Suzanne -:- Hello Everyone -:- Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 18:56:03 (EST)

__ Gregg -:- Re: Enjoylife w/o the Belief System! (nt) -:- Fri, Dec 17, 1999 at 11:50:08 (EST)

__ Susan -:- Hi Suzanne -:- Fri, Dec 17, 1999 at 11:09:50 (EST)

__ AJW -:- Re: Hello Everyone -:- Fri, Dec 17, 1999 at 07:11:09 (EST)

__ __ Jack -:- Had He been Nice.... -:- Mon, Dec 20, 1999 at 00:40:34 (EST)

__ __ __ Jim -:- The point, Jack, is that he wasn't (nt) -:- Mon, Dec 20, 1999 at 23:28:01 (EST)

__ __ Susan -:- Great post Anth -:- Fri, Dec 17, 1999 at 11:12:32 (EST)

__ __ __ AJW -:- Hi Susan -:- Fri, Dec 17, 1999 at 22:34:12 (EST)

__ Jim -:- Welcome to your new cult -:- Fri, Dec 17, 1999 at 01:40:08 (EST)

__ JW -:- Hi Suzanne -:- Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 22:54:22 (EST)

__ JHB -:- Re: Hello Everyone -:- Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 21:40:29 (EST)

__ Robyn -:- Re: Hello Everyone -:- Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 21:24:51 (EST)

__ Enough -:- Re: Hello Everyone -:- Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 19:06:56 (EST)

__ Nigel -:- Welcome! -:- Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 19:04:25 (EST)

__ __ Cynthia -:- Re: Welcome! -:- Fri, Dec 17, 1999 at 09:54:22 (EST)

__ __ __ Marianne -:- Re: Welcome! -:- Fri, Dec 17, 1999 at 13:19:21 (EST)

octopus -:- How to recognise a real master ... -:- Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 11:48:58 (EST)

JHB -:- Insulting Post -:- Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 21:49:37 (EST)

__ Nigel -:- Shut yer festering gob, fuckwit! -:- Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 15:06:54 (EST)

__ __ JHB -:- That's more like it! (nt) -:- Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 21:33:46 (EST)

__ AJW -:- Oy You. -:- Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 10:04:27 (EST)

__ Ex -feline -:- Re: Insulting Post -:- Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 23:20:04 (EST)

__ Robyn -:- Re: Insulting Post -:- Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 23:13:33 (EST)

__ __ Marianne -:- Re: Insulting Post -:- Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 00:50:54 (EST)

Jim -:- Tortured Thinking (re Millenium) -:- Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 15:35:21 (EST)

__ Deputy Dog -:- Jim, 'Tortured Thinking' is your middle name (nt) -:- Sat, Dec 18, 1999 at 00:28:04 (EST)

__ __ Jim -:- Hey, ho! That's a real knee slapper, my good friend! -:- Sat, Dec 18, 1999 at 00:37:23 (EST)

__ __ __ Deputy Dog -:- Jim, I must admit, I had a good laugh too (nt) -:- Sat, Dec 18, 1999 at 19:18:42 (EST)

__ AJW -:- Millenium -:- Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 10:07:07 (EST)

__ __ Jim -:- What went wrong? Why nothing went wrong (??) -:- Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 10:26:12 (EST)

__ __ __ AJW -:- Peace on Earth -:- Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 10:45:24 (EST)

__ __ __ __ Jim -:- Yes, in fact it does -:- Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 10:53:32 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ JW -:- What 'Peace' Meant -:- Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 13:00:00 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Monmot -:- Joe, It's 'Grammar' :-)) (nt) -:- Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 13:15:19 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ JW -:- Yeah, You're Right -:- Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 22:57:52 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Why did it take U so long to admit this, Joe?? (nt) -:- Fri, Dec 17, 1999 at 02:42:41 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Don't want to be a stickler, Joe but you forgot the 'nt' -:- Fri, Dec 17, 1999 at 01:47:40 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JW -:- So Did You, You Black Kettle (NT) -:- Fri, Dec 17, 1999 at 13:22:01 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Racist! (nt) -:- Fri, Dec 17, 1999 at 20:59:31 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- I think he meant 'spelling' anyway (nt) -:- Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 13:27:49 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Monmot -:- It was said in jest, no offense intended at all (nt) -:- Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 14:25:26 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- OH YEAH!?!?!?!?!? (NT) -:- Fri, Dec 17, 1999 at 01:53:55 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Monmot -:- YEAH!!!!!!!!!! (NT) -:- Fri, Dec 17, 1999 at 02:23:05 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Monmot -:- Well, you remembered the NT (nt) -:- Fri, Dec 17, 1999 at 02:21:47 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Ha Ha... I remembered the NT, you didn't, asshole -:- Fri, Dec 17, 1999 at 02:27:40 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Roger eDrek -:- No disrespect, Jim, but I'm going to out you -:- Fri, Dec 17, 1999 at 02:45:33 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Monmot -:- Look again, and don't call me an asshole, I'm not -:- Fri, Dec 17, 1999 at 02:32:19 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Re: Look again, and don't call me an asshole, I'm not -:- Fri, Dec 17, 1999 at 02:44:02 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Monmot -:- Thank you! (nt) -:- Fri, Dec 17, 1999 at 02:53:10 (EST)

__ The Donkey God -:- Wonderful, Jim. We love you. -:- Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 15:53:18 (EST)

__ Jim -:- Here's another example -:- Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 15:38:03 (EST)

__ __ The Donkey God -:- Suberb, just, suberb. Jim. (nt) -:- Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 15:56:26 (EST)

__ __ Jim Hightower, Thirsty Heart -:- Re: Here's another example -:- Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 15:47:19 (EST)

__ __ __ The Donkey God -:- Que???? -:- Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 15:58:47 (EST)

__ __ __ __ Jim Hightower, Thirsty Heart -:- Re: Que???? -:- Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 16:03:22 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ The Donkey God -:- Sweet Jesus!!! -:- Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 16:32:15 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Jim Hightower, Thirsty Heart -:- Re: Sweet and Sour Jesus!!! -:- Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 16:41:20 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ The Donkey God. -:- A Word in Your Shell-Like -:- Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 16:57:39 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim Hightower, Smoking Heart -:- Re: A Word in Your Shell-Like -:- Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 17:04:36 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ The Donkey God -:- It's All A Little Joke, Right?? -:- Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 17:25:11 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim Hightower, Marlboro Man -:- Re: It's All A Little Joke, Right?? -:- Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 17:46:15 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ The Donkey God -:- Houston Remembered -:- Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 18:31:41 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim Hightower, Lap Dancer Wannabe -:- Re: Houston Remembered -:- Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 21:16:17 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Marianne -:- Re: Houston Remembered -- hilarious -:- Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 19:00:46 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ The Donkey God Stirrs -:- Well, hello Kentucky!! -:- Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 19:27:01 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim Hightower, Film Buff Extraordinaire -:- Re: Well, hello Kentucky!! -:- Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 21:21:17 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ The Donkey God -:- Ooops!! -:- Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 19:27:00 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Marianne -:- C'mon Donkey God -:- Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 19:35:08 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ The Donkey God Awakens -:- The Last Post -:- Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 20:31:38 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ The Outer -:- Sir David, it's your buddy Rob NT -:- Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 04:17:32 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ The Donkey God Yawns -:- Re: Sir David, it's your buddy Rob NT -:- Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 20:54:57 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ The Outer -:- Whatever. You're just another one of our chameleon pests (NT) -:- Fri, Dec 17, 1999 at 02:49:15 (EST)

Gregg -:- Steven Jay Gould (OT) -:- Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 12:17:27 (EST)

__ Jim -:- Yeah, I should have outed him years ago -:- Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 15:32:16 (EST)

__ __ nigel -:- Gould and Dawkins -:- Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 16:09:55 (EST)

__ __ __ Jim -:- Nigel, have you read the article? -:- Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 16:17:53 (EST)

__ __ __ __ nigel -:- Re: Nigel, have you read the article? -:- Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 06:10:18 (EST)

__ __ Way -:- What?! -:- Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 15:49:38 (EST)

__ __ __ Way -:- The article is... -:- Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 17:59:27 (EST)

Jim -:- Towards a new consensus reality -:- Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 11:44:57 (EST)

__ JHB -:- Catweasel??? I can't believe it! -:- Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 08:46:46 (EST)

__ __ Nigel -:- agreed 100% John (nt) -:- Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 15:43:44 (EST)

__ George Burns, perhaps -:- Re: Towards a new consensus reality -:- Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 00:01:59 (EST)

__ Katie -:- Addendum -:- Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 11:57:30 (EST)

__ __ Robyn -:- Re: Addendum -:- Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 07:59:00 (EST)

__ __ __ Roger eDrek -:- I knew Jack Kennedy, uh, I mean Jim Heller -:- Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 17:23:58 (EST)

__ __ __ __ gerry -:- I missed the bulging veins, too. -:- Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 17:48:40 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ Roger eDrek -:- that may happen soon -:- Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 18:09:37 (EST)

__ __ __ Jim -:- Your sarcasm masks your embarrassment, Robyn -:- Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 08:26:59 (EST)

__ __ __ __ Robyn -:- Re: Your sarcasm masks your embarrassment, Robyn -:- Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 11:11:50 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Re: Your sarcasm masks your embarrassment, Robyn -:- Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 11:43:39 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Runamok -:- your big black car -:- Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 11:55:54 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Just shut up, Run -:- Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 12:08:21 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Runamok -:- Okay, your'e little fake toy car, I'll admit it. -:- Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 16:14:57 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Okay, Run, I'll answer you -- if you do the same -:- Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 16:39:25 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Well, Run? -:- Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 22:02:04 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Runamok -:- dry run, try again but only if you like -:- Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 22:41:41 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Correct me if I'm wrong -- you're refusing to answer? Do I have that right? -:- Fri, Dec 17, 1999 at 01:45:50 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Runamok -:- I don't do isolated and secluded spots -:- Sat, Dec 18, 1999 at 00:13:53 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- You know what you look like now, Run? -:- Sat, Dec 18, 1999 at 07:49:12 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Runamok -:- Re: You know what you look like now, Run? -:- Sat, Dec 18, 1999 at 13:01:56 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Tell me why anyone should take you seriously anymore, Run? -:- Sat, Dec 18, 1999 at 17:46:13 (EST)

__ __ Jim -:- Katie, you're blind to the obvious -:- Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 15:22:07 (EST)

__ __ Katie -:- And Jim... -:- Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 12:55:43 (EST)

__ __ __ Selene -:- Re: And Jim... -:- Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 14:18:36 (EST)

__ __ Runamok -:- Well, People? -:- Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 12:27:12 (EST)

__ __ __ Nigel -:- What thing where? -:- Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 15:41:54 (EST)

__ __ __ __ Runamok -:- Re: What thing where? -:- Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 16:33:20 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- You are a little more transparent than you think, Run (Nigel, please read ) -:- Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 22:06:01 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ Nigel -:- Re: What thing where? -:- Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 19:50:05 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ Roger eDrek -:- Yeah, but the real issue is... -:- Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 16:43:46 (EST)

__ __ __ Marianne -:- EVERYONE: Please, please stop fighting! nt -:- Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 13:15:46 (EST)

