AJW -:- Shit Hits Fan. -:- Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 16:55:43 (EDT)

__ Marianne -:- Re: Shit Hits Fan. -:- Sat, Aug 28, 1999 at 14:33:16 (EDT)

__ __ AJW -:- Re: Shit Hits Fan. -:- Sat, Aug 28, 1999 at 16:11:32 (EDT)

__ Barbara Seville -:- Anth the Misinformed -:- Sat, Aug 28, 1999 at 03:18:20 (EDT)

__ __ Robyn -:- Re: Anth the Misinformed -:- Sat, Aug 28, 1999 at 13:47:07 (EDT)

__ __ __ URL -:- Ex justification for making things up #54 -:- Tues, Aug 31, 1999 at 16:11:07 (EDT)

__ __ __ __ JHB -:- Re: Ex justification for making things up #54 -:- Tues, Aug 31, 1999 at 18:04:07 (EDT)

__ __ AJW -:- Barbara the Misinformed -:- Sat, Aug 28, 1999 at 05:57:12 (EDT)

__ __ __ AJW -:- By the way Barbara... -:- Sat, Aug 28, 1999 at 10:20:41 (EDT)

__ __ __ __ URL -:- To Anth the Normal -:- Mon, Aug 30, 1999 at 14:21:13 (EDT)

__ __ __ __ __ URL -:- Re: To Anth the Normal -:- Thurs, Sep 02, 1999 at 16:38:40 (EDT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ URL -:- Above posted by Liz not URL (nt) -:- Thurs, Sep 02, 1999 at 19:10:34 (EDT)

__ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Normal is healthy -:- Tues, Aug 31, 1999 at 02:02:44 (EDT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ URL -:- Re: Normal is healthy -:- Tues, Aug 31, 1999 at 10:31:03 (EDT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ JHB -:- Re: Normal is healthy -:- Tues, Aug 31, 1999 at 18:10:14 (EDT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ URL -:- Re: Normal is healthy -:- Tues, Aug 31, 1999 at 20:59:45 (EDT)

__ __ __ __ AJW -:- Above message from AJW, not Barbara (nt) -:- Mon, Aug 30, 1999 at 07:32:53 (EDT)

__ __ Roger E. Drek -:- Re: Anth the Misinformed -:- Sat, Aug 28, 1999 at 04:40:06 (EDT)

__ gerry -:- Re: Shit Hits Fan. -:- Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 20:23:09 (EDT)

__ __ AJW -:- Re: Shit Hits Fan. -:- Sat, Aug 28, 1999 at 06:01:29 (EDT)

__ JW -:- Elan Vital = Divine Light Mission -:- Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 18:37:33 (EDT)

__ __ Jean-Michel -:- Re: Elan Vital = Divine Light Mission -:- Sat, Aug 28, 1999 at 01:57:27 (EDT)

__ __ __ JW -:- Re: Elan Vital = Divine Light Mission -:- Sat, Aug 28, 1999 at 02:09:50 (EDT)

__ __ Ben Lurking -:- Re: Elan Vital = Divine Light Mission -:- Sat, Aug 28, 1999 at 01:44:36 (EDT)

__ __ JW -:- My e-mail address -:- Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 18:43:52 (EDT)

__ __ gerry -:- Excellent, Joe nice to see you again. NT -:- Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 18:42:43 (EDT)

__ CultbusterUK -:- Re: Shit Hits Fan. -:- Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 17:19:00 (EDT)

__ __ Jean-Michel -:- Copy of the letter -:- Sat, Aug 28, 1999 at 02:04:42 (EDT)

__ __ CultbusterUK -:- Daily Express Informed -:- Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 18:59:56 (EDT)

__ __ The Clash -:- London Calling - Goto Plan B -:- Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 18:20:38 (EDT)

__ __ __ Ben Lurking -:- Re: London Calling - Goto Plan B Where is URL -:- Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 18:38:50 (EDT)

__ __ __ __ Hihomumio -:- Re: Where is URL -:- Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 22:57:06 (EDT)

__ __ __ __ __ Ben Lurking -:- Re: Where is URL -:- Sat, Aug 28, 1999 at 01:36:30 (EDT)

__ __ __ __ Mr Waveley -:- Re: London Calling - Goto Plan B Where is URL -:- Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 20:29:45 (EDT)

__ __ __ __ __ CD -:- Re: London Calling - Goto Plan B Where is URL -:- Sat, Aug 28, 1999 at 03:20:54 (EDT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Gerry -:- Isn't this a lie, too? -:- Sat, Aug 28, 1999 at 13:57:00 (EDT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Marianne -:- Gerry, here's an idea -:- Sat, Aug 28, 1999 at 14:28:57 (EDT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Gerry -:- Re: Gerry, here's an idea -:- Sat, Aug 28, 1999 at 17:52:52 (EDT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Sir Dave -:- You couldn't get a bigger lie -:- Sat, Aug 28, 1999 at 16:09:49 (EDT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ barney -:- A charitable organisation! Where have I been? -:- Sat, Aug 28, 1999 at 17:11:05 (EDT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Marianne -:- Re: You couldn't get a bigger lie -:- Sat, Aug 28, 1999 at 16:19:00 (EDT)

Grace -:- Maharaji's Website -:- Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 14:04:18 (EDT)

__ JHB -:- Re: Maharaji's Website -:- Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 14:49:39 (EDT)

__ Sir Dave -:- Re: Maharaji's Website -:- Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 14:48:45 (EDT)

Jim -:- Cainer moves to protect cash flow -:- Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 10:53:18 (EDT)

__ Robyn -:- Nigel -:- Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 15:58:42 (EDT)

__ ham -:- phase 2 -:- Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 13:46:01 (EDT)

__ JHB -:- Re: Cainer moves to protect cash flow -:- Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 12:20:55 (EDT)

__ __ Jethro -:- Re: Cainer moves to protect cash flow -:- Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 13:20:46 (EDT)

__ gerry -:- Mad dogs and Englishmen -:- Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 11:03:07 (EDT)

__ __ Jethro -:- Re: Mad dogs and Englishmen -:- Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 13:21:46 (EDT)

__ __ CultbusterUK -:- Re: Mad dogs and Englishmen -:- Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 12:01:02 (EDT)

__ __ __ bill -:- John Cainer the liar -:- Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 14:52:34 (EDT)

__ __ Jim -:- Good idea, Ger -:- Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 11:09:24 (EDT)

Tark -:- I Vish to join your Nu church -:- Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 05:09:24 (EDT)

__ Pastor Roger E. Drek -:- Not so fast! First, you must be worthy! -:- Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 05:34:02 (EDT)

__ __ Tark -:- Re: Not so fast! First, you must be worthy! -:- Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 05:52:56 (EDT)

__ __ __ Andrejs Ozols -:- Re: Not so fast! First, you must be worthy! -:- Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 05:58:24 (EDT)

__ __ __ __ Tark -:- Re: Not so fast! First, you must be worthy! -:- Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 06:07:31 (EDT)

__ __ __ __ __ Pastor Drekletov -:- Re: Not so fast! First, you must be worthy! -:- Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 13:31:11 (EDT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Tark -:- Re: Not so fast! First, you must be worthy! -:- Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 23:00:09 (EDT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pastor Drekletov -:- Ah, my son, you are good enough for our Church - Send the veapons to me! (nt) -:- Sat, Aug 28, 1999 at 02:36:15 (EDT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Tark -:- Re: Ah, my son, you are good enough for our Veapons Send the Money to me! (nt) -:- Sat, Aug 28, 1999 at 12:37:48 (EDT)

Runamok -:- Guidelines -:- Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 00:38:01 (EDT)

__ barney -:- Re: Guidelines -:- Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 14:57:27 (EDT)

__ __ JHB -:- Recipes and Pets -:- Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 17:13:56 (EDT)

__ __ __ Robyn -:- Re: Recipes and Pets -:- Sat, Aug 28, 1999 at 07:43:30 (EDT)

__ __ __ barney -:- Re: Recipes and Pets (way OT) -:- Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 18:04:55 (EDT)

__ __ __ __ JHB -:- Low Budget Snuff -:- Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 18:46:00 (EDT)

__ VP -:- Re: Guidelines -:- Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 11:28:36 (EDT)

__ AJW -:- Forum Guidelines -:- Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 03:42:32 (EDT)

__ __ barney -:- Blimey Limey Awakens -:- Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 04:34:58 (EDT)

__ __ __ AJW -:- Re: Blimey Limey Awakens -:- Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 04:53:48 (EDT)

__ __ __ __ Runamok -:- Re: Blimey Limey Awakens -:- Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 12:24:45 (EDT)

__ __ __ __ __ AJW -:- Re: Blimey Limey Awakens -:- Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 16:48:08 (EDT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Runamok -:- Re: Blimey Limey Awakens -:- Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 17:46:20 (EDT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ barney -:- Normal Attrition -:- Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 18:13:38 (EDT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ AJW -:- Re: Blimey Limey Awakens -:- Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 18:11:01 (EDT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Runamok -:- Ochs -:- Sat, Aug 28, 1999 at 03:04:11 (EDT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ AJW -:- Early Days of Steam -:- Sat, Aug 28, 1999 at 06:19:42 (EDT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Liz -:- Re: Early Days of Steam -:- Mon, Aug 30, 1999 at 12:59:14 (EDT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Runamok -:- Church of Ochs -:- Sat, Aug 28, 1999 at 15:26:57 (EDT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ barney -:- offline support -:- Sat, Aug 28, 1999 at 22:59:36 (EDT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Runamok -:- Re: offline support -:- Sat, Aug 28, 1999 at 23:38:22 (EDT)

__ __ __ __ barney -:- A blabbering about privacy (ot) -:- Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 05:27:37 (EDT)

Roger E. Drek -:- Maharaji is small time! -:- Thurs, Aug 26, 1999 at 23:25:37 (EDT)

David M -:- Elementary, Watson! -:- Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 14:46:16 (EDT)

forum friends -:- Bobby's thread -:- Thurs, Aug 26, 1999 at 13:36:15 (EDT)

__ Way -:- Re: Bobby's thread -:- Thurs, Aug 26, 1999 at 14:28:41 (EDT)

Q -:- WHERE ARE THEY NOW? -:- Thurs, Aug 26, 1999 at 12:42:25 (EDT)

__ Q to pseudo-Q -:- IMPOSTOR -:- Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 14:31:27 (EDT)

__ __ notq -:- Re: IMPOSTOR -:- Sat, Aug 28, 1999 at 08:25:21 (EDT)

__ __ __ Q -:- Not your fault -:- Tues, Aug 31, 1999 at 14:46:26 (EDT)

__ __ __ __ notq -:- Re: Not your fault -:- Thurs, Sep 02, 1999 at 13:42:31 (EDT)

Jim -:- Way, what do you think of this? -:- Thurs, Aug 26, 1999 at 10:33:02 (EDT)

__ bill -:- teetering? -:- Thurs, Aug 26, 1999 at 12:46:58 (EDT)

__ __ Jerry -:- Okay, Bill -:- Thurs, Aug 26, 1999 at 15:21:19 (EDT)

__ __ __ bill -:- Um, er, ah... -:- Thurs, Aug 26, 1999 at 23:17:20 (EDT)

__ __ __ __ Jerry -:- Re: Um, er, ah... -:- Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 07:56:41 (EDT)

__ Way -:- Re: Way, what do you think of this? -:- Thurs, Aug 26, 1999 at 11:35:06 (EDT)

__ __ Jerry -:- Re: Way, what do you think of this? -:- Thurs, Aug 26, 1999 at 16:22:48 (EDT)

__ __ __ Way -:- To Jerry, on true home -:- Thurs, Aug 26, 1999 at 18:04:05 (EDT)

__ __ JHB -:- To Way - Reply below -:- Thurs, Aug 26, 1999 at 13:06:08 (EDT)

__ __ Jim -:- Much better, thanks -:- Thurs, Aug 26, 1999 at 12:01:38 (EDT)

__ Jim -:- Or this? -:- Thurs, Aug 26, 1999 at 10:39:20 (EDT)

__ __ Way -:- Re: Or this? -:- Thurs, Aug 26, 1999 at 11:40:24 (EDT)

__ __ __ Way -:- To Bill -:- Thurs, Aug 26, 1999 at 14:25:08 (EDT)

__ __ __ __ Jim -:- What a stupid thing to say -:- Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 10:59:25 (EDT)

__ __ __ __ __ Way -:- Re: What a stupid thing to say -:- Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 11:14:58 (EDT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- So? -:- Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 11:35:07 (EDT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Way -:- Re: So? -:- Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 14:35:31 (EDT)

