Jim -:- To cc, re psychiatry -:- Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 20:04:41 (GMT)

__ cq -:- From cq, re. psychiatry -:- Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 17:32:48 (GMT)

__ __ Joe -:- To cq re the 'Mental Health Act' -:- Wed, Aug 09, 2000 at 18:43:49 (GMT)

__ __ __ cq -:- To cq re the 'Mental Health Act' -:- Wed, Aug 09, 2000 at 19:19:02 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Joe -:- To cq re the 'Mental Health Act' -:- Wed, Aug 09, 2000 at 19:45:49 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Selene -:- joe once one volunteers admittance -:- Wed, Aug 09, 2000 at 20:18:55 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Selene -:- and ps it works the other way too -:- Wed, Aug 09, 2000 at 20:20:49 (GMT)

__ __ Jim -:- From cq, re. psychiatry -:- Wed, Aug 09, 2000 at 01:41:42 (GMT)

__ __ __ cq -:- ahem, Jim -:- Wed, Aug 09, 2000 at 18:04:14 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Jim -:- ahem, Jim -:- Wed, Aug 09, 2000 at 23:51:11 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ cq -:- science is founded on observation -:- Thurs, Aug 10, 2000 at 18:17:20 (GMT)

__ __ __ Oliver -:- A more qualified opinion. -:- Wed, Aug 09, 2000 at 03:28:56 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Jim -:- Well I disagree -:- Wed, Aug 09, 2000 at 06:15:38 (GMT)

__ Joey -:- To cc, re psychiatry -:- Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 02:21:27 (GMT)

__ Sir Dave -:- To cc, re psychiatry -:- Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 01:11:22 (GMT)

__ Oliver -:- To cc, re psychiatry -:- Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 23:06:59 (GMT)

__ __ cq -:- re psychiatry -:- Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 18:33:36 (GMT)

__ __ __ Carol -:- re psychiatry -:- Thurs, Aug 10, 2000 at 09:30:02 (GMT)

__ __ __ Oliver -:- re psychiatry -:- Wed, Aug 09, 2000 at 02:47:58 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Carol -:- re psychiatry -:- Thurs, Aug 10, 2000 at 09:47:15 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ cq -:- re psychiatry -:- Wed, Aug 09, 2000 at 17:56:08 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Jim -:- How can you say something so dumb, Chris? -:- Wed, Aug 09, 2000 at 16:22:37 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Carol -:- How can you say something so dumb, Chris? -:- Thurs, Aug 10, 2000 at 09:56:37 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- You really believe that, Carol? -:- Thurs, Aug 10, 2000 at 16:11:09 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Carol -:- Read this, Jim. Do you really believe... -:- Thurs, Aug 10, 2000 at 19:06:41 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ cq -:- Get yer facts right Jim lad - WHO said that? -:- Wed, Aug 09, 2000 at 17:45:51 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Mentally ill people SHOULD be 'disempowered' -:- Thurs, Aug 10, 2000 at 00:37:16 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ cq -:- How callous can you get??? And no apology? (nt) -:- Thurs, Aug 10, 2000 at 18:29:06 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ cq -:- And SHAME on you for saying such a thing, Heller. -:- Thurs, Aug 10, 2000 at 19:02:45 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- The mentally ill should never be dehumanized. -:- Thurs, Aug 10, 2000 at 02:25:32 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Oh yes, of course, dehumanize them. Exactly! -:- Thurs, Aug 10, 2000 at 03:07:46 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Oliver -:- Where do I start? -:- Thurs, Aug 10, 2000 at 03:56:47 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- FA: Jim SHOULD be 'disempowered' from writing -:- Thurs, Aug 10, 2000 at 01:06:09 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Sadistic? You're nuts .... oops, sorry -:- Thurs, Aug 10, 2000 at 01:16:35 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Selene -:- I agree -:- Thurs, Aug 10, 2000 at 01:04:17 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ cq -:- You agree with Jim??? -:- Thurs, Aug 10, 2000 at 18:50:47 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Selene -:- if necessary yes they should -:- Thurs, Aug 10, 2000 at 19:25:13 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ cq -:- That word 'disempowered' Selene ... -:- Thurs, Aug 10, 2000 at 19:40:58 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- I agree -:- Thurs, Aug 10, 2000 at 01:40:10 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Carol -:- I agree -:- Thurs, Aug 10, 2000 at 10:20:23 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Selene -:- yes and I said that too -:- Thurs, Aug 10, 2000 at 01:50:55 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Carol -:- yes me too..I just said that too above no text -:- Thurs, Aug 10, 2000 at 10:21:57 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Selene -:- good to hear from you -:- Thurs, Aug 10, 2000 at 15:45:19 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ carol -:- Thanks! I am doing well. :~) nt -:- Thurs, Aug 10, 2000 at 19:09:53 (GMT)

__ __ Stonor -:- To cq, re psychiatry -:- Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 00:08:54 (GMT)

__ __ __ Carol -:- To cq, re psychiatry -:- Thurs, Aug 10, 2000 at 10:35:39 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ cq -:- To Carol, re Ritalin -:- Thurs, Aug 10, 2000 at 19:30:58 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Stonor -:- To Carol, re: ritalin + -:- Thurs, Aug 10, 2000 at 13:57:26 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Carol -:- on education, advocacy, prevention... -:- Thurs, Aug 10, 2000 at 19:42:38 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- To Stonor, re: ritalin + -:- Thurs, Aug 10, 2000 at 14:56:45 (GMT)

__ __ __ Daneane -:- Prescribing psychologists -:- Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 04:34:15 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Carol -:- Prescribing psychologists -:- Thurs, Aug 10, 2000 at 10:39:53 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Stonor -:- Prescribing psychologists -:- Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 13:04:18 (GMT)

Jim -:- Do you have any guts, Shroom? -:- Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 19:12:49 (GMT)

__ buzz -:- Do you have any guts, Shroom? -:- Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 19:28:25 (GMT)

__ __ sam -:- Do you have these techniques? -:- Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 03:16:55 (GMT)

__ __ Shroomananda -:- Save me a seat when he comes to Southern -:- Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 19:32:19 (GMT)

__ __ __ buzz -:- Save me a seat when he comes to Southern -:- Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 19:43:17 (GMT)

__ __ __ Jim -:- Lucky you, you don't have to wait -:- Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 19:41:07 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ G -:- a batch of premies -:- Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 03:41:53 (GMT)

__ Shroomananda -:- I'm happy being a 'cult' member, Jim, if that's -:- Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 19:27:18 (GMT)

__ __ Jim -:- Now THAT's interesting -:- Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 19:31:38 (GMT)

__ __ __ Shroomananda -:- Well, I've learned that you have a lot of early -:- Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 19:43:02 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Gregg -:- Jai Satchitanand, Shroom Ji -:- Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 22:24:01 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ buzz -:- Well, I've learned that you have a lot of early -:- Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 19:48:07 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Jim -:- Have you also learned how blindered you are? -:- Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 19:47:46 (GMT)

Jim -:- Forget it, Zelda -:- Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 18:45:58 (GMT)

__ Stonor -:- Forget it, Zelda -:- Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 13:25:51 (GMT)

__ __ Stonor -:- Above should read: Forget it, Jim (nt) -:- Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 15:58:00 (GMT)

__ __ Jim -:- Your history's irrelevant, Stonor -:- Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 15:56:58 (GMT)

__ __ __ Stonor -:- No more irrelevant in the larger scheme of things -:- Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 16:54:29 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Jim -:- This is where I turn away, bored -:- Wed, Aug 09, 2000 at 16:13:40 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- Losing argument = losing interest? -:- Wed, Aug 09, 2000 at 23:38:06 (GMT)

__ Zelda -:- Hmmmm 'I dont know Archie..' -:- Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 20:06:03 (GMT)

__ __ Jim -:- Sorry, Zelda, that post came up empty -:- Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 20:12:31 (GMT)

__ __ __ Zelda -:- again -:- Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 20:34:16 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Jim -:- Too bad your post showed up eventually -:- Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 07:02:10 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Zelda -:- Too bad your post showed up eventually -:- Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 08:37:34 (GMT)

Jim -:- Joey's particular problem -:- Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 17:59:54 (GMT)

__ Sir Dave -:- The problem with the letter -:- Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 19:40:22 (GMT)

__ __ Jim -:- The problem with the letter -:- Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 19:43:47 (GMT)

__ __ __ Sir Dave -:- The problem with the letter -:- Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 19:55:10 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Jim -:- And thus .......? -:- Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 19:57:09 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Sir Dave -:- And thus .......? -:- Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 20:23:37 (GMT)

