALL the news lately!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 12:12:47 (EDT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: Re: uhhh, well, actually
Message:
I agree with Jim, here, John. If it was just for the reasons you state, I'd say that bin Laden has a reasonable gripe. But since he sees us as the kaffir (nonbeliever) on sacred ground, and believes it is his sacred duty to remove us, I'd say he's being irratonal. The guy's a religious nut.

The question I have is would the current resurgence in IF have occurred if America's policies were different? One thing that stands out for me is that while things were good and Saudis were virtually guaranteed a successful living, with the right education, IF didn't have such a strong hold. Now that it's tough to find a nice, cushy job after college, you've got all these extremists running around screaming 'Death to America!' Makes me think it's all over economics. As long as things were good, America wasn't such a bad guy. Now that things are tough, it's time to return to the old ways and destroy the infidel.

Sounds like bullshit to me.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 17:42:34 (EDT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: Re: uhhh, well, actually
Message:
The question I have is would the current resurgence in IF have occurred if America's policies were different? One thing that stands out for me is that while things were good and Saudis were virtually
guaranteed a successful living, with the right education, IF didn't have such a strong hold. Now that it's tough to find a nice, cushy job after college, you've got all these extremists running around screaming 'Death to America!' Makes me think it's all over economics.

As long as they can live well, and the government (of even forces of occupation) stays off their backs, most people are happy, you have a point there.

I think in retrospect it may well unwise to have cosied up so uncritically to the Saudi regime. It is a fundamentalist puritan society (shar'ia law) with, of course, a very influential and conservative clergy. There is no free speech or freedom of the press; no elections; and women's rights are significantly fewer than are men's. Yet it also has a large 'westernised' ridiculously wealthy Establishment (the Saudi Royals and assorted liggers) that has come to its riches and power via oil -- and from sucking up to the Buyers of that oil. So American troops are now in Saudi Arabia, and to ordinary Saudis they look like they're there to protect the oil (for America) and the class that has become wealthy beyond reason from selling the oil. Memories of the Iraqi retreat from Kuwait don't help either. You get the picture, I'm sure.

But Saudi is an intensely repressive society. We know that over here, as there have been a number of cases where Brits have been transparently framed to protect Saudi police rackets and corruptiom. Look, if they do that to Westerners, how do you think they treat ordinary Saudis?

Bad news, then, to have cosied up so uncritically to a corrupt dictatorship, now the whole region teters on a knife edge. Now the West has need of a friendly Saudi Arabia we discover our friend is facade, and its people resentful and suspicious of the West that they see as having helped keep its corrupt and bloated Royal class in obscene wealth and dictatorial power for so long.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 11:57:37 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: Still, same confusion.
Message:
I have suggested that opposition to American partisanship over the Israel/Palestine issue; opposition to sanctions against Iraq; and opposition to US troops in Saudi Arabia are each legitimate and rational causes.

Rational goals, but in this case not causes.

I mentioned these issues as they were mentioned by bin Laden in interviews I have read.

And I maintain that you can't predict Bin Laden's behavior based upon these issues alone, so they aren't his real motivation. They're the motivation of his audience, but for him they're only a temporary rationalization. What's more, taking the track he has taken makes fulfillment of those goals (while his movement exists) virtually impossible.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 11:37:03 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: no
Message:
bL's udnerlying reasons -- that the U.S. is a sinful nation and thus U.S. soldiers defile holy muslim land by their presence, is not rational. What is it? It's religious! Read: irrational.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 13:16:52 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Same goes for IRA, Jim
Message:
I simply changed bL to IRA and US to UK in your words.

The IRS's underlying reasons -- that the U.K. is a sinful nation and thus U.K. soldiers defile holy Irish land by their presence, is not rational. What is it? It's religious! Read: irrational.''

