Ex-Premie Forum 7 Archive
From: Nov 20, 2001 To: Nov 27, 2001 Page: 4 of: 5


Joe -:- The Other Side of the Trainings -:- Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 14:28:35 (EST)
__ G -:- 'leaders as a problem' -:- Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 15:19:22 (EST)
__ __ bill -:- and, WHAT were thier 'harsh' experiences? [nt] -:- Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 21:21:27 (EST)
__ __ Deborah -:- Another excellent must-read from G -:- Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 19:59:38 (EST)
__ __ Jim -:- Great post, G [nt] -:- Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 16:24:59 (EST)
__ __ Pat:C) -:- Well said, G! [nt] -:- Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 15:26:18 (EST)
__ Katie -:- Re: The Other Side of the Trainings -:- Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 21:46:19 (EST)
__ __ Jim -:- The Fallacy of the Middle Ground -:- Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 08:24:47 (EST)
__ __ __ Deborah -:- Exactly! Jim -:- Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 22:14:31 (EST)
__ __ __ bill -:- plus, the forum is NOT so limited [nt] -:- Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 21:25:18 (EST)
__ __ __ __ Jim -:- I don't follow you, Bill -:- Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 21:28:21 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ bill -:- leading are we now? -:- Sat, Nov 24, 2001 at 20:06:58 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- That's a blessing, Bill -:- Sat, Nov 24, 2001 at 20:19:13 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ Deborah -:- He's saying we are NOT extreme [nt] -:- Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 22:16:05 (EST)
__ __ Joe -:- Thanks, but disagree on a couple things -:- Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 22:12:42 (EST)
__ __ __ Katie -:- Re: Thanks, but disagree on a couple things -:- Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 22:32:27 (EST)
__ __ __ __ Cynthia -:- I Fess Up...It's a Cult... -:- Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 13:47:11 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- Thanks, Cynthia -:- Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 18:31:37 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Oh, Katie, I'm soooooo sorry! -:- Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 18:41:07 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ JHB -:- That's helpful, Jim, or is it? -:- Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 19:00:39 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Can't decide, can you? -:- Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 19:13:52 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JHB -:- Re: Can't decide, can you? -:- Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 19:40:10 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ AJW -:- Je regrette ne rien (nt). -:- Sat, Nov 24, 2001 at 07:46:21 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Yeah, I'm foolish alright -:- Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 20:02:08 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JHB -:- Sacred Cows -:- Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 20:37:45 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Re: Sacred Cows -:- Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 21:19:15 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JHB -:- Re: Sacred Cows -:- Sat, Nov 24, 2001 at 13:30:05 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Sure, John, anything you say -:- Sat, Nov 24, 2001 at 14:38:03 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JHB -:- So you agree with Katie? -:- Sat, Nov 24, 2001 at 17:50:41 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- NO! -:- Sat, Nov 24, 2001 at 17:56:01 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JHB -:- 'We're not harsh enough on Katie' -:- Sat, Nov 24, 2001 at 18:02:34 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Re: 'We're not harsh enough on Katie' -:- Sat, Nov 24, 2001 at 18:19:37 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Well, since you asked ..... -:- Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 16:20:44 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Cynthia -:- You Scare Me, Jim... -:- Sat, Nov 24, 2001 at 12:42:59 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Cynthia, you REALLY scare me -:- Sat, Nov 24, 2001 at 14:30:10 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Cynthia (Channeling Martha Stewart) -:- It's a good thing, Jim:) [nt] -:- Sun, Nov 25, 2001 at 12:42:52 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ janet -:- Re: Well, since you asked ..... -:- Sat, Nov 24, 2001 at 05:38:37 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Typical over-the-top janet bullshit -:- Sat, Nov 24, 2001 at 14:24:37 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Francesca -:- GREAT POST Janet -:- Sat, Nov 24, 2001 at 14:08:34 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Okay, it's the Katie Defence League -:- Sat, Nov 24, 2001 at 14:39:41 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ JHB -:- Great Post, Janet -:- Sat, Nov 24, 2001 at 08:50:43 (EST)
__ __ __ __ Joe -:- Re: Thanks, but disagree on a couple things -:- Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 22:46:34 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ Francesca :C) -:- Joe and Katie, been following this discussion -:- Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 18:48:11 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- Re: Thanks, but disagree on a couple things -:- Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 23:05:44 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Deborah -:- WOW! Good to hear that, Katie -:- Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 23:50:14 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Frend -:- Reasons -:- Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 17:29:52 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Frend -:- Reasons again (first 'reasons' incomplete. -:- Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 17:39:05 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- 'Incomplete' is right! -:- Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 18:34:10 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- Unicornyass -:- Sun, Nov 25, 2001 at 22:34:16 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ janet -:- Re: 'Incomplete' is right! -:- Sat, Nov 24, 2001 at 06:03:05 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- Re: 'Incomplete' is right! -:- Sun, Nov 25, 2001 at 12:55:56 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Re: 'Incomplete' is right! -:- Sun, Nov 25, 2001 at 15:46:47 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Dermot -:- Re: 'Incomplete' is right! -:- Mon, Nov 26, 2001 at 14:18:04 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- The 'personal stuff' between us -:- Mon, Nov 26, 2001 at 19:36:26 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JHB -:- My view on Katie's position -:- Mon, Nov 26, 2001 at 18:22:20 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Yeah, I'd LOVE to argue with that -:- Mon, Nov 26, 2001 at 19:32:57 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JHB -:- It's 2:45 am here so a short post -:- Mon, Nov 26, 2001 at 19:57:06 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ PatC -:- Forum church lady syndrome -:- Mon, Nov 26, 2001 at 21:09:11 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Maybe you can do better in the morning -:- Mon, Nov 26, 2001 at 21:03:38 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Important correction -:- Mon, Nov 26, 2001 at 21:07:35 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ PatC -:- You hit the nail, Gerry,... -:- Sun, Nov 25, 2001 at 14:21:20 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JHB -:- I'm willing to chat -:- Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 17:53:27 (EST)
__ Michael McDonald -:- Thanks to Joe and Anon -:- Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 19:36:45 (EST)
__ __ Katie -:- Thanks, Michael -:- Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 20:35:36 (EST)
__ hamzen -:- Re trainings -:- Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 18:16:33 (EST)

Jim -:- Fun News :) (for the braindead) -:- Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 13:21:04 (EST)
__ suchabanana -:- and on the left: -:- Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 15:21:46 (EST)
__ Brian Smith -:- Sounds like an Amway Rally to me -:- Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 14:34:40 (EST)
__ __ JHB -:- Amway Rallies -:- Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 18:11:48 (EST)
__ Jim -:- And how about a night on the town? -:- Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 13:23:12 (EST)
__ __ hamzen -:- What's with the language ? -:- Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 17:51:47 (EST)
__ __ Jim -:- Frankly, I'm a bit worried for Ivette -:- Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 13:46:42 (EST)

Searcher -:- Christmas ideas -:- Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 22:25:39 (EST)
__ The Finder -:- Re: Christmas ideas -:- Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 14:50:32 (EST)
__ __ Pat:C) -:- Alleluiah! I'm a christian -:- Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 15:14:44 (EST)
__ hamzen -:- Aah the gm school of humour, so subtle -:- Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 18:38:33 (EST)
__ Pope Leo X -:- Ha ha ha, Ho ho ho -:- Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 11:55:39 (EST)
__ salsa -:- nice mental ensalada NT -:- Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 11:18:06 (EST)
__ Deborah -:- You're an asshole--Don't even bother reading above [nt] -:- Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 22:29:51 (EST)
__ __ CW -:- Correction -If you are as Dumb as Deborah.. -:- Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 04:15:09 (EST)
__ __ __ Jim -:- We're not all as Dumb as Deborah, Cat -:- Sat, Nov 24, 2001 at 16:00:54 (EST)
__ __ __ hamzen -:- Aah the most intelligent man in the universe -:- Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 18:33:14 (EST)
__ __ __ __ CW -:- RecogniseSteve Waugh -:- Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 22:23:09 (EST)
__ __ __ helper -:- help to you -:- Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 11:22:52 (EST)
__ __ __ Abi -:- or why not just ignore all CW posts -:- Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 04:18:00 (EST)
__ __ __ __ CW -:- Re: or why not just ignore all CW posts -:- Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 04:22:19 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- Cat, just get a Hotmail account! [nt] -:- Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 10:47:25 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ Abi -:- Re: or why not just ignore all CW posts -:- Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 04:34:30 (EST)
__ __ Michael McDonald -:- I thought it was a good piece of -:- Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 23:04:43 (EST)
__ __ __ Michael McDonald -:- Try again: I thought it was a good piece of -:- Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 23:10:14 (EST)
__ __ Jim -:- Why would you say that, Deb? -:- Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 23:04:09 (EST)
__ __ __ Deborah -:- Re: Why would you say that, Deb? -:- Mon, Nov 26, 2001 at 01:34:16 (EST)
__ __ __ Lesley -:- Re: Why would you say that, Deb? -:- Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 13:24:00 (EST)
__ __ __ __ Pat:C) -:- Exactly, Lesley -:- Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 15:55:25 (EST)
__ __ __ Pat:C) -:- Deb, probably thinks SC's trying to... -:- Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 00:59:12 (EST)
__ __ __ __ SC -:- fair enough Pat -:- Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 03:29:08 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ Pat:C) -:- Re: fair enough Pat -:- Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 03:51:25 (EST)
__ __ __ SC -:- Wake up Jimbo...you don't get it? -:- Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 23:33:18 (EST)
__ __ __ __ gerry -:- Roupell Unmasked (revised) -:- Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 12:04:26 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ SC -:- Known Cyberstalker Issues THREAT -:- Sat, Nov 24, 2001 at 22:09:25 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ JohnT -:- Thank you, silly David Roupell -:- Mon, Nov 26, 2001 at 05:01:49 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ David Roupell the notorious -:- Known Cyberstalker Issues THREAT [nt] -:- Sat, Nov 24, 2001 at 22:22:06 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ Jethro -:- Re: Beautiful beaches there in Ocean Shores. -:- Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 07:29:53 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ Michael McDonald -:- No beaches at Ocean Shores, Gerry -:- Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 18:46:05 (EST)
__ __ __ __ helper -:- SC, don't u get it? -:- Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 11:23:48 (EST)
__ __ __ __ A fly on the wall -:- SC sed -:- Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 01:45:41 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ Since about 10 days ago -:- Today is an abba ration - I escaped mind control! -:- Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 03:11:50 (EST)
__ __ __ __ Quick, Nurse -:- the irony injection! NT -:- Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 23:42:06 (EST)
__ __ __ __ Jim -:- I thought you'd gone already? -:- Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 23:42:01 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ SC -:- Thanks Jim -:- Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 00:01:22 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Two kinds of post: -:- Hit AND Run (nt) -:- Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 00:10:16 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ SC -:- Yea and you're a real thrill too -:- Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 00:31:50 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ See, I knew you'd -:- still be around.. -:- Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 00:35:31 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ SC -:- Michael... you cad! -:- Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 00:55:17 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Michael McDonald -:- 'Sane and objective'? -:- Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 01:02:31 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ SC -:- No, they just spelt 'boring' wrong! -:- Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 01:14:11 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Michael McDonald -:- Mungo's never been keen on Crean NT -:- Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 01:17:28 (EST)

JHB -:- Not a tree falls...... -:- Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 16:53:17 (EST)
__ Pat:C) -:- I was just thinking about you -:- Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 17:06:14 (EST)
__ __ JHB -:- When you're surrounded by forests... -:- Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 17:13:36 (EST)
__ __ __ Cynthia -:- Re: When you're surrounded by forests... -:- Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 18:22:09 (EST)
__ __ __ Francesca ~) -:- Here's another item for catching up -:- Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 17:41:47 (EST)
__ __ __ __ Cynthia -:- Fran, You're a Gem...OT -:- Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 18:41:12 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ Francesca ;C) -:- Aw shucks (OT) -:- Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 01:10:32 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- Ever been to Chicago?? -:- Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 23:34:07 (EST)
__ __ __ __ Barbara -:- Rootskis -:- Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 18:18:38 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ Francesca :C) -:- Re: Rootskis -:- Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 01:14:19 (EST)
__ __ __ __ JHB -:- Thanks, Francesca -:- Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 17:57:26 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ Francesca :C) -:- Latvia (OT) -:- Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 01:16:11 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Brian Smith -:- One of these days a real Latvian night maybe -:- Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 20:15:01 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ JHB -:- Of Course! -:- Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 19:10:53 (EST)

Philly Dogg -:- MJ in Philly: you got fooled (again) -:- Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 14:42:57 (EST)
__ don -:- how expensive was the fun ?? -:- Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 05:08:37 (EST)
__ __ Philly Cheese Steak -:- $85 but where's the beef? -:- Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 05:17:33 (EST)
__ __ __ don -:- just like in da good ol' days ?! -:- Sun, Nov 25, 2001 at 05:21:30 (EST)
__ __ __ __ Pat:C) -:- The only beef was sacred cow on stage [nt] -:- Sun, Nov 25, 2001 at 20:53:22 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ don -:- amen -:- Mon, Nov 26, 2001 at 08:29:22 (EST)
__ Brian Smith -:- Oh Yeah! -:- Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 05:18:21 (EST)
__ __ Pat:C) -:- Brilliant, Brian. Happy Thanksgiving to you! [nt] -:- Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 13:24:07 (EST)
__ __ __ Brian Smith -:- Thanks Pat, Happy Thanksgiving to you -:- Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 14:11:14 (EST)
__ __ __ __ Pat:C) -:- Well, I'm cooking too -:- Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 14:34:04 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ Brian Smith -:- Wow, what a menu, I have got to get down to SF -:- Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 20:02:20 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Pat:C) -:- I'm closing the first two weeks -:- Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 04:24:54 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ Deborah -:- Yummmmmy :P -:- Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 19:25:34 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Pat:C) -:- Just let me know when, Deborah -:- Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 15:18:03 (EST)
__ cq -:- Do all premies like spreading lies?(nt) -:- Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 04:08:24 (EST)
__ Sir Dave -:- Wow -:- Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 21:10:17 (EST)
__ busy bill -:- not next tour buddy [nt] -:- Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 20:36:55 (EST)
__ __ Deborah -:- You're up to something ;) -:- Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 22:24:58 (EST)
__ __ b -:- anyone know the number on the jet? [nt] -:- Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 20:39:51 (EST)
__ __ __ JohnT -:- N54PR -:- Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 09:09:01 (EST)
__ __ __ __ bill -:- thanks John T [nt] -:- Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 21:27:03 (EST)
__ __ __ Ben Lurking -:- Re: anyone know the number on the jet? -:- Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 02:08:57 (EST)
__ Barbara -:- Re: MJ in Philly: you got fooled (again) -:- Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 18:22:02 (EST)
__ __ Ohhh Noooo -:- Planet of the Monmots ALL Over again! -:- Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 20:34:49 (EST)
__ __ Cynthia -:- Good One, Barbara! [nt] -:- Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 18:43:59 (EST)
__ Deborah -:- Re: MJ in Philly WHO got fooled (again) -:- Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 15:27:29 (EST)
__ AJW -:- Living in the Past? -:- Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 15:00:16 (EST)
__ Philly Mole -:- Re: MJ in Philly: you got fooled (again) -:- Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 14:50:15 (EST)
__ __ A fly on the wall -:- Dont worry PhillyDog probably isn't in Philly -:- Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 14:56:15 (EST)


Date: Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 14:28:35 (EST)
From: Joe
Email: kevjo@mindspring.com
To: All
Subject: The Other Side of the Trainings
Message:
Thanks to Katie for posting this from a premie who attended a couple of trainings with M and commented on some of the things John MacGregor said.

I think this is a great addition to the discussion, and I can't help but have a few questions and comments of my own (I know everyone is very surprised by that :))

First off, I have heard from people who WERE in multiple trainings (John was not) that the training in Amaroo was the worst of them all. Very hard for M and the participants both. That's just a little bit of background.

A couple of other notes:
- the notion of 'leaders as a problem' is central to the training, and it has proven, for me, to be an invaluable life experience. The premise is that people like to have leaders, because they get to abdicate responsibility for decisions, and hand them off to the leader, and then they get to sit around and criticize the leader's decisions rather than participate in a process in any useful fashion. So, it was more a call to action and responsibility than anything else.

- John rightly asks the question 'why have people withdrawn from service 'en masse' now that the trainings are finished?' He is not wrong in stating that this happened. He is wrong in his assumption WHY this occurred (at least in this country). My experience, from talking to friends, was that it was more about getting in touch with the feeling of WHY one was participating so heavily in service than it was about some vague malaise. The malaises were not so subtle. There are people who feel aspects of the training were abusive (especially the facilitators, more so than M). No doubt about it. BUT...most of the people who withdrew did so more because they realized their hearts weren't really in it. It was more in their heads and an obligation, and I think the trainings sort of opened up their eyes to this. So, I find this change rather healthy - as do the friends of mine who went in this direction.

- John also paints the training participants as the 'higher ups' or 'people in power'. This was not entirely true. There were also people like me, who really HAD no power or position in the organization at the time. Attempts were made to find people who could think out of the box, were not afraid to stick their necks out, and who were off the beaten path. So, for a lot of US people (probably about 1/3 or more of the participants), we got MORE involved after the training. Not out of fear, but because the bizarro world of service had been exposed for what it is. For so many years people had been pretending 'everything is all right' all in his name. When you walked out of the training, the one thing you knew was that everything is NOT all right. Again, to me, that was incredibly healthy. It promoted logic, honesty and self-reflection.

- Its interesting that in John's training all the 'games' were unwinnable. In mine, almost all were completed successfully by the group. Mind you, they were mostly very simple exercises.

I dont know what to make of the scapegoat story. I know that it wasn't done in either training in the US - and I did get separate verification that it WAS done in Amaroo. There was a 'firing' exercise in one of the US trainings but the story was a bit different. Each team was supposed to fire 'the weakest link'. There were probably 10 teams. I know that one guy very definitely freaked out and split, and M sent a couple of people out to find him. That doesn't excuse it, I'm just letting you know what I know.

All this is just detail. Bottom line is, I cannot find anything to argue with in terms of the principles of the training. Honesty, respect, no brain farts, brevity (which translated there into the 10 second rule), I forget most of the others, but they were not disturbing. The notion of unanimity is tougher, but is achievable in most circumstances, or so its seemed.

Actually, this reminds me of the statement of John's that presents a huge distortion of what actually happened - which is the whole question of 'if its 11 o'clock in the morning, and the team says its dark outside, what do you say?' The point of that exercise was, if it isn't germane to what you're doing, and if no harm is caused by agreeing to that, agree to it. In other words, 'don't sweat the small stuff'. A corralary, which I was just recently reminded of is the 'shoes, socks, pants' example. It is instructive in understanding the context. M said take off your shoes. Everyone took off their shoes. Then - 'take off your socks'. People get a little squeamish, possible odors and all, but then take off their socks. Then - 'take off your pants'. Followed quickly by 'DO NOT take off your pants'. Why? Because there are lines you must not cross. When something is wrong, and you know it will be wrong, DO NOT just go along with it.

They [the trainings] were too harsh for many people - even people who you would think could handle it. I had a long talk with a friend of mine about it. It was definitely her opinion that more than a few people found the trainings abusive (although most of them were able to put it all in context and take the good from it, while leaving the rest). I guess I was just in a different place. I dunno. I do also know a bunch of people who had similar experiences to me.

I appreciate that post, because it seems like the person who wrote it is trying to makes sense of this stuff. It seems like this person would be someone who would think EPO and the Forum are great additions and extremely healthy, because they are about open and questioning analysis. Does he or she?