__ __ __ __ bill -:- Hi way -:- Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 00:04:55 (EDT)

__ __ __ __ __ Way -:- Re: Hi way -:- Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 10:40:43 (EDT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Way -:- To Jim re: Ken Miller critique -:- Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 11:11:36 (EDT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Re: To Jim re: Ken Miller critique -:- Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 11:33:07 (EDT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Way -:- Re: To Jim Ken Miller critique -:- Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 11:47:21 (EDT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jerry -:- Re: To Jim Ken Miller critique -:- Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 15:26:10 (EDT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Way -:- Re: To Jim Ken Miller critique -:- Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 17:37:33 (EDT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- You're blowing smoke, Way -:- Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 22:27:04 (EDT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Way -:- Re: You're blowing smoke, Way -:- Tues, Aug 31, 1999 at 10:20:21 (EDT)

Date: Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 16:55:43 (EDT) From: AJW Email: None To: All Subject: Shit Hits Fan. Message:

Hi All, Well it seems the shit really has hit the fan. I’ve just been talking to a reporter at the Sunday Express, who’ve received a lawyers letter from Elan Vital, claiming, amongst other things that Elan Vital is nothing to do with Divine Light Mission. Also, as predicted, if Mahatma Jagdeo was commiting child abuse, they knew nothing about it. First the Express contacted Elan Vital, for a statement on the story. Heather Evans, their Press Officer in the UK, got as much information from the reporter as she could, promising to get back to him with answers, and in fact got back to him with a lawyers letter. Apparently there may be other lawyers letters flying around. As I'm still on holiday in Cornwall, I wouldn't know if there was one waiting for me in London now would I? Apparently Jonathon Cainer has put out a statement to the press, saying he’s withdrawn his services from Elan Vital website, he’s left the organisation and disassociates himself from it while these allegations are hanging in the air. Anth the Blimey Wozzapnin' Man?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 28, 1999 at 14:33:16 (EDT) From: Marianne Email: None To: AJW Subject: Re: Shit Hits Fan. Message:

you seem to like him. I hope he has had a true change of heart. I am looking forward to reading the Sunday Express tomorrow. What time is it published, Anth? Since we're 8 hours behind you here on the west coast, the article might be available to us tonight. Marianne

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 28, 1999 at 16:11:32 (EDT) From: AJW Email: None To: Marianne Subject: Re: Shit Hits Fan. Message:

Hi Marianne, The first edition Sundays are probably on the streets of London right now- 9.00pm, but as I'm in Cornwall I won't see one for about 12 hours. Anth the Express Reader

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 28, 1999 at 03:18:20 (EDT) From: Barbara Seville Email: None To: AJW Subject: Anth the Misinformed Message:

'Apparently Jonathon Cainer has put out a statement to the press, saying he’s withdrawn his services from Elan Vital website, he’s left the organisation and disassociates himself from it while these allegations are hanging in the air.' Anth the Misquoter Not exactly. Perhaps some dubious wishful thinking on your part. Here's the relevant quote from Mr. Cainer, with whom you feign friendship. 'All we ever wanted to do was help create a little piece of independent cyberspace where people could share their appreciation of a great inspirational teacher. This, I feel, has been successfully done. I am very proud of enjoyinglife; of all that it stands for and all that it contains. I also see, though, that in lending it my name, I have unwittingly attracted media attention to the site.' Ascribe him whatever imaginary motives you like but don't be so presumptuous, small-minded and shoddy in your interpersonal dealings as to just make stuff up to suit your perception of the moment. That makes you Anth the Unworthy of Respect. Barbara

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 28, 1999 at 13:47:07 (EDT) From: Robyn Email: None To: Barbara Seville Subject: Re: Anth the Misinformed Message:

Dear Barbara, 'Ascribe him whatever imaginary motives you like but don't be so presumptuous, small-minded and shoddy in your interpersonal dealings as to just make stuff up to suit your perception of the moment. That makes you Anth the Unworthy of Respect.' I would like to suggest you hold your Lord, med teacher, guy next door, whatever, to the same standards you hold Anth too. You'd be among our numbers of ex's if you did. How many times has M changed his tune, To many times for me to give anything he says any respect. Love, Robyn Anth defender

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 31, 1999 at 16:11:07 (EDT) From: URL Email: None To: Robyn Subject: Ex justification for making things up #54 Message:

I would like to suggest you hold your Lord, med teacher, guy next door, whatever, to the same standards you hold Anth too. You'd be among our numbers of ex's if you did. How many times has M changed his tune, To many times for me to give anything he says any respect. NT

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 31, 1999 at 18:04:07 (EDT) From: JHB Email: None To: URL Subject: Re: Ex justification for making things up #54 Message:

I would like to suggest you hold your Lord, med teacher, guy next door, whatever, to the same standards you hold Anth to. You'd be among our numbers of ex's if you did. How many times has M changed his tune, Too many times for me to give anything he says any respect. NT Why no text? This was a very reasonable question. John the expecting to be ignored.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 28, 1999 at 05:57:12 (EDT) From: AJW Email: None To: Barbara Seville Subject: Barbara the Misinformed Message:

Hi Barbara, I'm not talking about the statement Jonathon put out on the Elan Vital sight. I'm talking about the what he said to the press. I'll check back with my source. If Jon put it in writing, I'll reproduce it here. Come on Barbara, do you think it's a coincidence that he jumps ship the day the Jagdeo story appears in the Express? And good for Jonathon that he's left the tacky little cult. All power to his elbow. Anth the Informed by Other Sources Than Enjoyingcrap.org. (Maybe you should ask Jon what he said to the press Barbara)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 28, 1999 at 10:20:41 (EDT) From: AJW Email: anthginn@yahoo.com To: Barbara Subject: By the way Barbara... Message:

By the way Barbara, I do consider Jonathon a friend. I've had some really good times with him, and hope we'll be able to have more. His name comes up occasionally on the Forum, and, up until his statement prompted by the Francis Wheen stuff, I only spoke in his defence here. The archives on Forum 3 will bear me out on this. When he went public on the Internet, through his statement on Enjoyingboredom.com, I responded in an email to him, which, as he'd gone public and invited responses, I reproduced on the Forum here. Maybe that can be retreived from the archives too. If you'll read it, you'll see that I stated I value my friendship with Jon'. Jonathon was a member of a cult, like I was, and, as he's got a public profile, and he's a journalist, this has caused all sorts of problems for him, for which he has my sincere sympathy. I've been no part of trying to get any publicity published anywhere about him, other than the response I've mentioned, and, announcing the good news that Jon has become an ex-premie. Now, Barbara, to avoid any embarassment to my friend, I'd prefer to continue this discussion offline. So why don't you email me. And Jon' if you're reading this, it'll all blow over fast. Jagdeo is what this is all about, not you. I really hope we can get together for a pint or whatever soon, and understand that we're two fellow human beings whose hearts are in the right place, and are both just trying to feed our families and not step in too much shit in life. I haven't got your email address, so we can't talk privately at the moment, unless you email me. I don't publish private correspondance on the Internet. Ask Glen. Take care Jon, and Barbara, email me please. Anth the Hopes He's Not Losing a Friend.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 30, 1999 at 14:21:13 (EDT) From: URL Email: None To: AJW Subject: To Anth the Normal Message:

I really hope we can get together for a pint or whatever soon, and understand that we're two fellow human beings whose hearts are in the right place, and are both just trying to feed our families and not step in too much shit in life. I don't know where your heart is Anth. I find it hard to reconcile two people who's ' hearts are in the right place', having such opposing views as you and Jonathon. If your 'hearts' are both in the right place, they sure are not in the same place. It's interesting to see that your once lofty goals in life have distilled down to 'just trying to feed our families and not step in too much shit in life'. I guess this is the fate for a 'normal' adult, isn't it -- a fate you no doubt once reviled. But it all seems so palatable now. Why? I would offer, because it's something you can achieve. Reminds me of the next to last scene in the Meaning of Life where the waiter leads the cameraman through a long laborious journey to show him HIS meaning, which is a little farmhouse in the country, and when they get there he's asked 'Is that IT'. Well, IT has become 'it' for you Anth. You have joined the ranks of 'normal'. Hey, don't get me wrong, there are benefits to being normal. I mean, the world is built and operated by 'normal' people, so you fit in when you're normal. You don't have to explain your 'abnormal' goals and values anymore to the 'normal' people you're trying to hang with. And -- God, what a relief -- you don't have to go against the grain all the time! You don't have to strive for those lofty goals anymore. You can relax. You feel all warm and accepted because you're now part of 'the club'. You feel especially righteous when now you see those 'abnormal' people being turned away at 'the door', and being left to fend for themselves. Now THAT makes it all worthwhile, doesn't it Anth? Because you were once the one who was being tossed. And you used to look longingly inside as you were being turned back -- all the time secretly thinking to yourself that life would be so much easier if only you could just be normal. Well, now you are -- congratulations. But you know the bitch about being so goddam normal Anth? By their mere existence, those goddam abnormal people really bug the shit out of you. Ah well, nobody said tolerance was a virtue you would be needing when you become 'normal'.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 02, 1999 at 16:38:40 (EDT) From: URL Email: None To: URL Subject: Re: To Anth the Normal Message:

What's the big deal about being 'different'? Aren't we basically all the same. M says we are doesn't he? Liz

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 02, 1999 at 19:10:34 (EDT) From: URL Email: None To: URL Subject: Above posted by Liz not URL (nt) Message:

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 31, 1999 at 02:02:44 (EDT) From: Jim Email: None To: URL Subject: Normal is healthy Message:

Normal is good. Normal means that you might like pizza, you might like burritos, you might like steak or you might like rice and vegetables. However, you're not a breatharian and you don't eat poo. See?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 31, 1999 at 10:31:03 (EDT) From: URL Email: None To: Jim Subject: Re: Normal is healthy Message:

Normal means you fit in. Fitting in is the basic survival instinct of the herd animal.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 31, 1999 at 18:10:14 (EDT) From: JHB Email: None To: URL Subject: Re: Normal is healthy Message:

There's nothing normal about me. Normal people don't worship gurus and then recognise the absurdity of that worship. Neither of us are normal. The question is, which of us is sane? John the sane.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 31, 1999 at 20:59:45 (EDT) From: URL Email: None To: JHB Subject: Re: Normal is healthy Message:

John, I'll override for a moment my abstention from responding to your posts to ask you to please grow up. If you are trying to 'get me last', or play a silly 'I know you are but what am I?' game, fine -- you won big guy. Now will you go back and play in your sandbox?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 30, 1999 at 07:32:53 (EDT) From: AJW Email: None To: Gerry Subject: Above message from AJW, not Barbara (nt) Message:

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 28, 1999 at 04:40:06 (EDT) From: Roger E. Drek Email: None To: Barbara Seville Subject: Re: Anth the Misinformed Message:

Come on, Barbara! Please read between the lines just a little here. A mind is a terrible thing to waste. The Public Relations people and the lawyers are very crafty. Neither confirm nor deny is their boilerplate foundation upon which they spin doctor bad news. One thing that Maharaji has succeeded in doing since the good old bad days is to stay out of the media. You gotta know that they are not at all happy about the recent press nor this Forum and the sister websites. Truth, Consciousness, and Bliss! Maybe you should read the research paper by Larkin and Foss called Worshipping the Absurd. 'The Negation of Social Causality among the Followers of Guru Maharaj Ji.' By Daniel A. Foss and Ralph W. Larkin (Rutgers University), in Sociological Analysis, 1978. Page 157-164.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 20:23:09 (EDT) From: gerry Email: None To: AJW Subject: Re: Shit Hits Fan. Message:

Anth Is there a website for the Sunday Express? That's a London paper, right. Sure would love to be able to read the fireworks for myself. Also, what's the paper for Francis Wheen (sp)? URL Curious gerry

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 28, 1999 at 06:01:29 (EDT) From: AJW Email: None To: gerry Subject: Re: Shit Hits Fan. Message:

Hi Gerry, I'll post their story here tomorrow evening, when I get home, before I open my mail. Francis Wheen works for the Guardian. Anth the Fugitive

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 18:37:33 (EDT) From: JW Email: None To: AJW Subject: Elan Vital = Divine Light Mission Message:

At least in the USA, Elan Vital and Divine Light Mission are one and the same organizations, and for Elan Vital to claim otherwise is a blatant lie. I have in front of me a document from the California Secretary of State, which is the result of a Corporate Records search for Elan Vital, Inc. The records shows the mailing address for EV to be Malibu, California and the state of incorporation is Colorado. The president is Linda Gross. Under the 'History' section is an entry dated February 20, 1986 which states the following: 'AMENDED STATEMENT AND DESIGNATION BY FOREIGN CORPORATION -- NAME CHANGED FROM: DIVINE LIGHT MISSION, INC.' On the same date is another entry: CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT -- NAME CHANGED FROM: DIVINE LIGHT MISSION, INC. You can't get any clearer than that. Elan Vital, Inc. is nothing more than Divine Light Mission, Inc. with a name change. If the Express or anyone else would like a copy of this Corporate Search, I would be happy to fax or mail it to anyone interested.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 28, 1999 at 01:57:27 (EDT) From: Jean-Michel Email: jmkahn@club-internet.fr To: JW Subject: Re: Elan Vital = Divine Light Mission Message:

Hi JW, Would you scan it and e-mail it to me? I'd like to have it available on my website to show that there is no lie in saying that EV & DLM are one and same organization. Not speaking of DUO that still exists in India.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 28, 1999 at 02:09:50 (EDT) From: JW Email: joger02@aol.com To: Jean-Michel Subject: Re: Elan Vital = Divine Light Mission Message:

JM, Sure, I will get them to you ASAP. JW

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 28, 1999 at 01:44:36 (EDT) From: Ben Lurking Email: None To: JW Subject: Re: Elan Vital = Divine Light Mission Message:

Didn't you and Marriane dig up a bunch of like documents from variuous states back on ForumIII? Would be worth pointing them I jused browsed f3a49.zip and it had a lot of the AMTEXT stuff

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 18:43:52 (EDT) From: JW Email: Joger02@aol.com To: JW Subject: My e-mail address Message:

Forgot to include my email address if anyone would like to get the above information. Thanks.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 18:42:43 (EDT) From: gerry Email: None To: JW Subject: Excellent, Joe nice to see you again. NT Message:

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 17:19:00 (EDT) From: CultbusterUK Email: cultbusteruk@yahoo.com To: AJW Subject: Re: Shit Hits Fan. Message:

I’ve just been talking to a reporter at the Sunday Express, who’ve received a lawyers letter from Elan Vital, claiming, amongst other things that Elan Vital is nothing to do with Divine Light Mission. I have a letter from Elan Vital asking me to change my standing order payable to DLM to make it payable to Elan Vital. Now if they have nothing to do with each other, why would I get such a request. I am available for any court appearance to testify. CBUK

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 28, 1999 at 02:04:42 (EDT) From: Jean-Michel Email: jmkahn@club-internet.fr To: CultbusterUK Subject: Copy of the letter Message:

I'd love to have a copy of your letter available on my website.Would you scan it for me, or send me a good photocopy by snailmail? JM, the collector

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 18:59:56 (EDT) From: CultbusterUK Email: None To: All Subject: Daily Express Informed Message:

The Daily Express are now aware of the letter linking EV to DLM. CBUK

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 18:20:38 (EDT) From: The Clash Email: None To: CultbusterUK Subject: London Calling - Goto Plan B Message:

Ok, we've got them right where we want them. The Evil Empire is retreating deeper into their bunkers. Back into their holes they go where there is no light nor air. Good work to all agents of Freedom and Truth. Remember, it is still important not extend your contact base beyond your cell to avoid discovery of other comrades.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 18:38:50 (EDT) From: Ben Lurking Email: None To: All Subject: Re: London Calling - Goto Plan B Where is URL Message:

I guess thats why we don't see URL around anymore - he is off on damage control

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 22:57:06 (EDT) From: Hihomumio Email: None To: Ben Lurking Subject: Re: Where is URL Message:

Hi Ben- I guess I missed something-why did you make this remark about URL? Do you know who he is and what he does?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 28, 1999 at 01:36:30 (EDT) From: Ben Lurking Email: None To: Hihomumio Subject: Re: Where is URL Message:

Hi Hiho........ No It was off the cuff,I don't have a clue who URL is or if he is/was NIL. He just quit appearing as URL. Maybe 10 exes giving him 10 messages a day was a little to much for him to keep up with. He was a defender of the faith - a loyal subject, a my master right or right.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 20:29:45 (EDT) From: Mr Waveley Email: wavely@uncle.com To: Ben Lurking Subject: Re: London Calling - Goto Plan B Where is URL Message:

I see Mr Solo is late returning from his mission again. I don't care if he was surrounded by Prem agents armed with old 1970s beragons and Divine Times; I had to cut short my dinner party at the Palace to sort out the crisis. Anyway, we've been monitoring events here and hope to deprogram Mr Kuriyakin by Christmas. You may be interested to see our new line in cult busting technology. It's undetectable by Prem agents and they've no defence against it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 28, 1999 at 03:20:54 (EDT) From: CD Email: None To: Mr Waveley Subject: Re: London Calling - Goto Plan B Where is URL Message:

>Anyway, we've been monitoring events here and hope to deprogram Mr Kuriyakin by Christmas. You may be interested to see our new line in cult busting technology. It's undetectable by Prem agents and they've no defence against it. Its actually an old thing. You don't have anything to offer yourself.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 28, 1999 at 13:57:00 (EDT) From: Gerry Email: None To: all Subject: Isn't this a lie, too? Message:

Elan Vital, incorporated in 1971, is a US charitable organization that sponsors events and conferences throughout the US at which Maharaji is invited to speak. How can they say DLM is not related to EV? Was EV incorporated in 1971??? Only if EV is a name change for DLM. www.elanvital.or/about What a bunch of ruthless liars they are! Their own websites prove it. I bet goober regrets the decision to go public on the web. But it was probably a money decision anyway. Greedy fuck cooked his own goose!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 28, 1999 at 14:28:57 (EDT) From: Marianne Email: None To: Gerry Subject: Gerry, here's an idea Message:

I would say that this amounts to a legal misrepresentation. They should have said, 'Elan Vital, which was incorporated in 1971 under the name Divine Light Mission,......' You know Gerry, I have been thinking about the issue of fraud as it relates to EV and DLM quite a bit lately. I have been pondering whether it is legally actionable fraud to misrepresent to present and prospective members of EV the true organizational past of EV, particularly when the speakers are seeking funds from the members. If people lie to you to get you to join and then donate money, wouldn't you be entitled to sue and get your money back if it turns out your participation and donations were obtained based on false statements about the corporate past, and particularly that of its key man? Just a thought..... Marianne

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 28, 1999 at 17:52:52 (EDT) From: Gerry Email: None To: Marianne Subject: Re: Gerry, here's an idea Message:

Marianne, You might be on to something here. But I'm not a lwayer. Know any? :-)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 28, 1999 at 16:09:49 (EDT) From: Sir Dave Email: david@xyzx.freeserve.co.uk To: Marianne Subject: You couldn't get a bigger lie Message:

The obvious lie was that Maharaji claimed to be the incarnation of God, the Lord etc but a more insidious lie is in what all the money which is and was being donated to DLM (now Elan Vital); what all this money was used for and where it went to. Elan Vital (Divine Light Mission) is registered as a charity and yet the only person benefitting from this charity is Maharaji himself. This is a very clear case of fraud!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 28, 1999 at 17:11:05 (EDT) From: barney Email: None To: Sir Dave Subject: A charitable organisation! Where have I been? Message:

Sir Dave, Your point hit me like a ton of bricks. Why am I so dense? I know that, but not the magnitude of the sham. How many millions have been pumped into enriching Maharaji's lifestyle. Based on the apparent assets that he controls, another sham, it must be a lot. It would be very interesting to get the percentage of donations that are not consumed by the administration of the charity. And exactly what is this Charitable Organization being charitable towards? It's a goddamn business. That's what it is! When I become King of the World there ain't gonna be no tax exemptions in the name of God.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 28, 1999 at 16:19:00 (EDT) From: Marianne Email: None To: Sir Dave Subject: Re: You couldn't get a bigger lie Message:

That might be enough for DLM/EV to lose its tax exempt status, if proven properly.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 14:04:18 (EDT) From: Grace Email: None To: All Subject: Maharaji's Website Message:

Hello everyone, been gone a while but reading again this week. The process of becoming an ex has been really difficult, but I think my heart is now catching up with where my mind has been for months. It's really sinking in on a deep level that guru isn't all he implies he is. Major changes take time, but I'm finally getting to a point of equalibrium and am more at peace with things. Not completely, of course, I imagine that could take a year or more, maybe years, maybe never. Anyway, I was wanting to go to M's website (is there a link somewhere?), but am paranoid about the cookies. I have seen it months ago several times and agreed to the legal garbage. What do you think is the point of tracking those who visit the site? How much information can they get other than other sites I have visited? Is it worth being paranoid about?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 14:49:39 (EDT) From: JHB Email: None To: Grace Subject: Re: Maharaji's Website Message:

Is it worth being paranoid about? No. I have visited it many times, have sent him critical emails with my full name and address (no replies of course), and I still get mailings from Elan Vital UK inviting me to programs. Welcome to the human race!:-) John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 14:48:45 (EDT) From: Sir Dave Email: None To: Grace Subject: Re: Maharaji's Website Message:

If Maharaji.org really can get info on the sites that people have visited then I guess it's so Maharaji can get a good selection of porn sites to visit. There could be no other rhyme or reason to it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 10:53:18 (EDT) From: Jim Email: None To: All Subject: Cainer moves to protect cash flow Message:

This on ELK: Jonathan Cainer York, UK Moving on... On Sunday, 29 August, it will be exactly seven years since the death of my dearly loved partner, Melanie. In the run up to this sad anniversary, I have been doing a lot of soul searching. As part of this process, I have been thinking especially hard about the relationship between my 'public persona' and my private, personal identity. I vividly recall Melanie's often expressed belief that the two should be kept separate. It is now beginning to dawn on me that, through my involvement with this website, I have inadvertently created an overlap. This was never my intention. All we ever wanted to do was help create a little piece of independent cyberspace where people could share their appreciation of a great inspirational teacher. This, I feel, has been successfully done. I am very proud of enjoyinglife; of all that it stands for and all that it contains. I also see, though, that in lending it my name, I have unwittingly attracted media attention to the site. Thus it is gaining a higher public profile than it needs or wants to have. For this reason, I have decided to withdraw from this website. As of Sunday which seems a fitting date to make the change, the site will continue without me - and my contributions to it (including this announcement) will be removed. I have spoken of course, to the other founders of this site; Mark, Josie and Colin. They understand my reasons for moving on and have expressed much warmth and support. I am grateful for this and wish them warm support in return. © 1999 enjoyinglife.org. All rights reserved. Terms under which this service is provided to you.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 15:58:42 (EDT) From: Robyn Email: None To: Jim Subject: Nigel Message:

Dear Nigel, Lordy, I never knew that you got the names for your story about premie island from the folks who set up this site! That is how little I really am into it but of course your stories were the best. Love, Robyn, slow on the up take but getting around to it eventually ;)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 13:46:01 (EDT) From: ham Email: None To: Jim Subject: phase 2 Message:

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 12:20:55 (EDT) From: JHB Email: None To: Jim Subject: Re: Cainer moves to protect cash flow Message:

Mad Jon writes:- I have been thinking especially hard .... This must be a first for a premie!! Seriously, his action is sympomatic of M and premies' inability to stand up to any serious scrutiny. As soon as the opportunity arises they crawl away under the nearest stone. John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 13:20:46 (EDT) From: Jethro Email: None To: JHB Subject: Re: Cainer moves to protect cash flow Message:

Whilst I agree with what you are saying I think that another reason was that M didn't like the attention moving in Jon's direction.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 11:03:07 (EDT) From: gerry Email: None To: Jim Subject: Mad dogs and Englishmen Message:

What a chickenshit! You guys in England could toss a little petrol on the flames by sending this statement to the appropriate papers so they can take another shot at him. I can't believe he's going so far as to remove all references to himself from the entire site. That really seems devious and cowardly to me.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 13:21:46 (EDT) From: Jethro Email: None To: gerry Subject: Re: Mad dogs and Englishmen Message:

He's just being a 'humble devotee'.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 12:01:02 (EDT) From: CultbusterUK Email: None To: gerry Subject: Re: Mad dogs and Englishmen Message:

Francis Wheen of the Guardian has been informed. I wonder where Cainer learnt his revionist techniques?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 14:52:34 (EDT) From: bill Email: None To: CultbusterUK Subject: John Cainer the liar Message:

The coming SPY article is no doubt tying him in a knot. So, j cainer is caught in the web you weave when you learn to decieve huh? Why didn't he marry his 'partner'? Rawat's old anti family dogma kept him from jumping into that? Couldn't get the answer from the stars about if he should marry her? To dedicated to the -lord-not the lord-never said that-oh gee, I have to think 'intensely hard', I feel a mid life crisis coming on and I have very publically lied and lied again. And the cat's out of the bag and my precious identity of being a spiritual star gazer is threatened with the light of day. Sure he can read the stars at night, but he can't stand the light of day. It shows too many cracks in the facade of his 'inner private' and 'outer public' unified, realized, glorified, lost in the oneness self. He lied right from the get go about his site, lied about how he got the excerpts of the lords recent talks, lied here and at elk about the lord, his past, his present, and tried to cover the cracks in lord rawat's inner and outer 'selves'. If Wheen backs down in the face of cainers groveling, shameless, clutching at his dead friend in his attempt to back away without facing the truth, at least the SPY magazine won't back down, I trust.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 11:09:24 (EDT) From: Jim Email: None To: gerry Subject: Good idea, Ger Message:

Yeah, Frances whatver-his-name-is should have a lot of fun with this. After all, it was his column alone that forced Cainer's hand.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 05:09:24 (EDT) From: Tark Email: Tark@ Vladivostok.net.Rusca. To: All Subject: I Vish to join your Nu church Message:

This is good religion ,I join.Do you have Russian place. I start for you.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 05:34:02 (EDT) From: Pastor Roger E. Drek Email: None To: Tark Subject: Not so fast! First, you must be worthy! Message:

Tark, my son, you must first show that you are worthy of our religion. To show your worthiness you must make a sacrifice, a blood sacrifice! Oh, I'd better stop now before I offend all the CAT lovers here. So, just post your VISA or MasterCard number or your bank routing information and we'll take care of it for you. Ivan, you fucking idiototski! Your trademarked misplaced comma gave you away! Is that like a stutter or something for you. SHEESH! GODDAMN WEASEL!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 05:52:56 (EDT) From: Tark Email: Nyet!@Gulag.net.communist. To: Pastor Roger E. Drek Subject: Re: Not so fast! First, you must be worthy! Message:

No , No , now we drive Mercedes [The Speed;Good money] ,No more Commers , No more Communists! No more legitimate commerce yes? ;You want to buy Nuclear Warhead Drek , never been used once? This GOOD church for afghanistan veteran like me! Every-one fucking crazy,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Oops!!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 05:58:24 (EDT) From: Andrejs Ozols Email: None To: Tark Subject: Re: Not so fast! First, you must be worthy! Message:

Tark, In my country, vee no have guru. Is very good. Come to Latvija, but dis time no bring Rusky army. Andrejs

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 06:07:31 (EDT) From: Tark Email: None To: Andrejs Ozols Subject: Re: Not so fast! First, you must be worthy! Message:

What you talk about. This is Church .This for me. Good American Stuff. I like Pastor Drek. He Holy Man like orthodox priest

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 13:31:11 (EDT) From: Pastor Drekletov Email: None To: Tark Subject: Re: Not so fast! First, you must be worthy! Message:

Ja, my family came from the great motherland of Russia, too. We changed the name to protect the innoncent. Nuclear weapons, hmmmm? I think I could use one of those attache case models. How much?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 23:00:09 (EDT) From: Tark Email: Iz Cold , vary cold To: Pastor Drekletov Subject: Re: Not so fast! First, you must be worthy! Message:

The ANTHRAX.......Dis one makes you vary sick!It iz deadly but most confused.I tink yor holinezz vill not buy dis one as it iz really biological veapon only to be used in combination vith GERBIL Sorta like zat CIA disease Aids 'One gets up you and zen de ozzer infects you ' I keep dis one in ze bathhouse .It likes it moist Please cotact Mr pastor ;I vant to get rid of deeze Veapons , they are not Dangerous enough!! You have luvly Church here! I join.And sure I drink the blood....like Borsh Good day Drekletof

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 28, 1999 at 02:36:15 (EDT) From: Pastor Drekletov Email: None To: Tark Subject: Ah, my son, you are good enough for our Church - Send the veapons to me! (nt) Message:

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 28, 1999 at 12:37:48 (EDT) From: Tark Email: Is a rich man's world? To: Pastor Drekletov Subject: Re: Ah, my son, you are good enough for our Veapons Send the Money to me! (nt) Message:

This is good church. I like . Send $ 5,000,000 in US Dollars to me. Unmarked bills , small denominations. Address for delivery; Mr Rob of Florida . He good friend. As they say in California ....Trust me!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 00:38:01 (EDT) From: Runamok Email: None To: All Subject: Guidelines Message:

As Gerry has mentioned, I have been assisting webmaster for a few months. We have been discussing guidelines for Forum 4 and plan on posting some soon. The guidelines from Forum 3 have been carried over with slight changes. The unwritten policy for Forum 4 has been less tolerant of premies posting spam or giving satsang, for example. We don't object to premies being here, but this is not the place to air your views about the greatness of your master. We ask that you remember that you are guests. We are considering extending the existing ban on threats to include verbally abusive behavior. We want Forum 4 to be a central meeting place for exes all over the world. No ex-premie should feel unwelcome, unless they are unable to show a modicum of respect for the ex-premies who post here. What this means is that if you think this is BS, you should criticize the proposed guidelines rather than insult me personally. We're not looking to bust anyone. The guidelines would be equally applied to anyone. Your feedback is welcome,

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 14:57:27 (EDT) From: barney Email: None To: Runamok Subject: Re: Guidelines Message:

I agree that threats and moronic garbage ala Catweasel and Jesus-Christ Gabriel et al can quickly be eliminated. However, I personally found when I was crossing the river to the other side about 20 months ago that the debates between premies and ex-premies was very helpful because the fallacy of premie/cult thinking would get analyzed and exposed. Premies and fence-sitters need to hear the debate on the Forum because there is no other place to get the contrasting point of view. However, some premies take it too far and become nuisances like SHP. SHP was an interesting case because he was almost kinda on the fence. However, it became obvious that he had an agenda and slipped us some forked tongue. Furthermore, SHP then went on his personal crusade to take down Jim and stalked him all over the Forum using different aliases like Government Inspector. I have heard, by the way, that ELK is offering a reward to the person who busts Jim. The reward is an all expenses paid trip to Victoria, B.C. including lodging at the Empress Hotel. Unfortunately, with such exchanges between premies and ex-premies the debates do get heated which is invariably a fact of life. Again, my main point is that premies should be allowed to post some of their views for the purpose of a public critical examination of cult think. Otherwise, I fear that the Forum dialogue will drop to the least common denominator of exchanging recipes and discussion of pets and children.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 17:13:56 (EDT) From: JHB Email: None To: barney Subject: Recipes and Pets Message:

Otherwise, I fear that the Forum dialogue will drop to the least common denominator of exchanging recipes and discussion of pets and children. I do a very tasty pasta sauce. The secret is just enough chilli sauce so that the sauce doesn't taste hot, but gives a subtle tang. I've got a horse in Latvia. I don't have any children so I can't discuss them. John the trivial

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 28, 1999 at 07:43:30 (EDT) From: Robyn Email: None To: JHB Subject: Re: Recipes and Pets Message:

Dear John and Barney, Well you know I had to look. I prefer off topic and I thought, oh, look how nice they are talking recipes and pets, how quaint! Ha! Man style though eh? Well at least you are trying. :) Did my telling Mary how to make a turkey on Sir's forum get this started!? Love, Robyn

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 18:04:55 (EDT) From: barney Email: None To: JHB Subject: Re: Recipes and Pets (way OT) Message:

JHB, I believe that in France your horse might fall into either category of a recipe or a pet. But, hey! I just read about Crush Videos on CNN today! Kinda like a snuff film but with little animals like mice or frogs.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 18:46:00 (EDT) From: JHB Email: None To: barney Subject: Low Budget Snuff Message:

But, hey! I just read about Crush Videos on CNN today! Kinda like a snuff film but with little animals like mice or frogs. Barney, What a great business idea! How about a slow motion close up of a cockroach under a heel that is rapidly approaching the shiny black shell. Or a microbiologist murdering a few cells with detergent under a microscope. God, this is getting weird..... John the drifting off into some very strange consiousness..

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 11:28:36 (EDT) From: VP Email: None To: Runamok Subject: Re: Guidelines Message:

The guidelines would be equally applied to anyone. Run, Maybe you should put these guidelines somewhere on the page, so that when this post goes under, new readers (or old ones peeking in) will know your new rules. If they aren't clearly stated somewhere permanently, you may not see change. No ex-premie should feel unwelcome, unless they are unable to show a modicum of respect for the ex-premies who post here. When I respect someone, it is earned by them because of their actions/words. Respect is not a given. Some people here will never get any respect from me, due to their behavior here and on Anything Goes. Of course, I can refrain from jumping all over people, or even speaking to them. If what you are asking for is a little self control, you'll have no problem from me. Just please don't ask me to show a modicum of respect for someone whom I don't have any respect for. Want me to leave them alone? Fine. I understand what you are trying to do, I do. I know you want to make things safe for all exes. I AM sorry that some ex-premies don't feel that they can post here, but again, I think that is EACH PERSON'S own issue. I know we don't agree about this, and that is ok with me. And, for the record, I do respect you and your opinion. Thanks for helping Gerry. Have a good day, VP

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 03:42:32 (EDT) From: AJW Email: None To: Runamok Subject: Forum Guidelines Message:

Hi Runamok, Seems like a natural step. There have been a few problems with premies acting wierd on the Forum since I've been around. I remember when I argued to lift shp's ban a couple of months ago. I must admit that my eagerness to support premies here waned a bit after Catweasels' continuous abuse, and it felt like someone had cleaned the catshit from the carpet, sprayed Dettol around and opened a few windows, after Gerry cleared his mess away. I did have a sort of compromise idea for premies who are starting to become inane nusiances, but which falls short of a total ban. How about a partial ban, where they may contribute for a while by starting a thread, where anyone may respond, but they are not allowed to contribute to other threads, until they promise to behave themselves? Just thought I'd add my ten Euros worth. Anth the full of bright ideas, but mysteriously absent when the spades are handed out.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 04:34:58 (EDT) From: barney Email: None To: AJW Subject: Blimey Limey Awakens Message:

Ah, AJW, your day has come. The sun never sets on the Empire. It's night here in Maui and our ships pass through this portal. Glad to see you come around on this issue. You were my most vocal opponent at the time when I pulled the plug on the old SHP and scuttled her. For the old alley catweasel I put him on a diet of a couple posts a day which was possible with the Forum III software, but probably not available here in Paradise. I agree with the general premise of guidelines to keep the easily identifiable crap out. However, sometimes it might be a tough call to make. barney the salty dog Don't take offense, AJW. I still love ya!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 04:53:48 (EDT) From: AJW Email: None To: barney Subject: Re: Blimey Limey Awakens Message:

Hi Barney, So are you in Hawaii, (you jammy sod)? I'm in a cabin on a cliff in Cornwall right now, coming to the end of a great holiday. Next year, my wife and I plan on making our summer holiday last the rest of our lives, but meanwhile, I've got to go back to work next week. After shp was banned, I became his penfriend for a while. I sensed a decent person in there. I hope he escapes the cult and finishes some of our conversations. An analogy that jumped into my mind about premies on the forum, which I suspect Runamok may have said once, was looking at it like a meeting of Alcoholics Anonymous, and having a drunk stagger in and interupt every conversation to tell everyone how great it was to be pissed (drunk) and how the new vodka was delicious. This example falls flat in one respect. No ex premie, as far as I know, is ever in the least bit tempted to return to the cult, where as recovering alcoholics are more easily attracted back to their old addiction. So Barney, if you live by the ocean, do you go fishing? (I caught two Seabass last night). Oh, yeah, while we're chatting, you need a medal or something for all the shit you had to put up with a while back. Maybe we'll have a whip round at the next Latvian social, coming up next week. Boy will we have lots to talk about. Anth the Shit Stirring Fishing Honorary Latvian Early Riser on the Cliffs.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 12:24:45 (EDT) From: Runamok Email: None To: AJW Subject: Re: Blimey Limey Awakens Message:

The idea that you walk out of the cult and are instantly over the problems that by being in it is ridic. It's wisdom that makes AA types forever acknowledge themselves as (recovering) alchoholics and helps them actively deal with the issues that are unresolved from that time. And the 'drunk' premies are still just as obnoxious, whether they tempt or not.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 16:48:08 (EDT) From: AJW Email: None To: Runamok Subject: Re: Blimey Limey Awakens Message:

Hi Run', I wasn't suggesting that once you leave, everything is hunky dory and all worked out, merely that, after leaving, going back is like trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube. Anth the Pepsodent.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 17:46:20 (EDT) From: Runamok Email: None To: AJW Subject: Re: Blimey Limey Awakens Message:

I think you're right that we don't go back. What's sad is a lot of exes leaving the forum. Don't you agree that making a centralized meeting point is as good as any of the goals we have as exes?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 18:13:38 (EDT) From: barney Email: None To: Runamok Subject: Normal Attrition Message:

Run, I think that some ex's leave because of the rudeness, but I would venture to guess that more leave because of normal attrition, boredom, burnout, summer vacation, moving on, etc. Also, while some of the threads get fiesty and heated (let's leave out the real screaming for this discussion), no one is forced to read every post in every thread. As soon as I saw Jim's post was about Dawkins or whatever I bailed. I don't have much interest in the topic. While I have personal experience in the absolute nastiest garbage ever viewed on the Forum(s), I would quickly lose interest if honest debate was discouraged and replaced entirely with cyber warm fuzzies. Then again, my doctors only offer a very poor prognosis for the return of my sanity.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 18:11:01 (EDT) From: AJW Email: None To: Runamok Subject: Re: Blimey Limey Awakens Message:

Hi Run, As I've not been around that long, and tend to be rather self-centred anyway, I've not noticed an exit of ex-premies. I know Happy stopped posting, but who else has left? If, what you mean by a centralised meeting point is the Forum, and having supporting it as a goal, I agree. The Forum reminds me of David's pebbles zinging up at this great Goliath cult. Or is it the place where folk shout, 'The Emperor is naked?' Or maybe it's the saucer on the bathroom windowledge where all the toothpaste gets squeezed out by the kids. Adios Amigo Anth the 'Have brighter teeth and cleaner breath when you're facing nuclear death.' to quote the late Phil Ochs.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 28, 1999 at 03:04:11 (EDT) From: Runamok Email: None To: AJW Subject: Ochs Message:

The numbers of people posting do not compare with the actual numbers of people passing thru. That's the nature of the beast. The small group of people who post regularly at any given time can be rather territorial. The point is to develop in such a way to insure that our purposes are met. What are our goals in participating in this forum and trying to list them might be helpful. Here are some of mine: 1) Be in touch with the community of ex-premies. 2) Insure that the truth about Miragey is stated in a public forum. 3) Provide exes and people who are 'in-between' with the opportunity to find their voice as individuals. 4) Provide a framework to support therapeutic growth for exes. (I consider leaving Miragey comparable to divorce in importance in a person's life- and the other person, in this case Miragey, typically doesn't know they exist). At times, forum goals seem to stray far from anything remotely resembling these stated goals. If I ever feel that the forum cannot be put on track, I intend to leave.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 28, 1999 at 06:19:42 (EDT) From: AJW Email: None To: Runamok Subject: Early Days of Steam Message:

Hi Run' I think you've summed it up well. Because of its anarchic nature, the tone, and what's happening on the Forum, changes all the time. Underneath it all though, I think it is creaking along, fulfilling it's purpose in the way you describe. I can only speak from my own experience, (and I'm definately still exiting, and dealing with all sorts of stuff thats been festering for years). I really don't think that I'd be anyway near sorting it all out without the Forum. I tell you Run', it's totally freaking out the people running the cult. It's a big nightmare for them, and you'd probably be surprised to see how much they are sizzling and frying right now. It is very comforting, and helpful, to have people like you around and I think it would be a sad loss to everyone if you left. Anth the Hopes the Band Stick Together

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 30, 1999 at 12:59:14 (EDT) From: Liz Email: None To: AJW Subject: Re: Early Days of Steam Message:

I agree with Anth, If it wasn't for the forum, being SO brainwashed I would never had come to the conclusions I have without the help of the forum. Thank & keep up the good work. Let's hope it never does deteriorate into swapping recipes & handy tips! Love, Liz

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 28, 1999 at 15:26:57 (EDT) From: Runamok Email: None To: AJW Subject: Church of Ochs Message:

I do see how much impact we have, and we are capable of having more by putting up more online documentation. The points we hammer away on (i.e., Jagdeo) are examples of systematic behavior on the part of Mirage and his org. But they are also only pieces of a puzzle. Cultist behavior is highly organized with multiple tentacles. Miragey's desire to disavow responsibilty for claims of being an incarnation or a messiah are obviously total bullshit when put up next to neat documentation, whether anecdotes or legal documents of public record, which show the realities of what has gone on in the name of 'knowledge', 'practice', 'goomiragey', or 'maharaji'. On another note, I hope we can be more supportive in the future. A lot of support structure is offline, and it's too important for it to be so. The whole validity if intense, intellectual scrutiny is a given here, but we haven't really considered nurturing as a necessity and for people leaving a one-sided abusive relationship after 20 years, there is going to be loneliness, pain, isolation. I know when I left in the early 80's, I was essentially without friends in so doing. The entire social structure I relied on was comprised of premie. Runamok the I don't think about leaving... much

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 28, 1999 at 22:59:36 (EDT) From: barney Email: None To: Runamok Subject: offline support Message:

I was very fortunate to be invited to a little offline email support group of some of the finest people around. I was glad that it was offline because there is some stuff that you just don't want to put out to the entire world of lurkers and everyone else. While being supportive on the Forum is a good thing, it cannot be required by mandate. I also firmly believe that there is some real great insights in the hard hitting debates that center around Maharaji that involve premies. Unfortunately, it seems that premies are needed to come and remind us of how inane the cult is and those conversations will get heated.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 28, 1999 at 23:38:22 (EDT) From: Runamok Email: None To: barney Subject: Re: offline support Message:

Exes are pretty good at that too.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 05:27:37 (EDT) From: barney Email: None To: AJW Subject: A blabbering about privacy (ot) Message:

AJW, no I don't fish. I've tried and tried, but can't figure it out. Caught a salmon once minutes after hanging my cheap-o rod off the stern of my sailboat. Next time I went out I caught a snag and the reel jumped out of the holder and sank immediately. Privacy events that happened to me today! 1. Email: I got a spam email today with a bogus link that went nowhere. There was, however, a telephone number to call to get removed from their list. Seems like the gotcha would be in the phone call. It was a 909 area code which is in California, but sometimes they'll zap to the Caribean on a 900 number that will cost you real money. Either way they get your money if you call 'em. 2. The Telemarketer: I got a message on my VM that said that because I filled out a form at this year's Home Show (I didn't go to no Home Show) I had won a free trip to Reno, Nevada and needed to call within 24 hours to claim my prize. 3. Door-to-Door Salesman: A kid at the door trying to get me to subscribe to the newspaper for FREE! I'll be watching you episode: I'm listening to my police scanner and there's this suicide call with a guy with a gun, a 45. The police have negotiators and everything. The guy's name and address is said over the airwaves and then his phone number is given out for the negotiators. I'm on the internet so I do a reverse phone lookup and pull up a map to his apartment. The cops quickly got him out alive and he's on his way for psychiatric evaluation. Buddy, I saw what you did and I know who you are.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 26, 1999 at 23:25:37 (EDT) From: Roger E. Drek Email: None To: All Subject: Maharaji is small time! Message:

Talk about your press attention! Check out this link to see how many TV specials have been done on Scientology Operation Clambake presents The Radio & TV Vault. If you've got a sound card and RealPlayer you can listen or view them.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 14:46:16 (EDT) From: David M Email: None To: Roger E. Drek Subject: Elementary, Watson! Message:

Yo, RED! Got the grapes to piss off the big boys, huh? Care to mess with the Larder of the Universe, eh? Bullbait on, dude! PS: so far, this editor is NOT smart enough to change data on the view message list as needed.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 26, 1999 at 13:36:15 (EDT) From: forum friends Email: None To: All Subject: Bobby's thread Message:

How are you doing Bobby.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 26, 1999 at 14:28:41 (EDT) From: Way Email: None To: forum friends Subject: Re: Bobby's thread Message:

And how was your trip to NY, if you care to answer here?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 26, 1999 at 12:42:25 (EDT) From: Q Email: planetqwerty@postmaster.co.uk To: All Subject: WHERE ARE THEY NOW? Message:

WHERE ARE THEY NOW? The series that keeps you up-to-date with the movers and groovers of the past. This week: #665, Ex-Guru Maharaji. Hi there. Professor Goodvibe here, beginning what will be an occasional contribution to this truly helpful forum that is evidently part self-therapy, part co-counselling and part bullshit. And a special hello to you. So what have we got? Where are we now? And who the hell are you? (If you haven't found the answer to that last one, remember - just keep asking). Let's start with a poser: QUESTION: Who's to say who's Lord of this freaking Universe? ANSWER: No-one in their senses would even try. Why? Because this Universe has no need of a Lord of ALL. Any sucker who took that mantle on him/her self would be in serious shtick, and risk the imminent arrival of the Men in White Coats with Hypodeemic Nerdles ... no...no...no...Nurse, not again.... puuuulleeeeeee...eeeeee...zzzzzzzzzzz...zzzzz. (Later) What was I thinking? ...saying? Oh yes, Maharaji is Lord of the Freemasons and the Third Eye is your only salvaaaaaaaassssshunnnnnnn...zzzzzzzzzz...zzzzz... (Much later) The Doctors say I'm better now. And you must ignore everything I've said before on the subject of whatever it was I was talking about ... Whatever it was. I myself have no need of memory. The enlightened never do (which is just as well). If you can remember the past, you're obviously not living in the present. So there. I'm enlightened. You're not. But you can be. I can initiate you into the mysteries of meditation - you too can talk to God (great white telephone not included) - and all for free! Just send your application on the back of a blank, signed cheque to me, Professor Goodvibe, c/o State Mental Asylum, Malibu, CA. USA. Look forward to the next amazing instalment : EXCLUSIVE: 'John Major drank my bathwater'. PLUS: 101 uses for a solid gold toilet.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 14:31:27 (EDT) From: Q to pseudo-Q Email: None To: pseudo-Q Subject: IMPOSTOR Message:

I thought it was a rule of your so-called forum not to post under another's alias. I now see you have no shame, not even with respect to your own so-called rules. For all I know it's Gerry himself doing this. In any case, he permits a rather obviously bogus communication from yours pseudonymously &, thus, condones the infraction. All hyperbole aside, Gerry, how could you? Will you, at least, own up to your error at this point? If you guys want any respect at all you have to at least play by your own rules.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 28, 1999 at 08:25:21 (EDT) From: notq Email: None To: Q to pseudo-Q Subject: Re: IMPOSTOR Message:

Sorry, sorry, sorry. A thousand 'plogies. I guess I'm just a virgin webbie who hasn't ploughed through all the archives yet. How about I call myself 'notq'? O.K. with you? By the way, I'm not Gerry.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 31, 1999 at 14:46:26 (EDT) From: Q Email: None To: notq Subject: Not your fault Message:

My point was & is that this forum has only the rules that suit the rulers, & those they bend to suit them.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Sep 02, 1999 at 13:42:31 (EDT) From: notq Email: None To: Q Subject: Re: Not your fault Message:

whoah there, Mr Q I've just got back from a short holiday so haven't been in touch with the forum. I thought my last message would have cleared up the mess. 'Not my fault'? well, it is in a way. If I had read a few of the earlier postings I would have seen your alias. As it happens I didn't. I think you're putting your foot in it to use this genuine mix-up to justify your apparent problems with 'the rulers' whoever they might be or whatever they might mean you. Like I said, I'm just a virgin webbie. Don't go getting me all alienated just yet. That I can do by myself (selectively, of course) - without your help, thank you.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 26, 1999 at 10:33:02 (EDT) From: Jim Email: None To: All Subject: Way, what do you think of this? Message:

Here's a succinct critique of Behe who you're currently reading. What do you think?: published in Creation / Evolution Volume 16: pp, 36-40 [1996]) Perhaps the single most stunning thing about Darwin's Black Box, Michael Behe's 'Biochemical Challenge to Evolution,' is the amount of territory that its author concedes to Darwinism. As tempted as they might be to pick up this book in their own defense, 'scientific creationists' should think twice about enlisting an ally who has concluded that the Earth is several billion years old, that evolutionary biology has had 'much success in accounting for the patterns of life we see around us (1),' that evolution accounts for the appearance of new organisms including antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and who is convinced that all organisms share a 'common ancestor.' In plain language, this means that Michael Behe and I share an evolutionary view of the natural history of the Earth and the meaning of the fossil record; namely, that present-day organisms have been produced by a process of descent with modification from their ancient ancestors. Behe is clear, firm, and consistent on this point. For example, when Michael and I engaged in debate at the 1995 meeting of the American Scientific Affiliation, I argued that the 100% match of DNA sequences in the pseudogene region of beta-globin was proof that humans and gorillas shared a recent common ancestor. To my surprise, Behe said that he shared that view, and had no problem with the notion of common ancestry. Creationists who believe that Behe is on their side should proceed with caution - he states very clearly that evolution can produce new species, and that human beings are one of those species. Michael Behe is Associate Professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh University, and not surprisingly, biochemistry, his own discipline, is at the heart of his argument. Simply stated, he claims that Darwinism, whatever it may explain at the organismic level, fails to account for the evolution of the complex biochemical machinery that is found in every living cell. He writes: 'for the Darwinian theory of evolution to be true, it has to account for the molecular structure of life. It is the purpose of this book to show that it does not.' (2) Behe engages in some rhetorical heavy-lifting to support this contention. In the first half of his book the reader is treated to a lively description of some of the most intricate of life's microscopic machinery - the cilia and flagella that produce cell movement, the cascade of blood-clotting proteins, the systems that target proteins to specific sites within the cell, the production of antibodies by the immune system, and the intricacies of biosynthetic pathways. Behe's descriptions of these systems are a delight to read. He is an excellent writer, and describes the complexities of the cell with the flair of a gifted teacher. Why does the existence of these (and many other) systems rule out evolution? Because they are 'irreducibly complex,' meaning that if they are missing just one of their many parts, they cannot function. Behe writes that 'Irreducibly complex systems ... cannot evolve in a Darwinian fashion.' (3) Why not? Because natural selection works on small mutations in just one component at a time. If dozens or even hundreds of distinct proteins, precisely fashioned, are required to make a functional cilium, how could natural selection slowly and patiently craft them, one at a time, while waiting for the complex function of ciliary movement to emerge? It couldn't, so, according to Behe, the hypothesis that the cilium was produced by evolution is therefore disproved. If evolution did not make the cilium, then 'intelligent design' must have. He writes: 'life on earth at its most fundamental level, in its most critical components, is the product of intelligent activity.' (4) If all of this has a familiar ring, it should. It is the classic 'Argument from Design,' articulated so well by William Paley nearly 200 years ago in his book Natural Theology. Behe is candid in his admiration for Paley, and although he takes care to point out some of Paley's mistakes, he leaves no doubt that he views the Argument from Design as his principal logical weapon against Darwinism. To Behe, the intricacy and complexity of natural systems at the biochemical level shows evidence of intelligent design. At its core, Behe's argument is about the mechanism of evolution, which distinguishes him from 'young-earth creationists' who deny the validity of the geological ages, the appearance of new species, and attempt to prove that the fossil record is either an illusion or a vast conspiracy. Behe will have none of this, and explicitly denies any connection with 'creationism.' (5) Nonetheless, he recognizes that his ideas do have theological implications as well as scientific ones. He is not at all modest about these implications, comparing the discovery of design to achievements of 'Newton and Einstein, Lavoisier and Schrödinger, Pasteur and Darwin.' (6) And he believes that he knows why the scientific community has not embraced intelligent design to explain cellular complexity: 'Why is the observation of design handled with intellectual gloves? The dilemma is that while one side of the elephant is labeled intelligent design, the other side might be labeled God.' (7) So, according to Behe, design is rejected by the scientific community for the most non-scientific of reasons - its theological significance. Behe has gone two centuries into the past to find the argument from design, dusted it off, and invigorated it with the modern language of biochemistry. But there are problems in this excursion. Not the least of these is the fact that the argument from design has been answered, not once, but many times by writers such as Dawkins, Gould, and even Darwin himself. The multiple parts of complex, interlocking biological systems do not evolve as individual parts, despite Behe's claim that they must. They evolve together, as systems that are gradually expanded, enlarged, and adapted to new purposes. As Richard Dawkins successfully argued in The Blind Watchmaker, natural selection can act on these evolving systems at every step of their transformation. As factual examples we could choose any of the systems whose evolution is documented by the fossil record, a source apparently acceptable to Behe. The three smallest bones in the human body, the malleus, incus, and stapes, carry sound vibrations across the middle ear, from the membrane-like tympanum (the eardrum) to the oval window. This five component system fits Behe's test of irreducible complexity perfectly - if any one of its parts are taken away or modified, hearing would be lost. This is the kind of system that evolution supposedly cannot produce. Unfortunately for 'intelligent design,' the fossil record elegantly and precisely documents exactly how this system formed. During the evolution of mammals, bones that originally formed the rear portion of the reptilian lower jaw were gradually pushed backwards and reduced in size until they migrated into the middle ear, forming the bony connections that carry vibrations into the inner ears of present-day mammals. A system of perfectly-formed, interlocking components, specified by multiple genes, was gradually refashioned and adapted for another purpose altogether - something that this book claims to be impossible. As the well-informed reader may know, creationist critics of this interpretation of fossils in the reptile to mammal transition once charged that this could not have taken place. What would happen, they joked, to the unfortunate reptile while he was waiting for two of his jaw bones to migrate into the middle ear? The poor creature could neither hear nor eat! As students of evolution may know, A. W. Crompton of Harvard University brought this laughter to a deafening halt when he unearthed a fossil with a double articulation of the jaw joint - an adaptation that would allow the animal to both eat and hear during the transition, enabling natural selection to favor each of the intermediate stages. Is there something special about biochemistry that prevents evolution from doing exactly the same thing to a microscopic system composed of proteins? Absolutely not. But evolution does make a testable prediction with respect to such systems. That prediction is that the degree of similarity in DNA sequences of organisms should correspond to their evolutionary histories. And, as the author is all too well aware, that prediction has been borne out a thousand times over. Despite the close correspondence of gene sequence to fossil sequence, Behe demands that evolutionary biologists should tell us exactly 'how' evolution can produce a complex biochemical system. This is a good strategic choice on his part, because the systems he cites, being common to most eukaryotic cells, are literally hundreds of millions of years old. And, being biochemical, they leave no fossils. Once burned, twice shy, Behe may be hoping to avoid the fate of his 1994 claim that there were no transitional fossils linking the first fossil whales with their land-dwelling Mesonychid ancestors (8). Less than a year after that prediction, the existence of not one, not two, but three transitional species between whales and land-dwelling eocine Mesonychids was confirmed. Nonetheless, it is quite possible to rise to the occasion and answer his challenge in biochemical terms. In fact, Russell Doolittle, whose investigations on the evolution of blood clotting are discussed in this text, has done exactly this. Behe is at great pains to disqualify this work, even though Doolittle has not only shown how such a complex system might evolve, but has also produced comparative studies showing how it probably did evolve. In dismissing Doolittle's work, and in preempting any attempt to show how evolution might produce a complex biochemical system, Behe scoffs at the notion that a biochemical system adapted for one purpose might be adapted by evolution for a totally different function, despite physiological examples to the contrary in the fossil record. He dismisses, for example, the notion that the parts of a cilium, including proteins like dynein and tubulin, could have evolved by gene duplication even though similar forms of dynein and tubulin are used for other purposes in the cell. Most cell biologists will be unconvinced by his explanations of why the cilium could not have been assembled from proteins originally used for other purposes - especially since the cilium itself has been adapted for another purpose in one of the very tissues that Behe uses as an example of design - the vertebrate photoreceptor cell. As the book draws to a conclusion, Behe attempts to develop the idea of intelligent design into a testable, scientific hypothesis. This is a lofty goal, but this is also where his argument collapses. Scientific ideas must be formulated in terms that make them testable. Indeed, Darwin himself proposed several ways in which his theory might be tested and disproved. And one of these ways - the contention that organisms contain biochemical parts that could not have been produced by Darwinian means - is the basis of Behe's criticisms of evolution. Being a trained experimental scientist, one would have expected that Behe would have seen the need to do likewise. Unfortunately, he did not. Let's suppose, for example, that a fellow scientist were to take Behe's challenge to evolution seriously, and attempted to show how a specific biochemical system composed of multiple parts could have evolved. A hypothesis for design, formulated in genuinely scientific terms, must be disprovable, and this is exactly the kind of evidence that might disprove it. Incredibly, Behe has intentionally insulated 'intelligent design' from this and any other scientific test. How has he done this? In the penultimate chapter of his text, he lists some of the driving forces associated with evolutionary change, including natural selection, genetic drift, founder effects, gene flow, meiotic drive, and transposition (9). Behe states that all of these agents can effect change in biological systems, and admits that they may account completely for at least some of the biochemical features of a living cell. So, if our colleague were to show how these forces could have produced, say, the bacterial flagellum, would he be entitled to say: 'I have disproved design?' Not at all, according to Behe. 'The production of some biological improvements by mutation and natural selection - by evolution - is quite compatible with intelligent design theory.' (10) In other words, any evidence for the evolution of complexity is dismissed in advance as being irrelevant to the problem of design. 'Design' exists only when and where evolution cannot explain it! This sterile definition of design means that Behe is free to ignore any conceivable evidence for the evolution of any biochemical system. Such an idea, intentionally placed outside the realm of testability, is not science, whatever the pretentions of its advocates. If Behe's formulation of intelligent design as science is illogical, his mechanism for how the work of the designer was inserted into living systems is almost laughable. Remember that Behe accepts the validity of the geological ages and the fossil record - an open-minded scientist can hardly do otherwise - and yet he claims that the complex biochemical systems he extols were fashioned by an intelligent agent. When did this agent go to work, and when were the genes encoding them engineered? He has an answer ready: 'Suppose that nearly four billion years ago the designer made the first cell, already containing all of the irreducibly complex biochemical systems discussed here and many others. (One can postulate that the designs for systems that were to be used later, such as blood clotting, were present but not 'turned on.' In present-day organisms plenty of genes are turned off for a while, sometimes for generations, to be turned on at a later time.)' (11) This means that billions of years ago a humble prokaryote was packed with genes that would be turned off for hundreds of millions of years before they produced the eukaryotic cilium, and genes for blood clotting proteins that would pass more than a billion inactive years in genetic 'cold storage.' And what happens during those billions of years? As any student of genetics will tell you, because those genes are not expressed, natural selection cannot weed out genetic mistakes. This means that mutations will accumulate in these genes at breathtaking rates, rendering then hopelessly changed and inoperative hundreds of millions of years before Behe says that they will be needed. Contrary to Behe's claims, the evidence of evolution in the fossil record is not irrelevant to his argument. It has forced him, for the sake of consistency, to cobble his acceptance of the earth's well-documented natural history together with the doctrine of intelligent design. The result is an absolutely hopeless genetic fantasy of 'pre-formed' genes waiting for the organisms that might need them to gradually appear. This absurdity is the unavoidable result of trying to make 'design' conform to that troublesome fossil record. The very same fossil record that provides the primary evidence for evolution. However serious its scientific flaws, this interesting and colorful book is sure to attract attention. Michael Behe would like us to believe that he has discovered a new biological principle. But the real news in Darwin's Black Box is that a contemporary scientist has dipped back into the past and wrapped the remains of the Argument from Design in a shiny cloth of biochemistry. In this new clothing, the old idea may surprise a few unsuspecting readers who have not thought long or seriously about the mechanisms of evolution. They may be entertained by Behe's energy, and sustained by his enthusiasm. But ultimately, the careful reader will recognize this book for what it truly is - an argument against evolution that concedes nearly all the contested ground to Darwin's edifice, and then ends up teetering on little more than rhetoric and personal skepticism