__ Zelda -:- The Letter -:- Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 19:03:32 (GMT)

__ __ Jim -:- Come on, Joey, what do you say to this? -:- Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 19:29:25 (GMT)

__ __ __ Joey -:- This is what I have to say. -:- Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 01:55:12 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ zelda -:- This is what I have to say-but it has no basis -:- Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 06:44:36 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Joey -:- You're lying Zelda -:- Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 14:01:43 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Zelda -:- You're lying Zelda NOT -- no I confesss please hel -:- Wed, Aug 09, 2000 at 03:12:43 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Jim -:- Think -- just think for a second! -:- Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 05:35:13 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Joey -:- Think -- just think for a second! -:- Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 06:06:01 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Nonsense! -:- Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 06:47:06 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joey -:- Nonsense! -:- Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 13:54:56 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- How do you tell a paranoid that he's paranoid? -:- Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 15:33:15 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Zelda -:- You can prove paranoia by finding my posts -:- Wed, Aug 09, 2000 at 06:29:23 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joey -:- The more appropriate word would be 'Skeptic' -:- Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 16:22:21 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- If I May Interject...... -:- Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 17:27:07 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Obviously, I meant 'charicature' (nt) -:- Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 16:06:34 (GMT)

__ __ Jim -:- Zelda, it gives me great pleasure to agree with u -:- Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 19:14:31 (GMT)

__ __ __ Lotus Eater -:- the letter smells of guru worship -:- Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 21:29:23 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ MRC -:- The letter was a compromise...like so many things -:- Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 21:55:35 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Lotus Eater -:- Respectful name calling -:- Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 20:46:07 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- Respectful name calling -:- Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 21:15:34 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- Sorry, correction -:- Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 21:17:20 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ SB -:- The letter was a compromise...like so many things -:- Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 22:49:57 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- The letter was a compromise...like so many things -:- Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 23:01:15 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ cq -:- The victim mentality versus taking responsibility -:- Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 18:52:18 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- The victim mentality versus taking responsibility -:- Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 21:08:55 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ cq -:- The victim mentality versus taking responsibility -:- Wed, Aug 09, 2000 at 19:29:31 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ anonymous MRC member -:- well at least for today...responsibility -:- Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 19:07:43 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- Thanks, I agree with anonymouse here... -:- Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 21:19:00 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Hold on there, that's not exactly true -:- Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 22:15:32 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- Hold On.... -:- Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 22:30:35 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Hold On.... -:- Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 16:22:52 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- Hold On.... -:- Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 17:02:33 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joey -:- Hold On.... -:- Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 16:31:41 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ bill -:- Hold One -:- Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 02:53:03 (GMT)

__ __ __ Zelda -:- I dont like the sound of this -:- Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 20:26:29 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Rob -:- Excuse me -:- Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 00:27:04 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Zelda -:- Rob Rob Rob -:- Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 01:51:24 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Rob -:- Aw shucks -:- Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 02:49:15 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Selene the snipe -:- that should help -:- Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 04:43:42 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Selene -:- oh and that WAS a joke -:- Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 05:04:02 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ zigzag -:- Aw shucks -:- Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 02:54:57 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Roger eDrek -:- You are excused, but first... -:- Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 01:43:58 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Aren't you tired of that shit, Roger? -:- Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 16:13:19 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Roger eDrek -:- But, Jim... -:- Wed, Aug 09, 2000 at 01:02:04 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joey -:- Aren't you tired of that shit, Roger? -:- Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 16:34:30 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Rob -:- Man of many faces, huh? -:- Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 03:09:35 (GMT)

__ __ __ Zelda -:- to Jim from Zelda: 'sigh...;)' NT -:- Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 20:14:47 (GMT)

Anon -:- Some responses to what Danny raised below.. -:- Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 14:17:48 (GMT)

__ Joe -:- Questioning the Point of this. -:- Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 17:56:18 (GMT)

__ __ Anon -:- Questioning the Point of this. -:- Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 21:18:58 (GMT)

__ __ __ Joe -:- Questioning the Point of this. -:- Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 22:08:07 (GMT)

__ __ Jim -:- That's why Anon is anon, apparently -:- Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 18:05:16 (GMT)

__ __ __ Anon -:- That's why Anon is anon, apparently -:- Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 20:43:25 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Jim -:- My apologies, then -:- Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 20:49:47 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Anon -:- My apologies, then -:- Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 21:28:23 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ bill -:- My apologies, then -:- Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 03:13:25 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Salam -:- He's now in prison so he won't know! -:- Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 04:37:24 (GMT)

__ __ __ Joe -:- What kind of business? -:- Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 18:10:06 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Jim -:- What kind of business? -:- Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 18:14:56 (GMT)

__ this is one of the best -:- posts I have ever seen on the forum -:- Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 14:59:25 (GMT)

__ __ Jim -:- Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! -:- Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 17:37:26 (GMT)

__ __ __ Salam -:- Do I need to have a dialouge with gm? -:- Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 18:03:30 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Jim -:- You could have your cake and eat it too (a bit) -:- Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 19:24:56 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Salam -:- If that is the case, I may consider it..Nt -:- Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 04:17:02 (GMT)

__ __ __ Rob -:- Hi Jim -:- Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 17:46:57 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ bill -:- Hi Jim -:- Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 02:57:39 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Rob -:- Huh? -:- Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 03:28:59 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ bill -:- Huh? -:- Wed, Aug 09, 2000 at 04:19:04 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ cq -:- Huh? -:- Wed, Aug 09, 2000 at 19:32:06 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Jim -:- Hi Jim -:- Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 18:13:14 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Rob -:- Actually I laughed too -:- Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 23:41:39 (GMT)

__ __ bill -:- leaning tower of posta -:- Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 16:22:00 (GMT)

__ bill -:- Some responses to what Danny raised below.. -:- Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 14:59:06 (GMT)

__ __ Anon -:- Some responses to what Danny raised below.. -:- Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 19:05:00 (GMT)

Salam -:- Shroooom! -:- Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 13:06:54 (GMT)

Church Lady -:- EPO site /churches -:- Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 04:46:21 (GMT)

__ Joey -:- EPO site /churches -:- Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 05:40:00 (GMT)

__ Rob -:- EPO site /churches -:- Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 04:49:48 (GMT)

Date: Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 20:04:41 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Everyone Subject: To cc, re psychiatry Message:

In an inactive thread, Chris responded to something I'd said as follows: Don't know WHERE you get the 'small-mindedness, even envy' angle from, Jim. The gist of my post was to suggest that the kind of credence given psychiatrists by society is, IMO, well worth re-evaluating (though I'm NOT denying that ill people who are in need of emotional/mental healing CAN benefit from psychiatry). But I've known the kind of power that the state (at least here in the UK) can wield over people who fall foul of the Mental Health Act, and consequently I will readily accede to the fact that my opinion of much psychiatry/psychology is somewhat jaundiced. Some people might be willing to give shrinks the power over them to decide what's healthy and what's not healthy. What is acceptible behaviour and what constitutes an illness. But that's some power there, Jim. Kind of reminds me in a not-too-distant way of the sort of power that we let the Maha have over us. It wouldn't be pathetic to question THAT now, would it Jim? Well, Chris, the first thing is that you're now at least qualifying to some extent your broadside at psychiatry AND its practitoners. You didn't do that at all in your first post. Even still, psychiatry might be imperfect and misused again adn again but, really, what's the alternative? There IS, in fact, such a thing as mental illness and psychiatry IS, in fact, the branch of medicine that tries to understand it. I think it's inevitable that anytime we start diagnosing people as suffering from some mental disorder that throws into question their ability and right to 'think for themselves' we're playing with a dangerous power. But it's got to be done. That's the bottom line. So.... we shoudl try to be careful. Learn more adn try to be careful. It's certainly unjustified, I think, for you to attack the character of all involved in the field. Tha'ts what pissed me off.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 17:32:48 (GMT) From: cq Email: None To: Jim Subject: From cq, re. psychiatry Message:

Jim, it really is a huge subject that we're dipping our toes into here. I can appreciate the fact that you (as a lawyer) have to at least believe you can rely on the judgement of the psychiatric profession. No doubt the idea of questioning that belief would be professionally distastelful/disturbing for you. But upsetting the status quo is part and parcel of humanity's/society's progress. We all know there was a time when it was unthinkable to question the supposed 'fact' that the Earth was the centre of the universe, but thank $*@ somebody did (and forgive the somewhat crass example, but you get my meaning, I hope.) I occasionally contribute to an atheist website, on which the following was recently posted by someone: '... please don't forget that all the theories of science are tentative. Some more so than others. A fact to science is something observably true. It is measurable data. A theory is an explanation for the data (facts) gathered. (Mainstream) Theories are science's best explanations for that facts we observe. They remain until some better explanation comes along. If they remain true after numerous challenges and they withstand the test of time, then sometimes they are considered 'law.' ' It would be, as you say Jim, 'certainly unjustified, I think, for you to attack the character of all involved in the field' (of psychiatry) but what I SAID was: 'There's a subtle art to learning the shrink-speak and the concepts behind the so-called 'science' of psychiatry/psychology. As a science, it's only been around for just over 100 years, yet since its inception it's pride has been in thinking it has, and always WILL have ALL the answers as to what makes an OK human being (even though those answers keep changing). Personally, I wonder if anyone has done any research into identifying the kind of person who becomes a shrink? Why would such research be an 'attack on the character of all involved in the field', Jim? Has psychiatry become a holy cow that none can question? And one point of yours I really must take issue with: you speak of mental disorder as 'throwing into question their ability and right to think for themselves'. Tell me you didn't mean to use the word 'right' there, Jim.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 09, 2000 at 18:43:49 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: cq Subject: To cq re the 'Mental Health Act' Message:

Can you give some background on this law and how you think it's abused? I gather that you think people are put away against their desires because a Psychiatrist says they are delusional or require drugs, etc. Is that the case? Here in the USA, the opposite is the case. Unless someone is certified as a physical danger to themselves or others, they cannot be held against his or her will. The courts in the USA have so-decided, hence we have quite a number of homeless people who are mentally ill wandering the streets and quite a number die there every year. San Francisco, for example, has mobile mental health vans that dispense medicine, etc., but if someone does not want to go into hospital no one can force them to, even the police or a psychiatrist, unless a judge says the individual is dangerous. I think I tend to agree with giving people the freedom to decide for themselves, but then I think many of these people could be helped, although they would have to get off the streets, off street drugs, etc., first.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 09, 2000 at 19:19:02 (GMT) From: cq Email: None To: Joe Subject: To cq re the 'Mental Health Act' Message:

Background? Try http://www.hyperguide.co.uk/mha/contents.htm (BTW - can't speak for the US system, as I have no experience of it, though it sounds like it could do with re-evaluating). As for my own experience at the hands of the UK system - is this the place? Perhaps 'Anything Goes' might be better? OK, I'll give you all the lurid details over on AG - in weekly installments, starting ... soonish.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 09, 2000 at 19:45:49 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: cq Subject: To cq re the 'Mental Health Act' Message:

Well, can you tell me if my guess as to your concerns are correct? Doe the Act allow for people to be put away because they are certified delusional, or whatever by a psychiatrist?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 09, 2000 at 20:18:55 (GMT) From: Selene Email: None To: Joe Subject: joe once one volunteers admittance Message:

They give up their rights. It is up to the charge doctor, who they rarely see, to determine if and when they are ready for discharge. It can be a very rocky road. OK they may not be PUT there involutarily but once in watch out- it's worse than prison regarding rights. There has been a lot of public noise about this and a lot of reform. but it has a long way to go. I am sure the laws very state to state, country to country - perhaps even within states in the various institutions depending on how good your health insurance is (read how much they are getting paid and who is listening)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 09, 2000 at 20:20:49 (GMT) From: Selene Email: None To: all Subject: and ps it works the other way too Message:

sometimes if ones insurance funds are crummy and no money comes the institutions way they release very dangerous types back onto the streets. Its a mess.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 09, 2000 at 01:41:42 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: cq Subject: From cq, re. psychiatry Message:

Chris, I agree that science develops tentatively, although I also say that its core knowledge strengthens over time. Now, it too, can sometimes, surprisingly, revolutionarily even, be upset. But that's by far the exception. And when it does, the knowledge still settles after a while, perhaps slightly adujsted but even stronger than before. In other words, it becomes knowledge and not merely something ephemeral and up for grabs. Psychiatry is a field of medicine which, to the extent that it bears scientific examination and study, is indeed a scientific enterprise. Psychiatric knowledge is scientific and it grows scientifically. You talk about the virtue of 'upsetting the status quo' and use for example the fact that we once believed the Earth was flat. But remember, that belief was never scientific. It was just an old's wive's tale. There was no evidence the world was flat, just a lot of weird and colourful stories to that effect. But where has scientific knowledge ever been overthrown like that? Nowhere I know. Yes, there have been some fairly radical prunings of the scientific Tree of Knowledge, I guess. Can't think of what exactly right now but I'm sure they exist. Why not? But that doesn't mean that there isn't a sound Knowledge base. Like real stuff, you know? Now, mental illness. Psychiatric disorder. What about it? I'm sorry but I think that we know a HELL of a lot more about this stuff than we did even twenty or thirty years ago and that this is real Knowledge. In other words, it's not just fad theories, fad diagnoses and pop this or that. Psychiatry's much stronger than that. And as for whether a person who's extremely delusional has the right to 'think for themself', well, I meant make decisions and no, I don't think they do have that right if they're fully delusional. Not at all, in fact.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 09, 2000 at 18:04:14 (GMT) From: cq Email: None To: Jim Subject: ahem, Jim Message:

Jim, it would be hypocritical of me to tell you to read the posts you're replying too more carefully - but SOMEONE should tell you! Who said anything about the Earth being flat???

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 09, 2000 at 23:51:11 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: cq Subject: ahem, Jim Message:

You're right. I started answering you then got interrupted and forgot what your example was when I returned. But same difference, no? The belief that the Earth was the centre of the universe was never derived scientifically.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 10, 2000 at 18:17:20 (GMT) From: cq Email: None To: Jim Subject: science is founded on observation Message:

... and if a primitive observes, f'rinstance, the moon being gradually eaten away every other fortnight, then the explanations he/she creates in attempting to explain that observation are, for the primitive, an application of the scientific mind. Their explanations might sound quaintly crazy to us, but, in the infancy of mankind's understanding of the universe, Jim, at least the primitives were trying to understand. The trouble/stagnation started when they thought they had all the answers.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 09, 2000 at 03:28:56 (GMT) From: Oliver Email: None To: Jim Subject: A more qualified opinion. Message:

Dear Jim, I emailed my Psycholigist this morning about the reply I was intending to make to cq below. We have a good relationship and often talk about F5 and the effect that being a premie had on my mental health over the years. I asked for his comments and unfortunately his reply has just arrived. I thought it might be helpful in an attempt to ask you to reconsider the attitude you adopt in your above post to cq. At the risk of being flamed, I find your attitude offensive and your knowledge lacking. The e-mail reads:- *I have read and totally agree with the the notions that are put about now and again in the literature regarding diagnostics and the efficacy of categorisation. I agree that diagnoses such as schizophrenia lead nothing to both the quality of life of those who so called suffer from it and also the study of 'mental illness'. Labels, diagnoses or categories that do not lead to treatments or assistance to people categorised in this way are redundent. Schizophrenia is one such category and is simply a waste basket or cluster of symptoms which in no way leads to any progress in the study of the problems these people have and even worse doesn't assist in the alleviation of these problems. Sadly this is the medical model of illness and continues to be the way in which things are done around here.* Any comments?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 09, 2000 at 06:15:38 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Oliver Subject: Well I disagree Message:

Thank you for your comments, Oliver. Indeed, I'm not a psychiatrist and I'm not a psychologist either. But what exactly do you find offensive in my attitude? The fact that I think psychiatry is valid? Yes, how offensive! Sorry, I'm sure. In fact, I think your psychologist is terribly wrong. Therre is definitely value in diagnosing mental illness. There are definite psychiatric conditions such as schizophrenia and I fail to see how callign a spade a spade is 'redundant' of anything. Coudl the label be misapplied? Yes. Does the diagnosis gurantee a cure or treatment? No. But is it true? Possibly. But tell me, if this guy isn't into diagnoses then how does he suggest that serious mental illness be treated? Or are we venturing into R.D. Laing territory? You know, the only sane ones around ehre are the ones we call crazy, kind of thing?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 02:21:27 (GMT) From: Joey Email: None To: Jim Subject: To cc, re psychiatry Message:

So.... we shoudl try to be careful. Learn more adn try to be careful. It's certainly unjustified, I think, for you to attack the character of all involved in the field. Tha'ts what pissed me off. Ya, about the sp's Jim, a little hungover at the keyboards today, were we? And as far as Chris 'attacking the character of all (psychiatrists) in the field' - what about your attack on Selene, calling her a 'bitch' this morning for her rather innoccuous response to Daneane's humorous description of you below. If we ever met Jim, I wouldn't slap you in the face as Angelo Arcaro did some twenty years ago. I'd just laugh in your face :) Jerk.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 01:11:22 (GMT) From: Sir Dave Email: None To: Jim Subject: To cc, re psychiatry Message:

Yeah, I thnik we sholud rty to be mroe careflul Jmi.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 23:06:59 (GMT) From: Oliver Email: None To: Jim Subject: To cc, re psychiatry Message:

Hi Jim, I live with bipolar disorder and am treated by the local mental health team who I describe as the psychiatric Gestapo. In your post to Chris you write in part:- *I think it's inevitable that anytime we start diagnosing people as suffering from some mental disorder that throws into question their ability and right to 'think for themselves' we're playing with a dangerous power. But it's got to be done. That's the bottom line.* The premise that a person diagnosed with a mental illness is not considered capable of thinking for themselves, is the most humiliating thing that psychiatrists can put on a 'patient.' It can cause all kinds of problems for the 'patient', the main one being stuck with mind destroying medication that the 'patient' knows is totally unnecessary. Psychiatrists are not the experts. The experts are the people living with the illness, but for the life of me I have never been able to convince my doctors of that, despite my 20 years in the field, so to speak. Mental illness does not preclude one from thinking, feeling and having opinions while generally having a good life like anyone else in society. Unless of course the person is unfortunate enough to be treated by doctors whose only concern is to keep that person out of hospital by any means possible. This happens to a larger degree than the average 'normal' person would believe. Oliver, 'how's your mental elf?'

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 18:33:36 (GMT) From: cq Email: None To: Oliver Subject: re psychiatry Message:

Hi Oliver, Thanks for posting - I enjoy reading you. Tell me, this 'bi-polar' diagnosis you've been given - are you happy with it? Is it a description that encourages you to fulfill all the various parts of yourself? Can you grow as a human soul with it? My guess is that it's of little benefit to you. More of a convenient label to those whose profession is dependent on such diagnoses (and who profits?). A recent thread brought up the idea of astrology being unacceptable as a means of discussing Maharaji. As unacceptable as racism would be. Interesting correlation, I thought. Astrology as a kind of stellar racism (!) Perhaps there's a kind of 'diagnosism' amongst psychiatrists? There certainly is amongst the population at large - or am I being quote 'paranoid' unquote in thinking this? Or perhaps my apparent jumps in logic are quote 'schizophrenic' unquote? The human psyche is complex and involved (not least for ex-cultists!). Do simplistic labels really help?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 10, 2000 at 09:30:02 (GMT) From: Carol Email: None To: cq Subject: re psychiatry Message:

You said: Do simplistic labels really help? I was also dxed Bipolar last April. I was uncertain about it myself (for awile.) I thought maybe it just looked like biploar illness because of other drugs (anti-depressants) and reasons. I know I fit the description now, 'though I think it is mild compared to some and not causing me much of a problem so far. I did not seek to have a label and it is not simplistic at all. There are good reasons for the labels, as I'll explain; but I also object to naming which implies that a person is broken or crazy or incapacitated. There is so much prejudice in the world and stereotyping is so typical of people. I have a son with Asperger Syndrome and Tourette Syndrome and I learned quickly how much a correct diagnosis can help avert an extraordinary amount of difficulty that can result from misunderstanding and misdiagnosis. The medical research has leapt forward by leaps and bounds and there is so much more easily accessible information for parents and individuals with differences than ever before. The internet is a wonderful tool for connecting people to this knowledge and to other people with similar difficulties within their families or themselves. Most, if not all, mental 'illness' or differences are biochemical and neurological and often genetic in origin. Some of the differences are special abilities, not deficits or disabilities. Uniting with other self-advocates or concerned friends and professionals helps change the common, often twisted or ignorant beliefs of the masses about particular 'disorders'. Labels are created as a way to communicate about a condition exhibited in common in the individuals with the diagnosis, as in any profession which creates words to fit the professional realm. Unfortuneately perhaps, people with little real knowledge of them often toss them around in conversation until they believe they really know something. They are hightly important to secure the rights of being affected by disabling conditions and to protect children and adults in educational settings and in employment. Psychiatrists vary vastly from one to the next on their level of expertise with any one 'disorder'. They have to specialize in order to keep up with all the new research and the new drugs that are available. Because I had been involved in the legal, educational, medical, and parental arenas dealing with my son's diagnosis for the last 3 years, I was much more accepting of help and knowledgeable about what I expected from a doctor when I sought help for my own neurological differences, the ones that caused a problem for me! I also am very grateful to get to meet other people with my son's and my own 'labels'. We help each other and work to empower our kids and ourselves. BTW:There was a cover story in the July 24th Newsweek magazine about autism with about half of it about Asperger Syndrome. It's online at http://www.msnbc.com/news/436601.asp#BODY People with AS were often misdiagnosed with the label 'schizotypal disorder' as recently as 10 years ago. This was often misconstried to mean 'schizophrenic', which itself is a term that was widely misused and misunderstood. Doctors used to blame 'refrigerator mothers' for autism in children. The reality is that since it is thought to be genetic, the moms and or dads likely also had a different emotional affect, and even though they were loving and attentive parents, it would not have been displayed in facial expression or non-verbal cues the way more neuro-typicals would behave or pick up on them. Carol

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 09, 2000 at 02:47:58 (GMT) From: Oliver Email: None To: cq Subject: re psychiatry Message:

*Tell me, this 'bi-polar' diagnosis you've been given - are you happy with it? Is it a description that encourages you to fulfill all the various parts of yourself? Can you grow as a human soul with it?* With all due respect, what a peculiar question. Bipolar Disorder is a soul destroying illness. Each manic episode takes months, sometimes years, to recover from, especially if the trauma of hospitalisation occurs. Friends and acquaintances are lost, and family love is stretched to breaking point. I have lost a wife and son, many, many friends, several homes, more money than I care to calculate and a career or three. No I am not happy with my diagnosis as being bipolar. It just allows me to be put under that particular umbrella where all bipolars are put whearas there are as many different varieties of the disorder as those who are suffering from it. One shoe definitely does not fit all. *My guess is that it's of little benefit to you. More of a convenient label to those whose profession is dependent on such diagnoses (and who profits?).* You are correct. The one's who benefit are the medical fraternity, the drug companies and the rest of the community who can shrug off any responsibility for the loonies trying to live amongst them. *A recent thread brought up the idea of astrology being unacceptable as a means of discussing Maharaji. As unacceptable as racism would be. Interesting correlation, I thought. Astrology as a kind of stellar racism (!)* Sorry, the above does not compute. *Perhaps there's a kind of 'diagnosism' amongst psychiatrists? There certainly is amongst the population at large - or am I being quote 'paranoid' unquote in thinking this? Or perhaps my apparent jumps in logic are quote 'schizophrenic' unquote?* Of course there is. Both the medical Profession and the community at large treat the mentally ill something akin to children. The medical intelligencia are convinced that they know best and the afflicted can not be trusted to have an opinion about the weather, let alone their illness. On the contrary, the person most equipped to treat the patient is him/herself. While modern medicine must play a major role initially (because at present that is all there is) it is the 'patient' who has the key to the door that is the way back to 'normality.' Unfortunately, this might turn out for most to be a life time project, but that's another story. *The human psyche is complex and involved (not least for ex-cultists!). Do simplistic labels really help?* Yes it is, but please don't get me started on having a mental illness and being part of a cult, either then or now. Simplistic labels never help but what else is there? I hope I've answered your questions satisfactorily. Oliver.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 10, 2000 at 09:47:15 (GMT) From: Carol Email: None To: Oliver Subject: re psychiatry Message:

Also, lots of psychiatrists and psychologists are naturally inclined to that area of study due to wanting to figure other people or themselves (or someone in th family) out! (I would have studied it in college if my current husband at that time hadn't protested most vehemently that he did not want me to study it and then psycho-analyze him!) They also tend to be people who want to help other people, regardless of opinion to the contrary. It is not an easy profession to do and not many people would go into it only for money or power, IMHO.I also heard the suicide rate was higher for them than for most other professionals! I have always loved studying works of researchers and doctors about the mind and human behavior. I have read numerous books like Oliver Sacks : The Man who Mistook his Wife for a Hat; and Comings: Tourette Syndrome and Human Behavior which decribes the interrelatedness in families and individuals or all of the neurological conditions like ADD, OCD, Depression, Autism, alcoholism and drug addiction, Conduct Disorder, etc., besides Tourette's; and many many more. I should have a doctorate of parentology and research of this subject. I even got to preview a new book by a doctor friend I met on-line and then in person: George Lynn about Bipolar in children with Asperger or other disorders. (Read about his books at Amazon.) Carol