IRA terrorism is purportedly about territory but it is fueled by religious insanity and perpetrated by the same kind of people - idiotic, macho, cult-crazed maniacs.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 18:03:22 (EDT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: Pat:C)
Subject: Yes, but ...
Message:
... while there may be truth in what you say, the fact remains that the IRA would never have got going again without the Bloody Sunday massacre. The protests that lead up to the massacre were part of the Civil Rights protests of the sixties -- and those protests were occasioned by civil and legal inequalities within the North.

What you say is true of the vanguard, but without a civil wrong (or strong sense of one!) the vanguard a just an almost harmless bunch of militia nuts with too much of a sense of tradition.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 19:43:20 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: Sunday bloody Sunday
Message:
It was for those very reasons that I used to side with the IRA until as recently as ten years ago. I must confess that I also hated the English since they had put 120,000 of my Afrikaner ancestors in concentration camps during the Boer war. I inherited a hatred of the English from both the Boer and Irish sides of my family.

But I've drawn my own conclusions since then and see that bombing civilians in London has nothing to do with the IRA's purported grievances.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 13:48:55 (EDT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Pat:C)
Subject: So this is about Religion?
Message:
dipping in a bit tenatively here:

Territorial concerns masking Religious concerns which are ultimately masking--Economic concerns? Jerry's theory makes sense to me.
[ The Phoney War ]

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 14:02:53 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: Re: So this is about Religion?
Message:
And the economic concerns are mostly fuelled by Marxism. Bin Laden believes and has stated many times that capitalism is the enemy. Mix sour envious Marxism with fanatical religious mania and you have a deadly cocktail made up of the bitterest and most murderous elements of human nature.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 18:23:44 (EDT)
From: Samuel Butler
Email: None
To: Pat:C)
Subject: from Hudibras
Message:
Well, talking of fundamentalist puritans, here's a piece from 17th Century England. Nothing new under the sun, eh?

Sir Hudibras's Religion

187 For his Religion, it was fit
188 To match his learning and his wit;
189 'Twas Presbyterian true blue;
190 For he was of that stubborn crew
191 Of errant saints, whom all men grant
192 To be the true Church Militant;
193 Such as do build their faith upon
194 The holy text of pike and gun;
195 Decide all controversies by
196 Infallible artillery;
197 And prove their doctrine orthodox
198 By apostolic blows and knocks;
199 Call fire and sword and desolation,
200 A godly-thorough-reformation,
201 Which always must be carried on,
202 And still be doing, never done;
203 As if religion were intended
204 For nothing else but to be mended.

205 A sect, whose chief devotion lies
206 In odd perverse antipathies;
207 In falling out with that or this,
208 And finding somewhat still amiss;
209 More peevish, cross, and splenetic,
210 Than dog distract, or monkey sick.

211 That with more care keep holy-day
212 The wrong, than others the right way;
213 Compound for sins they are inclin'd to,
214 By damning those they have no mind to:
215 Still so perverse and opposite,
216 As if they worshipp'd God for spite.

217 The self-same thing they will abhor
218 One way, and long another for.
219 Free-will they one way disavow,
220 Another, nothing else allow:
221 All piety consists therein
222 In them, in other men all sin ...

posted by JohnT
[ HUDIBRAS, PART I (excerpt) ]

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 04, 2001 at 04:39:00 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Samuel Butler
Subject: Oliver Protector
Message:
Cromwell so rattled the British aristocracy and monarchy that they opened the society to the middle class, and moved away from the absolute monarchies of the Stuarts. Oliver Protector served as an innoculation for Great Britain, against the sort of carnage that eventually took place in the Reign of Terror. They'd have done *anything* to avoid another Cromwell.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 14:53:17 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Pat:C)
Subject: And Marxism is a secular religion. [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 15:53:03 (EDT)
From: hamzen
Email: None
To: All
Subject: chillin out in tough times
Message:
For those of you with fond remembrances of Nick Drake and John Martyn (still going I know), ie the better end of singer songwriters from the 60's/70's, who can't adapt too easily to modern music, but want the new wisdom, check out

David Gray 'White Ladder'

and for those of more into chilled beats

Groove Armada 'Vertigo' & anything by Air

The house generation over here in the uk have embraced this new acoustic scene for chillin out bigtime.