__ __ __ __ Nick Danger, Third Eye -:- Re: EVERYONE: Please, please stop fighting! nt -:- Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 14:25:13 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- Marianne and Nick -:- Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 16:01:24 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Oh fuck off already with your 'Queen of Sensitivity' shtick -:- Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 16:16:20 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Lurk -:- The Rabid Chihuahua -:- Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 17:47:24 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Roger eDrek -:- A kinder and gentler forum -:- Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 17:56:46 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Helen -:- Re: A kinder and gentler forum -:- Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 23:27:37 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- Unfortunately, Jim, I AM sensitive -:- Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 16:59:27 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Tough -:- Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 00:27:14 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Don't talk about premies Jim... -:- you are the biggest asshole on the forum! -:- Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 17:03:37 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- OUCH! An anonymous person called me a bad name! (nt) -:- Fri, Dec 17, 1999 at 01:49:31 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JHB -:- BUT WHAT DID HE SAY??? -:- Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 05:18:55 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- John, it's SO BAD, I don't know if I can -:- Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 08:30:17 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JHB -:- Re: John, it's SO BAD, I don't know if I can -:- Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 08:38:50 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Monmot -:- Re: John, it's SO BAD, I don't know if I can -:- Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 10:36:19 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Runamok -:- Jim and the Oh fuck offs -:- Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 17:11:48 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Roger eDrek -:- Re: Jim and the Oh fuck offs -:- Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 17:27:10 (EST)

__ __ __ __ gerry -:- here's what we should do... -:- Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 14:19:09 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ Runamok -:- Herr Ger, do you think Lenny Bruce -:- Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 17:14:30 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ Roger eDrek -:- forced behavior modification (being in a cult) -:- Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 17:11:20 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Helen -:- Re: forced behavior modification (being in a cult) -:- Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 23:36:14 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Helen -:- Re: forced behavior modification (being in a cult) -:- Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 23:43:00 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- You can't generalize about these things too much -:- Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 11:29:13 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Roger eDrek -:- Ok, who is being so mean? -:- Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 06:05:53 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Robyn -:- Re: Ok, who is being so mean? -:- Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 08:13:50 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- I can answer that one -:- Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 11:06:51 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Robyn -:- Re: I can answer that one -:- Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 11:20:22 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- That's a myth I don't buy -:- Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 11:55:30 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JHB -:- Re: Ok, who is being so mean? -:- Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 07:25:20 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Roger eDrek -:- Agreed. And you're lucky it was deleted ; ) NT -:- Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 16:05:23 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ the first Ian -:- Re: forced behavior modification (being in a cult) -:- Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 18:49:42 (EST)

Date: Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 18:56:03 (EST) From: Suzanne Email: None To: All Subject: Hello Everyone Message:

I haven't posted in awhile, but some of you may remember from the last time I did that I'm a very recent ex-premie. I had a lot of big doubts for a long time, but I continued to just overlook them and go through the motions of practicing knowledege, even though I was miserable. I obviously needed some support. This website and this forum have really helped me a lot. I was afraid my husband, who was also a premie, would not understand my wanting to break free. Well, now he does, partly because I pointed him to this website. He spent about 16 hours straight just reading what people had written. It's been great to realize that he had many of the same doubts I did and now we support each other in our decision to get out of what we now realize is a cult. It is hard though. We have friends who we don't feel we can tell about this, although they will notice sooner or later that we don't go to events anymore. We have told our families and they are very supportive. Thanks again for this website. Without it, I think we would have felt even more isolated than we do. Happy Holidays. We will be starting the new year with a new life. Or at least it feels that way.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Dec 17, 1999 at 11:50:08 (EST) From: Gregg Email: None To: Suzanne Subject: Re: Enjoylife w/o the Belief System! (nt) Message:

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Dec 17, 1999 at 11:09:50 (EST) From: Susan Email: None To: Suzanne Subject: Hi Suzanne Message:

Good to read your post. Welcome to life in the real world !

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Dec 17, 1999 at 07:11:09 (EST) From: AJW Email: anthginn@yahoo.com To: Suzanne Subject: Re: Hello Everyone Message:

Hi Suzanne, How long were you in, and how long have you been out? I did about a 25 year stretch, and have been officially out for about a year and a half. Something reassuring about leaving has been watching the internal process going on as I untangle myself from all the wierd stuff I'd filled my head up with. Losing friends has been one of my big concerns too. I've lost a few, who've said they can't be my friend while I'm 'damaging His Work on Earth' (vomit vomit). Others have backed off, but not broken diplomatic realtions. Others are just as close as ever. I guess, like someone says below, you'll find out who your real friends are. Unfortunately friendship is something that has always been degraded within the cult. Like it's some sort of obstacle in realising who your 'real friend' is. Well Suzanne, he ain't our friend. And he never was. We were just their to worship him and give his fantasy about being the Lord some substance. We're the lucky ones Suzanne. We've got our thank God. We can start picking up the pieces and getting on with our lives. I look back on the leaving the cult like I look back on quitting smoking cigarettes. Never ever one second of regret. Simply lots of relief that I've escaped before the end of my life. Have you written your 'Journey' down. I found that incredibly theraputing after I quit being braindead. Have a Cool Yule. Anth the Still Leaving.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 20, 1999 at 00:40:34 (EST) From: Jack Email: None To: AJW Subject: Had He been Nice.... Message:

Hi AJ, Had Miraji been 'nice' and polite to you, do you think this would have made a difference to you? Do you think you would still be in the fold if he had welcomed you with open arms because you had money or what ever it takes to turn his crank? Jack

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 20, 1999 at 23:28:01 (EST) From: Jim Email: None To: Jack Subject: The point, Jack, is that he wasn't (nt) Message:

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Dec 17, 1999 at 11:12:32 (EST) From: Susan Email: None To: AJW Subject: Great post Anth Message:

This line stands out... I look back on the leaving the cult like I look back on quitting smoking cigarettes. Never ever one second of regret. Simply lots of relief that I've escaped before the end of my life.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Dec 17, 1999 at 22:34:12 (EST) From: AJW Email: None To: Susan Subject: Hi Susan Message:

Hi Susan, Hello and lotsa festive love to you and yours. The wheels are still creaking around over here. It's 3.32am and I'm just back from Latvia and much the worse for wear. Anth the looking at his bed and will certainly be unconscious upon it in the next 5 minutes, goodni.....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Dec 17, 1999 at 01:40:08 (EST) From: Jim Email: None To: Suzanne Subject: Welcome to your new cult Message:

Suzanne, Lucky you that your husband's able to follow his mind through this. After all, as Maharaji always promised, your mind is the only thing that can take you away from him. :) Nice to hear from you.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 22:54:22 (EST) From: JW Email: None To: Suzanne Subject: Hi Suzanne Message:

It's posts like yours that makes me think all that happens here, whether we think it's what is supposed to be happening or not, is well worth it. Thanks for letting us know, and Merry Christmas.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 21:40:29 (EST) From: JHB Email: None To: Suzanne Subject: Re: Hello Everyone Message:

Suzanne, I'm glad this forum has helped. But now is the time to be a little bit alone. You have to be confident within yourself that you are doing, thinking and feeling the rght thing. We were young when we got ensnared. Now we are older, and understand that we are responsible for ourselves. I wish you and your husband all the best in your future search for the truth. John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 21:24:51 (EST) From: Robyn Email: None To: Suzanne Subject: Re: Hello Everyone Message:

Dear Suzanne, I am so glad you found your way here and to ex-premie.org and that it helped you and now that it also helped your husband. Good news for sure. :) I hope you both continue to grow comfortable and happy, into your 'new' life. In many ways it will be new and I hope better. Love and welcome, Robyn

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 19:06:56 (EST) From: Enough Email: None To: Suzanne Subject: Re: Hello Everyone Message:

Hi- Just a quick word as I was about to leave. For right now, don't worry about your friends. Just take care of yourselves. You're very fortunate to have each other. Your real friends will surface and those that were really just a cult thing will go away. Youll find out who is a friend. Take care and I'm glad you both got here.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 19:04:25 (EST) From: Nigel Email: fitzroy@liverpool.ac.uk To: Suzanne Subject: Welcome! Message:

Thanks Suzanne. You say you have friends you can't tell about this. I hope you and your hubby find you have friends here you CAN tell, via the forum or email, whatever - if you feel like it. Anyway, welcome... Best, Nigel

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Dec 17, 1999 at 09:54:22 (EST) From: Cynthia Email: cynthia@madriver.com To: Suzanne Subject: Re: Welcome! Message:

Dear Suzanne, I'm so glad you posted. I'm also a recent ex. Only a few months. I got into the cult in 1975, left about 1981, and after 15 years tried to go back, but I saw things from such a different perspective. As for friends, I have a close relative who is still a premie. We've agreed to not discuss it for now, although she has expressed doubts about m. I think that you'll find there are many folks here who have gone through the same thing with premie friends. I wish you the best, Happy Holidays, Cynthia

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Dec 17, 1999 at 13:19:21 (EST) From: Marianne Email: MarianneDB@aol.com To: Suzanne Subject: Re: Welcome! Message:

Hi Suzanne & husband: Congratulations on leaving the cult. Making the decision to extract yourself from Maharaji's clutches is just as painful as actually leaving. Trust that you've made the right decision. Trust in yourselves! It is very liberating. I suspect you feel a great weight has been lifted from your shoulders. The forum is a great place to get support while you sort out your departure. Yeah, we fight amongst ourselves sometimes, but that's what happens when you've got a big group talking to each other. On the whole, there are some wonderful folks here who have been through exactly what you're experiencing, and who can help. You're free to have wonderful holidays with your birth families. Enjoy your new found freedom. Marianne

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 11:48:58 (EST) From: octopus Email: None To: All Subject: How to recognise a real master ... Message:

Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it. Buddha

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 21:49:37 (EST) From: JHB Email: brauns@dircon.co.uk To: All Subject: Insulting Post Message:

In a thread below ('Are Premies beyond Logic?') someone replied to one of my posts and the reply was deleted before I was able to read it. The Forum Admin could only recall that it consisted of abuse towards me, and, more interestingly, referred to me by my surname. I therefore got to thinking that maybe it was someone who knows me, and I've got under their skin. I am also jealous, because other people on this forum get far more than their fair share of insults. I however hadn't received any before this, and then I didn't even get the chance to read it:-( So if the person who insulted me could please do it again, and, Forum Admin, please give me a chance to read it, then I'll feel much more like part of the family here. Thank you. John

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 15:06:54 (EST) From: Nigel Email: fitzroy@liverpool.ac.uk To: JHB Subject: Shut yer festering gob, fuckwit! Message:

Your type really makes me puke, you arse-faced, shit-for-brains, toffee-nosed git. You great stinking malodorous heap of decaying scab-matter. You festering sore, you. You bloated fucking pustule on the face of humanity. How can you dare to breathe? Now sod the fuck off, why don't you.. Will that do?:-) Welcome to the Forum IV school of social etiquette. Mind you speak nicely to others... Nige

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 21:33:46 (EST) From: JHB Email: None To: Nigel Subject: That's more like it! (nt) Message:

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 10:04:27 (EST) From: AJW Email: None To: JHB Subject: Oy You. Message:

Sod off you fat Northern Git. Anth the Insulter. (That OK John?)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 23:20:04 (EST) From: Ex -feline Email: The Limit To: JHB Subject: Re: Insulting Post Message:

Hey John , I dont even know you but I'm more than happy to abuse you! What do you prefer :personal or generic? Mental or physical......Come on baby ...LET'S RUMBLE....