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 09, 2000 at 17:56:08 (GMT) From: cq Email: None To: Oliver Subject: re psychiatry Message:

Oliver, a big thank-you for your post there. I know it takes some guts to go through the kind of trauma that mental illness inflicts, but you know what? - personally I think it CAN, as time goes by, make us stronger for having had to deal with it. There's something I find very therapeutic in being able to share a little of how I feel about this whole subject on this Forum - though maybe it's not quite the 'right' place to do it. Nonetheless, I appreciate the chance to compare experiences. One of these days I'll pluck up courage and tell you a little more about my own battles. A little bird tells me that the 'Anything Goes' Forum has been following up this discussion, so I'm off to see what I can see. Regards, Chris

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 09, 2000 at 16:22:37 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Oliver Subject: How can you say something so dumb, Chris? Message:

Sorry, bud, but I work with many mentally ill people myself. Not daily, but I'm surely no stranger to people with serious psychiatric disorders. How you can say: the person most equipped to treat the patient is him/herself is beyond me. Sounds a little ridiculously idealistic, if you ask me.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 10, 2000 at 09:56:37 (GMT) From: Carol Email: None To: Jim Subject: How can you say something so dumb, Chris? Message:

Jim, it is true that the patient is the one that knows what he /she feels, what things cause problems, and whether or not medication or therapies 'work' for them. It is an essential role to be a self-advocate: the patient who questions and suggests changes in thei own treatment!!!!!! Or if you are a parent of a kid that needs a psychiatrist for medication assistance and monitoring, it is vitally important that you be an informed and meticulous observer of behavior. In these days of HMO's and gatekeeper doctors. The general practitioner is often all too willing to prescribe medicine based on what the patient asks for. I was poorly served in this way for about 6 years before getting better help. Also, the increased information about how the medicines worked and newer drugs have made keeping up with it all a job beyond most GPs.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 10, 2000 at 16:11:09 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Carol Subject: You really believe that, Carol? Message:

Jim, it is true that the patient is the one that knows what he /she feels, what things cause problems, and whether or not medication or therapies 'work' for them. What kind of silly, la-la land, blanlet statement is that? You know as well as I do that one of many difficulties mental illness poses is the risk that the patient doesn't know what things cause problems or what treatment works. I mean, sometimes yes, sometimes no. This whole discussion is ridiculous, if you ask me. A lot of feel-good posturing at the expense of the big, bad medical profession. Sometimes I have to remember how we all know each other.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 10, 2000 at 19:06:41 (GMT) From: Carol Email: None To: Jim Subject: Read this, Jim. Do you really believe... Message:

doctors are mind readers and/or know more from their textbooks than the patient about what the patient is feeling?! (Not unless they are 'witch doctors' or highly intuitive...which is not my experience of psychiatrists so far! Much of the knowledge about disorders and treatments comes directly from field experience of the patients, in the trenches, so to speak; then the doctors (PHD's) take credit for discovery and write books. Those who do that serve the public to get the information out. A good doctor will also keep up with journals and research and bases treatment on the the words, as well as the described behaviors of a patient by him or herself and by close relatives,by family histories, school histories, etc. Psychiatry, and especially psychology, are not an exact sciences by the nature of our unkowing: the mutual understanding or lack of it about how humans are what they are or become what they become! Although the drugs and disorders' neurological origins are precise, logical and worthy of research...the field is hopping and full of hypothesis and breakthroughs of knowledge! Highly supervised live-in settings, can cause artificial or stress induced, reactive behaviors that look like greater pathological symptoms. Much of the data used by past psychiatrists was gathered in these extreme settings with more severely affected individuals. Experimentation with drugs, was, and is still, the main form of psychiatric management, except that now that average patient (who is not severely impaired) is more in charge than the doctor in the decision making. There is currently a hot market (book and conference) for information from the point of view of the person with the disorder in question. Check out authors Temple Grandin, Donna Williams, etc. and Jessica Kingsley publishers lists in the areas of mental health, education, and specific disorders. I am speaking from a highly compressed and intense study of my own as well as experience working with doctors and sharing information with parents of children with TS and AS. We have seen 5 child psychiatrists in 3 years for evaluations and medication management. We had to find one knowledgeable in specific areas and who you can communicate with effectively, and who is available, (there is a tremndous need for more of these kinds of good doctors!) which has not been easy. May I restate my opinion that you find so opposite yours: that awareness and monitoring of internal feelings, both physical and emotional, is the largest indicator for discovery and treatment of all 'disorders'. People as self-advocates have the best success when helped by doctors. (People who cannot self-advocate need our help..informed public and consumers, in order to monitor those given authority over others' lives.) Do you really disagree with this???? The doctor as 'all knowing god' or 'Father know best days are over', although you would probably be able to find ones that prefer that perspective. I think you would agree with this. Despite expected disagreements, I don't think you are being mean in your comments on this thread. I am glad you opened it, because if someone else did, you might critcize them for being off topic or something! As to your not having a 'recognizeable disorder'...how about a bit of obssessiveness, (how can you post here so much????) and perfectionism (about spelling,typos, logic, word usage), along with a distinct deficit in empathy which frequently surfaces, and a split aggressive/defensive personality disorder. (Made that up!)Or Barking Dog Syndrome...as in your bark is worse than your bite! We all are 'patients' if we placed ourselves under the care of a doctor. Many of us choose to be our selves despite the fact that others would like to see us change! Right? Regards,Carol

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 09, 2000 at 17:45:51 (GMT) From: cq Email: None To: Jim Subject: Get yer facts right Jim lad - WHO said that? Message:

As it happens, it wasn't me. Though Oliver has a point, if you care to think about it. Much of modern psychiatry actually dis-empowers those who exhibit symptoms of the various mental illnesses that afflict modern society. By putting the patient back into the equation as someone whose feedback can actually help in the process of recovery, rather than regarding them merely as a bundle of symptoms that require chemical treatment - perhaps psychiatry could actually learn a bit more about the human condition. Or should we presume the shrinks know it all?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 10, 2000 at 00:37:16 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: cq Subject: Mentally ill people SHOULD be 'disempowered' Message:

Chris, It's obvious that you, Oliver and a few others have a big chip on your shoulder regarding psychiatry. You seem to demonize the profession every time you mention it. Your post above suggests two extreme opposites. Either psychiatrists treat people 'merely as a bundle of symptoms that require chemical treatment' and suffer from a real lack of knowledge about 'the human condition' or, alternatively, shrinks 'know it all'. That's a false and thus useless dilemna. I think psychiatrists certainly don't 'know it all' and the shrinks I've dealt with are often pained to make that point clear. At the same time, there ARE specific mental maladies that they're able to diagnoses and, believe it or not, successfully treat once in a while. Why don't you talk about those cases?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 10, 2000 at 18:29:06 (GMT) From: cq Email: None To: Jim Subject: How callous can you get??? And no apology? (nt) Message:

x

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 10, 2000 at 19:02:45 (GMT) From: cq Email: None To: Jim Heller Subject: And SHAME on you for saying such a thing, Heller. Message:

such a thing as: 'Mentally ill people SHOULD be 'disempowered'' Good grief, man. What kind of therapist would want you as their lawyer? Never mind what kind of patient. Is your prejudice only for the mentally ill, or would you go so far as saying that ALL people suffering from illness should be disempowered? Physical illness too? Can you hear what you've said? No shrink worth his/her diploma would want to have anything to do with you after that ... sickening, - yes SICKENING display of reactionary bullshit. You want to wind me up on this, Heller? Shit, man, I'll give you enough rope ...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 10, 2000 at 02:25:32 (GMT) From: Stonor Email: None To: Jim Subject: The mentally ill should never be dehumanized. Message:

To clarify: Your posting 'subject' might not 'demonize' the mentally ill, but it certainly dehumanizes them. Who defines 'mentally ill - requiring disempowerment'? What do you mean when you say 'disempowerment'? And if someone is 'driven crazy', who is in the driver's seat? And I don't want to go into this with you, Jim. You take too many 'cheap' shots.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 10, 2000 at 03:07:46 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Stonor Subject: Oh yes, of course, dehumanize them. Exactly! Message:

Give it up, Stonor. I never said any such thing. I said 'disempower' and I stand by it. Delusional people can't be trusted in the same ways others can. You can twist that any which way you want but frankly, why bother? You know as well as I do what I'm talking about. Give up the bullshit PC attitude, won't you?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 10, 2000 at 03:56:47 (GMT) From: Oliver Email: None To: Jim Subject: Where do I start? Message:

Jim, I am writing this in response to a number of your posts in this thread, but it in all likelihood it may be my last contribution. What I thought might be a useful discussion, especially for the shy mentally ill among us, seems to have been turned into another 'your wrong, I disagree' scenario that will prove of no benefit to anybody. You ask what I find offensive in your attitude, and state that you are not a psychiatrist or a psychologist. This we all know. You are a lawyer whose contact with the mentally ill, I presume, is through your legal work. You have no discernible mental disability and so to me are totally unqualified to put over the strong unbending views that you have. You dismiss opinions of trained professionals in the field without any regard whatsoever, and display a total reluctance to learn from anyone who has a story to tell about their experience. Of course there is a benefit in diagnosis but the important work starts with treatment. Just because a person is given a particular label does not mean that they should necessarily be treated the exact same way as others so labelled. The treatment must be designed for the individual and not the label, as every individual suffering from a mental illness is unique to their fellow sufferer. One shoe does not fit all, ever. My psychologist would like to treat all of his clients like he does me. We know each other well enough to be able to talk honestly and determine from time to time a plan for the immediate future as well as the long term. He *empowers* me to be the main force behind this plan as he knows that the plan has then more chance of success. His way is not just to depend on the 'chemical straight jacket' that has been so popular over the past few decades. He is a good man, who in my case, does a very good job despite colleagues and superiors who still hang onto the old ways of keeping the client in their place, with heavy medication whether it is warranted or not. Just in case, so to speak. Yes, I must admit that I and a few others may have a chip on our shoulders about psychiatry. In my case this is after twenty years since being initially diagnosed incorrectly as a paranoid schizophrenic, and I was treated as one for three years until it dawned on 'them' that they had made a mistake. If you don't know how horrific the medication that is prescribed to a schizophrenic can be, just ask the next one who you have to appear for in court. It's horrific stuff. What's more no one ever said, sorry, we made a mistake. Shrinks don't do that. They don't know it all but they like to make the patient and the public think they do, and the ongoing maintenance of their little empires are reliant on this attitude. In my experience the majority of psychiatrists do indeed suffer from a real lack of knowledge of the human condition, as evidenced by their cavalier attitude to my treatment over the years. Interestingly enough, in my country they have the highest rate of suicide in any of the medical professions which sure gives 'food for thought' regarding their mental condition as well. It is gratifying to read you state that that there are specific mental maladies that they are able to treat, that they are able to diagnose, and successfully treat once and a while. I agree, why don't we talk about those cases. What was the illness, treatment and are the patients leading a happy and fulfilled existence? I love a positive story.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 10, 2000 at 01:06:09 (GMT) From: Stonor Email: None To: Jim Subject: FA: Jim SHOULD be 'disempowered' from writing Message:

sadistic posting subjects. He clearly has a mental illness, which is known as sadism, and should seek some kind of therapy from a reputable ego-shrink.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 10, 2000 at 01:16:35 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Stonor Subject: Sadistic? You're nuts .... oops, sorry Message:

I can't even get into this with you, Stonor. You're just too schoolmarmish for me. Sorry.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 10, 2000 at 01:04:17 (GMT) From: Selene Email: None To: Jim Subject: I agree Message:

And have posted my successful experiences with good doctors over on AG. But a lot of people have had bad experiences. They are most likely the norm unfortunately. Mental health care is not a high priority in most governments budgets.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 10, 2000 at 18:50:47 (GMT) From: cq Email: None To: Selene Subject: You agree with Jim??? Message:

That mentally ill people SHOULD be 'disempowered' ??? Huh??????

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 10, 2000 at 19:25:13 (GMT) From: Selene Email: None To: cq Subject: if necessary yes they should Message:

Blanket statements and generalities don't work here. Watched a dateline recently about the long history of that schizo guy who asked and asked for help over and over and the various places kept releaasing him due to lack of funds. He ended up pushing a girl off the subway platform into a train. Random weird act with no connection later. Should he have been disempowered and treated? Yes. Should I? NO. I am not violent (just a little snotty on line sometimes) And anyway I was mostly agreeing with Jim about the fact that psychiatrists do try and do deserve credit, at least the good ones do. We already have compared notes on health care systems CQ I am not blind to the fact that I am paying a lot of money to get good care and that I wouldn't if I were relying on HMO's.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 10, 2000 at 19:40:58 (GMT) From: cq Email: None To: Selene Subject: That word 'disempowered' Selene ... Message:

in my book, disempowerment is NOT the same as being taken into custody for the safety of oneself and/or others. To the contrary, disempowerment implies being denied one's basic rights and the ability to protect them - and we all share those rights, whether currently mentally ill or not. Another thing that Heller's post implied was that the diagnosis of mental illness was for a lifetime. Not something that anyone could ever recover from. Well, a fine doctor he'd make ... I don't think.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 10, 2000 at 01:40:10 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Selene Subject: I agree Message:

Selene, Don't forget -- and boy is THIS going to trip a few wires -- mentally ill people might not be good judges of their own psychiatric treatment. Especially if they're delusional.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 10, 2000 at 10:20:23 (GMT) From: Carol Email: None To: Jim Subject: I agree Message:

The problem as I see it right here with the temperatures rising, is that all too often 'The mentally Ill' is used as a catch-all and sterotype that possibly includes within the steroetype the notion that any single person that sits under the umbrella or goes to a shrink may not be able to think clearly or be safe to themselves or others. Every one is a different case. 'Being delusional' , for example, can range from very mild beliefs that others find improbable, to a vastly divergent view of the world. It is up to the individual and that person's friends and family, if possible to evaluate 'The Problem' that the person's differences create for himself or others. Without a good sense of self or people to look out for you, one would need a compassionate informed public and educated doctors and governments that pick up the bill when no on else can. Having recently been told my thinking was different enough and possibly harmful to myself, to the extent that my doctor suggested I might benefit from a hospital stay....I decided to leave her because she obviously did not know me! I knew me better! There are many people like me who are somewhat extreme around the edges during stress and who have had a lot more than average of life experiences that were character forming and memorable to say the least... who never would go to a psychiatrist in the first place. Because I did, I have the label! But because others didn't who would have had a label of some kind, doesn't mean they were any less 'crazy' than me! A very good movie about just such friends and relations is called Henry Fool. I loved it! If you can get past a few scenes with various body wastes, a little violence and sex...you'll see a film about real people who are mostly pretty label worthy getting along and helping each other with their lives. It is also a treatise on society and morals disguised as good entertainment.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 10, 2000 at 01:50:55 (GMT) From: Selene Email: None To: Jim Subject: yes and I said that too Message:

That is what is so unfortunate. and until society recognizes that people need advocates at times like this and if hopefully those people can take advantage of such, it's a crap shoot. But it doesn't mean all shrinks suck. And that all meds for all people are wrong.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 10, 2000 at 10:21:57 (GMT) From: Carol Email: None To: Selene Subject: yes me too..I just said that too above no text Message:

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 10, 2000 at 15:45:19 (GMT) From: Selene Email: None To: hi Carol Subject: good to hear from you Message:

Imagine meetng you in this thread :) :) Hope you are doing well.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 10, 2000 at 19:09:53 (GMT) From: carol Email: None To: Selene Subject: Thanks! I am doing well. :~) nt Message:

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 00:08:54 (GMT) From: Stonor Email: None To: Oliver Subject: To cq, re psychiatry Message:

While ateending the American Psychological Association's Annual Convention 5 years ago, I was quite disturbed by the hoopla and enthusiasm for a program, piloted by the military, to allow psychologists to prescribe. I was also unsettled to learn that the psychiatrist of the librarian at a school where I was working is a 'big-wig' in the Montreal 'Guru Ma' branch. (She invited me to one of their 'events'.) At a school where I was worked, there is a line-up every morning at the youth sector's vice-principals's door, while she dispenses 'ritalin' and, no doubt, other narcotics. Brave New World's 'Soma' is here now, IMO. Stonor

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 10, 2000 at 10:35:39 (GMT) From: Carol Email: None To: Stonor Subject: To cq, re psychiatry Message:

My son takes dexedrine to treat his symptoms of Tourette's like kids take Ritalin for ADD. It helps to prevent his tics and maintain his attention. Many kids with TS cannot tolerate stimulants and they make tics worse. It is trial and erroer by careful observation and interpretation in the best case scenario. Adderall made him too focused to the extent he became rigid and lost it when he had to change activities one day! It is his choice as well as ours and the doctors to use it based solely on it's benefit to him. (He is not addicted to it either. I also took it for 1 1/2 years and suddenly quit it on doctor's orders with no withdrawl symptoms or cravings.) It is foolish to think or imply that all kids who take Ritalin do not truely benefit from it. The 'soma' of literature, it is not. Maybe the internet is!!! or TV, or ?????? Whether or not it is true that drugs are overused for overly diagnosed conditions...it is an idividual matter to be decided by patient and family and doctor as in the best interest of the person or child.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 10, 2000 at 19:30:58 (GMT) From: cq Email: None To: Carol Subject: To Carol, re Ritalin Message:

Carol, it's true that I object to the automatic use of drugs as a cure-all for all forms of psychiatric disorder. Too often the ones who are prescribed those drugs are not even listened to, let alone asked their opinion, if they object to the treatment they are prescribed. Any objection to that tends to be seen as merely yet another symptom of their illness. But there are many forms of psychiatric disorder. Personally I can only speak of the experience I have had at the receiving end of the Mental Health system here in the UK. (I'll be posting more about this on the 'Anything Goes' forum soon). If Ritalin suits your child's needs, and, as you say, 'it is his choice as well as ours', then the decisions appear to be in the hands of the right people - i.e. the ones who are most affected by the situation. If it works for you and yours, then all well and good. My gripe (for want of a better word) is with those who implement the various procedures that demand medication AS A PREREQUISITE, rather than an additional option, for treatment of mental illnesses. Psychiatry today almost always presumes the need for medication (at least it does when the patient is referred to the State Authorities for treatment). Those who can afford their own psychoanalyst are in a totally bandwagon, IMO. One question I have for you, though: You say: 'It is foolish to think or imply that all kids who take Ritalin do not truely benefit from it.' Are you sure you can speak for ALL?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 10, 2000 at 13:57:26 (GMT) From: Stonor Email: None To: Carol Subject: To Carol, re: ritalin + Message:

Hi Carol, I posted these observations without any real comment, because I'm aware that this is a very 'loaded' issue. Please don't assume that this was aimed at those who do benefit from medication. My concern here is more along the lines of what Daneane understood - that the emphasis in our culture is too much on an instant 'fix' rather than prevention. It is so difficult to discuss this, I think to some extent because we can not express the 'whole' easily. There are many degrees and facets of 'mental illness', and it bothers me that in general, in the medical profession, symptoms are addressed far more frequently than the factors leading to a disease, and its possible prevention. With regards to the prescribing of ritalin for children in particular, I'm sure that you are aware of the concerns of many, that it is being over-prescribed. I believe that the possible over-diagnosis of ADD is due to the fact that education is not meeting the needs of many children. I know for a fact that in many cases, when my students lose interest in school work, or become bored and disruptive, it is usually because I have gone too quickly and need to find out what needs more explanation. I have always said that my students are my best teachers, and that teaching is learning. While the topic is huge and I have neither the time, nor is this the place to discuss these issues, I have done a lot of research in the area of reading 'disabilities' (and have actually been developing materials and a program to address the difficulties encountered by those learning how to read and write in English). This is, IMO, another example of where many education systems seem to 'write off' the deficiencies of their programs and teachers by 'labeling' the learners as having the problem. And I couldn't agree more that TV is a contributor to many of our 'cult'ure's problems as well - again another very long (off)topic. I hope this helps to clarify my position on these extremely complex issues which we all face in various ways, at various times. Stonor

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 10, 2000 at 19:42:38 (GMT) From: Carol Email: None To: Stonor Subject: on education, advocacy, prevention... Message:

I appreciate your viewpoint and understand. I also am an elementary teacher(not emplowed) and worked as an aide and substitute teacher with multiple-handicapped kids back in the early 80's. At that time we were not taught at all about Tourette's or Asperger Syndrome because they did not know! The level of knowledge about diasabilities in the schools is still about 10 years behind the current research, if not more. Labels can be both helpful and harmful depending on who uses them and how! Educated parents, and adults with the disabilities, united over the web and in advocacy groups are forcing changes as rapidly as possible. Neurologically based disorders (most learning disabilities and behavior problems have some of this) cannot be treated or prevented in the traditional, focus-on-the-behavior: 'problem child/problem family' approach that has often been used. Drugs like Ritalin are like a miracles to families when they see the changes in their child because of an obviously biochemical difference that had prevented learning and had caused so many negative responses from teachers and other adults in the child's life. Plus lots of parent blaming! I could not believe how ignorant the so called specialists in our local school were about reasons for my son's behaviors. Thank god the laws exist to protect the rights of people w/ disabilities. The stereo types and misunderstandings abound in the general public, but to find it with a school psychologist was shocking! I am an educated and assertive parent who fought my own fear of conflict and intimidation by school authorities to advocate for my son. Many other parents don't even know what to ask for or are too afraid to do it. We need lawyers sometimes! I agree wholeheartedly that changes in the educational programs and approach are also vital to prevent problems. Even with an IEP, it is still very difficult to get the right mix of structure with freedom that my son needs to learn. Every kid should have an IEP (individualized education plan)! He has an IQ of 126 to 145 and is very self-motivated and has difficulty with doing someone else's agenda, especially if they are rigid! He is too vulnerable to teasing and misunderstanding in the mainstream without an aide. We need people like him in the world to solve the problems that require an intense focus and an alternate perspective!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 10, 2000 at 14:56:45 (GMT) From: Katie Email: None To: Stonor Subject: To Stonor, re: ritalin + Message:

Hi Stonor - Thanks for clarifying your postition re Ritalin. My nephew takes it (he is ADD WITHOUT hyperactivity, which is quite hard to diagnose), and it has helped him so much. He is very bright, but just doesn't pay attention - he used to 'lose' his homework IN his backpack, or take 15 minutes to put on his socks - not kidding. My sister finally decided she couldn't follow him around middle school stuffing papers back in his backpack and making sure he didn't forget to go to class! But my sister still gets stigmatized - even by other family members -for 'putting her kid on Ritalin', and because of all the negative publicity, it was a difficult thing for her to do. I do think ADD, especially ADHD (with hyperactivity) is over-diagnosed, but Ritalin has been very helpful for some children AND their parents. Take care - Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 04:34:15 (GMT) From: Daneane Email: None To: Stonor Subject: Prescribing psychologists Message:

Hey Stonor, hope you don't mind me jumping in on a post you made to CQ. I just wanted to say I agree with you...drugs and mental health is a scary thing. Maybe it's the southern california in me, but I think a lot of mental health problems have to do with the mental health of society. Drugs for these problems seems to be a quick fix to a mere symptom while the cause goes un- examined.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 10, 2000 at 10:39:53 (GMT) From: Carol Email: None To: Daneane Subject: Prescribing psychologists Message:

Hey! Drugs are great!!! I want a new drug....what's that song? No, I just starting taking a medication vacation to find out if I'm really bipolar. Here it is 3:30 am PDT and I had better go try to sleep now or I may get really manic, so I've heard; or just get really tired and achey. Did you ever live in Portland and go by Danette?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 13:04:18 (GMT) From: Stonor Email: None To: Daneane Subject: Prescribing psychologists Message:

Hi Daneane, It was Jim who was posting to cq originally, but he had a typo that I decided to correct when I just jumped in myself ;-) I couldn't agree more with your point Daneane! In fact, that was what I was trying to imply. Another way of 'Nature telling us something's wrong' . . . ?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 19:12:49 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Everyone Subject: Do you have any guts, Shroom? Message:

In a thread below, Shroom, says: But it seems to me that Bal BhagwanJi used to be a supporter of Maharaji. Didn't he use to recognize him as being the Lord? When is Satpal's next world-wide satellite event going to happen? Maharaji's is next Thursday and then Sunday. I'll listen to Satpal's satsang as long as it doesn't conflict with Maharaji's. Do you have Satpal's current schedule of events? I'm open. I'll listen. Let me know. I dare you to tell Maharaji this without your cowardly mask on. Go on, tell him that you're going to listen to Satpal. Ha ha ha! It'd never happen in a million years, now would it? And you know why? Because you're in a cult. Maharaji's your cutl leader and you're what's called a 'cult member'. That's how it works, Shroom, and you know it. You know, really, you should pick up a pamphlet or something. There are places you can go to talk to people about this. You don't have to sit at home with a blanket over your head. You can fight this. There are people ready to help. You just have to reach out. But then, as they say in the cult-recovery world, you take one step towards extricating yourself from this never-never land and the world will take a thousand steps towards you. You just have to trust. Come as a child, Shroom, open and guileless. Ask with an open mind.....