Mind you, it does appear that this person, like most of us do when we are trying to fit our beliefs into realities that don't necessarily support them, presents explanations that get more and more complicated. I tend to think that's a sign of rationalizaton. We all do it, but when you have someone like Maharaji who isn't required to explain any motivations whatsoever, they tend to become a little irrational, because one of the major players, Maharaji, really isn't part of the 'team,' only everyone else is. That, of course, if doomed to failure, and probably the main reason M and his organizations have never gotten anything off the ground and why there has always been this bizarre 'service frenzy' in that cult. Ultimately success or failure is entirely based on M's arbitrary, personal opinion, something no one is ever sure of, and hence everyone spins in circles trying to overdue the 'effort.'

You can't have an organization built on 'teams' if Maharaji isn't an equal member of the 'team.' It doesn't make any sense.

Interesting too, that there is this idea that the trainings were 'abusive' but they benefitted people, and there doesn't appear to be any kind of organized discussion about how to end the 'abuse.' Does M think they were 'abusive?' Has he gotten that feedback? What is the 'team' going to do about the 'abuse,' and how can the team do anything about it if somebody who isn't a part of the team is instigating the abuse?

Also, if the trainings were about getting people to question old ways of doing things, how does that square with the fact that the most pervasive way of doing things, that M is always right and can't be criticized is not questioned, and is, in fact, reinforced by the trainings?

I also think the extremely strained rationalization for what that 'if the team ways it's day when it's night' concept was about is very dangerous. To suggest that it only applies to situations that 'aren't important' is ripe for even more abuse. Who decides what is 'important' if the 'team' disagrees, whomever the team is? And if, ultimately M decides, or can overrule any team decision, doesn't that disempower people to an extreme extent, and mean that the team can never be secure in any decision it makes, even if all the team processes are carried out?

And if the point is to discourage disagreement on things that aren't important, doesn't that tend to discourage it in all cases, instilling fear that somebody is complaining about something that doesn't matter, even when it does? Isn't it important to always encourage airing of concerns in a 'team' situation? That certainly is my experience in those situations, and actually that's what takes up most of the time -- reaching concensus, but it is time very well spent.

I wish this person would come here and discuss this, and I wish he or she would encourage all those other people he or she is talking to to do the same. If M is trying to teach people to take their own responsbility for these things, and take action they see appropriate, what is the fear about that? Whom does this person fear will find out?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 15:19:22 (EST)
From: G
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: 'leaders as a problem'
Message:
'...the training in Amaroo was the worst of them all.'

To say that the other trainings were not as bad is faint praise.

'Very hard for M and the participants both.'

That's not good, 'Knowledge' ia supposed to bring peace of mind, not give people a hard time.

'leaders as a problem'

I doubt very much that M presented his dictatorial rule as a problem. In the past, what has been his typical reaction to being challenged? Hasn't he repeatedly told premies to obey him without question?

'There are people who feel aspects of the training were abusive (especially the facilitators, more so than M). No doubt about it.'

Well, there you have it, corroboration from a premie. To say that M was less abusive is also faint praise. And whose orders were the facilitators following? It's rather naive to think they were just acting on their own, with M present. Actually, it's beyond naive, it's a rationalization.

'it was more about getting in touch with the feeling of WHY one was participating so heavily in service'

That's what they say.

'I dont know what to make of the scapegoat story. I know that it wasn't done in either training in the US - and I did get separate verification that it WAS done in Amaroo. There was a 'firing' exercise in one of the US trainings but the story was a bit different. Each team was supposed to fire 'the weakest link'.'

I think the premie DOES know what to make of the scapegoat story. This kind of wording is really an implicit admission that it almost certainly happened.
A bit different? Sounds the same to me, what's the difference? 'the weakest link' 'scapegoat' same thing. Who said there was a problem? M did, and, as usual, he didn't accept any blame. No, it's got to be a problem with the teams, right? Couldn't be him. No, he's perfect, he's god-in-a-bod. Or so he claims. Did anyone question him, challenge him on the notion that there was a 'weakest link' (i.e. scapegoat) in each team? Sounds like there was a problematic leader staring them in the face. He's the weakest link of them all.

'if its 11 o'clock in the morning, and the team says its dark outside, what do you say?' The point of that exercise was, if it isn't germane to what you're doing, and if no harm is caused by agreeing to that, agree to it. In other words, 'don't sweat the small stuff'.

There IS harm in agreeing with what you know to be false, regardless of how 'germane' it is. It's not 'small stuff' to lie to yourself, to have your mind controlled like this. And who is to decide what is 'germane'? This mind control tactic, including the rationalization, is used by other groups. They can start out with something that seems trivial, and you rationalize 'Oh, what's the harm'. But it doesn't stop there.

'M said take off your shoes. Everyone took off their shoes. Then - 'take off your socks'. People get a little squeamish, possible odors and all, but then take off their socks. Then - 'take off your pants'. Followed quickly by 'DO NOT take off your pants'. Why? Because there are lines you must not cross. When something is wrong, and you know it will be wrong, DO NOT just go along with it.'

Not a single person disobeyed him. Scary. They got 'a little squeamish' (minimalizing the problem) i.e. they didn't want to take off their socks, but they complied anyway, they just went along with it. Nobody asked 'Why?' Everyone obeyed.

M crossed the line, a long time ago.

'put it all in context and take the good from it, while leaving the rest'

What 'context' could possibly justify abuse? And I don't buy the claim that they left the rest, i.e. that no harm was done, that they got over the abuse. The way to start getting over an abusive relationship is to get out. That's step one. This is like a woman saying 'Oh, he beats me up, but he pays the bills and sometimes he says he loves me.'

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 21:21:27 (EST)
From: bill
Email: None
To: G
Subject: and, WHAT were thier 'harsh' experiences? [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 19:59:38 (EST)
From: Deborah
Email: None
To: G
Subject: Another excellent must-read from G
Message:
I really enjoy your posts. Of course, no one should listen to RAWAT or accept any level of abuse. At all. When you don't know you are being abused, you rationalize. When you know you are being abused, you pick up your ball and go home, without pouting. You just pick up the ball and say, 'Fuck YOUUUU'

End of story....

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 16:24:59 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: G
Subject: Great post, G [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 15:26:18 (EST)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: G
Subject: Well said, G! [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 21:46:19 (EST)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Re: The Other Side of the Trainings
Message:
Hi Joe -
I agree with you about the conflict between 'no leaders' and M as ultimate leader. I think this is a big issue - and perhaps M should be a PARTICIPANT in one of the trainings :) to correct the idea that Maharaji is always right (or as you said, can overrule any team decision.) I feel very strongly, as I'm sure you know, that Maharaji himself should be accountable. Certainly he should be called on his temper tantrums!

However, I do understand the 'day versus night' example, having been in many meetings that got sidetracked by a big argument about something completely irrelevant to the purpose of the meeting. For example, we have a weekly meeting at work to plan out what we are going to do for the week, who needs the truck, who needs help, etc. and sometimes these meetings get WAY bogged down in discussions of something that's off the subject. For example, two guys will spend 15 minutes debating the history of ownership of a certain piece of equipment when the answer has NO relevance to the use of that piece of equipment. This is very irritating and a waste of time. However, I work with practical things, so it's easier to tell what is irrelevant and what is not.

You asked:
It seems like this person would be someone who would think EPO and the Forum are great additions and extremely healthy, because they are about open and questioning analysis. Does he or she?

I can't really answer that FOR the person, as I don't want to put words in their mouth, and I have never asked that specific question. However, I know this person feels that there is a dominant paradigm on this forum, and that input that doesn't fit into this paradigm is either stifled or attacked. Thus it's not truly 'open'. And I'll probably get flamed for saying this, but I can't disagree. On this forum, we discuss and make assumptions about a lot of things re M's world that we don't have the facts about, and there seems to be a general consensus on this forum to put the WORST possible face on things - just as premies tend to spin to put the BEST possible face on things (for example, 'Please Consider This', and similar sites.) So it's difficult for reasonable premies to come and 'discuss' because they feel the deck is already stacked against them, and very few people here are going to listen to a contradictory point of view.

In re the fear of being outed - I don't know all the reasons but I imagine they differ for every individual - including the ex-premies who post here who prefer to remain anonymous. I would imagine there is some fear of CAC-like reprisal among premies as well as ex-premies, and I don't think that's unfounded. Also, some people can be identified by their IP addresses, and that deters posting as well.

Take care, Joe -
Love,
Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 08:24:47 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: The Fallacy of the Middle Ground
Message:
However, I know this person feels that there is a dominant paradigm on this forum, and that input that doesn't fit into this paradigm is either stifled or attacked. Thus it's not truly 'open'. And I'll probably get flamed for saying this, but I can't disagree. On this forum, we discuss and make assumptions about a lot of things re M's world that we don't have the facts about, and there seems to be a general consensus on this forum to put the WORST possible face on things - just as premies tend to spin to put the BEST possible face on things (for example, 'Please Consider This', and similar sites.) So it's difficult for reasonable premies to come and 'discuss' because they feel the deck is already stacked against them, and very few people here are going to listen to a contradictory point of view.

You say the damndest things sometimes, Katie. There you go again, equating cult members' perspectives on their cult with the perspectives of people who've left the cult behind! You make me want to say 'paradigm, shmaradigm, what about reality?' In all honesty, I think your thinking suffers from one big case of the:

Fallacy of the Middle Ground

Also Known as: Golden Mean Fallacy, Fallacy of Moderation

Description of Middle Ground

This fallacy is committed when it is assumed that the middle position between two extremes must be correct simply because it is the middle position. this sort of 'reasoning' has the following form:

Position A and B are two extreme positions.
C is a position that rests in the middle between A and B.
Therefore C is the correct position.

This line of 'reasoning' is fallacious because it does not follow that a position is correct just because it lies in the middle of two extremes. This is shown by the following example. Suppose that a person is selling his computer. He wants to sell it for the current market value, which is $800 and someone offers him $1 for it. It would hardly follow that $400.50 is the proper price.

This fallacy draws its power from the fact that a moderate or middle position is often the correct one. For example, a moderate amount of exercise is better than too much exercise or too little exercise. However, this is not simply because it lies in the middle ground between two extremes. It is because too much exercise is harmful and too little exercise is all but useless. The basic idea behind many cases in which moderation is correct is that the extremes are typically 'too much' and 'not enough' and the middle position is 'enough.' In such cases the middle position is correct almost by definition.

It should be kept in mind that while uncritically assuming that the middle position must be correct because it is the middle position is poor reasoning it does not follow that accepting a middle position is always fallacious. As was just mentioned, many times a moderate position is correct. However, the claim that the moderate or middle position is correct must be supported by legitimate reasoning.

Examples of Middle Ground

Some people claim that God is all powerful, all knowing, and all good. Other people claim that God does not exist at all. Now, it seems reasonable to accept a position somewhere in the middle. So, it is likely that God exists, but that he is only very powerful, very knowing, and very good. That seems right to me.

Congressman Jones has proposed cutting welfare payments by 50% while Congresswoman Shender has proposed increasing welfare payments by 10% to keep up with inflation and cost of living increases. I think that the best proposal is the one made by Congressman Trumple. He says that a 30% decrease in welfare payments is a good middle ground, so I think that is what we should support.

A month ago, a tree in Bill's yard was damaged in a storm. His neighbor, Joe, asked him to have the tree cut down so it would not fall on Joes new shed. Bill refused to do this. Two days ago another storm blew the tree onto Joe's new shed. Joe demanded that Joe pay the cost of repairs, which was $250. Bill said that he wasn't going to pay a cent. Obviously, the best solution is to reach a compromise between the two extremes, so Bill should pay Joe $125 dollars.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 22:14:31 (EST)
From: Deborah
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Exactly! Jim
Message:
I was trying, although, not so elegantly, to say the same thing in a lower thread. We are being insulted in the name of hard-bleeding concern for extreme paradigms.

This forum is not extreme. It is in the selfish interest of a premie to come here and say, 'It is an extreme, paradigm, it is an unbalanced viewpoint'.

Maharaji is extreme. The very nature of cult and cohereced devotion and subservience and withdrawing your bankaccount and forfeiting critical evaluation of a leader is EXTREME.

Your fallacy of the middle ground is the best way to explain it!

Shit! I need to read books to find out why I'm I'm right. ;)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 21:25:18 (EST)
From: bill
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: plus, the forum is NOT so limited [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 21:28:21 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: bill
Subject: I don't follow you, Bill
Message:
Perhaps you can post a full post, Bill, and say what it is you want to say without suffering the unnecessary limitations of the subject line.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Nov 24, 2001 at 20:06:58 (EST)
From: bill
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: leading are we now?
Message:
Hi James

This Katie quote,
--a general consensus on this forum to put the WORST possible face on things - just as premies tend to spin to put the BEST possible face on things (for example, '

kind of paints us in too limited a way.
You covered other issues in your post.
I marvel at you, and others at how your posts are long and really good reading.
I seem to have lost the ability to post!
I tried a couple nights ago and I gave up and erased it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Nov 24, 2001 at 20:19:13 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: bill
Subject: That's a blessing, Bill
Message:
I seem to have lost the ability to post!

Somehow, that strikes me as very, very funny.

You know, I really am sick and tired of these Katie / Jim reruns. But I have to say, it's very, very unfortunate and misguided, in my always humble opinion, that so many people steer clear when this happens. What Katie said was simpyl wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Anyone with half a brain looking at her words logically would have no alternative but to say so. But does that happen? Hm, maybe a little but obviously not enough. Instead, people like John Brauns and Fran post tepid little Leave Katie alone, can't you see she's crying? messages, completely playing into the game. Katie then gets all sorts of support (I can only imagine what's going on on RE now!) and she never learns. I'm left hanging like some sort of villain and she's sitting in blankets by the fire, getting served hot cocoa and backrubs.

A fair, no-holds barred, honest discussion on the merits of Katie's comments would have been much, much healthier.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 22:16:05 (EST)
From: Deborah
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: He's saying we are NOT extreme [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 22:12:42 (EST)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Thanks, but disagree on a couple things
Message:
Thanks Katie, very interesting, but I have to disagree on a couple of things.

However, I do understand the 'day versus night' example, having been in many meetings that got sidetracked by a big argument about something completely irrelevant to the purpose of the meeting. For example, we have a weekly meeting at work to plan out what we are going to do for the week, who needs the truck, who needs help, etc. and sometimes these meetings get WAY bogged down in discussions of something that's off the subject.

I also have been in meetings that can get sidetracked, but usually that's because there isn't a consensus on what the purpose of the meetings is. If there was, that would happen a lot less. Plus, I think many meetings aren't necessary, and mostly a waste of time, iin my experience.

But moreover, those abusive 'trainings' were for the purpose of transforming people into working teams without leaders; it wasn't to figure out who drives the truck that week. So, in that situation, I still maintain that the 'day is night' thing is completely innappropriate and very dangerous, because it cuts to the core of one of the essential elements of being part of a team, and that's that people on the team don't repress or downplay what they think is important, for fear the team won't think it is. A team is a group of individuals functioning cooperatively. It's not something that takes on a life of its own, or at least it shouldn't. It's even worse in the cult situation, because Maharaji says he is about empowering people, but is actually diametrically opposed to that in the most essential sense. So one cannot even be sure the 'team' won't be undermined, nor even what the 'team' actually is.

However, I know this person feels that there is a dominant paradigm on this forum, and that input that doesn't fit into this paradigm is either stifled or attacked. And I'll probably get flamed for saying this, but I can't disagree.

I think there is a difference between being 'attacked' and being 'challeneged.' I don't disagree that there is a paradigm here that Maharaji is the leader of a cult and essentially bad news, and many ex-premies feel, appropriately, very ripped off by Maharaji, so it's hard for them to accept much positive about him. I think that should be expected, and the very nature of the Forum means that is going to continue to exist.

But having said that, I think if a premie comes here and at least appears to honestly try to explain and discuss the issues, they get treated pretty well, although it will be confronting. Take Erika Andersen for example. She came here, had a discussion, tried to correct some things and wasn't really attacked. She was disagreed with, and I think to premies if you disagree with or attack Maharaji, they take it very personally, so maybe she did feel attacked, I don't know. I really believe that only premies who actually attack ex-premies, get attacked themselves, in the true sense of that word.

The other problem Erika had is that,like almost all premies, she had no more real information that we did, and probably we have more than she did. She didn't really have anything to add, and even said she was going to go on a search to get answers, which I don't believe she ever got. And, unfortunately, it appears what she decided to do was just avoid the real issues while pretending to actually be dealing with them. That was what PCT was all about.

If a group of premies came here, like your friend and whoever else he or she is talking to, for a rational discussion about M and what he's about, and sharing actual information, they would get treated a lot better than either you or they think, and I think all of us would benefit from it. The result is there is only ONE side talking, and that's the ex-premies. I have no doubt that we have very skewed views of things, but it takes two to tango, or something like that. It takes someone who actually cares enough about what they are involved in to throw it into the mix. That's what we haven't seen. Instead, it's just disengagement, and setting up websites with generalized put-downs of ex-premies, saying, in the most disingenous and ridiculous fashion, that all the (unspecified) things we are saying are lies.

From what I can see, I think premies are just as confused about what they are involved in as we are, and so they have a very, very hard time even explaining it. So, they don't want to talk about it in any situation in which they might be questioned, especially by someone who has actual information, and is critical, like an ex-premie.

Hope you had a nice Thanksgiving. It's actually one of my favorite holidays because it's pretty secular.

Joe, the Secular Humanist

I can understand the fear of CAC attacks, but I think that has been shown to be largely a paper tiger, despicable and foul though it is.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 22:32:27 (EST)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Re: Thanks, but disagree on a couple things
Message:
Hi Joe -
I hate meetings - and prefer that they be as short as possible, without irrelevant discussions, so maybe I'm biased about the black vs white thing.

You wrote:
if a group of premies came here, like your friend and whoever else he or she is talking to, for a rational discussion about M and what he's about, and sharing actual information, they would get treated a lot better than either you or they think, and I think all of us would benefit from it.

I hate to be pessimistic, but my friend did try to post here at least once to correct some out of date information, and got jumped on immediately. It wasn't a good experience, and it can get very frustrating. Basically, I don't think people give reasonable premies enough ROOM on this forum (I'm not talking about the troll/flamers here). This may be unavoidable, but I know that premies who have tried have gotten many questions and challenges to their posts that it's qutie overwhelming. And even though you say 'challenges' rather than 'attacks', sometimes the 'challenges' come with a very combative attitude, which is hard to deal with when you are just one person talking to many.

And in re attacking premies who post here - there seem to always be someone who yells 'brainwashed cult member', or whatever (I realize that some people don't like premies to post here at all, so that's bound to happen.) This happened with Erika, even though most people were polite.

Someone proposed a while ago that there could be an icon for people to put on their posts if they didn't want to go through the heavy-duty 'challenging' that goes on here. I think this might be a good idea, especially if one would like premies to feel that they CAN post here and maybe even be listened to. (Maybe we could use +) or something?)

Re the CAC attacks - it seems like a couple of people got really hurt because of the personal nature of the attacks. Certainly Way has stopped posting on the forum, which is a loss for us. So I'm not sure it's as much of a paper tiger as you say.

I'm glad you had a good Thanksgiving - I have that 'dysfunctional family holiday' syndrome, and Thanksgiving was always one of the absolute WORST, so I'm always glad when it's over!