From the indie guitar end see also, Badly Drawn Boy, Coldplay and if you like it a little weirder ie cello's etc Goldfrapp

Then there's the obvious female hippy hip-hop of macy grey, lauren hill (from the fugees) & erikah badhu(sp?)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 00:58:17 (EDT)
From: Stonor
Email: None
To: hamzen
Subject: Hamzen ...
Message:
I know it's hard in times like these, but you should've marked your post OOT.

Yes, I remember 'Bless the Weather' John Martyn, but you're the only person who I've ever heard mention him ... bless you. I almost bought one of his albums years ago, but the cover was too melodramatic, so I didn't. Not sure about your recommendations, but no time to check them out.

Good to see you posting,

Anna

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 15:44:50 (EDT)
From: hamzen
Email: None
To: All
Subject: New forums required?
Message:
After reading a few of the posts in the thread two below started by Jim re dropping the politics, it struck me that although this site is primarily about gm etc there have always been off-topic threads.
With the throughrate here being about a day before a topic has gone it struck me that it would be good to be able to have split forums, especially since the migration to anything goes (too) has always been minimal.

So in the spirit of, I've set up a couple of forums at the same site, and they can always be added to.
Well designed forums, admittedly with a small banner, and, salam please note, you can even add flash movies to your own posts if you register, as well as posting topical news by admin on the main pages.

Would rather not do the admin, but will if I have to.

What do you think of?

http://expremie.proboards.com/

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 15:52:34 (EDT)
From: Sir Dave
Email: None
To: hamzen
Subject: Re: New forums required?
Message:
It looks good. The format takes a little getting used to and you have to open topics up to see the posts on those forums. What would people think about registering?

As you can see, someone else has set up a forum for discussion/news about current world events. I wonder if that's what is needed?
[ The War Room ]

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 16:05:36 (EDT)
From: hamzen
Email: None
To: Sir Dave
Subject: You can post there without registering
Message:
you just can't insert your own tags etc.

Although you have to open a topic up to see what's there you do then see the whole thread on one page.
You can also get to any of the other forums within that site.

Downside apart from the less open thread listing is that I'm not sure it's so fast as either the hotboards or bravenet ones.

Let's hope the bravenet one is the goer, rather not have to do admin as you of all people would appreciate.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 13:44:14 (EDT)
From: suchabanana
Email: None
To: All
Subject: eiydhiwndy - implications
Message:
eiydhiwndy [even in yer darkest hangover i will not desert you] - a refashioned encrypted cult mantra, which was first spouted and inculcated way back when by you-know-who, dat concept-maker?

which reminds me, this subject keeps coming up: da 'Lard': to be or not to be, dat is da question...?

so, make up yer mind already... Prem's cult dilemma

jest da FAQs, ma'am... eiydhiwndy - dose implications, hmmmm....

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 01:57:15 (EDT)
From: Francesca :)
Email: None
To: suchabanana
Subject: Everyone knows it's wndy!
Message:
Lots of that der wnd. Hot wnd. Cold wnd when he yells. The whirrled of der Master.

iai = it's all inside
lnrfdiym = leave no room ...
afg = always have faith in god

Maybe he's a Druid???