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 23:13:33 (EST) From: Robyn Email: None To: JHB Subject: Re: Insulting Post Message:

Dear John, What a cute post John. I replied to your 2nd post to me in that Oh Robyn thread but by the time I realized it didn't post my intrest in it had waned. If you want to discuss it further you could email me. I just wanted you to know I was't blowing you off. Love, Robyn

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 00:50:54 (EST) From: Marianne Email: None To: JHB Subject: Re: Insulting Post Message:

'I went down to the Forum Just to get my fair share of abuse......' Gotta love you Brits! Don't worry, John. I'll save up all my abuse til I get to London..... Fondly, Marianne

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 15:35:21 (EST) From: Jim Email: None To: All Subject: Tortured Thinking (re Millenium) Message:

This popped up on ELK today. Notice how confused the premies are in somehow making sense of this coming Millenium with the 'real' one 27 years ago: Tim Williams Tampa, Fl, USA Millennium Here it is, as the Millennium approaches: '1000 years of peace for those who want peace.' I remember going to the Astrodome to celebrate it like it was yesterday. Sitting on the lawn outside contemplating the future, none of us could have imagined what paths we would find. Maharaji kept a lot of young people from losing their lives to drugs. There are many alive today who know what I mean. A thousand 'thank yous' for Millennium.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Dec 18, 1999 at 00:28:04 (EST) From: Deputy Dog Email: None To: Jim Subject: Jim, 'Tortured Thinking' is your middle name (nt) Message:

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Dec 18, 1999 at 00:37:23 (EST) From: Jim Email: None To: Deputy Dog Subject: Hey, ho! That's a real knee slapper, my good friend! Message:

Oh little poochie, You really broke me up with that one! Excellent!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Dec 18, 1999 at 19:18:42 (EST) From: Deputy Dog Email: None To: Jim Subject: Jim, I must admit, I had a good laugh too (nt) Message:

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 10:07:07 (EST) From: AJW Email: None To: Jim Subject: Millenium Message:

Hi Jim, Tim must be talking about, 'The Greatest Event Ever to Take Place in the History of Humanity', when Maharaji told the press he was going to establish Peace on Earth. Hmmmmn. Wonder what went wrong? Anth the Millenial

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 10:26:12 (EST) From: Jim Email: None To: AJW Subject: What went wrong? Why nothing went wrong (??) Message:

You know, Anth, despite whatever else Maharaji or any premie might say, I think the one thing they're sure to say is that nothing went wrong at Millenium. Now don't get into asking them how that might be, or what went right or how they could possibly explain away the hype. That's tricky shit. But, on a simple, simple level the answer's clear -- nothing went wrong. Next question, please?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 10:45:24 (EST) From: AJW Email: None To: Jim Subject: Peace on Earth Message:

Hi Jim, It now seems, when Maharaji was talking about 'Establishing Peace on Earth', there being 'no more guns', and the 'lion laying the lamb' or whatever, what he really meant was, he would establish peace inside a few premies, for varying lengths of time. So, if you or I calm down an agitated person for a while, does this mean we've established Peace on Earth too? Anth the Peaceful

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 10:53:32 (EST) From: Jim Email: None To: AJW Subject: Yes, in fact it does Message:

Yes, Anth, it does. In fact what Maharaji gave us more than anything was the licence to use that term, 'Peace on Earth' ('POE') much more liberally than ever before. Why'd we never have POE before? Why, because we'd set our standards too high, of course! What's the good in having something as mouth-watering sweet as POE if you can only dream about it? Well Maharaji lowered the standard to something a bit more manageable and now it's POE here, POE there, POE, POE everywhere.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 13:00:00 (EST) From: JW Email: None To: Jim Subject: What 'Peace' Meant Message:

I think part of the reason Maharaji made those claims was because the year 2000 was a LONG way away in 1973 and to a kid who was only 15, it seemed like an eternity. Unfortunately, the Millennium is showing up a lot sooner than he thought and he has nothing to show for the past 26 years, except a dwindling group of aging hippies who still believe in him, to one degree or another, and depending on the particular day you ask them. Maharaji has tried to declare victory and just drop the embarrassing fact that he ever made those claims. I think he's now saying that at least one person has received knowledge in most of the countries of the world, so 'peace' has been established. He hopes people will just forget that he really did talk about how by revealing knowledge war would end, people wouldn't be starving anymore and there would be peace and harmony around the world. I think by any standard, the world is much more messed up in relation to those measures than it was in 1973. By the way you guys, and this is a particular irritation for me, MILLENNIUM had TWO (2) Ns!!! JW, wearing his 'Mr. Grammer' hat.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 13:15:19 (EST) From: Monmot Email: None To: JW Subject: Joe, It's 'Grammar' :-)) (nt) Message:

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 22:57:52 (EST) From: JW Email: None To: Monmot Subject: Yeah, You're Right Message:

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Dec 17, 1999 at 02:42:41 (EST) From: Jim Email: None To: JW Subject: Why did it take U so long to admit this, Joe?? (nt) Message:

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Dec 17, 1999 at 01:47:40 (EST) From: Jim Email: None To: JW Subject: Don't want to be a stickler, Joe but you forgot the 'nt' Message:

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Dec 17, 1999 at 13:22:01 (EST) From: JW Email: None To: Jim Subject: So Did You, You Black Kettle (NT) Message:

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Dec 17, 1999 at 20:59:31 (EST) From: Jim Email: None To: JW Subject: Racist! (nt) Message:

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 13:27:49 (EST) From: Jim Email: None To: Monmot Subject: I think he meant 'spelling' anyway (nt) Message:

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 14:25:26 (EST) From: Monmot Email: None To: Jim Subject: It was said in jest, no offense intended at all (nt) Message:

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Dec 17, 1999 at 01:53:55 (EST) From: Jim Email: None To: Monmot Subject: OH YEAH!?!?!?!?!? (NT) Message:

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Dec 17, 1999 at 02:23:05 (EST) From: Monmot Email: None To: Jim Subject: YEAH!!!!!!!!!! (NT) Message:

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Dec 17, 1999 at 02:21:47 (EST) From: Monmot Email: None To: Jim Subject: Well, you remembered the NT (nt) Message:

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Dec 17, 1999 at 02:27:40 (EST) From: Jim Email: None To: Monmot Subject: Ha Ha... I remembered the NT, you didn't, asshole Message:

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Dec 17, 1999 at 02:45:33 (EST) From: Roger eDrek Email: None To: Jim Subject: No disrespect, Jim, but I'm going to out you Message:

Down below I told of a party at Jim's Chinatown apartment in Victoria. Gerry had also attended such a party and wondered why no one called the police. I'll tell you why. Jim's got the dope on everyone in that town and he's threatened to out them all. I'm talking about the mayor, the Chief of Police, and all the way down to the dog catcher. One thing I should mention about Jim is that he is stuck in the '60s and wears brightly colored bell bottoms and platform shoes.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Dec 17, 1999 at 02:32:19 (EST) From: Monmot Email: None To: Jim Subject: Look again, and don't call me an asshole, I'm not Message:

Jim: I don't know why you're picking a fight with me.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Dec 17, 1999 at 02:44:02 (EST) From: Jim Email: None To: Monmot Subject: Re: Look again, and don't call me an asshole, I'm not Message:

Oops.... I'm not -- wasn't

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Dec 17, 1999 at 02:53:10 (EST) From: Monmot Email: None To: Jim Subject: Thank you! (nt) Message:

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 15:53:18 (EST) From: The Donkey God Email: None To: Jim Subject: Wonderful, Jim. We love you. Message:

Terrific stuff. Keep 'em comin'. Making confusion out of sense is just so cute. Thankyou.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 15:38:03 (EST) From: Jim Email: None To: Jim Subject: Here's another example Message:

Note how the 'Greatest Event in the History of Mankind' is now a 'conference' that Maharaji 'attended': Josephine Leslie-Jackson London, UK The 'original' Millennium In 1973 Maharaji attended a conference at the Houston Astrodome, Texas. The conference was widely publicised across the US, the majority of people who attended it had never heard his message before. In the Astrodome the feeling was electric for the three day event. The PR slogan for that first sizeable event in the US was 'Millennium - A Thousand Years of Peace'. For those of us that were there and still here today on-line we are witnesses to his unchanging message that still reaches the hearts of Texans and Londoners... Maharaji still addresses audiences of that size and larger, his words and inspiration touches the hearts of those that are thirsty and want to hear more. Forget Y2K, before meltdown visit www.maharaji.org

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 15:56:26 (EST) From: The Donkey God Email: None To: Jim Subject: Suberb, just, suberb. Jim. (nt) Message:

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 15:47:19 (EST) From: Jim Hightower, Thirsty Heart Email: None To: Jim Subject: Re: Here's another example Message:

Although I'm from Texas, and repeatedly enjoy that 'unchanging' message, what about the poor souls who aren't from The Lone Star state or London? Can't modern technology be utilized in order to reach out to the great unwashed non-Texans and non-Londoners?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 15:58:47 (EST) From: The Donkey God Email: None To: Jim Hightower, Thirsty Heart Subject: Que???? Message:

Que???

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 16:03:22 (EST) From: Jim Hightower, Thirsty Heart Email: None To: The Donkey God Subject: Re: Que???? Message:

'For those of us that were there and still here today on-line we are witnesses to his unchanging message that still reaches the hearts of Texans and Londoners... ' Does that answer your 'Que???' ?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 16:32:15 (EST) From: The Donkey God Email: None To: Jim Hightower, Thirsty Heart Subject: Sweet Jesus!!! Message:

.....Er, welcome to Earth. Do you speak English. Parlez vous Francais. Sprechen ze Kraut...... It's no use, Jim , you can't rebuild a human brain. (actual quote from 1st Star Trek series)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 16:41:20 (EST) From: Jim Hightower, Thirsty Heart Email: None To: The Donkey God Subject: Re: Sweet and Sour Jesus!!! Message:

The $64K question is: Do you read English? No two ways to misunderstand 'For those of us that were there and still here today on-line we are witnesses to his unchanging message that still reaches the hearts of Texans and Londoners... ' What happened to the rest of the world? Or are you just being wilfully ignorant?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 16:57:39 (EST) From: The Donkey God. Email: None To: Jim Hightower, Thirsty Heart Subject: A Word in Your Shell-Like Message:

Hello, big boy. Are you quite sure your on the right forum? This one's for quiet philosophical and biblical discussions and suchlike. Do you smoke Marlboro?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 17:04:36 (EST) From: Jim Hightower, Smoking Heart Email: None To: The Donkey God. Subject: Re: A Word in Your Shell-Like Message:

Dear DG: How'd you guess about the Marlboros (Lights, of course, don't want to get cancer too fast)? Just got off Ole Paint and am enjoying a cig as we speak. Like your avoidance technique. Is that the Fifth Technique? And I don't see any quiet philosophical/biblical discussion(s) emanating from Your Holiness The Donkey Godhead. You, perhaps, are on the wrong forum. Off to check the cattle...all hat and all cattle, btw.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 17:25:11 (EST) From: The Donkey God Email: None To: Jim Hightower, Smoking Heart Subject: It's All A Little Joke, Right?? Message:

Hi cowboy, I'm not entirely sure I'm clear about what it is you have to say? Are you for real with this 'unchanging message ' story. Please say you're playing a little joke. WHAT 'unchanging message.' From where? From WHOM? To whom? About what? It's a joke, right? your new friend, DG