Love,
Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 13:47:11 (EST)
From: Cynthia
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: I Fess Up...It's a Cult...
Message:
Katie, you said,

And in re attacking premies who post here - there seem to always be someone who yells 'brainwashed cult member', or whatever (I realize that some people don't like premies to post here at all, so that's bound to happen.) This happened with Erika, even though most people were polite.

That was me who said ''you're in a cult'' to Erika and then I told her husband off, too. I lost patience. I don't say this in defense of myself. The forum is full of people in all stages of exiting the cult, there's that word again. Then there are the premies who come here to talk, apologize for m, or argue. Sometimes difficult to distinguish, especially in these days of the trolls.

I've learned (and still am learning) that it's important not to put that particular word in premies' faces, but it's hard.

I am not involved with the differences you and Jim have and plan to stay out of it. It's not my business. How's that for middle ground, Jim?

Anyway, Katie, you would love the way I conduct meetings. I insist on an agenda, and I keep the agenda items in order and am quite strict about it. I also think meetings are a time-wasting thing that modern humans have invented to get out of working--I'm very task oriented. Stop talking and let me work! I have been criticized for being so strict in meetings...

Hope you're well, I'm recovering from preparing a large meal...I love doing it, but today's my day of rest...and catching up on all these posts.

Be well,
Love,
Cynthia

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 18:31:37 (EST)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Cynthia
Subject: Thanks, Cynthia
Message:
But I have to get out of here.

I'm glad you had a good thanksgiving.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 18:41:07 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Oh, Katie, I'm soooooo sorry!
Message:
Katie,

I'm sooooooo sorry that I challenged you. I feel just terrible now. It was soooooo wrong for me to first, ask you to tell us about all those people (at least two) who had a completely different viewpoint than John's. That was very rude and abusive of me. Maybe Fran can tell me how much of a bully I am again. I'm ready for a real tongue-lashing on that one.

And then, as if that wasn't bad enough, I was even further callous and abusive, I know, complaining about how you apparently tar ex-premies and CURRENT CULT MEMBERS with the same brush.

I don't know what to say, Katie. You most definitely do have to get out of here. The alternative, i.e. sticking around and actually having an honest, fair discussion about your views, is unthinkable.

I hope you're okay. Take care, huh?

Jim

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 19:00:39 (EST)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: That's helpful, Jim, or is it?
Message:
Jim,

If you want to perpetuate this problem between you and Katie, this post will help. If you want to resolve this problem between you and Katie, then this post won't help.

Yes, Katie does criticise exes sometimes, and backs off from following through the argument. It doesn't mean she's wrong, just that she's unwilling to follow through the argument. I also have criticisms of exes who post here. I think they sometimes behave like a herd. I think they easily forget that many of them were cult members very recently, and thus were unable to think clearly about the cult. I think some behave very abusively towards premies.

I also think anyone who expresses a view here should be able to support that view with rational argument. Does that mean I'm going to support the forgoing views with suporting evidence? Probably not, as it would mean excessive quoting of exes posts which would do little to further the purpose (as I see it) of this forum.

John the ex-premie.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 19:13:52 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: JHB
Subject: Can't decide, can you?
Message:
Look at you now, John! Bending over backwards to try to make it all alright for Katie. Listen, if she's going to insult us, as in saying that reasonable premies would post here if only they got a fair hearing, she damn well better back it up. Why do I say that? Because it's wrong, that's why. It's wrong and I don't like it. I don't care how much you like Katie as a person, as a friend, as a whatever. She says shit like this every once in a while. I then try to get her to talk about it. She cries boo hoo and we both confirm our reputations: she as a victim, me as a bully. So what's new?

And, yes, if you want to give me an example how us exes have been 'very abusive' to premies, I'd be most interested. Or is that just a point of pride that you get when you join RE? You're supposed to be intuitively sensitive to such abuse now, you don't even have to explain it, it's just there somehow?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 19:40:10 (EST)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: Can't decide, can you?
Message:
Look at you now, John! Bending over backwards to try to make it all alright for Katie. Listen, if she's going to insult us, as in saying that reasonable premies would post here if only they got a fair hearing, she damn well better back it up. Why do I say that? Because it's wrong, that's why. It's wrong and I don't like it. I don't care how much you like Katie as a person, as a friend, as a whatever. She says shit like this every once in a while. I then try to get her to talk about it. She cries boo hoo and we both confirm our reputations: she as a victim, me as a bully. So what's new?

And, yes, if you want to give me an example how us exes have been 'very abusive' to premies, I'd be most interested. Or is that just a point of pride that you get when you join RE? You're supposed to be intuitively sensitive to such abuse now, you don't even have to explain it, it's just there somehow?


---

Jim,

I wasn't trying to make anything alright for Katie, I was pointing out that your post does nothing to help your argument. You just look foolish attacking her in the childish way you did. I have had several confrontational arguments with Katie about the things she says on this forum, but strangely, I have retained her friendship.

Yes, I can give examples of exes being very abusive to premies but that would hurt exes who probably now regret saying such things. If you want I could email you the examples, but I would need your assurance you wouldn't post my email on this or any other public forum.

Your totally unsupportable comments about me joining RE somehow changing my opinions or sensitivity also do your reputation as a rational person no good.

John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Nov 24, 2001 at 07:46:21 (EST)
From: AJW
Email: None
To: JHB
Subject: Je regrette ne rien (nt).
Message:
They started it.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 20:02:08 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: JHB
Subject: Yeah, I'm foolish alright
Message:
I wasn't trying to make anything alright for Katie, I was pointing out that your post does nothing to help your argument. You just look foolish attacking her in the childish way you did.

That's your opinion, John. Myself, I think it's just plain stupid to characterize any of this as my 'attacking' Katie. If you've bought into that bullshit, you're already lost. Katie ATTACKED me ... us ... anyone who can falls into the category of not giving all those reasonable premies 'room' to express themselves and be heard. She accused us of distorting the truth just like premies do. Did you miss that? Read the threads again.

I have had several confrontational arguments with Katie about the things she says on this forum, but strangely, I have retained her friendship.

I've seen you very politely dispute the odd point with Katie. Nothing like this though. And what a surprise to see how everyone's so loathe to jump in and say something, huh? You know as well as I do that if any other person said what she said people would be all over her like ants on peanut butter (speaking from recent experience). No one would get away with those kinds of criticisms without a good, healthy argument. Did someone say 'Sacred Cow'?

We all have different relationships. I'm the guy whose opinion is always wrong, according to what Katie and Brian told our good friend, Glasser. Etc. You're someone different. But I defy you to show me how I personalized any of this BEFORE she did. I didn't.

Yes, I can give examples of exes being very abusive to premies but that would hurt exes who probably now regret saying such things. If you want I could email you the examples, but I would need your assurance you wouldn't post my email on this or any other public forum.

What's this now? Some ex was publically 'very abusive' to premies here but you don't want to say so publically? Why? I'm not interested in an unnecessary private email dialogue about this most public issue. If there's some reason I should be, please let me know.

Your totally unsupportable comments about me joining RE somehow changing my opinions or sensitivity also do your reputation as a rational person no good.

Poetic licence, John. Sarcasm completely in keeping with my reputation as a bullying asshole. Please excuse me.

John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 20:37:45 (EST)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Sacred Cows
Message:
Jim,

My opinion is valid, as I'm another human having a perspective on your behaviour. We all have few people who care enough to be honest about how we appear to others, so we should take notice when someone makes the effort. You appeared foolish to me.

I disagree with Katie regarding making this forum a welcoming place for premies. I just don't think it's possible regardless of how reasonable we all are, because the problem premies have is that our very existence is unwelcoming, but I still think we should be civil. I know I haven't always been, but that's my opinion now. Someone argued about premies having their own space to debate, but that's been proved to be impossible until they are willing to examine their involvement, when they quickly become exes.

But, Jim, you do attack Katie. It's so predictable. My more serious debates with her have been off forum. I do this because when people disagree, it's often better to thrash it out in private as afterwards, when, hopefully, the conflict has been resolved, it's better that any vitriol has not been made public. Don't you agree?

Regarding others' reluctance to join in this debate, maybe they just don't feel as strongly about the issue as you do. I don't think Katie can be fairly described as a 'sacred cow'.

Jim, you are not 'the guy whose opinion is always wrong'. You have been praised on the forums by me and others so many times you must have difficulty maintaining your humility. Yes, Brian was unwise discussing his personal opinions with Glasser, but it hardly merited your response IMO.

I already stated my reasons for not quoting exes being, IMO, very abusive to premies. As I said, they would probably prefer those quotes not to be repeated.

BTW, is being 'someone different' a compliment?

John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 21:19:15 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: JHB
Subject: Re: Sacred Cows
Message:
My opinion is valid, as I'm another human having a perspective on your behaviour. We all have few people who care enough to be honest about how we appear to others, so we should take notice when someone makes the effort. You appeared foolish to me.

Well, John, you're right. What are friends for if they can't be honest with us? But about this looking foolsih thing -- perhaps you can say when I started looking so? Was it when I first asked Katie to explain about all those positive reports she'd gotten on the trainings? Was it when I bugged her for an answer after she seemed to ignore me (I know, I know, she was out of town and not posting then)? Or was it when I took her to task for, like I say, tarring us exes with the same brush as the current cult members who, we all know, can't think straight regarding M? Or was it when I accused her of succumbing to the Fallacy of the Middle? Was it before or after she called me rude and talked about all the other people who don't like me, etc.? When was it I first started sounding foolish, John? Please, you['re my friend, tell me.

I disagree with Katie regarding making this forum a welcoming place for premies. I just don't think it's possible regardless of how reasonable we all are, because the problem premies have is that our very existence is unwelcoming, but I still think we should be civil. I know I haven't always been, but that's my opinion now. Someone argued about premies having their own space to debate, but that's been proved to be impossible until they are willing to examine their involvement, when they quickly become exes.

You picked the one, safest aspect of what this is all about to talk about. Yes, as Joe and Katie demonstrated, there's lots of room for a civil discussion about how welcoming this place could or should be for premies. But what about what I asked you about? What about her insulting attack on the bulk of the exes here (I'm not sure who doesn't qualify. No one perhaps?)? You say I seem foolish to you? Well you seem to be tip toeing around the issue a bit and, very convenient for Katie, adopting her agenda which is to just shift the focus onto how 'abusive' I am of her. But then, again, what are friends for, huh?

But, Jim, you do attack Katie. It's so predictable.

I won't discuss that accusation anymore with you until you answer what *I* was talking about. Again, what about Katie's own attack on all of us? Comment, please.

My more serious debates with her have been off forum. I do this because when people disagree, it's often better to thrash it out in private as afterwards, when, hopefully, the conflict has been resolved, it's better that any vitriol has not been made public. Don't you agree?

No. It's only messy when it gets personal. It only gets personal here because Katie's one very stubborn duck who, when she says controversial things, hates to hash them out. I've been dealing with that aspect of her long before you ever knew a Katie H, John. It's always been the same: she says something contentious, I call her on it, she cries boo hoo. End of story. Should I just ignore her? Forget it.

Regarding others' reluctance to join in this debate, maybe they just don't feel as strongly about the issue as you do.

Bullshit. What ex here doesn't feel strongly about being accused of unfairness and imbalance? You and I both know that your 'maybe' is just wishful thinking.

I don't think Katie can be fairly described as a 'sacred cow'.

You['re sure treating her like one. Sorry, just my opinion, friend.

Jim, you are not 'the guy whose opinion is always wrong'. You have been praised on the forums by me and others so many times you must have difficulty maintaining your humility. Yes, Brian was unwise discussing his personal opinions with Glasser, but it hardly merited your response IMO.

I don't know which response you're talking about but if it's the one that precipitated Brian and Katie finally relinquishing control over EPO, I'd say it was a damn good one. No, my point in mentioning Glasser was that you were talking about your good relationship with Katie. Mine's different, as evidenced by what they told Glasser. That was my point. That's all.

I already stated my reasons for not quoting exes being, IMO, very abusive to premies. As I said, they would probably prefer those quotes not to be repeated.

Well there goes THAT discussion, I guess. John, the worst I've ever seen here are short blips, like exes really blasting some premie a little prematurely. Yeah, it happens. But it's always addressed afterwards with some sort of apology when it does. This is NOT a 'very abusive' environment for premies. Hardly. Now, I know you didn't say it was but that'd be a fair inference, I think, from what you did say. Fact is, though, that premie abuse is really a non-issue here. (Of course, the premies won't agree but then that's a different story, isn't it?)

BTW, is being 'someone different' a compliment?

I don't follow you on that one.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Nov 24, 2001 at 13:30:05 (EST)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: Sacred Cows
Message:
My opinion is valid, as I'm another human having a perspective on your behaviour. We all have few people who
care enough to be honest about how we appear to others, so we should take notice when someone makes the
effort. You appeared foolish to me.



Well, John, you're right. What are friends for if they can't be honest with us? But about this looking foolsih thing --
perhaps you can say when I started looking so? Was it when I first asked Katie to explain about all those positive
reports she'd gotten on the trainings? Was it when I bugged her for an answer after she seemed to ignore me (I
know, I know, she was out of town and not posting then)? Or was it when I took her to task for, like I say, tarring us
exes with the same brush as the current cult members who, we all know, can't think straight regarding M? Or was it
when I accused her of succumbing to the Fallacy of the Middle? Was it before or after she called me rude and
talked about all the other people who don't like me, etc.? When was it I first started sounding foolish, John? Please,
you['re my friend, tell me.




My statement about us being honest with each other has nothing to do with us being friends. Given the previous conflicts between us, and the fact we have never met, I doubt we are friends, but I guess that was irony on your part. Regarding when you started being foolish, given the history between you and Katie, you are probably foolish attempting to argue with her at any time, but in this context I was refering to the 'I'm soooooooo sorry' post.



I disagree with Katie regarding making this forum a welcoming place for premies. I just don't think it's possible
regardless of how reasonable we all are, because the problem premies have is that our very existence is
unwelcoming, but I still think we should be civil. I know I haven't always been, but that's my opinion now. Someone
argued about premies having their own space to debate, but that's been proved to be impossible until they are
willing to examine their involvement, when they quickly become exes.



You picked the one, safest aspect of what this is all about to talk about. Yes, as Joe and Katie demonstrated, there's
lots of room for a civil discussion about how welcoming this place could or should be for premies. But what about
what I asked you about? What about her insulting attack on the bulk of the exes here (I'm not sure who doesn't
qualify. No one perhaps?)? You say I seem foolish to you? Well you seem to be tip toeing around the issue a bit
and, very convenient for Katie, adopting her agenda which is to just shift the focus onto how 'abusive' I am of her.
But then, again, what are friends for, huh?




I didn't take it as an attack on me, or exes in general, just an observation on the fact that this is an anti-Maharaji forum. I don't even think she was suggesting it could be otherwise, just that that's the way it is. The reverse of what she said is that this a premie-friendly forum. It isn't, although it's obviously not as unfriendly as premies, from their perspective, imagine. And look at the responses her 'insulting attack on the bulk of exes' generated. Hardly evidence that we were all insulted.



But, Jim, you do attack Katie. It's so predictable.



I won't discuss that accusation anymore with you until you answer what *I* was talking about. Again, what about
Katie's own attack on all of us? Comment, please.




As I said, I didn't see it as an attack on all of us, just an observation.



My more serious debates with her have been off forum. I do this because when people disagree, it's often better to
thrash it out in private as afterwards, when, hopefully, the conflict has been resolved, it's better that any vitriol has
not been made public. Don't you agree?



No. It's only messy when it gets personal. It only gets personal here because Katie's one very stubborn duck who,
when she says controversial things, hates to hash them out. I've been dealing with that aspect of her long before
you ever knew a Katie H, John. It's always been the same: she says something contentious, I call her on it, she cries
boo hoo. End of story. Should I just ignore her? Forget it.




So you agree it is personal. It is messy, every time, and you're both at fault. You know this about her, but you continue to be shocked that she behaves like this. When she posts something you disagree with, why not just point out what you disagree with and leave it, instead of pestering her for a response?



Regarding others' reluctance to join in this debate, maybe they just don't feel as strongly about the issue as you
do.



Bullshit. What ex here doesn't feel strongly about being accused of unfairness and imbalance? You and I both
know that your 'maybe' is just wishful thinking.




Bullshit to you too. Where's your evidence that every other ex strongly feels that they've accused of unfairness and imbalance? The responses in this thread support my view.



I don't think Katie can be fairly described as a 'sacred cow'.



You're sure treating her like one. Sorry, just my opinion, friend.



Jim, you are not 'the guy whose opinion is always wrong'. You have been praised on the forums by me and others
so many times you must have difficulty maintaining your humility. Yes, Brian was unwise discussing his personal
opinions with Glasser, but it hardly merited your response IMO.



I don't know which response you're talking about but if it's the one that precipitated Brian and Katie finally
relinquishing control over EPO, I'd say it was a damn good one. No, my point in mentioning Glasser was that you
were talking about your good relationship with Katie. Mine's different, as evidenced by what they told Glasser. That
was my point. That's all.




I already stated my reasons for not quoting exes being, IMO, very abusive to premies. As I said, they would
probably prefer those quotes not to be repeated.



Well there goes THAT discussion, I guess. John, the worst I've ever seen here are short blips, like exes really
blasting some premie a little prematurely. Yeah, it happens. But it's always addressed afterwards with some sort of
apology when it does. This is NOT a 'very abusive' environment for premies. Hardly. Now, I know you didn't say it
was but that'd be a fair inference, I think, from what you did say. Fact is, though, that premie abuse is really a
non-issue here. (Of course, the premies won't agree but then that's a different story, isn't it?)




Your inference is wrong. Exes being occasionally very abusive does not mean this is a very abusive environment for premies, but I can imagine that premies could believe that. The 'short blips' are largely what we're talking about, and there are rarely apologies afterwards. I'm not saying exes shouldn't express their emotions, and I certainly have done so myself in the past. These days I see little point for myself in doing this, and try to stick to the issues, but I'm not telling anyone else how to behave here. I did call Cat insane and deeply unhappy earlier, though.



BTW, is being 'someone different' a compliment?



I don't follow you on that one.



You called me someone different.



John.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Nov 24, 2001 at 14:38:03 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: JHB
Subject: Sure, John, anything you say
Message:
I didn't take it as an attack on me, or exes in general, just an observation on the fact that this is an anti-Maharaji forum.

Here's what she actually said:

I know this person feels that there is a dominant paradigm on this forum, and that input that doesn't fit into this paradigm is either stifled or attacked. Thus it's not truly 'open'. And I'll probably get flamed for saying this, but I can't disagree. On this forum, we discuss and make assumptions about a lot of things re M's world that we don't have the facts about, and there seems to be a general consensus on this forum to put the WORST possible face on things - just as premies tend to spin to put the BEST possible face on things (for example, 'Please Consider This', and similar sites.) So it's difficult for reasonable premies to come and 'discuss' because they feel the deck is already stacked against them, and very few people here are going to listen to a contradictory point of view.

You know as well as I do that if any PREMIE had said this, as they do almost verbatim from time-to-time, every ex and their mother would be lining up to explain how wrong this is. This is a complete slur on the exes here. If you can't see it, that's your problem.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Nov 24, 2001 at 17:50:41 (EST)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: So you agree with Katie?
Message:
Sure what Katie said was a little critical, but no ex has taken it the way you have as far as we know. But if a premie had posted it, sure every ex and their mother would have been lining up to explain how wrong it was.