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 26, 1999 at 12:46:58 (EDT) From: bill Email: None To: Jim Subject: teetering? Message:

Behe is one of those that think conciousness is in a world of it's own like energy and matter. There is no reason, besides the fun of argument, (and for academics, the fun of condesension), to assume the positions both sides have on the issue. Biblical based opinion has no role to play in investigating nature. Zealots like the high priests of evolution also are taking what life reveals about itself and stretching it to fit thier concept before the facts are in. I have a book on the depression of the thirties and during those years lots of people spent time in the fun of debateing social structure. And economic structure. Lots of people died this century over those debates and the aligned armies of supporters of economic religion. Religious/scientific debates have killed some amount of people of course, I suspect that Way would kill you before you killed him just because god is on his side and you are just a hapless heathen without the neccesary personal relationship with your belief. Wether or not Behe's book shows Dawkins hasn't accounted for the molecular structure of life or not, the fact remains, the Dawkins has not. Assumptions ARE assumptions. Your author loftily condesends that to think other than him is -teetering on little more than rhetoric and personal scepticism- . As if his materialist religion is based on science and not on presumption and assumption of more than what the evidence shows. What the heck, I'm glad the debate is there, but my post rawat bullshit barometer has SOME capacity at this point and there is a bit of bs in the mix of these theorists. They are clamoring for the readers alligience but only because the debate is not won and will only be when we learn more about life and conciousness. I think you would have more fun with WAY if you asked him 'Say there is a god that is existing and self aware, why in the heck is human history like it is?' 'And why is the global religious history like it is?' I would join in that thread.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 26, 1999 at 15:21:19 (EDT) From: Jerry Email: None To: bill Subject: Okay, Bill Message:

Hey, Bill, Say there is a god that is existing and self aware, why in the heck is human history like it is?' And why is the global religious history like it is?' Well?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 26, 1999 at 23:17:20 (EDT) From: bill Email: None To: Jerry Subject: Um, er, ah... Message:

I think we can have fun with this one and not have to rely on 'experts' to side with. We can all chime in using our own 2 cents and I'll start it off by scoreing a point for the heathens. True story, Little Jimmy McClain from Jackson Miss. belonged to a church that put some emphasis on spiritual healing and had a midweek service for hearing testimonials , which his mom would take him to. One day Jimmies cat 'ole heller', gave birth to 3 kittens. Jimmie saw they had a problem and began a secret prayer project for the kittens. After two or three weeks he went joyously into the mid week meeting and gave his testimony. He told them how he had prayed for 3 weeks for god to heal his kittens because they were born blind and Praise God! Those three little kittens eyes had been opened and they could see!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 07:56:41 (EDT) From: Jerry Email: None To: bill Subject: Re: Um, er, ah... Message:

'Why do you speak to them in parables?', they asked. 'Because, to you it has been given the keys to the kingdom', he replied. 'But to them it has not. So, having eyes, they cannot see. Having ears, they cannot hear. Neither do they understand.' The question is, when Little Jimmy is taught that it wasn't his prayers that gave the kittens sight, but Mother Nature running it's course, how well will he respond to it? Will he accept it or will he reject it? Of course, Little Jimmy is just a kid so he'll probably believe Mom and Dad when they explain to him what really happenned. But what about people when they get older and have to determine for themselves, through critical thinking, if something's true or not? Do they keep their minds open and weigh the evidence, or do they shut down and refuse to hear because they don't want to know? Will they open their eyes so they can see? Their ears so they can hear? What do people do, then? Take our friend, Michael Behe, the scientist. Because he can't apply the theory of evolultion to life at the biochemical level, does that mean that it can't be? Is it reasonable to conclude that intelligent design must be behind it? What's gong to happen when it's shown that evolution IS the cause for biochemical life? Will Behe be able to accept it? Or will he just refuse to open his eyes, and never understand because of it?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 26, 1999 at 11:35:06 (EDT) From: Way Email: None To: Jim Subject: Re: Way, what do you think of this? Message:

Jim, First of all, I will try to paragraph this post (in response to your new request in Seymour's thread far below). After your first 'suggestion' to that effect, I tried to paragraph my subsequent posts, but then sometimes I forgot. How's this? A couple spaces, new thought: Before I started Behe, I went to the website that you suggested and skimmed through a few critiques. But I wanted to read the book first. So I have printed off the one you are now supplying and will read it after I've finished. The book is very slow-going for me, but I really appreciate Behe's concrete examples, like using the common mousetrap for a system of irreducible complexity. Without his powers of explanation, I would be quite lost. I admit that I find a kindred spirit in him, but I will try to keep in mind your constant admonishments against nonsense and will try to keep my research balanced. I do appreciate your no-nonsense approach, really. In response to your post below regarding Jerry and my questioning why some people ever were premies at all - no, I really am curious about that because some people seem to relate to Knowledge so differently than I did. I blew my mind on LSD and marveled at the expanded awareness that it provided. I devoured the scriptural literature on self transforming to Self, starting with the Upanishads. I related to the 'Knowledge of all knowledges' as being just this sort of all-encompassing consciousness. I did notice when I was part of a premie community that other people seemed simply attracted to the vibe of the community and received Knowledge for different reasons than I did. I've left Rawat because his whole trip now does not address what I want. The way I read him now is that we have been given this gift of life, we have a wonderful master to rely on, and we are all so very, very grateful. (So you and I have at least one thing we easily agree on, yes?) I think I've answered your questions and promise to get to that Creation/Evolution vol. 16 critique soon. But you never answered one of my questions - one that I was really hoping you would address. It was when I attempted to clearly state the fundamental question of the brain/mind debate. I asked if you had a better way of expressing it and I was also hoping that you would acknowledge that the debate is a worthy one and that both camps have legitimate points to make. I see every reason to propose an intelligence at work in the universe far superior to human's and insist that even if Darwin's theory is as explanatory as you claim, no scientist cites it to explain the whole shebang, such as the development of the fetus - an example I cited earlier without a peep back from you. Instead of intelligently contradicting my valid point, you merely called me a 'spiritual bully.' I'm not going to concede any points due to that kind of strategy! One additional note to JHB - don't think for a moment I know what I'm talking about. But thanks for sharing some of the same feelings. (I later responded to you more specifically below). Later.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 26, 1999 at 16:22:48 (EDT) From: Jerry Email: None To: Way Subject: Re: Way, what do you think of this? Message:

Way, I became a premie because I was miserable and confused and Maharaji held out a promise that he could change that. I'd had some positive shifts in consciousness in my life before Maharaji, and I was hoping he could help me recapture that. But as time passed and I became more exposed to Maharaji's brainwashing machine, I began to focus on what Maharaji wanted from me, not what I wanted from him. I tried to become an ideal devotee. Each time I tried, I would fail miserably, of course, because it just wasn't in me to really be that. But that became my obsession. I thought that when I achieved becoming such a devotee, I would be granted my liberation. After several attempts, now and again, throughout the years, I began losing faith and started questioning if Maharaji could really do anything for me. It was while I was in this doubtful state that I came across ex-premie.org. It didn't take much convincing to prove to me that I was wasting my precious life trying to be Big M's devotee, so I bailed pretty quickly. I think it's interesting what you say about mind altering drugs giving you glimpses into higher levels of consciousness that exist on their own. I use to believe that. Like I said, I'm familiar with having shifts in consciousness, some through hallucinogens, and some that happenned on the spur of the moment for no apparent reason. But like I said, it seems more evident to me that any state of mind is a result of brain chemistry and wouldn't exist if not for it. Any glimpses into what's 'already there' I would call an awareness of things long forgotten, such as a mystical experience I once had where I felt I had returned to my true home that I had forgotten but remembered when I experienced it once again. But I don't believe this 'true' home is a place that exists outside of my own being. It's in me, not out there, independent of me. When I die, it will die with me. This is what I believe. But... if by some miracle, upon my passing from this world, I do return to this place, I won't complain. I just don't believe it's going to happen so I'm not placing any bets that it will.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 26, 1999 at 18:04:05 (EDT) From: Way Email: None To: Jerry Subject: To Jerry, on true home Message:

I don't know what you'll think about this, but I had a familiar good feeling while reading your post. Best wishes, of course!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 26, 1999 at 13:06:08 (EDT) From: JHB Email: None To: Way Subject: To Way - Reply below Message:

One additional note to JHB - don't think for a moment I know what I'm talking about. But thanks for sharing some of the same feelings. (I later responded to you more specifically below). Way, I've replied below. John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 26, 1999 at 12:01:38 (EDT) From: Jim Email: None To: Way Subject: Much better, thanks Message:

In response to your post below regarding Jerry and my questioning why some people ever were premies at all - no, I really am curious about that because some people seem to relate to Knowledge so differently than I did. I blew my mind on LSD and marveled at the expanded awareness that it provided. I devoured the scriptural literature on self transforming to Self, starting with the Upanishads. I related to the 'Knowledge of all knowledges' as being just this sort of all-encompassing consciousness. I did notice when I was part of a premie community that other people seemed simply attracted to the vibe of the community and received Knowledge for different reasons than I did. I've left Rawat because his whole trip now does not address what I want. The way I read him now is that we have been given this gift of life, we have a wonderful master to rely on, and we are all so very, very grateful. (So you and I have at least one thing we easily agree on, yes?) That's pretty well my story too. In fact, it was the Hamster's 'I can show you an internal LSD' sizzle that really got me. I think I've answered your questions and promise to get to that Creation/Evolution vol. 16 critique soon. But you never answered one of my questions - one that I was really hoping you would address. It was when I attempted to clearly state the fundamental question of the brain/mind debate. I asked if you had a better way of expressing it and I was also hoping that you would acknowledge that the debate is a worthy one and that both camps have legitimate points to make. I see every reason to propose an intelligence at work in the universe far superior to human's and insist that even if Darwin's theory is as explanatory as you claim, no scientist cites it to explain the whole shebang, such as the development of the fetus - an example I cited earlier without a peep back from you. Instead of intelligently contradicting my valid point, you merely called me a 'spiritual bully.' I'm not going to concede any points due to that kind of strategy! I guess 'brain/mind' is as good as any other header for the issue. But where did you get this fetus idea? Not my understanding at all. (Sorry for the extremely brief reply but I'm late....)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 26, 1999 at 10:39:20 (EDT) From: Jim Email: None To: Jim Subject: Or this? Message:

-- ANDREW POMIANKOWSKI is a Royal Society research fellow at the department of biology, University College London.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 26, 1999 at 11:40:24 (EDT) From: Way Email: None To: Jim Subject: Re: Or this? Message:

Again, I have printed it off and will take it home to read. Thanks much!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 26, 1999 at 14:25:08 (EDT) From: Way Email: None To: Bill Subject: To Bill Message:

Bill, The chronology of posts gets confusing. I wish the posts remained ordered in the order they were received. Oh well. I am responding to your message above from 12:46pm. I like that you do not allow any side to prematurely claim victory, when the questions are still so very, very far from settled. And I whole-heartedly agree that Neo-Darwinism is a cult just as much as the Catholic Church is. But I don't like what you said about god being on my side. If you meant by that what I think you meant, then I will take it as an insult, the worst I've received here, including anything Jim or miffed premies have sent my way. Regarding your question about a self-aware god and the history of humanity, including the religious history: I'm not sure that I see the point of the thread you are proposing. I will guess that you are refering to the question that some people ask about how a loving, all-powerful, all-knowing creator could allow his creation to wallow in useless misery. Is that what you are refering to? I personally do not see any conflict at all between a supreme intelligence and all that we experience on planet Earth. I simply assume that this planet is in the realm of duality and clearly is not the party spot of the universe where everything would be hunky-dory. Would you prefer a planet with all tropics and no arctic? That's hard to accomplish in this realm. All individual life on this planet is transcient, fraught with danger, and we constantly struggle with the good and the bad, but so what?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 10:59:25 (EDT) From: Jim Email: None To: Way Subject: What a stupid thing to say Message:

And I whole-heartedly agree that Neo-Darwinism is a cult just as much as the Catholic Church is. Good way to squander your credibility, Way. I dare you to back this up without revealing how little you actually understand evolution.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 11:14:58 (EDT) From: Way Email: None To: Jim Subject: Re: What a stupid thing to say Message:

Jim, Surely you've seen this opinion expressed in print before. I will try to get a quote. There is a famous lady paleontologist who puts it very well. Later.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 11:35:07 (EDT) From: Jim Email: None To: Way Subject: So? Message:

A lot of stuff's in print. What's your point? The fact is it's nonsense and if anyone says otherwise, I'd love to see how.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 14:35:31 (EDT) From: Way Email: None To: Jim Subject: Re: So? Message:

I am still going to get that lady's quote, because an expert in her field is more persuasive that I could be. But generally, the point is that although Darwinism answers many questions, some Neo-Darwinists look toward the theory for all the answers even for questions outside of its realm. The school itself is defined too dogmatically and too narrowly. The comparison to cults is evident. - - p.s. you might want to join the "Cult of Father Darwin Discussion List."

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 00:04:55 (EDT) From: bill Email: None To: Way Subject: Hi way Message:

Hi there WAY, Don't fergit that I was kind of aiming some of that post at Jimbo and I know him enough to know that he knew it was no insult to you but was a reference to how when we have invested a part of ourselves in our beliefs we are more sensitive to opposition. Jim doesn't have a personal connection to the dna evolution debate, it is a game arena and his taking sides didn't involve his heart. It was a comment aimed at his sense of humor and frankly WAY, JIm has no heart. He is a lawyer. If I had seen insults coming your way, I would have chimed in sooner. I think you will like the way the questions open up a world of things for you to comment on. I read and have gotten to like the different minds here. I post something and as I do it I think of different folks here and although I don't say 'this sentence is for you Nigel' or Jerry ect, but I am thinking of folks as I type. Because they have said something before that I am actually responding to because it got me thinking. Maybe some of the comments that you called insults from Jim and others were not meant that way at all. They might have been just being funny and also knowing others that read, they might have been trying to entertain without malice. Just guessing. In the dna debates, there IS a certain amount of 'see stupid?' because the academics that we quote from have that attitude. The questions I am interested in, and proposed, make it so ANYONE with thier 2 cents can chime in because it is in OUR realm and our view counts. And is more fun and has truth to it You made some good comments at the end of your post that I have to think about and get back to you tomorrow. WHen you said 'so what?' I have to say 'but that is fasinating and fits into our long running conversation about understanding life'. I'm with you not against you.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 10:40:43 (EDT) From: Way Email: None To: bill Subject: Re: Hi way Message:

Thanks for clarifying. And actually, insults can be useful, I've dished out my share of them, and I am not against them per se. But they are only infective if they have the ring of truth to them. I concur with all that you say above. (I hope Marianne doesn't see the lawyer thing, though). Good story, too, regarding faith and miracles and all that jazz. There are many debatable theories about the unseen and how it might relate to our little humaness and I think that's what you're discussing. God's most annoying characteristic is that he doesn't seem to share our human sensibilities about things. This is very hard for some people to accept. Anthropomorphism is good as long as you realize it is pure analogy to aid our finite brains. But any serious, adult attempt to relate to the creative power must begin with wiping the chalkboard completely clean of such stuff. Rawat's insistence on quiet openness is valid when applied to man's relationship to the divine. (Unfortunately, he asks for the same attitude in regard to himself, which is a mockery of a truth).

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 11:11:36 (EDT) From: Way Email: None To: Jim Subject: To Jim re: Ken Miller critique Message:

Jim, When Behe's lesson on the biochemistry of DNA got a bit much for me last night, I turned to Ken Miller's critique. You need to reread it. Mr. Miller makes an astonishingly stupid mistake. See paragraph 8 beginning 'As factual examples...', lines four and five and then his subsequent argument. Is Mr. Miller really so stupid that he couldn't understand the basic concept, or is he trying to be tricky here?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 11:33:07 (EDT) From: Jim Email: None To: Way Subject: Re: To Jim re: Ken Miller critique Message:

No, I don't see it at all. Care to explain yourself?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 11:47:21 (EDT) From: Way Email: None To: Jim Subject: Re: To Jim Ken Miller critique Message:

Is the human ear an example of a biological system that is irreducibly complex? My explanation: (I'm not arguing for Behe's theory here, by the way, I'm merely objecting to Ken Miller's critique). KM says: "This five component system [the human ear] fits Behe's test of irreducible complexity perfectly." No, it absolutely does not fit perfectly - it does NOT fit at all. Behe would never suggest such a thing. The fact that KM goes on to point out that the fossil record delineates a progression from earlier, more simple systems developing into the human ear demonstrates that the present system in humans is not irreducibly complex, by the very definition of the term! This is obvious, already established, and accepted by everyone including Behe. KM is not arguing against Behe, he is arguing against his own misrepresentation of Behe. However, the question of whether there is any true example of Behe's irreducible complexity is still an open one, and it is a question that is likely to remain unresolved for a very long time. Behe argues that it must be addressed at the molecular level, certainly not at the level of human structures like the ear. It is perfectly fine to argue against Behe's theory, but to pretend to debunk it by using KM's example is absolutely ridiculous. KM was either (1) stupid to try it, or (2) consciously trying to pull a fast one. Some people might claim that this sort of trick argument might have a place in the law, but certainly it is beneath science.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 15:26:10 (EDT) From: Jerry Email: None To: Way Subject: Re: To Jim Ken Miller critique Message:

Way, Isn't Behe's whole argument that biochemical life requires all of it's components to function? Isn't this what he means by 'irreducible complexity'? If that's the case, then Miller makes a good point. There are 5 components required for hearing. Take any one of them away and hearing is lost. But it's been proven that the function of hearing, in it's present state at least, evolved. It wasn't always there. Why does Behe insist that functions at the biochemical level had to always be there and couldn't have evolved? What evidence does he present that this is so? It seems that he's just saying that there's no evidence that it isn't and therefore intelligent design is reponsible for life at this level. I think that's bizarre.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 17:37:33 (EDT) From: Way Email: None To: Jerry Subject: Re: To Jim Ken Miller critique Message:

Jerry, I don't know yet what Behe's whole argument is, because I have not yet read the concluding chapters where he evidently talks about the larger questions of design and religious philosophy (judging from the titles of the last chapters). But he early-on defines 'irreducible complexity' very specifically and applies it very narrowly. He certainly does not apply it to biochemical life in general, no. Here's the problem with Miller's example of the human ear. He says 'There are five components required for human hearing - take any one of them away and hearing would be lost.' And he says that this fits the criteria of Behe's theory. Wrong. Behe's theory is about simplifying a system without losing its function, that is true, but it is not a matter of something so gross as taking a whole bone out of the human ear. Rather, it involves simplifying of ANY kind. If any sort of simplifying, no matter how minor, can be accomplished without losing the system's function, then that system is not irreducibly complex. Obviously, it is possible to simplify the current human ear somewhat without losing hearing. So Behe would never, never have proposed this example, Miller only says he would. Miller then proceeds to quite easily disprove his own mis-statement and seems to be proud of his efforts. What a laugh!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 22:27:04 (EDT) From: Jim Email: None To: Way Subject: You're blowing smoke, Way Message:

Way, what's with you? Behe does exactly what you say he'd 'never, never' do in his discussion of the eye in pages 18 to 22 and 36 to 39. That is, he attributes his hocus pocus mark of God ('irreducible complexity') on an organ that, like the ear, can be simplified to some extent without, as you say, losing its function. I think you owe Mr. Miller a big apology.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 31, 1999 at 10:20:21 (EDT) From: Way Email: None To: Jim Subject: Re: You're blowing smoke, Way Message:

Jim, I am just now getting back to you on your post of last week concerning Behe and the eye. I have now re-read the pages of Behe's book that you cited. You are quite wrong to say that Behe proposes the eye as an example of irreducible complexity. On the contrary, in these pages Behe makes it clear that his theory of irreducible complexity does not address the anatomical structure of the eye, whether it be a very complex structure such as the human eye, or a much more simpler structure such as the photoreceptor cells in the jellyfish. Rather, his theory would address the biochemical processes of vision at the molecular level. Actually, Behe does not propose anything about the eye and/or vision in regard to his theory of irreducible complexity. He does quote some of the past debate on the subject of eye anatomy evolution and he concludes that the question remains open and unproven either way. If Behe were to use vision as an example of his theory of irreducible complexity he would isolate a single biochemical process at the cellular level in the simplest light-sensitive structure possible. But he does not. Instead, he proposes five or six other examples which are less challenging in terms of the practical problems of future research. By the way, one of your objections to Behe is that he is a practicing Roman Catholic. Did you know that Ken Miller, whose critique we are discussing, is the same?!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index