--f

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 14:26:00 (EDT)
From: suchabanana
Email: annagraham_goddog@livevil.org
To: Francesca :)
Subject: rtn wtmycch bssgdmkj jsca wyalfiwy
Message:
rtn - remember da gnome,

ndias - never dilly-dally in attending shatsong

wtmycch - without da massa u cain't cum om

bssgdmkj - bogart shri sat rugu dev miragey keeps jays

jsca - jay sat shit andon

wadahamar - waa dada has money

ncnd - no cheat, no deceit

wyalfiwy - what you are lookin fer is within ye

lfotllou - lotus feet of the living lard of the universe

tpok - the possumbillingbody of kolledge

gfootc - get Fakirananad out of the country!!

bttigtpsbr - by the time i get to phoenix she'll be risin'

atpol - a thousand points of light

ugnsmp - you guys need some more planes?

dlm - definitely lunatic mission

ev - electro-voice

lawki - life as we know it

thf - the holy family

akos - as Kabeer once said...

inetbr - it's not easy to be rich!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 14:45:04 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: suchabanana
Subject: Francesca and Such
Message:
The Visions catalogue actually described the EIYDHIWNAY as ''hieroglyphs.''

Another quote from ''This Issue of Happiness: An Introduction to Maharaji's message.''

''When you are happy, the issues don't matter. Happy people get on with the business of being happy.''

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 22:41:34 (EDT)
From: Suedoula
Email: None
To: Pat:C)
Subject: When You are Happy. . .
Message:
''When you are happy, the issues don't matter. Happy people get on with the business of being happy.''
Oh Pat,

This one is too good. Can you just see it? Tee shirts, coffee mugs, bumper stickers! Maybe even a song. Wait -- someone beat us to it.

Don't Worry, Be Happy :)

Best,
Susan

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 04, 2001 at 16:08:13 (EDT)
From: suchabanana
Email: bananas@dharamsalsa.org
To: Suedoula
Subject: m:'When we are happy, the issues don't matter.'
Message:
[repost from 9/29]
Subject: m:'When we are happy, the issues don't matter.'

Message:
What about the suffering/happiness of others? What about lil' issues like WTC, terrorism, security/civil liberties, genocide, refugees, oppression, and da survival and pursuit of happiness of billions of people?

The health and well-being and freedom of us all -- as a connected subjectively aware species among the myriad life forms existing within the environment of an orbiting planet in a connected cosmos of relational materialized energy -- does matter.

'In the eternal goodness of the divine nature (as in a miraculous mirror) the essence of all creatures is seen as one.'
-- Meister Eckhart

If my brothers and sisters in this world are suffering or being persecuted, then how can I wallow selfishly in my own bliss? If the rainforests which replenish the oxygen for all of earth's breathing life are decimated, how can I sit in satisfied silence? If the flowing waters which provide earthly life's sustenance are poisoned, how then can I remain oblivious or passively unconcerned?

Nay. Let us be not wasteful, ostentatious, or consumed with the material pleasures and accumulations of the gluttonous lower self. For, regardless of any spirituality, in active cooperative kindness and compassion for others resides a nobility of the human spirit not attained by wistful meditative self-absorption.

To be happy within oneself is good. To remember and respect the plight of others, too, is better. We are all equal in the sight of the universal energy. We are also interconnected. What oppresses or harms another who is less fortunate may one day harm us, too. In point of fact, some issues Do matter.

Peace and lentils,
[ http://www.treeloot.com/play/help/popups/bananabucks_shock.html ]

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 04, 2001 at 04:19:26 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: Suedoula
Subject: isn't it too silly, Sue?
Message:
The one thing that you would notice if you went back into the cult (the way I did last year after an absence of 17 years) is just how self-centered and childish current PWKs are. They care nothing about anyone other than themselves and Rev Rawat.

I may be an agnostic but I do still believe in christian charity and concern for others. (If I were a christian I would probably join you in your Unitarianism.)

You will also see from the posts here by cultweasels that they really have become very nasty and unloving people.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 15:57:23 (EDT)
From: Disappointed
Email: None
To: suchabanana
Subject: Fatman was there in my eiydhiwndy nt
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 15:58:34 (EDT)
From: Disappointed (corrected()
Email: None
To: Disappointed
Subject: Re: Fatman wasn't there in my eiydhiwndy nt
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index