This is related to what Katie is saying (not that I totally agree with her as I've said before). Premies come here and their every word gets attacked - exes are usually given a little more latitude (except you with Katie).

John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Nov 24, 2001 at 17:56:01 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: JHB
Subject: NO!
Message:
First, what Katie said was more than a 'little critical'. Don't be silly.

And while we both agree that no one -- other than me, apparently (and PatC and Deb) -- want to challenge her on it and that that is indeed a double standard vis-a-vis how premies are treated, I don't think it's at all because we're too harsh on premies. Rather, we're not harsh enough on Katie.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Nov 24, 2001 at 18:02:34 (EST)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: 'We're not harsh enough on Katie'
Message:
we're not harsh enough on Katie

Love it Jim! I understand your context, but I think it's a great quote to be taken out of context!

John laughing in Latvia

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Nov 24, 2001 at 18:19:37 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: JHB
Subject: Re: 'We're not harsh enough on Katie'
Message:
I knew you'd like it. :)

But, John, you DO get my point, don't you? Maybe Katie's the one who needs to have little smiley faces with wings on them on her posts so no one will challenge her. Premies, no, but Katie, yes.

Hope you're okay.

Take care, John.

Jim

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 16:20:44 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Cynthia
Subject: Well, since you asked .....
Message:
I am not involved with the differences you and Jim have and plan to stay out of it. It's not my business. How's that for middle ground, Jim?

It's just great ..... or, I guess I could say it sucks. Much as Katie LOVES to say otherwise, this is not a personal issue between us. I feel like I'm just doing what I'd do with anyone, responding to their words, agreeing, disagreeing, questioning, etc. Katie says things that no other ex here says. Or, in the rare eventuality that they do, they most certainly get challenged. That's all I'm doing, following up on Katie's words which, as I've said, I take issue with. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I can't help but think that if you forgot for a moment it was Katie who spoke up for all the 'reasonable' premies who don't get a fair hearing here:

However, I know this person feels that there is a dominant paradigm on this forum, and that input that doesn't fit into this paradigm is either stifled or attacked. Thus it's not truly 'open'. And I'll probably get flamed for saying this, but I can't disagree. On this forum, we discuss and make assumptions about a lot of things re M's world that we don't have the facts about, and there seems to be a general consensus on this forum to put the WORST possible face on things - just as premies tend to spin to put the BEST possible face on things (for example, 'Please Consider This', and similar sites.) So it's difficult for reasonable premies to come and 'discuss' because they feel the deck is already stacked against them, and very few people here are going to listen to a contradictory point of view.

you'd most definitely have something to say in response. No other ex says this kind of shit. Is it because no other ex is as honest and fair as Katie? Is that it? Because if that's the case, it's time for all of us to re-examine a few things. Or, alternatively, is Katie wrong? That's what I say. What's YOUR opinion?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Nov 24, 2001 at 12:42:59 (EST)
From: Cynthia
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: You Scare Me, Jim...
Message:
NOT! Gotcha!

Jim,

To tell the truth, Katie's middle ground attempt to befriend premies and come here to explain their plight to exes has made me uncomfortable on many occasions. I know what the plight of premies is and don't feel I need an explanation. But, I don't spend time with premies in cyberspace (except here) or in the world. I always avoided LG because I couldn't stand reading there. I don't have a need, as Katie seems to have, to save or protect anyone. I'm selfish that way.

However, I am the same way sometimes (doing the middle-ground thing), wanting everyone to like me instead of being myself. I fluctuate between trying to keep the peace and fighting, and I'm coming to realize it's my own life and my opinions count.

I completely agree with you about the initial post Katie made about the training sessions. I thought it was inappropriate for her to speak about it without supplying some verification and I wish I had said so. Only Katie knows whether or not she was ignoring your requests for more information, so I understand your gripe and agree.

However, since the first day I ever came here, Katie has been a ''peacemaker.'' You are labeled ''bully.'' I can't imagine what my label is, but the point is they are all labels.

But I do disagree with you when you say it's not ''personal'' between you and Katie. I think it is, at least in part. I remember the F5 fiasco about the Glasser thing. It was ugly on both sides. Since then, you jab at her and she jabs back. This thread is but one example. I don't care, mind you, whether you and Katie are friends or enemies. It's not pertinent to my life.

Regarding the above quote from Katie, well, I disagree with that too. The fact is, we are on opposites sides of the fence here (premies and exes). To state that there is a general consensus here to put the worst face on Maharaj and the cult is just dumb. What kind of face are we going to put on it? I'm trying to be truthful about how I see things and if that offends premies, well fuck 'em.

I think everyone has something to contribute here, and I don't like being painted with a broad brush either by Katie, you, or anyone.

That's all I can think of to say in response now...
Cynthia

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Nov 24, 2001 at 14:30:10 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Cynthia
Subject: Cynthia, you REALLY scare me
Message:
NOT! Gotcha!

Jim,

To tell the truth, Katie's middle ground attempt to befriend premies and come here to explain their plight to exes has made me uncomfortable on many occasions. I know what the plight of premies is and don't feel I need an explanation. But, I don't spend time with premies in cyberspace (except here) or in the world. I always avoided LG because I couldn't stand reading there. I don't have a need, as Katie seems to have, to save or protect anyone. I'm selfish that way.

However, I am the same way sometimes (doing the middle-ground thing), wanting everyone to like me instead of being myself. I fluctuate between trying to keep the peace and fighting, and I'm coming to realize it's my own life and my opinions count.

I completely agree with you about the initial post Katie made about the training sessions. I thought it was inappropriate for her to speak about it without supplying some verification and I wish I had said so. Only Katie knows whether or not she was ignoring your requests for more information, so I understand your gripe and agree.

However, since the first day I ever came here, Katie has been a ''peacemaker.'' You are labeled ''bully.'' I can't imagine what my label is, but the point is they are all labels.

But I do disagree with you when you say it's not ''personal'' between you and Katie. I think it is, at least in part. I remember the F5 fiasco about the Glasser thing. It was ugly on both sides. Since then, you jab at her and she jabs back. This thread is but one example. I don't care, mind you, whether you and Katie are friends or enemies. It's not pertinent to my life.

Regarding the above quote from Katie, well, I disagree with that too. The fact is, we are on opposites sides of the fence here (premies and exes). To state that there is a general consensus here to put the worst face on Maharaj and the cult is just dumb. What kind of face are we going to put on it? I'm trying to be truthful about how I see things and if that offends premies, well fuck 'em.

I think everyone has something to contribute here, and I don't like being painted with a broad brush either by Katie, you, or anyone.

That's all I can think of to say in response now...
Cynthia


---

Not really but I thought I'd just pay you back in the subject line. :)

Cynthia, it seems the only thing you disagree with me about is my saying that it isn't personal between me and Katie. By that I meant that it wasn't at first. I, like anyone else, have the right to agree or disagree with anything anyone posts here. Or ask questions. My initial posts to her weren't 'personal' but obviously there is a history to us two. I said as much when I explained how, as you know, this will immediiately be characterized as yet another instance of me picking on her.

Otherwise, we're in agreement, it seems. Now is that a good thing or a bad thing? :)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Nov 25, 2001 at 12:42:52 (EST)
From: Cynthia (Channeling Martha Stewart)
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: It's a good thing, Jim:) [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Nov 24, 2001 at 05:38:37 (EST)
From: janet
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: Well, since you asked .....
Message:
I stand with Katie on this statement. It's true. It is not an insult. It's not an attack. It's a truthful assessment of what has formed over time, here, and interestingly, it isn['t aimed at you, personally, either. you might narcississtically want to assume that it is, but a certian grinning, leering, dangerous, false courage of roaming in a stray- dog-pack has grown on this forum, a kind of primitive herd identification that gathers more zeal and confidence to set upon newbies than any one person feels, if they were to face the issues individually.
I see it real clearly. It kills quickly any chance of premies taking the risk of walking in and saying what theyre thinking about. believe it or not, some people do not define everything in stark black and white, good and evil, us vs them roles. believe it or notthere are a range of possible ways individuals can see and try to comprehend and account for other's behaviors.
not a one of us can get inside another person's mind and know what they see. they can try to tell us, but even that may be harder than first expected. you have to honor the vast range of uniqueness if you want your own views honored or given the place you think they deserve..
it is possible maharaji is not pure bad. it is possible premies are not clones. it is possible to be an ex and still lose your individuality in the new peer pressure of the ex premie 'pack'.

it was bad when we reduced the whole world to being either premie or non premie. it is just as bad now to reduce the world again to premie or ex premie, and leave no room for people to be people, with a spectrum of possible ideas, stages of understanding, personal feelings and comprehension.

it takes real mettle to make up your own mind and be true to yourself in the face of pressure. you make your living persuading people to see things your way, Jim, but you know you can err and that there is much you would admit you don't know. You have to always be mindful of your own limits as a human being, because in your drive to persuade, you can and will err, and therefore lead others into mistakes with you. Taking it persoanlly is a mistake. Thinking a voice of fairness is an insult is a mistake. Getting offended where the call is for room for everyone, so that everyone can get out of the clutches of Rawat, is an error. It bogs down the whole assembly and hijacks it to look at you, you, you. That narcissism is a red herring, every bit as timewasting as the trolls and flamers. It does not contribute to the overarching purpose here--which is to help people we knew get their will and thinking and volition back as they were meant to be, whole and self directed and not in the sway of another narcissist we all knew.
this forum is not about you. and it's not about katie. and its not about us. its about them and him.and about freedom and human rights, if i may be so hackneyed and 'american'.
and anytime anyone hijacks it into their own precious publicity drama or some morality play with themselves as the star, I am going to get impatient and speak out until it stops, and the group business can get back to work on the central reason we are here, doing this. it is not to ridicule and shred people still unable to get out of what maharaji has done to them. they are human beings with real struggles, who deserve real conversation to help them figure it out and see what has happened to them.
we did it. only we can help them.you don;'t help someone by hurting them. and you don't help them by dragging the focus onto you and making the groups business all about you.
you're already out. you don;t need that kind of urgent help and attention.
its the others who cant leave yet, that do.
we need to disperse the gleeful,lungeing, dog pack mentality and return to being people. only people can talk to other people. only people can hear and listen to other people.
we are not a dog pack. we are not the enemy and neither are they.
got that? get back to being a man. and be extremely chary of attacking or imagining insult or offense. you err constantly, and so will others. taken together, we are right. taken individually, we just have opinions-- and therefore, no one is always right, but everyone is valid.
and i do mean everyone.
even bjørn. even ****. even catweasel. there is no unanimous posture or party line here that everyone is to be beaten into accepting or else they will be thrown out.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Nov 24, 2001 at 14:24:37 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: janet
Subject: Typical over-the-top janet bullshit
Message:
I stand with Katie on this statement. It's true. It is not an insult. It's not an attack. It's a truthful assessment of what has formed over time, here, and interestingly, it isn['t aimed at you, personally, either. you might narcississtically want to assume that it is, but a certian grinning, leering, dangerous, false courage of roaming in a stray- dog-pack has grown on this forum, a kind of primitive herd identification that gathers more zeal and confidence to set upon newbies than any one person feels, if they were to face the issues individually.
I see it real clearly. It kills quickly any chance of premies taking the risk of walking in and saying what theyre thinking about. believe it or not, some people do not define everything in stark black and white, good and evil, us vs them roles. believe it or notthere are a range of possible ways individuals can see and try to comprehend and account for other's behaviors.
not a one of us can get inside another person's mind and know what they see. they can try to tell us, but even that may be harder than first expected. you have to honor the vast range of uniqueness if you want your own views honored or given the place you think they deserve..
it is possible maharaji is not pure bad. it is possible premies are not clones. it is possible to be an ex and still lose your individuality in the new peer pressure of the ex premie 'pack'.

it was bad when we reduced the whole world to being either premie or non premie. it is just as bad now to reduce the world again to premie or ex premie, and leave no room for people to be people, with a spectrum of possible ideas, stages of understanding, personal feelings and comprehension.

it takes real mettle to make up your own mind and be true to yourself in the face of pressure. you make your living persuading people to see things your way, Jim, but you know you can err and that there is much you would admit you don't know. You have to always be mindful of your own limits as a human being, because in your drive to persuade, you can and will err, and therefore lead others into mistakes with you. Taking it persoanlly is a mistake. Thinking a voice of fairness is an insult is a mistake. Getting offended where the call is for room for everyone, so that everyone can get out of the clutches of Rawat, is an error. It bogs down the whole assembly and hijacks it to look at you, you, you. That narcissism is a red herring, every bit as timewasting as the trolls and flamers. It does not contribute to the overarching purpose here--which is to help people we knew get their will and thinking and volition back as they were meant to be, whole and self directed and not in the sway of another narcissist we all knew.
this forum is not about you. and it's not about katie. and its not about us. its about them and him.and about freedom and human rights, if i may be so hackneyed and 'american'.
and anytime anyone hijacks it into their own precious publicity drama or some morality play with themselves as the star, I am going to get impatient and speak out until it stops, and the group business can get back to work on the central reason we are here, doing this. it is not to ridicule and shred people still unable to get out of what maharaji has done to them. they are human beings with real struggles, who deserve real conversation to help them figure it out and see what has happened to them.
we did it. only we can help them.you don;'t help someone by hurting them. and you don't help them by dragging the focus onto you and making the groups business all about you.
you're already out. you don;t need that kind of urgent help and attention.
its the others who cant leave yet, that do.
we need to disperse the gleeful,lungeing, dog pack mentality and return to being people. only people can talk to other people. only people can hear and listen to other people.
we are not a dog pack. we are not the enemy and neither are they.
got that? get back to being a man. and be extremely chary of attacking or imagining insult or offense. you err constantly, and so will others. taken together, we are right. taken individually, we just have opinions-- and therefore, no one is always right, but everyone is valid.
and i do mean everyone.
even bjørn. even ****. even catweasel. there is no unanimous posture or party line here that everyone is to be beaten into accepting or else they will be thrown out.


---

I stand with Katie on this statement. It's true. It is not an insult. It's not an attack. It's a truthful assessment of what has formed over time, here, and interestingly, it isn['t aimed at you, personally, either. you might narcississtically want to assume that it is, but a certian grinning, leering, dangerous, false courage of roaming in a stray- dog-pack has grown on this forum, a kind of primitive herd identification that gathers more zeal and confidence to set upon newbies than any one person feels, if they were to face the issues individually.

Well, of course you'd say this. To begin with, you're probably pretty angry with me and looking for some excuse, any one really, to 'get me' somehow. Why? Because I gave you shit on both this forum and AG for saying that the U.S. is every bit as bad as the Taliban and for suggesting that it was even somehow involved in the 9/11 attacks. Then, to top it off, when you bragged (once again) about your MENSA membership I told you I thought that was the nerdiest group of social misfits I knew of. So let's be honest, Janet. For you, it's payback time. (I'd write LOL but I'm just getting up).

Anyway, your attempt to find merit in Katie's posts is ridiculous. There is no 'herd' mentality here. We differ on this, that and the other thing, on and of-topic. But some things are obvious to all but the current cult members we argue with. It's not a reflection of 'herd identification' if we agree on those. If a bunch of former flat-earthers stopped thinking that way, they're going to back each other up pretty damn consistently if they continue to interact with current flat-earthers. Get real.

I see it real clearly. It kills quickly any chance of premies taking the risk of walking in and saying what theyre thinking about. believe it or not, some people do not define everything in stark black and white, good and evil, us vs them roles. believe it or notthere are a range of possible ways individuals can see and try to comprehend and account for other's behaviors.

Hey, people can think whatever they want but the fact is Maharaji's a total fraud. He's a regular person imitating God-in-a-bod. That's black and white and true as hell. No apologies for saying so. None. Any premie who tries to discuss the issues fairly here usally, not always, not in every instant, but usually, gets a fair reception here. If you disagree, give me examples, because I don't buy it.

not a one of us can get inside another person's mind and know what they see. they can try to tell us, but even that may be harder than first expected. you have to honor the vast range of uniqueness if you want your own views honored or given the place you think they deserve..
it is possible maharaji is not pure bad. it is possible premies are not clones. it is possible to be an ex and still lose your individuality in the new peer pressure of the ex premie 'pack'.

It's possible that Maharaji's really the Lord too, don't forget. There are a lot of possibilities. But, for my money, Maharaji as an insitution, Maharaji as a phenomenon, Maharaji as a teacher, guru, leader, Master in any way is totally bad. Maybe he's nice to his kids, maybe he's got a few friends, but Maharaji, as he relates to us, is, in my opinion, pure bad. Mind you, anyone who wants to say otherwise, is more than welcome to make their case here. Sure, they'll get shot down easily and by many but that's just because they're wrong. Like Pat said the other day, it's like shooting fish in a barrel. That's just the way it is.

it was bad when we reduced the whole world to being either premie or non premie. it is just as bad now to reduce the world again to premie or ex premie, and leave no room for people to be people, with a spectrum of possible ideas, stages of understanding, personal feelings and comprehension.

Honestly, Janet, are you still smarting from the critical reception you've received for telling us about some of your wilder spiritual experiences, like seeing Angels and all that stuff? I can't help but think you've never liked the fact that most people here jsut don't buy that shit. Some do -- so much for your 'herd identification' -- but most don't. Too bad, isn't it?

it takes real mettle to make up your own mind and be true to yourself in the face of pressure. you make your living persuading people to see things your way, Jim, but you know you can err and that there is much you would admit you don't know. You have to always be mindful of your own limits as a human being, because in your drive to persuade, you can and will err, and therefore lead others into mistakes with you. Taking it persoanlly is a mistake. Thinking a voice of fairness is an insult is a mistake. Getting offended where the call is for room for everyone, so that everyone can get out of the clutches of Rawat, is an error. It bogs down the whole assembly and hijacks it to look at you, you, you. That narcissism is a red herring, every bit as timewasting as the trolls and flamers. It does not contribute to the overarching purpose here--which is to help people we knew get their will and thinking and volition back as they were meant to be, whole and self directed and not in the sway of another narcissist we all knew.

There's only so much room that former cult members can cut current ones when discussing the relevant issues. It'd be extremely condescending and entirely false for ex-premies to deny their certainty and personal convictions about Maharaji just because some poor, confused cult member hasn't bit the bullet and accepted the truth yet. I defy you to find me a single thread where you could point out how some ex here was remiss in not giving enough 'room' to some premie. Go ahead. I dare you.

this forum is not about you. and it's not about katie. and its not about us. its about them and him.and about freedom and human rights, if i may be so hackneyed and 'american'.
and anytime anyone hijacks it into their own precious publicity drama or some morality play with themselves as the star, I am going to get impatient and speak out until it stops, and the group business can get back to work on the central reason we are here, doing this. it is not to ridicule and shred people still unable to get out of what maharaji has done to them. they are human beings with real struggles, who deserve real conversation to help them figure it out and see what has happened to them.