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 17:46:15 (EST) From: Jim Hightower, Marlboro Man Email: None To: The Donkey God Subject: Re: It's All A Little Joke, Right?? Message:

Dear DG: I was spoofing the inanity of the quote that Jim lifted from maharaji.org, to wit: 'For those of us that were there and still here today on-line we are witnesses to his unchanging message that still reaches the hearts of Texans and Londoners... ' A premie posted that bit of wisdom, and I was taking a shot at it (between cigs, of course). This is the third or so time I've quoted that, so I don't think you're reading it all the way through for some reason. Here's answers to your questions: From where: maharaji.org From whom: a premie in the UK (perhaps you?) To whom: whoever reads maharaji.org About what: The Big Kahuna Himself--M It's a joke, right?: I didn't write it, so you'll have to ask the premie who wrote it Well, now I need a cig like never before. Got a light? Warm Regards, Jim Hightower Your New Bud in the Saddle

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 18:31:41 (EST) From: The Donkey God Email: None To: Jim Hightower, Marlboro Man Subject: Houston Remembered Message:

Excellent. Gosh, Mr Highwater, I never thought have thought a Texan was capable of such wicked irony. Bravo!! For a moment we nearly had two exes arguing. That would have been a first. Well, I'm off to get some riding lessons and some BIG boots. And a whip. I'll leave you with my abiding memory of The Houston Millenium Festival. The Hare Krishnas had embarked on a mass prolonged jive next to one of the several box offices that ringed the arena. They were a bit of a distraction from the tedium of hanging around putting on weight from eating all those appalling Jelly & Peanut Butter sandwichs. They were building up to a spectacular crescendo, urged on by the sadistic onlookers. Love 'em or hate 'em, those guys were FIT. They could boogie all day and all night and still bang a tambourine. They even had dancers up on top of the box office. Some kill-joy honcho had called the federales who arrived with a meat wagon to escort them to the local Death Camps. The cops opened the doors and the whole gang of 'em DANCED into the back without missing a beat. The doors were shut and the truck was still visably rocking as the captives inside boogied on. As the wagon left they still danced. For all I know they're still at it. Now THAT'S dedication. I wonder if there's an ex-harekrishna site. I hear a lot of them went into the lap-dancing scene. You can always spot 'em in those joints. Great dancers, but bald as the baldest of bald eagles. An' that's bald. Ho, hum, off to branding practice. Rollin, rollin', rollin'......................... DG.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 21:16:17 (EST) From: Jim Hightower, Lap Dancer Wannabe Email: None To: The Donkey God Subject: Re: Houston Remembered Message:

DG: Very funny...LOL...nothing like a good yuk between cigs, but all that laughing makes me cough up yeller phlegm something horrible. I shoulda joined the Krishnas...still can't stand looking at apple butter, though I've reacquainted myself with peanut butter, a fine victual when roaming the range by my lonesome, and ungluing my tongue from the top of my mouth affords plenty of entertainment. Can't wait til your riding, ropin', and branding lessons are done and you can join me...gets mighty lonely out there on the dusty plains with the wind blowin' through my salt 'n pepper hair and no one to see it. And one more thing: those Krishnas really knew how to gum up the works. Remember the sugar in the gas tanks scenario? Master saboteurs, or else they had stock in rebuilt engines. Later Pardner Ad Hoc Tui

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 19:00:46 (EST) From: Marianne Email: None To: The Donkey God Subject: Re: Houston Remembered -- hilarious Message:

DG: The hare krishna story is very, very funny. I remember seeing them outside the dome all the time too. I also remember how lots of the motels near by had signs warning about the wrath of God, threatening Bible quotes, etc. If you get to see the LOTU video, you'll be reminded of the Bible thumpers who stood around and promised eternal hell and damnation to all of us. Wonder what they're doing today? Do tell Mr. Hightower, as they were in your jurisdiction. BTW, Donkey God, I don't think you're an ex. Convince me otherwise. Marianne

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 19:27:01 (EST) From: The Donkey God Stirrs Email: None To: Marianne Subject: Well, hello Kentucky!! Message:

Marie-Louise, I can be anything you want, honey. I do a great Burt Lancaster - what was the film called? I burn guru effigies daily. I swear a lot and do all sorts of bad fun things. And only an infrequent 'E'. However if we can't get on, I'll introduce you to my cousin 'The Giraffe God.' He's kinda different. DG

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 21:21:17 (EST) From: Jim Hightower, Film Buff Extraordinaire Email: None To: The Donkey God Stirrs Subject: Re: Well, hello Kentucky!! Message:

Gee whililkers, Donkey God, Burt was in 'Elmer Gantry' if I recollect good enough. Burt was one buff dude, but a damn Yankee.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 19:27:00 (EST) From: The Donkey God Email: None To: Marianne Subject: Ooops!! Message:

Oops!! Got two of 'em posted.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 19:35:08 (EST) From: Marianne Email: None To: The Donkey God Subject: C'mon Donkey God Message:

C'mon Donkey God -- you're a real character. What's your Journey to and from the LOTU, if you are in fact a real ex. You have the same browser as NATO, down below, who is engaged in a meaningless sniping match with my friend JW. Keep the Donkey God persona and ditch nasty NATO. NATO, unfortunately, sounds very much like URL.... Thanks for the comic relief anyway. Marie-Louise in Kentucky

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 20:31:38 (EST) From: The Donkey God Awakens Email: None To: Marianne Subject: The Last Post Message:

Cinders, My story is too horrific and gory and filled with suffering for the ears of a kitchen maid such as yourself. I have other tales that will, I'm sure be to your liking. Stick around. NATO is in fact Ugandan for 'Donkey'. It might just look like a 'meaningless sniping match' to you but I'll have you know it a life and death struggle to your bum chum. NATO is not at all like URL. There are slight differences. Like the letters. And no matter how much you try they still sound completely different when uttered. Unless you've got a bottle of Scotch down yer neck. Mind you most of the English language sounds pretty similar under those circumstances. your new admirer, The Donkey God

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 04:17:32 (EST) From: The Outer Email: None To: The Donkey God Awakens Subject: Sir David, it's your buddy Rob NT Message:

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 20:54:57 (EST) From: The Donkey God Yawns Email: None To: The Outer Subject: Re: Sir David, it's your buddy Rob NT Message:

Rubbish!!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Dec 17, 1999 at 02:49:15 (EST) From: The Outer Email: None To: The Donkey God Yawns Subject: Whatever. You're just another one of our chameleon pests (NT) Message:

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 12:17:27 (EST) From: Gregg Email: None To: Jim Subject: Steven Jay Gould (OT) Message:

Hey Jim, have you read the article on Steven Jay Gould in the current (or last week's) New Yorker? It basically says that Gould has done more harm than good to the evolutionists' cause...giving the creationists ammunition, by his insisting on the random nature of evolution...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 15:32:16 (EST) From: Jim Email: None To: Gregg Subject: Yeah, I should have outed him years ago Message:

Gregg, I'll check it out. Thanks. I've never liked Gould anyway for some reason. Too florrid. Besides, anyone who doesn't worship Richard Dawkins is no friend fo mine.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 16:09:55 (EST) From: nigel Email: nigel@redcrow.demon.co.uk To: Jim Subject: Gould and Dawkins Message:

Jim, the so-called outright hostility between Dawkins and Gould is largely a fiction created by observers. You've got 'Unweaving the Rainbow', right? Dawkins writes (p. 193): 'My remaining examples of bad poetry in evolutionary science come largely from a single author, the American palaeontologist and author, Stephen Jay Gould. I am anxious that such critical concentration upon one individual ['one individual' ? - bit of a tautology, there, Richard!] shall not be taken as personally rancorous. On the contrary, it is Gould's excellence as a writer that makes his errors, when they occur, so eminently worth rebutting.' Pretty respectful, no? (even if 'eminently worth rebutting' is just a little florid for my liking!) Actually I think their squabbles are purely academic - mainly do with with gradual versus episodic change in evolution. Both men are out-and-out Darwinists - and it is the creationists (Dawkins and Gould both despise Creationism) who seek to play up any disagreements between evolutionists. If one of them is wrong, mightn't they all be wrong? or so they try to argue. (And Creationists can only ever try to argue...) For the same reason there are probably premies reading the forum who start to feel irrationally smug when they see the exes falling out. Dawkins devotes most of that chapter trying to attack Gould politely, but makes a bit of pig's ear of it, IMO, turning most of his fire on other writers who he brands 'Gouldians'. He can find only one quote of Gould's to take issue with (p. 194) - a couple of sentences snipped, out of context, from a 1977 essay. The quote doesn't seem to offer much support for Dawkins' attack, IMO. So much for 'all [his] remaining examples ... come largely from a single author...' Actually, I usually like both Gould and Dawkins' writing a lot - even if their recent books haven't been up to the standard of earlier works. They have both achieved wonders in terms of educating the public to the truth of evolutionary theory, including me. I wish people would focus more on the common ground between them.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 16:17:53 (EST) From: Jim Email: None To: nigel Subject: Nigel, have you read the article? Message:

Let's both read it and talk. (P.S. I tried to reach you again the other day. Will connect sooner or later)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 06:10:18 (EST) From: nigel Email: fitzroy@liverpool.ac.uk To: Jim Subject: Re: Nigel, have you read the article? Message:

I haven't read the article but I would like to. There has been an irritating Gould-bashing habit over recent years among certain would-be evolutionary writers (including people like Dennett who is just a philospher, fer Christ's sake...) and none that I have seen have been able to make the mud stick. Given that Gould is still an active researcher and holds professorships in both zoology and paleontology kind of biases me to trust him to know what he is talking about, florid or otherwise... I'll be at home in the late evenings a lot more between now and the Yuletide pagan love-festivities so, given the eight-hour time lag, probably around mid-afternoon your time would be best for calling most days.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 15:49:38 (EST) From: Way Email: None To: Jim Subject: What?! Message:

Whatever the article says against stressing randomness indicts Dawkins as well as Gould.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 17:59:27 (EST) From: Way Email: None To: All Subject: The article is... Message:

...is in Dec. 13th issue, entitled 'Reputations: the Accidental Creationist...' sounds good.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 11:44:57 (EST) From: Jim Email: None To: All Subject: Towards a new consensus reality Message:

Well, this is pretty hilarious. Over on AG Run and Katie (Regis and Cathy?) are hosting their own morning show. Coffee's over there. Help yourself and join the studio audience. Today's topic is 'Jim Heller and Whatever Happened to the Forum that Never Was?' And there are some truly interesting guests sharing some wonderful, wonderful moments. Here are just a few: Catweasel, of all people, (or sorry, the 'Person Formerly Known as Catweasel') is a guest and he describes what we all knew all along, what he'd tried to tell us so many times (but who had ears to hear then amidst all the clang of armour and powder explosions?) that he never really wanted to be a content-less asshole here. I, Jim Heller, made him do it! Hey, don't believe me? Read: There are some things that are universal Run. Jim is not a rational person over there , here or anywhere else for that matter. More importantly he is not a kind or pleasant person. He displays no generosity of spirit. Katie , Dave and others do...and get cruelly bagged by the slimster for not being as harsh and narrowminded as he is. The illusive Catweasel was created by Jim......the character at times is simply a response to abuse. No-one likes to be abused and belittled. No-one . Jim has set the tone for ForumIV. For that I am grateful. I don't agree with your postion on M But , I tell you ...with friends like Jim ,you dont need enemies. What I posted below is just a bit of fun....I mean every word of this. Can't you just FEEL the guy's sincerity? This is an earnest call that transcends all petty borders between premies and exes. Is he right? Well, you tell me. (Hint -- Katie, herself, the first secular saint of the Ex-Premie Cult who, once again, no one could even begin to thank enough for all the work that she and Brian have done for us all. I mean, don't even go there... but Katie herself endorses her feline friend's views with posie and equanimity. Want to see?: In the I Ching (snicker) it says 'the best way to fight evil is to make energetic progress in the good'. (I am not saying that Jim is EVIL here, but you probably get my drift). Anyway, that is usually what I try and do - although I do get really angry from time to time (and not only at Jim). As regards premies on the forum: as long as premies are allowed on the forum, I think they should be treated with respect - unless they're a total flamer or spammer who is saying nothing (and then they usually get blocked). I have read Catweasel's post below and I agree with it. Every time I have talked to Catweasel like he (or she?) is a human being, he's responded in kind, and I appreciate that. You can still disagree with people - even vehemently disagree with people - and treat them with respect. You can dislike people and treat them with respect. Well, at least for now, Katie's not saying I'm EVIL. Whew! That's a relief! But she does make the point that Cat was nothing but civil with her. Need she say another word? It's all in how you treat our premie friends, brothers and sisters. Watch Katie amble right into the Lion's Den and feed the little critters like deer in a petting zoo. Like I say, it's kind of like a miracle. Selene, a truly wonderful presence here since her first days (if any of you can recall what a treat they were) 'til now, offered her succinct measured opinion of my involvement here: Yes. If he had deliberately set out to sabotage Forum he couldn't have done it better. Good point. in response to Run who started the thread. Now I won't reprint anything he said because, well, Run doesn't give good sound bites, you know? Well, okay, I guess I can find something. Here, ladies and gentleman, is the Run philosophy in a nutshell. It's profound in its general righteousness if nothing else. Please, even if you're well familiar with Run's sentiments, read it again. You never know when you might learn something: IMO the premies would chill out too with a less abusive atmosphere. But let's not digress... People who do not want to be subject to verbal abuse are not going to argue directly with people who abuse them. There's a lot of convolution in the situation, a lot of people censoring themselves in dealing with the forum. If the cost of democracy is constant self-censorship than there's a problem. So run for sure understands the issues. I say the guys well on his way to even solving the problem. This is fascinating stuff, for sure. Oh, sorry, I forgot Harry ....

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 08:46:46 (EST) From: JHB Email: None To: Katie Subject: Catweasel??? I can't believe it! Message:

Katie, Regardless of the rights and wrongs of bringing this here, I can't believe you have given any respect to Catweasel. He was one of the most disruptive, unpleasant, evasive premies ever to come here, and just because he can write a post that seems quite pleasant occasionally in no way makes up for all the crap he's written here. John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 15:43:44 (EST) From: Nigel Email: nigel@redcrow.demon.co.uk To: JHB Subject: agreed 100% John (nt) Message:

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 00:01:59 (EST) From: George Burns, perhaps Email: None To: Jim Subject: Re: Towards a new consensus reality Message:

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 11:57:30 (EST) From: Katie Email: None To: Jim Subject: Addendum Message:

Jim, If you insist that the people on Forum IV HAVE to read this stuff, why don't you include the whole post? I also said on AG/Hell: IMHO, this personality problem discussion doesn't belong on Forum IV because most of the people there are not interested in it. Furthermore, even sensible and respectful posts about the problems within the forum tend to lead to LONG argumentative, flaming, threads... ...the forum is the main discussion group that new people go to from the ex-premie.org site, and I doubt if they want to read posts about intra-forum disagreement.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 07:59:00 (EST) From: Robyn Email: None To: Katie Subject: Re: Addendum Message:

Dear Katie, Please don't find fault with Jim, he is a cult zapper super hero you know. He wakes up and puts his cape on right over his pj's and get online. The cape gives him the powers and the drive to obliterate cult activities through no nonsense postings and copy/pasting of post from ALL cult forums and spread them around for all to see and hold to up to the light for inspection. This can take hours out of his day. Did you know he also has a day job, kind of like Super Man at The Daily Planet. He is a lawyer and that takes lots of his time too, then he is in a band and has a girlfriend. Personally I find her intriguing. Anyway, you'll have to admit that is a lot on anyones plate day in and day out for years on end. Of course he gets cranky with those of us who don't understand his worth and powers. If he doesn't conduct his super cult zapping hero duties completely or with tact, well who can fault him. So if you care about stopping this cult in it's tracts, please don't hamper his efforts with thoughs of fairness or kindness or tact. He is a busy boy and doesn't have time for those frivialities. I know you will understand because you are sensitive and can see the bigger picture. I am writing this to you but also to myself as I know I have been less then helpful to Jim in his efforts to do the same. I have been cruel and am going to try to mend my ways, I trust you will do the same. Love, Robyn

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 17:23:58 (EST) From: Roger eDrek Email: None To: Robyn Subject: I knew Jack Kennedy, uh, I mean Jim Heller Message:

As long as everyone is dissecting Jim right down to the color of the pajamas he wears I'd like to say that I've met Jim. I've talked to him on the phone numerous times. Hopefully, we can eventually stop obsessing about Jim sometime soon. First, on the phone Jim comes off as a very pleasant guy and has a nice pleasant voice. It's a bit of a surprise as you might expect something different. In person Jim is a calm reasonable and considerate person. He is polite and aware of the needs of others and is not just in his own world as one might think. He does have a lot going on and is in a constant juggling act, but does not seem to get flustered. Let me tell a story about Jim's temperament. I was there at the little secret Chinatown apartment that Jim has. If you ever get to Victoria be sure to take the Grayline 'Back Alley' tour because Jim's apartment is included. Anyway, it's a small apartment and there was a big wild party. One party person was getting really out of hand and very noisy in a very primal fashion. I mean, it was wild. Jim was trying to keep the guy quiet. Eventually, Martin (sorry, Martin, I've outed you here) banged into a guitar that was hanging on the wall and it went flying. Fortunately, someone caught the guitar in mid-air and no damage was done. Jim threw the guy out of the party. Now, did Jim get violent or completely insane with anger? No, not at all. He did what he had to and felt bad that he had to do it. And he did it in a way as to not make the guy feel really bad and even apologized to Martin for having to kick him out. I think that the image that many might have about Jim posting with his veins bulging and his eyes popping out is way off. I really don't think that Jim gets emotionally revved up over this stuff. Rather, I think that he gets revved up intellectually. Sure, Jim gets annoyed and sends out a 'fuck off', but I seriously doubt that he's grinding his teeth and seething inside. Jim, do I get my case of beer now from that all night delivery outfit, Cheetah?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 17:48:40 (EST) From: gerry Email: None To: Roger eDrek Subject: I missed the bulging veins, too. Message:

Rog, I had the pleasure of attending one of Mr Heller's soirees. I can't believe no one called the police...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 18:09:37 (EST) From: Roger eDrek Email: None To: gerry Subject: that may happen soon Message:

The police! When I was there the fear was that the new fancy shmancy condos across the alley might put a lid on the scene.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 08:26:59 (EST) From: Jim Email: None To: Robyn Subject: Your sarcasm masks your embarrassment, Robyn Message:

Interesting seeing how you deal with things yourself, Robyn. I guess you're pretty angry that your bandwagon slam on me for outing people 'all the time' wasn't all that easy after all, huh? Like what good's a cheap shot if you're going to have to stick around and deal with it, eh? Must have made you even more frustrated with me, huh? Your post was meant to make me look bad, not you. What's going on here anyway? So now you're going to ridicule me for actually arguing with premies. Fine. I guess I'll talk about how completely trivial 99 per cent of anything you've ever said here is. Where should we go from here?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 11:11:50 (EST) From: Robyn Email: None To: Jim Subject: Re: Your sarcasm masks your embarrassment, Robyn Message:

Hey Jim, Actually: 'Interesting seeing how you deal with things yourself, Robyn. I guess you're pretty angry that your bandwagon slam on me for outing people 'all the time' wasn't all that easy after all, huh? Like what good's a cheap shot if you're going to have to stick around and deal with it, eh?' As I said I was VERY BUSY at the time or I may have more thoughtful about this whole thing from start to finish but as I said, I don't feel any 'responsibility' to treat you like I would most people because you haven't treated me the way most people treat me. Also that is a very middle child trait which I have posted here about before, I think. You know, stir things up but not stick around for that part. I am a middle child. Get over this about me making you look bad, you make yourself look bad plenty and you know it isn't going to influence anyone about anything about you. I am not ridiculing you for arguing with premies! I was trying to make Katie feel better because you made her cry. I'll be the first one to say 95%, give me that, eh, of my posts are off topic and maybe 90% are trivial but you and I are here for different reasons and as long as I am not blocked I will come here as I please. 'Where should we go from here? ' Are you buying? I don't hate you or anything Jim, I just don't like or respect the way you act toward people here, ex's and premie's, basically the way you treat PEOPLE. I accept we have different styles, I don't feel the need to make you see my way to living but at the same time your way doesn't interest me either. Robyn

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 11:43:39 (EST) From: Jim Email: None To: Robyn Subject: Re: Your sarcasm masks your embarrassment, Robyn Message:

Robyn, You don't have to like or respect the way I talk to others to maintain your own morality, do you? The fact is you said something that, if anyone took seriously, would certainly affect their opinion of me. You said that I outed people all the time and that, Robyn, is simply a lie. You might not think that I've got anything like a good name to worry about but I odn't see it that way at all, I'm afraid. But thanks anyway for not worrying about that for me. You're right, we don't post here for the same reasons. So unless you think my reasons are invalid or something, how can you compare your approach to mine? Have you ever once actually engaged a premie in a discussion here for more than post or two? You try it and see how things go. Like I say, even JM, who I'm sure you'll agree is anything but a 'hot head' ends up telling cult members to fuck off after a while. It's a natural reaction. You'd know that for yourself if you ever waded in. If all we ever did here was laugh and joke about the old days there wouldn't be any heated arguments at all. If the premies stayed away from here that's what we'd get. And I don't think you'd find me much different than you in that way. We'd all just be fooling around, reminsicing, and that's okay. But the rality is that premies come here, it's even fun to have them come here in a weird kind of way, and when they do it's a cult-think shooting gallery. If you don't want to pick up a gun, fine, but don't tsk tsk those that do.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 11:55:54 (EST) From: Runamok Email: None To: Jim Subject: your big black car Message:

Have you ever considered politics, Jim? You really have the temperament. I'm sure a year or two of selling used cars and you would have all the skills necessary. Your use of rhetoric is finely tuned to the job of keeping people focused on the issues that suit you. Robyn's probably attempting to raise issues of trust in her use of 'outing' as an issue. This would include confidential emails which you have printed, confidential communications that you revealed, and the times you THREATENED to do the same to bully your guidelines into existence. Jim, what do they call it when threats are used to obtain?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 12:08:21 (EST) From: Jim Email: None To: Runamok Subject: Just shut up, Run Message:

Run, The fact is that Robyn wasn't telling the truth. Plain and simple. Now you want to raise another subject? About betraying email confidences? Alright, fine. Two can play that game. Let's start with what happened with you and Gerry during his brief tenure as FA. You apparently had a dialogue with him about me. I know that because when he said something supportive of me you posted something to the effect that that wasn't at all what he'd said in email in which he'd supposedly agreed with you that I was a bad cat or something. Remember that one, Run? Care to tell us about it?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 16:14:57 (EST) From: Runamok Email: None To: Jim Subject: Okay, your'e little fake toy car, I'll admit it. Message:

I thought you wanted me to shut up, Jim. But I did ask you, what is it called when you obtain through threats? Might as well let us know what you're so good at.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 16:39:25 (EST) From: Jim Email: None To: Runamok Subject: Okay, Run, I'll answer you -- if you do the same Message:

'extortion' Now, your turn. Is it not true that you divulged some of what you claim were private discussions with Gerry (he denies saying what you say he did but that's a different issue)?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 22:02:04 (EST) From: Jim Email: None To: Jim Subject: Well, Run? Message:

Again, You came on with a new criticism of me betraying off-page confidences. I asked you if that isn't exactly what you did when you called Gerry a liar regarding some off-page discussions you two apparently had when you were helping him with the page. You haven't answered. You asked me to answer your question. I did. I asked you to answer mine and you haven't. Well?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 22:41:41 (EST) From: Runamok Email: None To: Jim Subject: dry run, try again but only if you like Message:

I know you're a lawyer but we didn't have an agreement. I'm sure you can convince a lot of people we did but... it's in your mind, at least, it sure wasn't online. I guess lawyering really ups the ability to make yourself sound right about things things you make up. You are trying to convince me that or others I'm obligated to do something I didn't agree to. Now, what's THAT called?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Dec 17, 1999 at 01:45:50 (EST) From: Jim Email: None To: Runamok Subject: Correct me if I'm wrong -- you're refusing to answer? Do I have that right? Message:

You're actually refusing to answer? Too much. Speaks volumes, doesn't it? No, Run, we didn't have an 'agreement'. I never said we did. So why not just spell out your thoughts on the subject. You accused me of betraying email confidences and I asked you if that wasn't exactly what you'd done to Gerry. (Maybe your talks were on the phone, or maybe email AND the phone. Big diff.) And you won't answer?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Dec 18, 1999 at 00:13:53 (EST) From: Runamok Email: None To: Jim Subject: I don't do isolated and secluded spots Message:

You might want to harm me.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Dec 18, 1999 at 07:49:12 (EST) From: Jim Email: None To: Runamok Subject: You know what you look like now, Run? Message:

You have any idea what you look like now?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Dec 18, 1999 at 13:01:56 (EST) From: Runamok Email: None To: Jim Subject: Re: You know what you look like now, Run? Message:

Unlike your friend Barney, my 'reputation' isn't my chief concern here.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Dec 18, 1999 at 17:46:13 (EST) From: Jim Email: None To: Runamok Subject: Tell me why anyone should take you seriously anymore, Run? Message:

Run, You can play this any way you want but I'll tell you one thing. If you don't answer this squarely, you ain't going to have any credibility no way, no how with anyone here. I mean, look at it honestly. You come on like some big moral authority or, perhaps more accurately, an asshole looking for a fight: Have you ever considered politics, Jim? You really have the temperament. I'm sure a year or two of selling used cars and you would have all the skills necessary. Your use of rhetoric is finely tuned to the job of keeping people focused on the issues that suit you. Robyn's probably attempting to raise issues of trust in her use of 'outing' as an issue. This would include confidential emails which you have printed, confidential communications that you revealed, and the times you THREATENED to do the same to bully your guidelines into existence. Jim, what do they call it when threats are used to obtain? So I ask you if that isn't exactly what you did, in spades in fact, when Gerry didn't say what you wanted him to about me. And look at you now! Obviously afraid to deal with the matter openly. But what a snivelling jerk you are, even now, trying to get in an entirely irrelevant kick at Barney. I mean, what the fuck is that about?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 15:22:07 (EST) From: Jim Email: None To: Katie Subject: Katie, you're blind to the obvious Message:

Katie, You make me sick. The only reason Catweasel can even begin to utter such idiocy is because he knows people like you are suckers for it. If Cat ever treated you nicer than most it was because he knew you weren't interested in challenging him. That's easy, Katie. Too easy for me.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 12:55:43 (EST) From: Katie Email: None To: Jim Subject: And Jim... Message:

Lay off of Selene. As a matter of fact, I do remember her earliest posts on the forum - she had become disillusioned at the previous Long Beach program and was looking for support and help. I was really glad that she was able to find the forum and benefit from it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 14:18:36 (EST) From: Selene Email: None To: Katie Subject: Re: And Jim... Message:

Thank you Katie. As I recall Jim was one of my supporters back then. As he says, go figure.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 12:27:12 (EST) From: Runamok Email: None To: All Subject: Well, People? Message:

I tried moving the discussion elsewhere. Is it possible that Jim is fixated on his self? Here's what Nigel posted to me below: 'But just about every other post I have seen you make to the forum have not been about Maharaji or your past premie experiences but about the forum itself and what others should or should not be posting here. To tell you the truth, you have done it that many times it has started to piss me off big style.' But Jim wants to keep this thing here, that's obvious to anyone who will look at it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 15:41:54 (EST) From: Nigel Email: nigel@redcrow.demon.co.uk To: Runamok Subject: What thing where? Message:

I don't discuss Jim's character on forum for the same reason I don't discuss anyone's character on the forum. That ain't what the forum is for. Jim values trurth above courtesy and appears not to worry too much who he upsets in the process. That is his decision. I can respect that because, above all else, I do think Jim is honest. If others choose to dislike him (as you do) that is fine by me, but not worth discussing here. However, I don't like seeing email acquaintances I now regard as friends getting upset by Jim's posts - but (BIG but) they are all big enough and ugly enough to look after themselves or they would probably not be regular posters here in the first place. My views on courtesy are irrelevant. What you like is even more irrelevant (to me). For me, the important recent posts to the forum have been by people like Enough and Cynthia - with detailed memories going way back re. the hamster's whole organisation, his abusive habits etc. Threads about other forum participants (especailly exes about exes - which I never even read) tend to clog up your screen and your immediate memory and bury the interesting stuff. That much I find unfortunate and it seems to me you are a regular contributor to that process, Run.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 16:33:20 (EST) From: Runamok Email: None To: Nigel Subject: Re: What thing where? Message:

I am also quite bored with this whole process, but I don't feel that I can stand by while people are being bullied off of the forum without any kind of due process. That is how the posting about exes gets started. It's good ol' boy shit and it doesn't necessarily serve our purposes well. You know I have done at least my share of posting against Miragey and also that I would really like to see him stopped. When I originally posted about guidelines, I was one of two webmasters doing my job. It wasn't out of personal interest, and the problems of bickering and squabbling have faced the forum on and off since F3. Jim seems too partisan to his own beliefs to be loyal to the truth. He also isn't particularly interested in new information about a subject he's arguing about. I'm sure that's great in a courtroom but not necessarily appropriate among friends or community (you know, people who are or were or might have been such). So while you guys go at F4 like it's Hell with a gusto, you could stop blaming me for OT posts and threads that are about the forum and its participants. It's not a real substantive argument and the same could be said for joke posts or OT stuff. There is a real division and I'm not creating it. The end result is probably more forums and venues. I doubt there is any way to turn it back. But trying to villify or oversimplify what I have been saying isn't really going to help. I understand and agree that Miragey's behavior is more the issue. That's true. But sweeping stuff under the rug doesn't work. In fact, that's cult style, pretending real feelings or real problems aren't really there or aren't really important. I speak English, dude. I even write it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 22:06:01 (EST) From: Jim Email: None To: Runamok Subject: You are a little more transparent than you think, Run (Nigel, please read ) Message:

Jim seems too partisan to his own beliefs to be loyal to the truth. He also isn't particularly interested in new information about a subject he's arguing about. You're still licking your wounds over our argument over Dawkins, aren't you? You know, the one from when? A year ago? This IS what you're referring to, isn't it?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 19:50:05 (EST) From: Nigel Email: nigel@redcrow.demon.co.uk To: Runamok Subject: Re: What thing where? Message:

Run, I don't have a clue who you are or where you come from. You could be Catweasel for all I know. I certainly didn't realise you did a stint as webmaster - I must have missed that, same as I missed your forum posts about Maharaji. I thought the living perfect webmaster lineage ran something like: D@vid, Brian. Barney, Brian'n'Katie... I don't recognise you amongst any of them. But you seem to make a full-time hobby of attacking Jim. Don't you realise that by doing just that you will elicit twice as many posts from said cantankerous Canuck as were already on the forum? And then you have twice as many Jim posts to complain about... Holy shit - the rest of us have to read them. I feel a little uncomfortable slagging-off a fellow ex. But I don't think you are doing yourself or the forum any favours here. Especially with stuff like: I am also quite bored with this whole process, but I don't feel that I can stand by while people are being bullied off of the forum without any kind of due process. I feel like repeating the things I posted to Bim when he complained about 'totalitaian censorship'. But you are an ex, and this is not the best place to do it. (At least you and Jim are of one mind about Chomsky - if you are the same 'Runamok' who posted to Forum III early last year .) And I disagree with both of you. Email me if you like. Nigel

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 16:43:46 (EST) From: Roger eDrek Email: None To: Runamok Subject: Yeah, but the real issue is... Message:

your little personal vendetta against Jim and how you stalk him on the Forum. If that's not ugly and argumentative to keep those PAMs away from here I don't know what is. Could you, perhaps, prove your point by being a better example of the guidelines you wish to impose?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 13:15:46 (EST) From: Marianne Email: None To: All Subject: EVERYONE: Please, please stop fighting! nt Message:

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 14:25:13 (EST) From: Nick Danger, Third Eye Email: None To: Marianne Subject: Re: EVERYONE: Please, please stop fighting! nt Message:

Marianne: I agree...I feel like I'm 13 and living at home, and looking for a rusty razor blade. Perhaps we should have a separate section for off-topic intramural arguing/fighting. Maybe Roger can set up a link on his site to the 'Boxing Ring'?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 16:01:24 (EST) From: Katie Email: None To: Nick Danger, Third Eye Subject: Marianne and Nick Message:

We tried to move this discussion to A.G (David said it was OK with him). Jim is the one who moved it back on Forum IV. I don't think it belongs here either, and would be happy not to post anymore, as I seem not to be able to overlook inflammatory comments like the one he made about Selene. (And I'm sure Jim would be happy about this too - snicker). Take care - Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 16:16:20 (EST) From: Jim Email: None To: Katie Subject: Oh fuck off already with your 'Queen of Sensitivity' shtick Message:

Yes, you're everyone's friend. Mili's, CD's, Shp's, (mine, too, if I'll only let you reach out to me and feel my pain). Who cares where we talk about this or anything? I'm not going to watch you idiots trash me and my friends over on AG and not say anything about it. And where? That's none of your fucking business. Oh, I forgot -- Love, Jim

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 17:47:24 (EST) From: Lurk Email: None To: Jim Subject: The Rabid Chihuahua Message:

Hi Jim and All, Let's see in the last few days we have witnessed more bickering and more bickering. The participants have been Katie, Robyn, Selene, Runamok and have I forgot anyone, oh yes, Jim. I'm not posting this to take sides. I merely want to point out that if one of the bickerers happens to be on one side all by himself, then maybe, you want to look if this is a constant pattern. He may have a few followers-he calls them friends-but that bickerer historically either starts or takes over disputes between exes. I'll leave everyone to draw their own conclusion. Mighty Mouse or Rabid chihuahua?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 17:56:46 (EST) From: Roger eDrek Email: None To: Lurk Subject: A kinder and gentler forum Message:

In your dreams! The basic reality due to the fact that premies are allowed to post here and post their cult-like nonsense means that there will be strong disagreements. Anyone who thinks otherwise is going to constantly have their worldview and their own perspective challenged. Some premies have said that we on the forum are a cult. I ask does a cult allow members to argue amongst themselves? Isn't this an example of healthy real world interaction? Somebody please tell me where in this world is everything so hunky-dory? Are we really better than everyone else or are we just like regular people? Do we need to have such black and white right and wrong? Do we need to have obvious villians (other than Maharaji)? I believe that this argument is extremely simplistic and ignroes the basic reality of an online semi-public forum on a volatile subject. Why try to over-simplify it? Why try and control the hell out of it?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 23:27:37 (EST) From: Helen Email: None To: Roger eDrek Subject: Re: A kinder and gentler forum Message:

In answer to your question: NO, this is NOT an example of healthy real world interaction. This is very UN healthy as a matter of fact. There's a middle ground between hunky dorey and this paranoid nit-picking. It actually is kind of sick, IMO. TIme to take another break, I guess. If I want unhealthy I only need to look within the bosom of my own family at Christmas--what a charming tableau that will be! Take care Roger Helen

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 16:59:27 (EST) From: Katie Email: None To: Jim Subject: Unfortunately, Jim, I AM sensitive Message:

This makes the second time this week that you've made me cry with your posts. Posting on this forum is not worth that. I didn't come here to challenge premies in the first place - I came here to talk to other ex-premies. And I certainly didn't come here to be trashed by other ex-premies. Have a nice life, Jim - maybe you'll like the new webmasters better. Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 00:27:14 (EST) From: Jim Email: None To: Katie Subject: Tough Message:

Katie, What in the world do you expect? Really, how do you expect me to react to your endorsement of sentiments such as Cat's? Of all the creeps who've ever posted here, he is by far the nastiest and bereft of any semblence of sincerity. He pathetically jumps on your bandwagon over on AG and what do you do? You write (sorry, I have to do this verbatim again. It's just so off the wall): As regards premies on the forum: as long as premies are allowed on the forum, I think they should be treated with respect - unless they're a total flamer or spammer who is saying nothing (and then they usually get blocked). I have read Catweasel's post below and I agree with it. Every time I have talked to Catweasel like he (or she?) is a human being, he's responded in kind, and I appreciate that. You can still disagree with people - even vehemently disagree with people - and treat them with respect. You can dislike people and treat them with respect. Katie, this is sheer madness. Cat epitomized disrespect in his dealings with exes here. Not just me. Everyone. If he made a little exception for you it was just because perhaps you tried your 'kill them with kindness' routine (or am I confusing you with Robyn? Her latest to Cat, over on AG, responding to his 'Jim's a TOTAL PRICK' post, is this: Dear Cat, He is also Jewish so he doesn't care about Christmas presents! :) Merry Christmas to you! Love, Robyn) But that's your style, isn't it? When Mili was giving us our first taste of how ugly premies can be (e.g., threatening Dave Stirling), while you were very careful to explain that you didn't countenance threats and such, you made a point of defending him, explaining to us all what a wonderful friend he was. Then there was CD. Another Katie protectorate. You and I once had a LONG debate about whether the guy was actually brain-dead or just pretending to be. I twisted your arm and you finally obliged and asked him in the most careful, make that 'respectful' tones, whether or not he knew the effect his opaque conversation devices were having on people. He told you to mind your own business. Remember? I'd have thought that'd make you think twice about considering him a friend at all but no, not with Katie. CD's a friend. Hey, aren't we all? Then there was Mary. How in the world could you even think of inviting her back here knowing, as you do, how downright dangerous she could be? But you did and, in my opinion, left it to others to do the dirty work. Does any of this make sense to you? You know, I read that 'dialogue' between JW, Anth and NATO. You can't tell me that premies don't, more often than not, come here as either complete idiots or, like in NATO's case, complete assholes. (Call it 'Jerry Springer' if you like but this page, if it's not going to succumb to some sort of restraint mechanism, if the argument's are really going to be allowed to follow their own natural course, is always going to be a flashpoint between stupid cult thinking and ex-cult impatience. I don't even know what Runamok's whole trip is about. I mean, I couldn't even put it on a map. I have no idea what that guy's real agenda is nor do I really care. All I know is that he loves to pick away at me and, of course, he's your friend.) I guess, what I'd like to ask you is if you think that NATO deserves 'respect' and if so for what? He bursts in with tht typical premie ploy, telling us that people who really know Anth know that he's an absolute loser never to be taken seriously. And why? Because Anth has broken free from the cult and he's not afraid to talk about it. Or look at that asshole who said something similar about John the other day? Respect for him too, Katie? This page has had some really good times and some really confusing ones. We can't control cult thinking but what we can do is stop playing self-righteous games with each other about cutting into it, fighting the good fight and all that shit. Whenever people generalize about how distasteful it is to argue with premies here I can't help but think that their attitude is very superficial. You want ugly? The cult mentality is ugly. There's no friendly countenancing of it, no 'alternative' ways of 'embracing' our fellow premies. It's either you want to break that mold or you don't. The thing about you, though, Katie, is that you've proudly told us on many occassions that you, personally, don't give a damn if a person's in the cult or not. You don't care if Maharaji stays in business either for that matter. Well, if that's the way you think then maybe this really isn't the place for you. What do you think?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 17:03:37 (EST) From: Don't talk about premies Jim... Email: None To: Jim Subject: you are the biggest asshole on the forum! Message:

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Dec 17, 1999 at 01:49:31 (EST) From: Jim Email: None To: Don't talk about premies Jim... Subject: OUCH! An anonymous person called me a bad name! (nt) Message:

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 05:18:55 (EST) From: JHB Email: None To: Jim Subject: BUT WHAT DID HE SAY??? Message:

Or look at that asshole who said something similar about John the other day? Respect for him too, Katie? Jim, But WHAT DID HE SAY? Why won't anyone tell me? Do you think I'm too sensitive? :-) John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 08:30:17 (EST) From: Jim Email: None To: JHB Subject: John, it's SO BAD, I don't know if I can Message:

Sorry, John. I'd forgotten that you never even read it. It was some guy claiming to know you who said that you never had a life and don't now. Something like that. Big deal. I get this much from my friends. :)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 08:38:50 (EST) From: JHB Email: None To: Jim Subject: Re: John, it's SO BAD, I don't know if I can Message:

Sorry, John. I'd forgotten that you never even read it. It was some guy claiming to know you who said that you never had a life and don't now. Something like that. Big deal. I get this much from my friends. :) That's what cult membership does for you. Over the last 15-20 years, all the things I've done to actually build a life of my own have been done with a niggling feeling of guilt that I shouldn't be doing this as I should be dedicating my life to Maharaji. Consequently, I never threw myself into anything wholeheartedly. What intrigues me is that I can't think of a single premie who has any knowledge of my day to day life and hence would be qualified to make such a statement. Apart from a few friends who I'd see maybe a few times every few years, I only ever saw premies at Maharaji events. Maybe that's what they mean about me not having a life - the fact that I attended such functions. Thanks for the info, Jim. John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 10:36:19 (EST) From: Monmot Email: None To: JHB Subject: Re: John, it's SO BAD, I don't know if I can Message:

It was NATO (only he spelled it lower case at that time a la Nato) who took the shot at you. Said something like you couldn't take the cult while you were in it, and now you can't forget about the cult now that you're out of it. That's the general gist of it...but it was apparent the guy was a Brit and he knew you.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 17:11:48 (EST) From: Runamok Email: None To: Katie Subject: Jim and the Oh fuck offs Message:

are to good to play in Hell, everyone.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 17:27:10 (EST) From: Roger eDrek Email: None To: Runamok Subject: Re: Jim and the Oh fuck offs Message:

Run, First, you need a lesson from Mistress Grammar. It should be 'are too good to play in Hell, everyone', not 'are to good to play in Hell, everyone.' Run, you want to control the venue and control a whole lot more, don't you? You really feel the need to be a leader. Why don't you just stop your hobby of sniping on Jim and just participate in discussion. As Nigel pointed out most of your contributions on the Forum have been off topic on your favorite topic. Discuss this in hell? I don't want to dignify hell. Hell is perfect as it is with important conversations about crotchless teddies. Why ruin a good thing?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 14:19:09 (EST) From: gerry Email: LookRunamokguidelines@give you a stiffy.cum? To: All Subject: here's what we should do... Message:

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 17:14:30 (EST) From: Runamok Email: None To: gerry Subject: Herr Ger, do you think Lenny Bruce Message:

died for our sins? Whatever the case he is certainly dead already. Why continue to massacre him?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 17:11:20 (EST) From: Roger eDrek Email: None To: gerry Subject: forced behavior modification (being in a cult) Message:

Gerry, I was really hoping that you'd figure this one out and all there is a coded message that I don't understand. I think that we need to remember that while we were serving time in the Cult that distinct personalities were something that were smothered in an effort to be the perfect premie. Of course there were role models that we sometimes emulated like Arthur Brigham or even a mahatma. Now that we are free why can't we be who we really feel we are at any moment in time. Why do we need to try to fit into some kind of perceived box and have to get along with everybody no matter what stupid, illogical, and irrational thing they say? R.E.S.P.E.C.T? Nor do I think that everyone automatically deserves respect. Using the old adage, you earn respect. To allow Catweasel (whom we don't even know is male or female - that's Catweasel's respect for us) to write such revisionist garbage blaming Jim for his/her rude behavior is completely outrageous and anyone falling for such blatant bullshit needs to have their reading comprehension or memory banks checked. The very nature of a 'public' forum invites dialogue with viewpoints from different perspectives as well as factually and logically incorrect statements. And that is especially true from premies by definition. Posts that are factually incorrect, logically invalid, rationally twisted that are allowed to go unchallenged for the purpose of being nice is a waste of time for critical thinkers. I say let the marketplace decide. Open up another forum for the meek and the mild and they will inherit the earth. More on respect: I will give no one my respect unless they deserve it. It is wishful cult-like thinking to do otherwise. As my experience on the Forum grows I have given and withdrawn respect to premies and ex-premies alike. The most interesting learning experience I have received has been the Joey/Mary/Barney thing where I learned a big lesson on the quality and caliber of people. Basically, Jim, as great as the cost was to him, would not let it end without a clear cut resolution. Without Jim's efforts I would have been left hanging in the wind with all the wild accusations that were thrown my way. For this Jim earned a lot of respect from me. I really don't think that Jim is a guy that likes or needs to win, but I see Jim as a person who is logical and rational and when things are not right he has a natural need to try to have it all make logical and rational sense. In many ways I hope that I am like that. It's not even needing a specific outcome, it's more like putting together a jigsaw puzzle and not bending or cutting the pieces to finish it. Does it fit together? Is it consistent? And more respect goes to Joey. Who, upon learning of his mistake and apologizing, earned my respect. And did Jim continue to slam and disrespect Joey? NO! I believe that Jim and Joey even talked on the phone from time to time. Is that the picture of a person who holds a grudge and simply wants to shred people? Of course not. That's admirable and magnanimous. Why should we respect people like Catweasel and Mary M. after they completely misbehaved and abused us? I say, Hell no! That's INSANE! People like Shp and others? No, no, no! Get this, I'm not in a cult anymore. I don't have to swallow crap and smile and say thank-you anymore. I don't have to sit in the satsang hall anymore and listen to idiots espousing their lame views of reality. I don't have watch videos of Maharaji rambling on and on incoherently. What's it going to be here? Can we agree to disagree? Is it ok not to like some people, not to trust some people? Not to respect people? Or do we want to have make-believe?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 23:36:14 (EST) From: Helen Email: None To: Roger eDrek Subject: Re: forced behavior modification (being in a cult) Message:

At some point we all have to take responsibility for our own behavior and not blame it on 'the cult'. I don't think that our being free from 'the cult' gives us permission to dump anything we are feeling on one another in the name of 'being ourselves'. That doesn't work in the 'real world' and won't work here. And I agree with you that we can agree to disagree, that's a very respectful sort of stance to hold. You can disparage respect but without it, or some kind of basic regard for another, this forum can't survive.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 23:43:00 (EST) From: Helen Email: None To: All Subject: Re: forced behavior modification (being in a cult) Message:

Also on some level, basic human manners are 'make believe.' They preserve our survival as a species. It seems childish to think otherwise. For example, if my mother in law gives me a butt ugly piece of jewelry on CHristmas day do I tell her my opinion of it? Or do I say 'thank you' to preserve the good feeling between us. Is my 'feeling' of the moment really so important that I would possibly destroy a relationship over it? I know that in a forum supporting people exiting a cult, at times it is good for people to be hard hitting in order to get through. But even with our own community? People who have been here for years? Do we really have to get so personal and attack one another? It just seems mean.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 11:29:13 (EST) From: Jim Email: None To: Helen Subject: You can't generalize about these things too much Message:

Helen, The first part of your post, about humouring your mother-in-law, doesn't take you where you want to go, I'd imagine. What good is patronizing anyone here? None as far as I can tell. The second thing you talk about is this question of being 'hard hitting' amongst ourselves. Well there is a bit of a schematic here I imagine in my head. First, how it should be -- I think it should be really simple: us against them. Ex thinking against cult thinking and, to the extent that cult thinking dips into reprehensible behaviour (e.g. lying or ad hominem attacks [and by these I don't mean attacking the person for how they argue. That's fair. I mean things like 'Anth, no one's going to listen to what you say because no one ever took you seriously to begin with' or 'Jim, you're a lawyer so of course you're an asshole.']). That's how it should be. But how it is is more like some exes like to stand up for what they think are general values of decorum and civility. You know, the 'let's just be nice' idea. Hugs all 'round. I say that it's virtually impossible -- like contrary to human nature I suppose -- to stay calm and 'respectful', as Katie says, when you're talking to these guys. The only way to stay that way is to not really dialogue with them. Now that's what Run keeps advocating. Not talking with the premies. He thinks the arguments are unseemly or something and that they deter the 'big fish' we're trying to attract, you know, the lurking PAMs and such. Or maybe just the millions and millions of exes who would post here if it weren't so argumentative here. He claims to have the support of untold thousands who all agree that this place would be so much nicer if people like me didn't engage the premies so directly or continuously. That, Helen, is bullshit. First, if there are any PAMs out there lurking they'll post or not if and when they either hve the guts to or think they've got something to say. They're not going to hold off just because we have a few stupid arguments with a few stupid people. Come on! That's baseless speculation that doesn't really make sense. Same things with any other lurkers. They'll post or not as they see fit. If they want a forum without premie / ex arguments they can always go the ex-only site or check out Katie's baby ex site or mailing list or whatever it is. Mind you, notice how no one really uses the ex only site? I'm not surprised. People are hypocrites. The fact is, we all like seeing some stupid cult droid run off the page every once in a while. And what we all hanker for, it seems to me, is an occasional convert when we can lasso one. Hey, it's the Sport of the Gods, isn't it?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 06:05:53 (EST) From: Roger eDrek Email: None To: Helen Subject: Ok, who is being so mean? Message:

First how about the respect thing? Am I really supposed to respect the premie troublemakers and other characters who hang out at the Forum and either intentionally disrupt or continue unabated making their case for Maharaji when their input is clearly not welcome? Let's look at the troublemakers. I really think that to them this is a jihad and they truly feel that they are doing a service to Maharaji or else they are completely angered and enraged by what we are saying about Maharaji. Take Catweasel or that other character the Rapper or that other creep. They have nothing intelligent to say and they're only purpose was to scare us and annoy us. Should I respect them? Sorry, I cannot. Please remember, if you were here, that Catweasel only disrupted and did not engage in any kind of real discussion at all. And should I respect the other type who overstay their welcome and satsang us to death and refuse to deal with issues logically and rationally? Can't say that I can respect them much either. I'm sorry, but as much as I can see where some people might be 'coming from' I often do not respect them. For me respect is earned. What have these people done to deserve my respect? And respect can be lost, as well. Sure, sometimes we need little white lies to get around in life, but is that what we want to do here all the time? Finally, who is being mean? Sure, Jim can be pretty harsh as he presses an issue. He asks some tough questions for sure. He's pretty good. He's does it everyday at work and I don't believe that it's a big deal for Jim to get into a serious discussion. It's probably second nature to Jim. But, let's get onto 'who's being mean?' What's going on over in Hell? Aren't those folks just sniping and taunting Jim with no opportunity for discussion on any specifics? Sorry, I see what's going on over there as really sick, cowardly sick, insanity sick. Sorry, I've got absolutely no respect for what's going on over there. Also, I suspect that there may be differences (although there certainly are exceptions, eg. Gerry) between the people who were tied up in Knowledge for a long time and those who got out in the '70s. For me, as one who recently got out, I'm frequently angry, very angry about the wasted time and the amount of psychological suffering I went through trying to fit Maharaji's trip into my life. I personally want to see his effectiveness at bringing more suckers into his cult diminished. Reading some of the hardcore discussions with premies has, indeed, brought clarity to my polluted thought process. As I write this I cannot help feeling a bit emotionally overwhelmed and I think that it is natural under the circumstances and when considering the overall topic. Not to consider the emotional volatility that is displayed in these faceless dialogues is, IMO, disregarding the most obvious.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 08:13:50 (EST) From: Robyn Email: None To: Roger eDrek Subject: Re: Ok, who is being so mean? Message:

Dear Rog, I wonder why you say what is going on in Hell is sick. I don't understand why, if Jim had responses to what was written there, why he didn't post it there, to them instead of brining it back here. That is why Katie posted it there, to take it off the forum. Isn't that what happened, and what you were grateful for having a place to go to hash out all that Joey/Mary stuff? Maybe I am missing something. Love, Robyn

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 11:06:51 (EST) From: Jim Email: None To: Robyn Subject: I can answer that one Message:

What does a stupid forum like AG have to do with this? Just because Katie wants to take our discussion 'off the forum' doesn't mean I have to. And the reason that we were 'grateful' to have AG to hash out the J/M/B stuff was that Brian and Katie, in their infinite wisdom, had blocked the discussion from Foum III. Or blocked me anyway. Blocked me and threatened to block anyone else who wasn't content to leave it to them to work out. I don't know if I've yet seen a discussion worth joining on AG. Just a lot of infantile goofing around. Nothing wrong with that, per se. I just don't feel compelled to discuss anything there. You know, this all started (this time, of course) when I posted a warning here that Mary was beginning to make a come-back here. So here seemed the natural spot to talk it through. I tend to agree with John about this. How in the world can the mood here deter someone from leaving Maharaji? If you really think about it, that's ridiculous. Nothing to worry about. We could be the worst group of losers the net's ever seen, that wouldn't stop someone who was ready to from asking themselves the obvious questions that arise here.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 11:20:22 (EST) From: Robyn Email: None To: Jim Subject: Re: I can answer that one Message:

Jim, 'I tend to agree with John about this. How in the world can the mood here deter someone from leaving Maharaji? If you really think about it, that's ridiculous. Nothing to worry about. We could be the worst group of losers the net's ever seen, that wouldn't stop someone who was ready to from asking themselves the obvious questions that arise here. ' Are you saying I said this! Can't be since I didn't say it, was that my 1% on topic? The thing that I have heard over and over is not that this forum stopped someone from leaving but that it stopped them from getting the support they needed or that could have helped them a lot because they weren't up to the mood here. I know some that have been helped by the mood here, it is their way also maybe. People are not all the same Jim, it seems by this point in life you would be able to accept that. Robyn

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 11:55:30 (EST) From: Jim Email: None To: Robyn Subject: That's a myth I don't buy Message:

Robyn, First I never said you said anything of the sort. I wasn't talking about you. I was talking about Run. But as for what you've heard 'over and over', sorry, I don't buy it. Support for exes is not hindered by premie-bashing. What does hinder ex-support is premie intrusions and that ... well, ve hef a vay uf dealink wit dem, dunt you vurry.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 07:25:20 (EST) From: JHB Email: None To: Roger eDrek Subject: Re: Ok, who is being so mean? Message:

Roger, Great post. I think the one area of doubt is whether new or potential exes coming here are put off by the tone of some of the debates here. I certainly wasn't almost a year ago, but it's conceivable that some would be. But is it conceivable that the tone of debate here would drive people back to Maharaji's bosom (a horrifying thought)? I think not. The debates here are so refreshing and so alien to Maharaji's cult that I believe anyone who is not totally brainwashed coming here would start to seriously question their involvement pretty quickly. They might not post here, and might not return, but they will never see Maharaji in the same light again. Also, I think new people would start at ex-premie.org and read a lot of the basic information there. including the journeys (I know I did) before coming to this forum. So the other complaint could be that the tone of debate here restricts the development and nurturing of an on-line community. But is that what we want? I don't. Most of you are strangers, and will continue to be so. When someone I've never met and only exchanged a few emails with tells me they love me, a warning bell goes off in my head. Don't get me wrong, I like niceness and stuff, but I much prefer it in the flesh. I have met exes here, and consider my relationships with them to be far more real than with those who I only know on-line. Even those friendships are very much in their infancy. So what I'm trying to say is that I much prefer this forum when the truth about the cult is being expressed, and falsehood and cult-speak are being challenged. That's what I like to read and write. Debates where exes tell each other how nice they are, or how horrible they are, do not interest me (except posts involving personal insults to me which I would like to read before they are deleted!). John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 16, 1999 at 16:05:23 (EST) From: Roger eDrek Email: None To: JHB Subject: Agreed. And you're lucky it was deleted ; ) NT Message:

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 18:49:42 (EST) From: the first Ian Email: None To: Roger eDrek Subject: Re: forced behavior modification (being in a cult) Message:

so, what are you saying

Return to Index -:- Top of Index