There are myriad personalities here, Janet. And, from time-to-time interpersonal conflicts arise. In this case, no one but Katie made this personal. I simply asked her, first, to tell us what she was talkign about when she posted about the who-knows-how-many people she'd heard from disputing John Macgregor's accounts. Unlike her, I think she DID owe an explanation. Then, when she started tarring ex-premies with the same brush of unreasonableness as curent cult members, for god's sake, I tried to take issue with her about that. Hey, forgive me, this is a discussion board, right? We don't all ahve to agree with each other, right? I'm free to challenge her, like she is me, right? Well, that's what I was doing. She then threw her typical Katie shit. Instead of simply arguing the merits of the issue, she cried out that she was being 'attacked' and some people, as usual, fall for it.

we did it. only we can help them.you don;'t help someone by hurting them. and you don't help them by dragging the focus onto you and making the groups business all about you.

Addressed above.

you're already out. you don;t need that kind of urgent help and attention.
its the others who cant leave yet, that do.
we need to disperse the gleeful,lungeing, dog pack mentality and return to being people. only people can talk to other people. only people can hear and listen to other people.
we are not a dog pack. we are not the enemy and neither are they.
got that? get back to being a man. and be extremely chary of attacking or imagining insult or offense. you err constantly, and so will others. taken together, we are right. taken individually, we just have opinions-- and therefore, no one is always right, but everyone is valid.
and i do mean everyone.
even bjørn. even ****. even catweasel. there is no unanimous posture or party line here that everyone is to be beaten into accepting or else they will be thrown out.

That's your favorite voice, isn't it? Pure, high-octane self-righteousness. So who do you turn it on this time? The ex-premies. And who in particular? Me. Pure, unadulterated crap. I can't even be bothered saying why again.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Nov 24, 2001 at 14:08:34 (EST)
From: Francesca
Email: None
To: janet
Subject: GREAT POST Janet
Message:
Great post janet. Something went wrong with my reply -- I think it was a glitch in the board. I'm going to save this one because it is a reminder to me of why I want to give every human being a fair shake. Don't get on your high horse Jim, that means you too. And no I haven't read everything in this thread, and no, I'm not here to answer your questions.

Just like John, I don't agree with every statement. Especially about Bjorn and Catweasel. Some people have stepped over the line and if the concensus is that we don't want to listen to them, that's fine too. Of course, all people have to do is stop responding and let their posts just stand there, unless they are completely offensive.

Love,

Francesca

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Nov 24, 2001 at 14:39:41 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Francesca
Subject: Okay, it's the Katie Defence League
Message:
Keep going, Fran. Janet's post was bunk but keep going. I love it.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Nov 24, 2001 at 08:50:43 (EST)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: janet
Subject: Great Post, Janet
Message:
Whilst I wouldn't agree with every statement, the overall message is spot on.

Thanks,

John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 22:46:34 (EST)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Re: Thanks, but disagree on a couple things
Message:
I hate to be pessimistic, but my friend did try to post here at least once to correct some out of date information, and got jumped on immediately. It wasn't a good experience, and it can get very frustrating.

This is interesting. But maybe he or she should try it again, perhaps with a little intro about his or her concerns. I don't know how he or she presented the 'correction' but that might have been part of it. But I also think there is more going on with premies than just fear of not being treated well. It's deeper than that; it's a basic uneasiness of even talking about what this all is about to them. For some reason, after you get out, it gets really easy. I think that's because there is no longer any fear of displeasing M by saying the wrong thing, presenting him in the wrong way, or revealing some 'secret' information that you aren't supposed to and would piss him of if he knew.

It is weird, though. If they can make it through one of those abusive trainings, one would think they could handle a few cyber-attacks.

I also think it would be better if premies did it as a group, so they wouldn't be outnumbered. Perhaps even starting their own website that allowed ex-premies to participate. It is very amazing to me that hasn't happened. Again, I think it's because there is a fear it would displease M. So, we continue to have one side engaged and one side disengaged. Why is that?

One reason is that there isn't really much interest in answering the concerns of exes. They just want us to go away, or at least to just shut up.

Re CAC, that's true about Way, although I'm not sure that is the only reason. Sir Dave is back, however, and I'm so glad to see that.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 18:48:11 (EST)
From: Francesca :C)
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Joe and Katie, been following this discussion
Message:
Joe and Katie,

If we made this place as 'premie friendly' as both of you seem to be hedging toward suggesting, the rest of us would probably go away. Of course premies are outnumbered here! This is not a board for premies, really. However, I don't think it's good if people are rude to anyone, especially if the person in question didn't say anything to warrant it. I know that several months ago a premie was asking me questions about the 'Band on the Run' misinformation, and we had a polite exchange. Not sure if this was your friend.

I do think that if there was going to be a board more evenly weighted between premies and exes, that's a viable idea, but that would have to be the 'theme' of the board, and be hosted by people who wanted to do the work. This board will never serve that purpose, because it wasn't set up for that. I'm sure there are people on here who would want to post there also.

As far as the angel icon or some other sign that the premie did not want debate, that would open the door for all sorts of premie apologists to make statements that no one could question, because the rules of the board would be to honor the icon. If the rule were that their statements could not be questioned at all, that would be problematic. But if the person were willing to respond to polite questioning, it might work, but it's hard to say. To merely allow premies to make unsupported statements and leave them at that would be a bad idea.

I do agree with Joe's statement that although some of us don't always have all the facts, most of us are trying to get the real facts, and don't like misinformation and rumors. And Joe's statement is also true that the average premie seems to know less about what's going on, hard fact wise, than we do. We have some reliable sources and they are not lying.

Perhaps ALL new posters should be asked to say a little about themselves by way of introduction, or at least say what they are up to and where they are coming from. They can certainly remain anon and do this. But sometimes, a question just comes in out of nowhere, from an anonymous premie, and it is disconcerting. No introduction, no real disclosure, just questions. I try to be polite if the request seems sincere.

Bests,

Francesca

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 23:05:44 (EST)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Re: Thanks, but disagree on a couple things
Message:
Hi Joe -
You wrote:

But I also think there is more going on with premies than just fear of not being treated well. It's deeper than that; it's a basic uneasiiness of even talking about what this all is about to them. For some reason, after you get out, it gets really easy. I think that's because there is no longer any fear of displeasing M by saying the wrong thing, presenting him in the wrong way, or revealing some 'secret' information that you aren't supposed to and would piss him of if he knew.

You may be right - I don't know. Certainly I think there is WAY too much secrecy within M's organization - so much so that premies read the forum to get information.

You wrote:
It is weird, though. If they can make it trough one of those abusive trainings, one would think they could handle a few cyber-attacks.

Well, for some people, it's not the attacks per se, it's the feeling of 'why bother if no one is going to listen to me anyway'. Sort of how I would feel posting on something like a Rush Limbaugh discussion group :).

You wrote:
I also think it would be better if premies did it as a group, so they wouldn't be outnumbered. Perhaps even starting their own website that allowed ex-premies to participate. It is very amazing to me that hasn't happened. Again, I think it's because there is a fear it would displease M. So, we continue to have one side engaged and one side disengaged. Why is that?

Don't ask me :). I do think there is too much fear of 'displeasing M'.

One reason is that there isn't really much interest in answering the concerns of exes. They just want us to go away, or at least to just shut up.

I'm not sure this is true. I think it's probably true about things like Maharaji's personal life - there are people for who that doesn't matter. And the financial stuff, too. But I think some premies are quite concerned about the fact that many people who are or have been involved with Maharaji's organization are emotionally damaged.

And I think the more realistic premies realize that ex-premies are not going to go away, or shut up. (Attempts to make this happen, such as CAC, etc. are not what I'd call 'reasonable'.)

I'm glad Sir D is back too.

Love,
Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 23:50:14 (EST)
From: Deborah
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: WOW! Good to hear that, Katie
Message:
Hi Katie,

That's the sound of fair and balanced opinions I like to hear.

Glad Joe has a way with words with you.

Try not feel hurt Katie, nobody is meaning you any harm nor do the exes hate you. They are just arguing their points, that's all. This place is not extreme. It's just a co-incidence that we were all duped by the same unfair con-artist. Cults aren't fair. They, by nature, have no middle ground, no room for critical thinking or personal opinions. Joe gave his trust fund to Maha, that's not fair. People devoted their life to Maha, for nothing, that's not fair. Children got raped by his ambassadors and jerked around by Maha for it, that's not fair. :(

This place is pretty darn fair, I'd say. :)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 17:29:52 (EST)
From: Frend
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Reasons
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 17:39:05 (EST)
From: Frend
Email: None
To: Frend
Subject: Reasons again (first 'reasons' incomplete.
Message:
Reasons why most premies don't persist with posting here -
1. Flamers and abusers - the most extreme view wins
2. No support for logic or truth
3. If it's negative it's treated as true, if it isn't it's a lie
4. No presumption of innocence
I would be happy to have an off forum discussion of this with the people in this thread.
F
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 18:34:10 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Frend
Subject: 'Incomplete' is right!
Message:
Reasons why most premies don't persist with posting here -
1. Flamers and abusers - the most extreme view wins

Well, Frend (you don't mean 'friend' by chance, do you?), just because the 'most extreme view' wins any particular argument doesn't mean that that view is wrong. Nor does it mean that its proponent 'won' by either flaming or abusing. Did you read my post above about the 'fallacy of the middle'? The point there is that it's a logical error to assume that the truth must be somewhere between two opposing views. It doesn't have to be. It could be all one, all the other, or in between.

In Maharaji's case, clearly, if he didn't have some sort of magic authority to present himself as the Lord of the Universe, Saviour of Mankind -- AS HE MOST CLEARLY DID AS PER THE QUOTES ON EPO -- then there is no middle ground. He's either an ass or a unicorn. There's no such thing as a 'unicass' ('corniass'?)

2. No support for logic or truth

Them's fightin' words, boy. Empty allegation, completely wrong, if you want to argue it give specific examples. You can't.

3. If it's negative it's treated as true, if it isn't it's a lie

What's negative? I'd say your cult leader and everything to do with him is negative. I'd say his basic philosophy, even on its own terms, denigrating the human mind as it does, not to mention human pride, accomplishments, relationships, that that's all negative. What do YOU mean by the word?

4. No presumption of innocence

This isn't a criiminal trial. In any event, normally, when one speaks of the presumption of innocence -- in criminal cases -- one speaks as well about the 'right to silence'. The two go hand-in-hand. Well, M has no right to silence. He filled our ears with his gollum siren song far too much for him to NOT have to account for himself. His silence is deafening.

I would be happy to have an off forum discussion of this with the people in this thread.

Why go off-forum? Friend, quite honestly, I wouldn't bother because I see that as just a big waste of time. Talking with you out in the open, on the other hand, has at least some chance of being useful to others.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Nov 25, 2001 at 22:34:16 (EST)
From: G
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Unicornyass
Message:
'There's no such thing as a 'unicass' ('corniass'?)' LOL

No, but Rawat is a uni-corny-ass (one corny ass).

Well, sometimes he's corny, sometimes he's just an ass.

corny: Trite, dated, melodramatic, or mawkishly sentimental
mawkish: Excessively and objectionably sentimental, sickening or insipid in taste.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Nov 24, 2001 at 06:03:05 (EST)
From: janet
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: 'Incomplete' is right!
Message:
I see what you see. I saw it right from the day i first came in. keep saying it. it needs to sink in and take effect here. premies need a place where they can talk to ex's genuinely about what they think, and vice versa, not as enemies, but as individuals just speaking and listening.
the only reason i stayed here and survived the mentality was because I was permanently disgusted and alienated with every premie i had ever known, save one. and I had reached the final fuck you for maharaji as well. i didnt consider myself an ex, i considered myself an abandoned premie, sort of like the last real one alive, watching the entire movement go bad together and leaving me behind.
these were the only people in the world i could talk to, because they all had lived it, been there, knew the references, the names, the habits, etc.
the difference being, the obnoxious personalites who were still premies forbade any such truthfull verbalexchanges, while here, i could say it and make it known. so i stayed here, despite the egos and rudeness and detestable parts, because when it was good, it was so good.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Nov 25, 2001 at 12:55:56 (EST)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: janet
Subject: Re: 'Incomplete' is right!
Message:
premies need a place where they can talk to ex's genuinely about what they think, and vice versa, not as enemies, but as individuals just speaking and listening.

This is mainly a talk shop for ex-premies. Premies who come here and act like cultweasels get what they attract. Other premies, like Carlos and the Anderson's were treated well and had the opportunity to
to interact with us. Of necessity, it's pretty much of a one-way street here. They are the ones in the cult, not us.

I do think Jim is correct that you go way overboard, Janet. I think you wrong, wrong, wrong in your opinions about this forum and its participants. We're not perfect but I'm not about to let these unsubstantiated complaints go unchallenged.

I'll tell ya, Jim has a legitimate beef with Katie's statements and I back him 100% You, however, are on shaky ground here. I really didn't appreciate that one 'powder' post. Joke sure, but christ you trying to get me in trouble?

Sometime it appears to me you are provoking the very discord and animosity you so detest.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Nov 25, 2001 at 15:46:47 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: Re: 'Incomplete' is right!
Message:
I'll tell ya, Jim has a legitimate beef with Katie's statements and I back him 100%...

Thanks, Gerry. I really wish she'd come back to the table, put her cards on it and play this out for once and for all. That way, at least, we might be able to actually resolve something. Who knows? Maybe Katie's got some great explanation I've never thought of for thinking that we're just as biased as premies, prone to see Maharaji through gray-tinted glasses, just as theirs are rose-tinted. Maybe it's true that there really are such things as 'reasonable' premies who try to post here but don't get a fair hearing just because of our bias. And maybe, even, just as JHB, Francesca and Janet seem to believe, we're like a cowardly pack of wild dogs. Alternatively, maybe that's all bullshit.

But we're not going to ever know, at least not through discussion, if Katie doesn't hash it out openly and fairly. NOT on RE, if she's so inclined, but here.

Frankly, I think that anyone who really considers themselves Katie's friend, who might be communicating with her right now, should tell her to quit feeling sorry for herself, quit hating me for making her feel that way, get off her ass and come back. She's an extremely smart and articulate person. If she's got a valid position, she can probably express and defend it as well as anyone on her behalf. It's far from a trivial point. It should be resolved and then -- guess what? -- benefit of all benefits, we never have to do this again.

Because, as it is, I know that I've been around this curve with her a good half dozen times over the years we've been here. This rift between us has seeded all sorts of major, ugly conflict. It was largely, if not entirely, responsible for the creation of RE to begin with and is definitely the reason that Katie's so ginger about posting her, rather than there. Many people have supported Katie in these conflicts, often not so much on her beliefs versus mine but on the more ancillary issue of how we fight about them. It lead to such antipathy between Katie and Brian and me that they ended up saying some extremely unjudicious things to one of this forum's worst enemies, Charles Glasser, and losing control of EPO as a result with Brian going into self-imposed exile ever since.

Shit! Can't we all just talk about this? Either Katie's right or she's wrong. If she's wrong her friends shouldn't be molly-coddling her no matter how 'hurt' she says she is. That doesn't help her, doesn't help anyone. But do we see that? Nooooooo, what we see is everyone just tip toe-ing around the argument -- well, not everyone -- and nothing's resolved for the next time.

And bet your booties on this one -- without resolution there will indeed be a next time. Why? Because Katie, bless her heart, is a woman of conviction who speaks her mind and can't help doing so. She will always put herself in the line of fire between exes and premies so long as she thinks it's the right thing. Fact is, it isn't. But try to tell her that!

Sheesh!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Nov 26, 2001 at 14:18:04 (EST)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: 'Incomplete' is right!
Message:
Ok I'm not a regular here anymore but I've just been reading most of this stuff re Katies assertions and your response.

Like Gerry and others I'm 100 per cent behind you on this Jim. 100 per cent. And I agree that such an assertion by Katie deserved further discussion by her and ANYONE who challenged her on it, even if it was you (with all the personal stuff between you).....makes no odds .....the ISSUE raised can't just be dropped because of personal frictions.

I'd just also like to mention that political differences between me , you or anyone else (and they are pretty fundamental ones) make no difference to me. I for one don't mind being challenged on them nd dont take it personally. Well, once in a while for a few minutes I may get narked :) but no .....really, it's not personal.

If Katies reading this, I appeal to you to stand your ground and discuss the matter you've raised.I don't think you're right about it Katie. It's the premies who come here to fuck about who get what they deserve. I'm convinced that any premie coming here without underhand subterfuge in mind would meet with a reasonable response.There are already a few noble examples, Carlos for instance, and there are probably hundreds lurking. All they need do is accept the obvious fact that this is an EX forum and stick their toes into the pool accordingly.....if of course they want to discuss anything.

Cheers to all.

Dermot

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Nov 26, 2001 at 19:36:26 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: The 'personal stuff' between us
Message:
Thanks Dermot. I can assure you that the 'personal stuff' between Katie and me is all about this kind of issue and nothing else. Oh sure, she and Brian said some particularly ugly things about me at times and I've done the same. But THIS is the real issue. Too bad she's ALWAYS played the stubborn goat and simply refused to hash it out to some sort of resolution. You know, the kind you get when someone -- anyone -- concedes that they're wrong?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Nov 26, 2001 at 18:22:20 (EST)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: My view on Katie's position
Message:
Dermot,

Much as though we would all like to be able to put aside personal differences for the sake of debating truth, I don't think Katie can, so I very much doubt that she would enter such a debate. We of course are free to have such a debate without her. I agree with you in that premies who genuinely want to debate here are welcome, but statements like this of yours 'It's the premies who come here to fuck about who get what they deserve' can be misunderstood. Now I know exactly what you mean here, having seen such premies fuck about for the last three years, but a premie reading that may not understand what was fucking about here, and what qualified as being without underhand subterfuge.

My view is that there is no solution to this. Premies have never seen a world where Maharaji and knowledge are discussed openly and critically. From our perspective this is an open forum. From a premie's perspective this is a world that they dare not enter, and hence closed to them.

It is my sincere view that what stops premies posting here is their own fear and little to do with exes' behaviour here. However, we can do a little to remove some of the justifications they might come up with by being a little more civil than we have been at times, although I don't think it will make much difference!

Anybody want to argue with any of this?

John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Nov 26, 2001 at 19:32:57 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: JHB
Subject: Yeah, I'd LOVE to argue with that
Message:
First, allow me to say again, not without some pleasure, that your and Fran's endorsement of Janet's stupid screed against me and the exes in general here made you look foolish. Foolish indeed. If you'd ever care to go back to Janet's post and show us all that you call 'spot on' I'd be more than welcome to discuss it with you further.

Much as though we would all like to be able to put aside personal differences for the sake of debating truth, I don't think Katie can, so I very much doubt that she would enter such a debate.

Interesting. Are you saying that, despite her scientific education, despite her scientific employment, despite her obvious smarts and excellent ability to express herself, despite, even, the fact that she otherwise seems to enjoy discussion and despite her obvious familiarity with the issue that Katie is somehow incapable of setting aside personal difference to debate truth? How very patronizing of you, John. And how convenient for her, eh?

Me, I don't buy it. Katie's always been able -- and willing -- to put on the most poised and equanimious face to hash things out with the worst premie offenders here. Am I really all that worse? Better think carefully, John.

We of course are free to have such a debate without her. I agree with you in that premies who genuinely want to debate here are welcome, but statements like this of yours 'It's the premies who come here to fuck about who get what they deserve' can be misunderstood. Now I know exactly what you mean here, having seen such premies fuck about for the last three years, but a premie reading that may not understand what was fucking about here, and what qualified as being without underhand subterfuge.

You know exactly what Dermot means because it couldn't be clearer. He never said that all premies come here to fuck about but, rather, that those who do get what they deserve. We all know that, John. I wonder, is there something about being webmaster that makes you feel that you have to take on some sort of extra mantle of fairness or something? I'm just asking, John, based on your comments. Listen, to me that's offensive. We're all fair here, pretty well. We don't need Katie, Janet, Fran or you or anyone tsk tsk-ing us. Thanks anyway. Your post above to Catweasel, 'Cat, this is nonsense!,' could be misperceived by some new premies as indicative of how little quarter premies are granted here. So what? This forum isn't targetted at people who just drop in any one moment. It's a discussion borad for the participants. If people are going to take one fast, random look and get the wrong impression, that's their problem.

My view is that there is no solution to this. Premies have never seen a world where Maharaji and knowledge are discussed openly and critically. From our perspective this is an open forum. From a premie's perspective this is a world that they dare not enter, and hence closed to them.

What's with all this relativism? Our perspective, their perspective? This is an open forum, god dammit! Don't be such a wuss!

It is my sincere view that what stops premies posting here is their own fear and little to do with exes' behaviour here. However, we can do a little to remove some of the justifications they might come up with by being a little more civil than we have been at times, although I don't think it will make much difference!

Katie's comments were much more condemnatory than that. Anyone can play forum church lady and suggest that if only we were all just a little more civil at times .... anyone can do that, John. But what Katie did was accuse us of being unfair and imbalanced and deaf to the reasonable submissions of certain premies. That, John, is pure bunk and I know you think so too jsut by how assiduously you've avoided dealing with her post straight on.

But, hell, maybe I'm wrong. Here's what she said verbatim again. Either defend it for real this time or admit that she's simply wrong. One or the other, John, please:

I can't really answer that FOR the person, as I don't want to put words in their mouth, and I have never asked that specific question. However, I know this person feels that there is a dominant paradigm on this forum, and that input that doesn't fit into this paradigm is either stifled or attacked. Thus it's not truly 'open'. And I'll probably get flamed for saying this, but I can't disagree. On this forum, we discuss and make assumptions about a lot of things re M's world that we don't have the facts about, and there seems to be a general consensus on this forum to put the WORST possible face on things - just as premies tend to spin to put the BEST possible face on things (for example, 'Please Consider This', and similar sites.) So it's difficult for reasonable premies to come and 'discuss' because they feel the deck is already stacked against them, and very few people here are going to listen to a contradictory point of view.

In particular, do you agree that there's a 'dominant paradigm' here and that information that doesn't fit in is either stifled or attacked? Yes, no, don't know or maybe? Which is it -- AND could you explain yourself while you're at it. Oh, I forgot -- please. :)

Next, that as a result of the above, this forum is not truly open?

Next, that we make a lot of assumptions here about things we don't really know about and that, in the process, we always put the WORST face on things?

Next, that this is 'just the same' as the premies do with sites such as Please Consider This?

And finally, that it's dificult for reasonable premies to come and discuss things here because they feel that the deck is already stacked against them and no one will listen to their contrary views?

I'd LOVE to hear your substantive defence of these comments.

Anybody want to argue with any of this?

As above.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Nov 26, 2001 at 19:57:06 (EST)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: It's 2:45 am here so a short post
Message:
Jim,

If you read my posts here I never said I agreed with Katie, I just said that what she said wasn't worth your persistence. I still think that. I've stated my view on the issue pretty clearly. I don't think swearing is a big deal, but my personal opinion is that it's not necessary. You disagree. How could this be resolved?

One thing you say is definitely wrong, wrong, wrong - people do have different perspectives. Before I first looked at EPO, and quickly turned away through guilt and fear, my perspective was very different to what it is now. Other exes have said similar things, so I think it is fair to extrapolate that current premies also have that fear, particularly those who are likely to be affected by reading EPO and the forum. So from their perspective, this is a scary place, and not at all open. If you cannot put yourself in someone else's shoes, then we cannot resolve this either.

And don't give me shit about becoming webmaster making me fair and reasonable. I've always been fair and reasonable.

I've just reread Janet's post, and, as I said before, I don't agree with every statement, but I still think it's a damn good post.

Time for bed. If there's anything else in your post you particuarly want me to respond to, let me know.

John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Nov 26, 2001 at 21:09:11 (EST)
From: PatC
Email: None
To: JHB
Subject: Forum church lady syndrome
Message:
John, I agree that this forum can be intimidating - as you said: ''So from their perspective, this is a scary place, and not at all open.''

It is a club in so far as people have gotten to know each other over time, have gotten used to each other's use of language. It feels very cliquey when you first start participating here. However cultists expect an authoritarian unegalitarian hierarchical paradigm and assume that the club is rigid. :)

Perhaps many newbies may see that at first. I did but it came as no surprise. I just figured that I had to make new friends. Hey I went to fourteen schools before I was 17.

Jim said: ''...is there something about being webmaster that makes you feel that you have to take on some sort of extra mantle of fairness or something?''

I think there is something to that. I know that you have always been thoughtful and responsible, John, however I have sensed a new gravitas in your personality since taking on the EPO job. I don't think that is a bad thing as long as you are aware of it. It's probably inevitable.

I realize that you have now got to watch what you say publicly a lot more than the rest of us as EPO is usually the gate through which newbies and wavering premies first glimpse freedom and you're the gate-keeper.

I definitely think that Katie was very fond of being EPO diplomat/mom and it may be a difficult role to relinquish. I'm sure she still feels responsible and must continue to be the diplomat. However that mantle can also be a straight-jacket as some arguments can only be won with no hands tied behind one's back. Especially when arguing with Jim. ;)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Nov 26, 2001 at 21:03:38 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: JHB
Subject: Maybe you can do better in the morning
Message:
If you read my posts here I never said I agreed with Katie, I just said that what she said wasn't worth your persistence. I still think that. I've stated my view on the issue pretty clearly. I don't think swearing is a big deal, but my personal opinion is that it's not necessary. You disagree. How could this be resolved?

This isn't about swearing and no, you've never once dealt with anything Katie said directly. Give me a break, John. Is it worth pursuing? Depends on how much you think any of this is worthwhile, I guess.

One thing you say is definitely wrong, wrong, wrong - people do have different perspectives. Before I first looked at EPO, and quickly turned away through guilt and fear, my perspective was very different to what it is now. Other exes have said similar things, so I think it is fair to extrapolate that current premies also have that fear, particularly those who are likely to be affected by reading EPO and the forum. So from their perspective, this is a scary place, and not at all open. If you cannot put yourself in someone else's shoes, then we cannot resolve this either.

God, John, we're really apples and oranges here. I've never said and sure don't think that there are different perspectives on all these issues. But that's not to say that there isn't some truth as well. Of course premies will always make the kind of complaints against the forum that Katie sets out. But they're CULT MEMBERS, John. Let's not forget that. Where Katie's so wrong is that, as she said, she can't disagree with them. I mean, really!

And don't give me shit about becoming webmaster making me fair and reasonable. I've always been fair and reasonable.

Watch out for the fallacy of the middle manager, John. :)

I've just reread Janet's post, and, as I said before, I don't agree with every statement, but I still think it's a damn good post.

Really? Want to argue about it? Perhaps we have to. Here it is in all its insulting, self-righteous pomposity:

I stand with Katie on this statement. It's true. It is not an insult. It's not an attack. It's a truthful assessment of what has formed over time, here, and interestingly, it isn['t aimed at you, personally, either. you might narcississtically want to assume that it is, but a certian grinning, leering, dangerous, false courage of roaming in a stray- dog-pack has grown on this forum, a kind of primitive herd identification that gathers more zeal and confidence to set upon newbies than any one person feels, if they were to face the issues individually. DO YOU AGREE?

I see it real clearly. It kills quickly any chance of premies taking the risk of walking in and saying what theyre thinking about. believe it or not, some people do not define everything in stark black and white, good and evil, us vs them roles. believe it or notthere are a range of possible ways individuals can see and try to comprehend and account for other's behaviors.
not a one of us can get inside another person's mind and know what they see. they can try to tell us, but even that may be harder than first expected. you have to honor the vast range of uniqueness if you want your own views honored or given the place you think they deserve..
it is possible maharaji is not pure bad. it is possible premies are not clones. it is possible to be an ex and still lose your individuality in the new peer pressure of the ex premie 'pack'. AGREE?

it was bad when we reduced the whole world to being either premie or non premie. it is just as bad now to reduce the world again to premie or ex premie, and leave no room for people to be people, with a spectrum of possible ideas, stages of understanding, personal feelings and comprehension.

it takes real mettle to make up your own mind and be true to yourself in the face of pressure. you make your living persuading people to see things your way, Jim, but you know you can err and that there is much you would admit you don't know. You have to always be mindful of your own limits as a human being, because in your drive to persuade, you can and will err, and therefore lead others into mistakes with you. Taking it persoanlly is a mistake. Thinking a voice of fairness is an insult is a mistake. Getting offended where the call is for room for everyone, so that everyone can get out of the clutches of Rawat, is an error. It bogs down the whole assembly and hijacks it to look at you, you, you. That narcissism is a red herring, every bit as timewasting as the trolls and flamers. It does not contribute to the overarching purpose here--which is to help people we knew get their will and thinking and volition back as they were meant to be, whole and self directed and not in the sway of another narcissist we all knew.
this forum is not about you. and it's not about katie. and its not about us. its about them and him.and about freedom and human rights, if i may be so hackneyed and 'american'.
and anytime anyone hijacks it into their own precious publicity drama or some morality play with themselves as the star, I am going to get impatient and speak out until it stops, and the group business can get back to work on the central reason we are here, doing this. it is not to ridicule and shred people still unable to get out of what maharaji has done to them. they are human beings with real struggles, who deserve real conversation to help them figure it out and see what has happened to them.
we did it. only we can help them.you don;'t help someone by hurting them. and you don't help them by dragging the focus onto you and making the groups business all about you.
you're already out. you don;t need that kind of urgent help and attention.
its the others who cant leave yet, that do.
we need to disperse the gleeful,lungeing, dog pack mentality and return to being people. only people can talk to other people. only people can hear and listen to other people.AGREE?
we are not a dog pack. we are not the enemy and neither are they.
got that? get back to being a man. and be extremely chary of attacking or imagining insult or offense. you err constantly, and so will others. taken together, we are right. taken individually, we just have opinions-- and therefore, no one is always right, but everyone is valid.
and i do mean everyone.
even bjørn. even ****. even catweasel. there is no unanimous posture or party line here that everyone is to be beaten into accepting or else they will be thrown out.

Janet sets up some ulgy straw men and knocks them down. Of course the world's full of different people, blah, blah, blah (read -- BORING!!) But either M's a fraud or he isn't. Like I said before, he's either a unicorn or an ass. There are no such things as -- what'd G call it? -- a unicornyass. This bullshit relativism sucks. That's why Janet's post is bullshit. All the goddy goody statements about how we should all be humans and not wild dog packs are a complete insult to most everyone here. I didn't even touch on her jabs at my 'narcisissm'. So, yeah, please show me all that's good in her post. I can't wait.

Time for bed. If there's anything else in your post you particuarly want me to respond to, let me know.

I just did.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Nov 26, 2001 at 21:07:35 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Important correction
Message:
God, John, we're really apples and oranges here. I've never said and sure don't think that there are different perspectives on all these issues. But that's not to say that there isn't some truth as well.

should read:

God, John, we're really apples and oranges here. I've never said and sure don't think that there are not different perspectives on all these issues. But that's not to say that there isn't some truth as well.

Also, sorry for the HTML screwup. As I've said before, I'm unable to edit my posts for some reason. I'll see if I can find a computer guy to show me how to fix this.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Nov 25, 2001 at 14:21:20 (EST)
From: PatC
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: You hit the nail, Gerry,...
Message:
....on the head. Very well put. Thanks.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 17:53:27 (EST)
From: JHB
Email: jhb@ex-premie.org
To: Frend
Subject: I'm willing to chat
Message:
You say:-

I would be happy to have an off forum discussion of this with the people in this thread.

I haven't contributed to this thread until now, but I do look after www.ex-premie.org and care very much about 'logic and truth', as I beleve many others here do. There have been many negative comments here that have not been 'treated as true'. Regarding 'Flamers and abusers', I have never seen such 'win' here. Also the targets of the allegations on EPO, most of which originated or have been repeated here, have been given the opportunity many times to identify any inaccuracies on EPO. They haven't responded apart from complaining about the wording 'Harboring a Paedophile' (which although removed from EPO have since been shown to be true and will be re-instated). I think this goes some way towards dealing with your allegation regarding 'No presumption of innocence'.

I'm happy to discuss this here or by email.

John Brauns
Somewhere in Latvia

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 19:36:45 (EST)
From: Michael McDonald
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Thanks to Joe and Anon
Message:
for an interesting take on the trainings, and to Katie for passing on the message.

This premie passes on a fair and accurate account of the trainings, obviously with a take on it different to mine or John's. Perhaps Katie could thank this person, at least on my behalf, for making an attempt to come to grips with the issues at stake in an intelligent and concerned manner.

I think these observations by Anon are important: 'My experience, from talking to friends, was that it was more about getting in touch with the feeling of WHY one was participating so heavily in service than it was about some vague malaise. The malaises were not so subtle. There are people who feel aspects of the training were abusive (especially the facilitators, more so than M). No doubt about it. BUT...most of the people who withdrew did so more because they realized their hearts weren't really in it. It was more in their heads and an obligation, and I think the trainings sort of opened up their eyes to this. So, I find this change rather healthy - as do the friends of mine who went in this direction.'

I think this was the case for some - it definitely made me question my level of commitment before I went on later to consider why I had any commitment in the first place. In my case it was not a sense of obligation, I was making an attempt to get more deeply involved and found that process facilitated at great speed.

After the 99 training made me examine my commitment - and at this stage there was no turning away - there came the international 'clean-up', when we were asked to look at how real our dedication was. I decided mine wasn't solid enough to warrant me being on the international PR team, and I resigned. It was only months after I then began to deconstruct the training experience, which then led to me deconstructing the bases of my personal experience (phew!).

So as I said before, Mr Rawat got the people he wanted, and he should be happy with that outcome. Let the rest come and post on F7 - 'the dogs bark but the caravan moves on', or so you would think.

Anon also finds value in training rules like 'brain fart' and 'ten second'. They definitely had their value for speeding meetings along - I've always liked the idea of having meetings standing up, I'm pathologically unfond of meetings - but they're also extremely restrictive, manipulative and artificial. More egalitarian decision-making comes about through team consensus, the kind of technique the Australian green left uses, which allows lot of screaming and yelling but in the end everyone 'owns' the decision fully rather than abandoning their individuality to a team entity which doesn't really exist.

Ha, there I go again, waffling on about egalitarianism. Silly old unreconstructed socialist fart.

Michael

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 20:35:36 (EST)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Michael McDonald
Subject: Thanks, Michael
Message:
And I'll pass on your thanks to 'anon' as well :). I also thought it was an honest and intelligent account of one person's experience - glad you got something out of it.

Take care,
Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 18:16:33 (EST)
From: hamzen
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Re trainings
Message:
Couldn't agree more about your angle on team trainings Joe, but I would say that what amounts to institutional abuse is endemic.
I've come across very few trainings genuinely run along those lines, managers in general just want to get more for nothing in my experience.
The social services managers I came across (the most recent) were also as likely to switch angles the way gm does when the political breeze switched.

But, and this is a huge but, sooner or later some kind of accountability takes place, even if the replacement is a direct clone.

GM must tear his hair out, he assumes he always knows which way it should switch before the premies, he then has to convince them, but their wariness/fear because he is never a team member and always a Ted Turner/Murdoch, guarAntees failure and limited success before the failure.
But of course gm can never see the structural deficiencies, so it's a series of frustrations for him.

What a life eh, just to keep a roof over his head and an extended family happy.

Poor bugger, and all the while forgetting how gorgeous it can be to be alive, how ironic.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 13:21:04 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: All
Subject: Fun News :) (for the braindead)
Message:
This just in on ELK:

Fun news :)

Last night Maharaji spoke for over an hour at a regional event in Westchester, New York. And then answered questions from his 600 plus students gathered there from the New York- New England region only. Truly a surprise visit !

What a treat :) He had us all laughing and crying to our hearts content. To be a living student of the living master giving the Knowledge of life is everything, more than the best dream anyone could ever come up with.

Thank you Maharaji for making it possible for me , and anyone who wants, to completely fulfill this existence.

From: Janice Wilson, Baldwinsville, NY

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 15:21:46 (EST)
From: suchabanana
Email: banana@mcsweeneys.com
To: Jim
Subject: and on the left:
Message:
last night I watched basketball for over an hour on television. And then shared some champagne with a friend. Truly a surprise visit!

What a treat. We were chillin' in front of the fireplace to our hearts/minds' content. To be breathing, conscious, relishing the innumerable discoveries and joys of this universe and of awareness itself - and living in a democratic environment, as a free-thinking, independent individual. Better than a dream, in fact.

Then, going to bed last night, amidst a howling wind storm. Closed my eyes -- and the light was very bright! No need for poking eyeballs. Thank you, oh cosmic universal energy, for making everything possible, and for anyone who wants, to completely fulfill this this this dat dat dat da da da whatever...

Q: 'this existence' logically implies the existence of 'that existence.' So, what's the difference between this existence and that existence? I mean there's existence, but now it's become 'this existence'. Now, we've got 'this life.' What's 'that life?' What's 'these lives as opposed to those lives?' What's 'a life' as compared with 'the life'? What's 'this life' as compared with 'this existence?' What's this and that all about? Q: Is it just ignorance or is it downright apathy?

phlegmie A: I dunno and I don't care..., by HIS grace, His mercy, His riches, His agya, HIS... er, that understanding, that love, the possibility, that ad nauseum...

like, Didn't marji learn adjectives and adverbs in grade school? He traffics in articles: i.e. that massa, this life, that fulfillment, the knowledge, the one, this gift, this existence. Now, his twisted appropriation of certain words and their meanings has steadily been rotely parroted like a holy mantra by doggie-devotees.

Well, obviously, it's always been in good fun, whenever I have referred to dat massa, da massa blasta, dat massa baiter, dat gwatitude, dat appweciation, dose donations, dat participation, da yacht, dose jets, dat shell corporation, dose phlegmies, dose Maharajiavellian tactics, dose Rawrats, dat rugu miragey, dat dat dat ... etc.

But Janice is serious -- ly ill.

ROFL

P+L,

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 14:34:40 (EST)
From: Brian Smith
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Sounds like an Amway Rally to me
Message:
I confess, I went to one years ago when my friend tried to recruit me into the 'business'

It was the same tone, though, some exalted persona on stage telling the rest of the peons how they can enjoy and fullfill their live's more by following certain criteria.

They laid it all out in humorous and serious scenario and the converted left the hall a few dollars short but feeling once again a renewed sense of purpose and mission towards the fullfillment of their life's dreams.

The message might be different but the JuJu works the same, when will they ever learn?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 18:11:48 (EST)
From: JHB
Email: brauns@apollo.lv
To: Brian Smith
Subject: Amway Rallies
Message:
I was also persuaded to attend an Amway rally in Birmingham, UK, a few years ago by a premie couple who were (are?) friends of mine (Dave and Jenny - if you are reading this get in touch). The similarities with Maharaji were so obvious, but it still took me a couple of years to leave the cult. I refused to stand when the MC asked all 'first-timers' to stand, even though my friends encouraged me to, and afterwards I explained why I thought the Amway model couldn't work for all participants and declined to continue. Amway did though get about $30 from me.

John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 13:23:12 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: And how about a night on the town?
Message:
Also from ELK:

Dancing

Sitting alone, my heart took me dancing. We
giggled and laughed, without the voice of concept,
laughing and giggling with you know who.

My master washes me clean with many colors of
love, removing the soil of concept and doubt.

Jim Sakshaug
Marblemount, Wa, USA

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 17:51:47 (EST)
From: hamzen
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: What's with the language ?
Message:
That pseudo poetic sloppy lilt, doesn't even sound remotely like he got anything from it at all, whereas at least Janice sounds like somethings happening.

That stilted language, so unnatural, bogus even, yeuch.

I just forget sometimes how sad that culture was and is.

Re the figures you questioned the other week, about a quarter of the way through the archives you bugger, on schedule for the figures I mentioned, but you made me doubt myself on that one, so blah de blah.

Have you done any more global warming searches since?

Don't forget the Romford Underground Chill Out Sessions this sunday, my mate 3form will be spinning some of the WICKED dark uk garage that's around at the mo, and being taken up by all the london pirate rasdio stations.
Be there and wash yourself in the colours of love, removing the grime of cynicism.

God did we rteally talk like that once, very worrying.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 13:46:42 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Frankly, I'm a bit worried for Ivette
Message:
Any regular observer of the ELK herd knows Ivette from Brazil. How could you miss her? Like Janice, she's completely full of love. Recently, however, I've noticed that she's been spacing out a bit with that photography stuff. All those pretty pictures (and yes, some of them are 'breathtaking' -- did I say that?), but not so much sharing-from-the-heart. Once, she was right up there with Janice. Now, she's fallen behind.

Query: Is Ivette almost an ex now?

(just kidding, of course)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 22:25:39 (EST)
From: Searcher
Email: None
To: All
Subject: Christmas ideas
Message:
Rueter

The anti-Christmas present?

Tired of self-righteous Christians?
A controversial new book to be published in time for Christmas could be just what you’re looking for.
Published by I.M.Satan, 'The Thoughts of Jesus' turns the accepted view of the Saviour upside down.
As Mr Satan says 'Most people haven’t read the Bible, they only think they have.
In fact, they’ve been fed a carefully selected blend of platitudes and homilies that have created a completely false impression.
Far from the 'turn the other cheek', do-gooder of Sunday school, Jesus was a no nonsense radical who didn’t suffer fools gladly'.
Under headings such as 'Sexy Jesus' and 'The Lord’s chair', Mr Satan quickly debunks the idea of Jesus as a loving socialist, who had no interest in the material world.
Example, what should you do when you want something but can’t afford it pay for it?
Jesus doesn’t hesitate, he tells his followers 'Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her, loose them and bring them unto me. And if any man say ought unto you, ye shall say, The Lord hath need of them' (Matthew 21/2).
Who’s going to argue with that?
And how should you deal with life’s little disappointments?
Check out 'Don’t get angry, get even'.
Becoming hungry whilst out walking, Jesus 'saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, 'Let no fruit grow on thee henceforth forever' And presently the fig tree withered away (Matthew 21/19).
Indeed 'The Thoughts of Jesus' reveals a far more 'in your face' character than most Christians would be happy to accept.
Don’t like the service?
He 'overthrew the tables of the moneychangers and the seats of them that sold doves' (Matthew 21//12)
And heaven, choirs of angels in the sky?
Jesus has a much better idea, heaven is 'ten virgins and one bridegroom' (Matt 25/1)
Now that’s my kind of saviour.
Come to me the smug, the moralistic and the holy, I've got something for you.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 14:50:32 (EST)
From: The Finder
Email: None
To: Searcher
Subject: Re: Christmas ideas
Message:
Anyone who still quotes from the King James Version of the Bible is either a Fundamentalist or hasn't opened a Bible since they received it in Sunday School. As usual, few people here really know anything about Christianity.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 15:14:44 (EST)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: The Finder
Subject: Alleluiah! I'm a christian
Message:
I love Handel's Messiah and all that other great christian music, chorales, cantatas, masses etc. I just don't like all the other stuff like the religion.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 18:38:33 (EST)
From: hamzen
Email: None
To: Searcher
Subject: Aah the gm school of humour, so subtle
Message:
Like him you probably find yourself amusing.

What a sad pair of fuckers.

Put you or him in a stand up comedy spot and you'd both be destroyed in less than five minutes.

Weak, as in weak weak weak material.

I'd recommend comedy training and no contact with premies and gm for a year, and you'd probably find your experience of meditation improving too.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 11:55:39 (EST)
From: Pope Leo X
Email: None
To: Searcher
Subject: Ha ha ha, Ho ho ho
Message:
'What a profitable superstition this fable of Christ has been for us.' -1513

Prem Rwat, 2001 'What a profitable superstition this fable of Perfect Master has been for us.'

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 11:18:06 (EST)
From: salsa
Email: None
To: Searcher
Subject: nice mental ensalada NT
Message:
yuck
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 22:29:51 (EST)
From: Deborah
Email: None
To: Searcher
Subject: You're an asshole--Don't even bother reading above [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 04:15:09 (EST)
From: CW
Email: None
To: Deborah
Subject: Correction -If you are as Dumb as Deborah..
Message:
Dont read the above from searcher. It will make your brain hurt! and worse still...you wont get it!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Nov 24, 2001 at 16:00:54 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: CW
Subject: We're not all as Dumb as Deborah, Cat
Message:
Cat,

Some of us are working on changing the rabid-dog, crazy pack, wild herd mentality you've been oppressed by for so long. I don't know how long it will take but we're working on it. My question to you is, are you okay? I hope you're okay.

Would you like to email me?

Take care, Cat.

Jim

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 18:33:14 (EST)
From: hamzen
Email: None
To: CW
Subject: Aah the most intelligent man in the universe
Message:
Of course if you were, and you'd truly experienced knowledge you'd know the most intelligent ones have no need to point out what they think is obvious to anyone less intelligent.
They also might realize that some things they are just as naive about, those they take the piss out of will probably understand in a flash.

But then as we know such awareness and sensitivity is way out of your league.

Ahh well. business as usual

I am not worthy

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 22:23:09 (EST)
From: CW
Email: None
To: hamzen
Subject: RecogniseSteve Waugh
Message:
What can I say. Putting your faith in a bunch of plodders like the Pommy Ccricet team says a lot about your ability to anticipate pain Hamzen. Cmon, you seriously dont rate the Ice Queen do you?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 11:22:52 (EST)
From: helper
Email: None
To: CW
Subject: help to you
Message:
help
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 04:18:00 (EST)
From: Abi
Email: None
To: CW
Subject: or why not just ignore all CW posts
Message:
because they are essentially dishonest and meaningless.

Coward for never contacting me CW. And stop bitching at Deb.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 04:22:19 (EST)
From: CW
Email: None
To: Abi
Subject: Re: or why not just ignore all CW posts
Message:
I said below (and it seems to have been deleted) , that I dont send Email's to anyone here. What Dept do you work in? I will call you. I can get your number. I'd prefer if it came from you. Just the Dept..
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 10:47:25 (EST)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: CW
Subject: Cat, just get a Hotmail account! [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 04:34:30 (EST)
From: Abi
Email: None
To: CW
Subject: Re: or why not just ignore all CW posts
Message:
And I don't give out my work details given the CAC context. You can make an exception and email me and then I will give you my unlisted home number. But then I would have somesort of proof about who you are and I might use it against you and the evil ex premies will hound you blah, blah, blah. As Lennon said 'just give me some truth, all I want is the truth'.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 23:04:43 (EST)
From: Michael McDonald
Email: None
To: Deborah
Subject: I thought it was a good piece of
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 23:10:14 (EST)
From: Michael McDonald
Email: None
To: Michael McDonald
Subject: Try again: I thought it was a good piece of
Message:
of spin doctoring compared to Searcher's usual efforts, though he/she fails to look further than a single gospel approved by the Roman empire some 300 years after the event.

It shows this Jesus chappie as a man of action who wasn't afraid to mix it with the common people and imperil his life by confronting the establishment.

Does he bear comparison with someone Searcher knows?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 23:04:09 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Deborah
Subject: Why would you say that, Deb?
Message:
Deb,

I'm not exactly sure where Searcher's coming from but it seems like he's just having a little fun with Jesus. Why would you call him an asshole? I don't get it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Nov 26, 2001 at 01:34:16 (EST)
From: Deborah
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: Why would you say that, Deb?
Message:
Check your email for details.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 13:24:00 (EST)
From: Lesley
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: Why would you say that, Deb?
Message:
If I read it correctly, Searcher is a Jesus believer who thinks that if he can broaden our ideas of how Jesus behaved, it will help us accept the way Mr Rawat behaves.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 15:55:25 (EST)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: Lesley
Subject: Exactly, Lesley
Message:
Searcher/Roupell is a believer in the idea of a master. The master cannot be comprehended by us mere mortals and is not accountable to us.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 00:59:12 (EST)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Deb, probably thinks SC's trying to...
Message:
...reinvent and rehabilitate himself as he has done before this time as Searcher.

You know David R, I really sympathise with your trying to go cold turkey from the forum. You would make life a lot more civil, simple and pleasant for yourself if you posted as David Roupell or David R and stuck with that and just relaxed and enjoyed yourself without playing games with folk all the time.

Sometimes you're really as irritating as a puppy who has not been house-broken yet. Deborah just happens to be a very fastidious house-keeper like me and untrained puppies bring out the worst in us. Now where's that goddammed rolled up newspaper?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 03:29:08 (EST)
From: SC
Email: None
To: Pat:C)
Subject: fair enough Pat
Message:
I can dig that but believe me.. I would happily admit to being 'searcher' if I was. You gotta admit he's a clever fucker (and does considerably more research than lazy bugger me ever does...) Honestly, it ain't me...

This beautiful shangri la called Australia is a small (peoplewise) country and it really isn't uncommon for two people to use the same kind of computer and the same isp. I'm sure Michael, John and Lesley would back me on this. There's only 3 major players in the game here and we're all going to them cos they're cheaper than the boutique isp can ever be.

If it's alright with you Pat, I'll just stick to SC, as I have done.
The reason is that she is an abberant creation of DR who I've heard is quite a nice, polite dude and probably wouldn't post here because...well you know.

The often ropeable SC sometimes even shocks his ghostwriter host believe me!
:)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 03:51:25 (EST)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: SC
Subject: Re: fair enough Pat
Message:
As long as you continue to play hide and seek games, fantasy games, let's pretend games, let's fudge a bit games (which includes every single word of your post to me above - it stinks of condescension and disrespect for common honesty, decency and courtesy) I will be your enemy.

Let's face it I can't stand you but keep trying to be fair to you as I always have done to the handful of the ugly, silly, superficial braggards of this world.

I detest braggards and boasters and supercillious twerps like you and your massa. I can't help it. Perhaps I need therapy to stop being so judgmental. Write that down in your CAC book.

BTW, did you have anything to do with the CAC attacks?

And who the hell are you trying to fool. Searcher's IP# is your IP#, 198.142.154.187. Plenty of people here have already traced it, you poor pathetic man.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 23:33:18 (EST)
From: SC
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Wake up Jimbo...you don't get it?
Message:
Funny that, the rest of us cottoned on to the sour humourless persona months ago. It attacks anything that isn't attacking Balyogeshwar Shri Sant Ji Maharaj. Wow what an intellect.

You haven't realised that yet? There again, you'd probably befriend a rabid Pit Bull Terrier provided it bit MJ on the ankle.

Get your shit together guys, if you don't have the perception and courage to identify and punish your own special brand of ex-premie rotten eggs then who the hell is gonna take you seriously?

Now you know why I don't hang here anymore.

SC - the special brand of premie rotten egg.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 12:04:26 (EST)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: SC
Subject: Roupell Unmasked (revised)
Message:
Now you know why I don't hang here anymore.

Dave, anyone can query whitepages.au.com with your name and it shows your address and telephone number. It's really no big deal. I've posted my address here a couple of times. But it does allow me a little wiggle room if you get too obnoxious again, like you did with Abi.

After all, I did specifically ask you to stay away after you repeatedly abused my friends. Oh, I know who your IPS is also. But Dave I'd rather see you go away without my having to bother folks who probably have better things to do. If that's asking too much well then, temper your tongue, take a clue from your tactful friend Carlos.

Why don't you get some conversation going over at Life is Great? In other words, you mind your business and we will attend to our own. Your interference is causing some resentment.

So how's things in number 8 anyway? Beautiful beaches there in Ocean Shores.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Nov 24, 2001 at 22:09:25 (EST)
From: SC
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: Known Cyberstalker Issues THREAT
Message:
ID: NEWSFLASH Subject:

Gerry Lyng, known, registered (and closely monitored) cyberstaker is at it again. In a thread below he issues a thinly veiled threat against an innocent forum poster (SC) who had the audacity to challenge an ugly post made a by a notoriously unbalaced and unpleasant individual who has posted over 37 insulting and obscene messages to persons of all persuasions.

:::

So here we go again, me posting merely to respond to a desperate man's need for serious attention...

I just received an amusing phone call from one of your so called Aussie moles Mr Lyng, telling me you had made a threat against me (I only check in once a week these days). Well so you have.

:::(All you moralistic, pious forum participants who lie and boast about NOT READING TROLL POSTS - fuck off now and keep your word for once.):::

I'll try and coax you back into the land of the living gently gezza. I appreciate it ain't gonna be easy. You are obviously someone of rather simple persuasion if you think your poorly veiled threat to me carries any currency whatsoever.

You build guitars? Yea, and I design supertankers.

Come back into the real world, shut the troubled mind down for a moment and listen...

I assume you're thinking of the recent ex Aussies or other fictitious 'friends' you think you've picked up on the internet that you'd 'send' over to my house with the intention of shutting me up? Well well, this from a guy who was repeatedly threatened with banning on past forums for using disgusting, foul, insulting language(to other exes no less!) Well gezza, how quickly the worm turns eh? Now your the big important FA and guess what - YOU can make the rules!
Aty least you can pretend to, with little puppy dog Pat Conlon (another registered cyberstalker) yapping at your heels and scurrying around cleaning up 'Troll posts'. Geez, the poor fucker became so desperate I'm told he spent half of yesterday writing to himself as a pretend troll called clyve! World changing stuff.

No matter gerry, you ain't Osama Bin, and these ex-p Aussies in the Shire aren't your little terrorists quietly waiting your command to go and strike at 'strategic' targets. You see, they know me a little better than they know you. I imagine they would also know why Jim, me and many other readers found the post by Deborah Rose incomprehendible in it's complete unprovoked nastiness (as per usual). It is very clear that she and those like her are an increasing embarrassment and liability to your little club, yet you and Conlon have defended these genuine psychotrolls for all you're worth. Who do you think you're kidding? You aren't fooling anyone but the already fooled. Don't you understand that people CAN READ and decide for themsleves about people like her, the wolverines and their little enuch John (never in the game) Tucker.

No you don't, simple fella thinks everyone's too dazed by all the love and wisdom that flows here? Yea of course they are.

But back to your threat...If, on the other hand, you intend 'sending' someone I DON'T know to my house with aggro vibes to carry out your threat, please assure them they'll get whacked (or charmed, depending on the mood I'm in at the time) and escorted off the property in fast time.
Your threat is also now in NSW police files as a 'report' which means they don't do anything but witness the fact that the threat was made 'against somone's person and private dwelling' on a certain date. Good fun being a powewrful forum dictator isn't it?

By the way, seeing you're into threats, try this one on for size.

There is software available to ANYONE who wants it that is REAL spamming/flaming software.
A program can be activated to send different posts to this forum every 30 seconds twenty four hours a day seven days a week. It changes proxy every two hours to prevent blocking software and it can effectively close down a chatroom within 72 hours.

Do you really think it can't be done? You silly silly dreamer.

You are only on the air with the silent consent of those more enlightened and better informed than you.
Remember that Mr FA and remember it well.

When are you silly schoolchildren going to wake up? People don't come here to create trouble, but to counter the obscene lies and hate being spread in the name of the Eden you claim to have found, but actually haven't (as the majority of posts conclusively prove).

By the way...is the SF Police dept still here? Of course they are!!

Don't they know how truly madly deeply IMPORTANT this site is? Yea of course they do!!

But we like to point out to the non posting readers that your little stagnant pond really is a bit smaller than the ocean the rest of humanity bathes in. Very simple really, people understand it fast so we don't need long boring posts like this one to try and impress ourselves on them.

The Thunderbird crew don't give a toss what you and Pat Conman think about who posts on F7 - because you publicly support some of the ugliest, libelest, most lawbreaking people on the internet. As administrators you have no credibility whatsoever, none, zilch, zero, and if your pretend internet friends require challenging then challenged they will be son.

Talking of oceans, I'm off, it's glorious here now.

SC (Swimming Consciously)

Hey...why is English dudpremiji Eddie Fisher pretending to be Jethro?

Oh, and life at number 8 is sweeter than you would ever dare to dream.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Nov 26, 2001 at 05:01:49 (EST)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: SC
Subject: Thank you, silly David Roupell
Message:
A kind ex alerted me to your defamation. I will of course save it in case it comes in use to bust you. And of course the legals etc here have my full backing to use it against you anytime they may find that useful.

JohnT
- never a premie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Nov 24, 2001 at 22:22:06 (EST)
From: David Roupell the notorious
Email: None
To: SC
Subject: Known Cyberstalker Issues THREAT [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 07:29:53 (EST)
From: Jethro
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: Re: Beautiful beaches there in Ocean Shores.
Message:
I was in Ocean Shores about 8 years ago. I didn't see any beaches but the people whose house I was staying in did back onto a river.
I did stay at a premies' house, but would find it hard to beliueve that either of them are this areshole......still nothing would surprise me these days.
By the way it wasn't number 8 I stayed at.

Regards
Jethro

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 18:46:05 (EST)
From: Michael McDonald
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: No beaches at Ocean Shores, Gerry
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 11:23:48 (EST)
From: helper
Email: None
To: SC
Subject: SC, don't u get it?
Message:
help
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 01:45:41 (EST)
From: A fly on the wall
Email: None
To: SC
Subject: SC sed
Message:
SC said: 'Now you know why I don't hang here anymore.'

DO TELL!!! YOU DON'T?? SINCE WHEN??

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 03:11:50 (EST)
From: Since about 10 days ago
Email: None
To: A fly on the wall
Subject: Today is an abba ration - I escaped mind control!
Message:
my next cult programming is on sunday - should last another ten or so...

:)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 23:42:06 (EST)
From: Quick, Nurse
Email: None
To: SC
Subject: the irony injection! NT
Message:
xx
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 23:42:01 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: SC
Subject: I thought you'd gone already?
Message:
David,

Deborah's actually very light and upbeat. Sure, she hates M -- or at least the idea of M the fraudulent cult leader who took advantage of her -- and she also hates you but, what can I tell you? Your way-too-far-beside-the-point campaign against individual exes is pointless and boring. If you don't have anything better to talk about, maybe you really should consider breaking away from here even if it is the only place in the world where Maharaji's talked about openly. I'm not suggesting you break cold-turkey or anything. Maybe just take a step by eliminating the forum as your home page or something.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 00:01:22 (EST)
From: SC
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Thanks Jim
Message:
You're quite right, my post was a pointless waste of time, a silly dig at a post from a poster no self respecting devotee of love and truth would have anything to do with.

I don't have EPO as a homepage and have restricted my access to one or two days a week, so I'm TRYING! But you know, love lingers, and as you know, there are some damn fine and extremely interesting people here. So one leaves gently.

My campaign isn't against individuals, no way. I respond to posts, as they appear, and would have responded the same no matter who posted that reply to 'searcher'. It was mean, humourless, ugly and totally unwarranted.... as YOU obviously agree!!

So, let's agree to agree.... and I'll be on my way :)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 00:10:16 (EST)
From: Two kinds of post:
Email: None
To: SC
Subject: Hit AND Run (nt)
Message:
xx
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 00:31:50 (EST)
From: SC
Email: None
To: Two kinds of post:
Subject: Yea and you're a real thrill too
Message:
No name brand are you?

I never buy no name brand items.....

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 00:35:31 (EST)
From: See, I knew you'd
Email: None
To: SC
Subject: still be around..
Message:
No name brand are you?

Check the computer IDs and you'll figure out who's teasing you.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 00:55:17 (EST)
From: SC
Email: None
To: See, I knew you'd
Subject: Michael... you cad!
Message:
I thought it was friendly fire.

Have enjoyed your sane and objective offerings.

Makes the forum worthwhile when the intelligent voices speak.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 01:02:31 (EST)
From: Michael McDonald
Email: None
To: SC
Subject: 'Sane and objective'?
Message:
My reputation is slipping.

Someone even said the other day The Echo's political coverage was 'balanced'.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 01:14:11 (EST)
From: SC
Email: None
To: Michael McDonald
Subject: No, they just spelt 'boring' wrong!
Message:
Though Mungo's decimation of the awful Howard is always wonderful reading. Pity he had not much better to say about the labour lads this week.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 01:17:28 (EST)
From: Michael McDonald
Email: None
To: SC
Subject: Mungo's never been keen on Crean NT
Message:
xx
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 16:53:17 (EST)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: All
Subject: Not a tree falls......
Message:
Well, Latvenergo, our wonderful electricity company, finally arrived today and in freezing temperatures and falling snow, replaced the three fallen posts and reconnected the power lines, so I'm back! We had six days without power, but we did get limited power last night after I bought a generator. Not so easy after a storm as the small stock the shops hold quickly gets sold. Next time (and as long as we rely on overhead power lines in a heavily forested country there will be a next time) we'll have the generator set up to power the whole house.

Anyway, John Macgregor's trainings post is now on EPO. Further updates are coming!

John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 17:06:14 (EST)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: JHB
Subject: I was just thinking about you
Message:
...while I was making a copy of McGregor's training post before it scrolled off in case it took a while to get into archives as I thought you may be off-line for much longer and I want to send it to a premie.

Glad you're back and didn't freeze.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 17:13:36 (EST)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: Pat:C)
Subject: When you're surrounded by forests...
Message:
... heating isn't a problem and our woodshed is full, but all the water had to be hauled from the well. I can go without washing for a few days, but the horses can't go without drinking. Also, just being deprived of daily entertainment such as TV and the computer wears you down after a few days. I still love living here though!

John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 18:22:09 (EST)
From: Cynthia
Email: None
To: JHB
Subject: Re: When you're surrounded by forests...
Message:
Hi John,

Welcome back. I live in a forest now too. I love it so much but it does take a bit more work to survive. Good that you have a generator. The same thing happens in Vermont when power goes out...all the generators sell out in a day.

Hauling water is a tough one. I did that when I was a kid and we had horses. Well, enough babble about the joys of life in a forest.

Isn't Francesca incredible to have all those links for you?

Best,
Cynthia

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 17:41:47 (EST)
From: Francesca ~)
Email: None
To: JHB
Subject: Here's another item for catching up
Message:
John MacGregor had a bit of a follow-up to the Mindfuck post, re some of the fallout and some more observations.

Also, Lesley had a post on the trainings that is a great read.

And Michael McDonald had some interesting comments to Lesley's post.

Welcome back, but Latvia sounds lovely. My Polish great grandparents on my mother's side raised horses. Never met any of them; nor did my own mother, as my grandparents came over "on the boat."

Bests,

--f
[ John's follow up to Mindfuck ]

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 18:41:12 (EST)
From: Cynthia
Email: None
To: Francesca ~)
Subject: Fran, You're a Gem...OT
Message:
Hi Francesca,

You're a sweetie putting all those links together for John. But, I wanted to talk to you about your Polish heritage. I'm 100% Polish-American. My grandparents on both sides came to the US through Ellis Island.

My parents (prior to divorce) traveled to Poland twice and met their aunts, uncles, cousins. My mother's family were city folk and my father's folk were country folk.

When people talk about the Nazi's here, I remember stories passed down from my grandmothers on both sides to my own Mom. My father's family had to hide in the forests of Poland during the Nazi invasion. The Nazi's just took over villages, homes. They weren't Jewish, but Roman Catholics, But the Nazis didn't like them either.

They lived with infants in the forests through winter, eating bark, grass, and fought injuries and infections. They always had to hide. The Russians came upon them at one point and gave them potato soup which was a big meal.

I was always ashamed to be Polish during my childhood, but since learning so much about my heritage, I've had the opportunity to learn to appreciate all the good things about Poland. My Mom told me it is a very beautiful place.

Anyway--thanks for being so sweet...sometimes I wish we had become roomies in San Francisco (ashram). I do hope to meet all of you west coast exes some day. I've never seen the Pacific!

Much Love,
Cynthia

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 01:10:32 (EST)
From: Francesca ;C)
Email: None
To: Cynthia
Subject: Aw shucks (OT)
Message:
Cynthia,

Actually I'm 1/2 Polish 1/2 Italian, 2nd generation American. They ALL came over on the boat. It s really funny, we don't know too much about our roots. On the Italian side, they spelled my grandfather's name several different ways on official papers!

I do know that my Polish grandmother was always sending things back to folks that were stuck in Poland. They were Roman Catholic so it was a good thing they got out. Under Communism, Roman Catholicism was a political and social movement, not just a church. I read several books about Solidarity and Father Jerzy (Solidarity's priest) a number of years ago.

My mother did go to Poland (she and my aunt can speak Polish). My mom went for a summer study program when she went back to college when she was in her 60s, and studied at a Polish university and did a little travelling.

We were a lower middle class family in an extremely wealthy county. (Fairfield County in Connecticut was, at least at the time, the wealthiest county in the US, and may still be.) So being Polish-Italian in a rich town was interesting -- I had a bad attitude to say the least. Luckily I was intellectual, because many of the Italians were 'greasers,' i.e. hoods.

We had a book of Polish jokes and knew more of them that the people who could make fun of us. We thought the Polish jokes were funny. When I read about the Polish people they are generally a self-deprecating culture, so I know where I got that from. (During Communist rule when there was almost no food in the stores and people waited in long lines: What's a Polish sandwich? One meat ration card between two bread ration cards.)

My grandpa drank beer and sat on the front stoop, just like in the pictures in the book of Polish jokes. (Natch, he and grandma lived in the poor county nearby.)

Anyway, it was a strange trip but an interesting heritage. I love being part of this big old melting pot.

Love,

Francesca

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 23:34:07 (EST)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Cynthia
Subject: Ever been to Chicago??
Message:
It's as Polish as it gets. The Northwest side is almost entirely Polish. Chicago has more Poles than any city except for Warsaw. It's also a great place to get those really spicy pickles.

When the Polish Pope came to Chicago in the late 70s over 2 million people showed up when he celebrated mass in Grant Park. That was in 1979 and I was working in the legal department at DECA at the time. What a joy. I had been living in Chicago for the 3 years previous.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 18:18:38 (EST)
From: Barbara
Email: None
To: Francesca ~)
Subject: Rootskis
Message:
Hey Fran:

I agree with John that, if you're so inclined, to check out the old roots. Ellis Island records is now online, and I found one set of my grandparents' info there. Pretty interesting stuff. The online records include anyone who passed through Ellis Island between the years 1893-1924.

Hope you're well.
B
[ Ellis Island Records ]

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 01:14:19 (EST)
From: Francesca :C)
Email: None
To: Barbara
Subject: Re: Rootskis
Message:
Thanks for that. I bookmarked it and looked around once, called my mom for some info and haven't gotten back since. She put our relatives names on the wall.

Am good, hope you are also!

Love, f

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 17:57:26 (EST)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: Francesca ~)
Subject: Thanks, Francesca
Message:
Yes, I must confess I have pretty much caught up on the forum. I've recommended Lesley's post as a 'Best of' to give it some prominence. I fully agree with John's comments about legal action against exes. I myself have asked Elan Vital several times to point out any errors on EPO and they have failed to do so, so they could hardly sue me after refusing my honest request for help with EPO's accuracy, could they?

Hey, Francesca, you should investigate your Polish roots, and while doing it, pop up to Latvia for a visit!

John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 01:16:11 (EST)
From: Francesca :C)
Email: None
To: JHB
Subject: Latvia (OT)
Message:
John,

After I read your post, I went and looked at maps of Latvia online. It is rather near Poland! I've never been there, but my mom has. What an adventure that would be!

Bests, f

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 20:15:01 (EST)
From: Brian Smith
Email: None
To: Francesca :C)
Subject: One of these days a real Latvian night maybe
Message:
Hey what do you think John, are there any cities close that could accomadate a real Latvian reunion?

I made it to India, England and all over the USA for the Goob, I would really fancy a trip to latvia

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 19:10:53 (EST)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: Brian Smith
Subject: Of Course!
Message:
Riga, the capital of Latvia, is an excellent tourist destination. The Old Town is like Prague or Stockholm, but smaller, and more compact. In 1994 when I first visited, it wasn't tourist friendly, but now it's very much geared up for tourists, but definitely unspoilt. The main problem in getting here is that there are few tourist friendly air-fares. If anyone either individually or collectively would like to visit, I would be happy to act as guide and host.

John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 14:42:57 (EST)
From: Philly Dogg
Email: None
To: All
Subject: MJ in Philly: you got fooled (again)
Message:
Nobody said anything about EPO in the Q&A. Bwahhh Hwahhh! EPO wishful thinkers get fooled again!
Maybe Mr. L from Seattle (edrek?) is smokin' a better brand of crack these days!!

Program was fun fun fun: no religion no mahatmas no ashram assholes no birkenstocks no yuppies nothing but fun fun fun

You realley missed a great time! Too bad you were all so busy living in the past!

Bye now.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 05:08:37 (EST)
From: don
Email: None
To: Philly Dogg
Subject: how expensive was the fun ??
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 05:17:33 (EST)
From: Philly Cheese Steak
Email: None
To: don
Subject: $85 but where's the beef?
Message:
Lot's of cheese, plenty of pickles but no meat!

PatC

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Nov 25, 2001 at 05:21:30 (EST)
From: don
Email: None
To: Philly Cheese Steak
Subject: just like in da good ol' days ?!
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Nov 25, 2001 at 20:53:22 (EST)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: don
Subject: The only beef was sacred cow on stage [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Nov 26, 2001 at 08:29:22 (EST)
From: don
Email: None
To: Pat:C)
Subject: amen
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 05:18:21 (EST)
From: Brian Smith
Email: None
To: Philly Dogg
Subject: Oh Yeah!
Message:
Nobody said anything about EPO in the Q&A. Bwahhh Hwahhh! EPO wishful thinkers get fooled again!

Assuming that you really were there , Nobody had to make mention or remind M of EPO, he knows fuck well that we are out here, and so do you.

Which begs the question, why will you spend 85 bucks to get in plus expenses to have the 'Load' remind you that you need to meditate and breathe? Yet on the other hand, you and M as well do not need any reminder that EPO exists. You just know that it does and that people are probably out there right now speaking freely of their thoughts about the cult and M.

Funny how that works , I mean knowing something and all, except in the cult where you can know something and not 'really know it' you have to have the master constantly remind you.

He only has one thing left to say as far as I am concerned and it ties right in with this train of thought and that is ...I am sorry that I fooled you and lead you to believe that you had to be subserviant and require a master for the rest of your life.

The meditation techniques that you were shown in the knowledge session are simple tools that you can use to improve your life but it is not necessary to eternally devote yourself to me to benefit from them.

In fact it would be detrimental to your growth in life to even begin to wire yourself up that way as a mushy, groveling, mindless, dependant devotee or worse yet a fanatical and frenzied zealot. So please try and avoid those impulses at all costs, they are not good for you or me.

Meditate if you want, but please do not try to hook me up into your
program for enlightenment, because the truth is, your own self realization is up to you to figure out for yourself.

Now that is what he should have said all along, should be saying now and that is the way it is, no fooling

I doubt that he will ever get off his phony throne and level with us in this lifetime though, For me that would be the one program that would be fun, fun, fun to attend

Brian the wishful thinker

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 13:24:07 (EST)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: Brian Smith
Subject: Brilliant, Brian. Happy Thanksgiving to you! [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 14:11:14 (EST)
From: Brian Smith
Email: None
To: Pat:C)
Subject: Thanks Pat, Happy Thanksgiving to you
Message:
I Hope that your are relaxing today and letting someone else do the cooking. Me, I've got a houseful and I have been busy baking Whole Wheat & Bran Bread & Rolls, Baking Pies, 2 Apple, 3 Pumpkin, 2 Pecan. Plus a Red Velvet Cake w vanilla frosting all from scratch, I'll have 20 family & friends over for the traditional feast soon.

Have a great day, last Thanksgiving I was still in the cult, this year I am thankful for my freedom, for EPO and F7 and for friends like you and the many others here who have supported my exit

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 14:34:04 (EST)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: Brian Smith
Subject: Well, I'm cooking too
Message:
Three course vegan dinner for 40 at the restuarant. Yam and corn chowder. Baked portabella mushroom with almond and kalamata olive stuffing, mashed potatoes and crimini mushroom gravy with a Huguenot ragout and butter bean bredie and cranberry salsa. I made the pumpkin (eggfree) pies yesterday. We're fully-booked as usual for Thanksgiving and I must now go and start working.

I'm sure you'll have lots of fun today.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 20:02:20 (EST)
From: Brian Smith
Email: None
To: Pat:C)
Subject: Wow, what a menu, I have got to get down to SF
Message:
My mouth waters everytime I read your restaurant reviews and web site.
Sounds absolutely delicious ...... I will call ahead but I am definately coming soon I'm pretty sure before the end of the year if I can get away.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 04:24:54 (EST)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: Brian Smith
Subject: I'm closing the first two weeks
Message:
...of December. I wish I had started my vacation tonight. I'm aching from top to tail after last night's dinner. We had another nice review in the afternoon paper today and unfortunately had to turn people away. We were booked up a week ago already.

Of course I'd like you to visit when I'm closed so I can spend time with you but then you won't get to eat Joubert's food. You'd be lucky to get some spaghetti with Ragu Think and Chunky. Well, I guess that's better than Guru Thick and Chunky. :)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 19:25:34 (EST)
From: Deborah
Email: None
To: Pat:C)
Subject: Yummmmmy :P
Message:
Happy Thanksgiving to you darling Pat, Chuck, and what's the other guy's name?

Psst, I'll be going to N. California in the late spring.

I'll bring a few foodie friends from Sonoma to the restaurant.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 15:18:03 (EST)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: Deborah
Subject: Just let me know when, Deborah
Message:
We'll have a Latvian night for you when you come. Hopefully you'll get to meet Marianne, Roger, Joe, Francesca, Vicki, Chuck and whathisname (Andy.) ;)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 04:08:24 (EST)
From: cq
Email: None
To: Philly Dogg
Subject: Do all premies like spreading lies?(nt)
Message:
Do all premies like spreading lies?(nt)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 21:10:17 (EST)
From: Sir Dave
Email: None
To: Philly Dogg
Subject: Wow
Message:
Two hours with the Maha. Sounds like fun but I'd rather spend a couple of hours with my head in a bucket. But that's just me.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 20:36:55 (EST)
From: busy bill
Email: None
To: Philly Dogg
Subject: not next tour buddy [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 22:24:58 (EST)
From: Deborah
Email: None
To: busy bill
Subject: You're up to something ;)
Message:
I don't know what you're so busy doing but I'm dying to find out.

Stay busy bill

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 20:39:51 (EST)
From: b
Email: None
To: busy bill
Subject: anyone know the number on the jet? [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 09:09:01 (EST)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: b
Subject: N54PR
Message:
You'll find pictures and more info on www.ex-premie.org
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 21:27:03 (EST)
From: bill
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: thanks John T [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Nov 22, 2001 at 02:08:57 (EST)
From: Ben Lurking
Email: None
To: b
Subject: Re: anyone know the number on the jet?
Message:
I 800 -bail out
1 -800 jump now
1 800 suckers
1 800 momoney
1 900 paymenow
976 guru$$$
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 18:22:02 (EST)
From: Barbara
Email: None
To: Philly Dogg
Subject: Re: MJ in Philly: you got fooled (again)
Message:
You might think we're living in the past but, in fact, we're your future.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 20:34:49 (EST)
From: Ohhh Noooo
Email: None
To: Barbara
Subject: Planet of the Monmots ALL Over again!
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 18:43:59 (EST)
From: Cynthia
Email: None
To: Barbara
Subject: Good One, Barbara! [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 15:27:29 (EST)
From: Deborah
Email: None
To: Philly Dogg
Subject: Re: MJ in Philly WHO got fooled (again)
Message:
Sucker!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 15:00:16 (EST)
From: AJW
Email: None
To: Philly Dogg
Subject: Living in the Past?
Message:
Hey knuckle head,

You're the one worshipping a has-been guru, believing in the Perfect Master, who thinks God tastes of snot because somebody told him twenty odd years ago. We've got over it (well almost), and you come here telling us we're living in the past. What past is that then Philly Dog?

So, a question about your wonderful evening with Captain. I imagine the main event was listening to him ramble on for an hour or so.

Can you tell me a single, wise, meaningful, insightful thing he said during that time- other than the usual inane garbage, 'Don't forget to breathe,' 'Concentrate on me me me,' 'Keep poking yourself in the eyes, sticking your thumbs in your ears, etc'.

How much did you cough up before you went in? You know, the 'Voluntary donation?'

Anth, if I had been there I would have heckled and got thrown out. Looks like I saved myself...how much was it Philly Dog...$75.00

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 14:50:15 (EST)
From: Philly Mole
Email: None
To: Philly Dogg
Subject: Re: MJ in Philly: you got fooled (again)
Message:
My first post did not say the questioner mentioned EPO specifically. He said 'there's this website'. My friend who forwarded the story, assumed he meant EPO. A logical deduction.

If you were there, please illuminate us.

Did someone ask M if he meditated?

If so, what was M's resonse?

Thank you for correcting any horrid, mean-spirited and hatefully false info I may have unknowingly posted.

Philly Mole, digging for the truth

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 14:56:15 (EST)
From: A fly on the wall
Email: None
To: Philly Mole
Subject: Dont worry PhillyDog probably isn't in Philly
Message:
... and probably didn't attend the program. It's probably just a troll from cyberspace -- perhaps one of our friends in OZ with ESP.

ROLF.

Consider whether your source or this DogTroll is more reliable.

ROLF again.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index