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 19:28:25 (GMT) From: buzz Email: None To: Jim Subject: Do you have any guts, Shroom? Message:

you should go and have a knowledge review with satpal ji.at least you'll be shown the correct way to practice holy name,have you read hansyog prakash.by shri hans.in it he talks about the sushumna and kundalini and the chakras.when i was shown the original practice of holy name it was really powerful.mahraji's version just sent me to sleep.satpal ji is in the uk this month.should i save you a seat?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 03:16:55 (GMT) From: sam Email: - To: buzz Subject: Do you have these techniques? Message:

Its hard to find these techniques . can you tell me more?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 19:32:19 (GMT) From: Shroomananda Email: None To: buzz Subject: Save me a seat when he comes to Southern Message:

California, Buzz. I'd love to hear what he has to say but I'm not interested in traveling that far.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 19:43:17 (GMT) From: buzz Email: None To: Shroomananda Subject: Save me a seat when he comes to Southern Message:

i know there is an ashram in L.A. shoulndt be to hard for you to find out exactly where.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 19:41:07 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Shroomananda Subject: Lucky you, you don't have to wait Message:

Shroom, Here's the address of Satpal's website: http://www.manavdharam.org/index.html I didn't do it as a link because my linsk always seem to fuck up. But just cut and paste that address and away you go. You'll find good ol' Mata Ji (may God rest her soul, no matter which son He is!) and the grand poobah himself, Shri Hans. Bhole Ji's around somehere too. Most importantly, though, is Satpal. Otherwise known as Guru Maharaj Ji. Check out his satsangs and tell me there isn't a bit of a credibility problem in this Holy Family. Come on, Shroom, put it all together. It stinks.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 03:41:53 (GMT) From: G Email: None To: Jim Subject: a batch of premies Message:

From Satpal's News page 'Shri Maharaj Ji and Mata Amrita Ji along with a batch of twenty premies from India flew to Nairobi on 1st May, 2000 for satsang programmes in the main cities of Kenya and Tanzania.' Fresh from the oven.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 19:27:18 (GMT) From: Shroomananda Email: None To: Jim Subject: I'm happy being a 'cult' member, Jim, if that's Message:

the way you see it. Maharaji never asked me to stop growing and learning. If I can learn something from Satpal's satsang, why should that bother Maharaji? I learn from many sources. I've even learned some things here. I'm a truth-seeker, Jim. How about you? You haven't been in the 'cult' for quite awhile but aren't you in the 'ex' premie cult? Why would you want to hang around a bunch of people who do nothing but gripe about how they were deluded for so long? I'm not in a cult, Jim. I don't really hang around with premies. I'm an individual. I'm interested in realization and I listen to Maharaji because he addresses that aspect of my heart that yearns to know better than anyone I've ever met or heard of. I just love him. You used to. We do have that in common. Have a nice day, brother.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 19:31:38 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Shroomananda Subject: Now THAT's interesting Message:

I've even learned some things here. Forgive me for siezing on this one sentence but we can talk about the other stuff too. I'm just curious, what things have you learned here?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 19:43:02 (GMT) From: Shroomananda Email: None To: Jim Subject: Well, I've learned that you have a lot of early Message:

Divine Light Mission stuff here. I particularly love the Shri Hans booklet you guys posted here from November 1970. I've already printed it out and read it. I already had a copy of Hans Yog Prakash but it was nice to download it so I don't have to type it in to my computer. I was hoping it had the two missing pages that I was lacking but unfortunately you guys had the same stuff that I already had but in a different order. And I've re-learned the importance of listening to my heart. There's a lot of mind on this site! But you guys have a lot of information and ideas about other teachers and scriptures. I do appreciate that.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 22:24:01 (GMT) From: Gregg Email: None To: Shroomananda Subject: Jai Satchitanand, Shroom Ji Message:

Hi, Shroomananda. First of all, if you spend more time here, you'll notice that we do a lot more than bitch about how we were deluded so long. In fact, about half the posters here are still, post-Maharaj Ji, involved in spiritual work. Secondly, calling this site evidence of a cult is common practice by premies. However, if you look at any comprehensive definition of a cult, ex-premies do not fit the bill. DLM/EV does, although only marginally in my opinion. Most cults have more rules and theology than your group. Lastly, this mind/heart dichotomy you bring up is one of the things that bothered me about the Guru's philosophy when I was involved, and it really is a cornerstone. The fact that you can dismiss troubling arguments or feelings by labelling them 'mind' is, to me, counterproductive in terms of learning how to be a free, open, ethical and loving human being. Expand! Contracting into a belief system will retard your spiritual growth. IMHO.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 19:48:07 (GMT) From: buzz Email: None To: Shroomananda Subject: Well, I've learned that you have a lot of early Message:

is that the 280 page hansyog prakash i have a much edited version that i got in the 70,s

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 19:47:46 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Shroomananda Subject: Have you also learned how blindered you are? Message:

I figure that learning how important it is to listen to your heart is just another way of saying how hard you have to avoid dealing with facts here. We're all playing classic parts here, Shroom. We're the disgruntled former cult members and you're the current one. Yes, we're conventionally angry. Yes, you're conventionally acting like an idiot. It's community theatre. Having fun?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 18:45:58 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Everyone Subject: Forget it, Zelda Message:

Picking up on the discussion about discussing astrology and the like here, I wanted to reply to Zelda's soon-to-be-gone post below: Jim you are being a bully. What if people want to discuss something you dont believe in. are you saying that you cannot accept that your imput is not invited or wanted?? Why cant you just be quiet UNTIL the subject turns to whetr astrology is valid or not? What happens is that you tend to intervene and derail the conversation with your clatter about whether astrology is valid, believable ect AS IF YOU ARE A POLICEPERSON IN CHARGE OF WHAT IS DISCUSSED or That your imput is needed or requested. Dont be such an edsel about this. There are probably fence line premeis who could be spoken to in new age, spiritual or astrological term - who would leave Mahah quicker if you werent such a republican about subject matter. This aint your forum jim. There are not signs saying 'only Jim approved lines of debate permitted.' of course there is no protection here for me- but on the other hand your interuptions and unasked for critism can and does stifle discussion on this. I am sure you are mature enough to be quiet and observe an exchange without putting your two sense in. I find it interesting how you get all free speachy when you are asked to be quiet. by frame of reference I mean a frame of reference. such as the frame of reference of astrology. you know stuff like he is a sag by the old astronomical calculations but by modern calc. he is a scorp. and what aspects are tucked away to fuel HIs megalomania and bullheaded bulliness. stuff like that jim. why cant you just let us talk. Zelda, No, it's not 'my' forum. It's not yours either. It's a public place for exes, mainly, to discuss Maharaji, mainly. No thread is private. No one has to ask permission to join in. It just doesn't work that way. What's happening with your astrology comment is what happens all the time in discussions. Someone says something that clearly implies some other assumed premise that someone else takes issue with. So they do just that; they take issue with it. It's got nothing to do with astrology per se. It's just how people talk about things. Now, quite honestly, I find it a little hard to believe that you didn't fully anticipate some objection from someone when you starting riffing on the astrological explanations, such as they are, for Maharaji's character. You know, it's not as if you'd be surprised that some, if not most, people here find astrology empty and, indeed, emblematic of the naive attitudes that got us sucked into this cult in the first place. I just can't imagine that you wouldn't see that kind of challenge coming. But, in any event, whether you expected it or not, there's nothing wrong with anyone doing challenging your analysis and, in this case, the very theoretical basis for it. Does that mean that you can't feel as comfortable as you might otherwise here going off on astrology or whatever other new age ideas you have? Yes. Yes it does. It most certainly does. But is that a bad thing? Depends what you want, I guess. Ideas of all stripes get challenged here, Zelda. For example, once in a while, Joe gets particularly excited or dismayed by something political and posts something to that effect. More often than not, that starts some sort of argument with others of different political ilk. Joe expects it, I'm sure. It's just the nature of a discussion board. But maybe that's not the best example, cheifly because off-topic threads are, by definition, extraneous to the focus here. Your post, however, was not. It was all about Maharaji and was, in fact, the very kind of post that you'd expect to attract wide-scale comment on. Your problem, really, as I see it, anyway, is that you just don't like the comment. Astrology simply cannot stand up to the light of day. It doesn't make sense any way you look at it. Whether it's simply the fact that, as Dave said, the so-called 'heavens' have shifted so drastically since the ancients came up with this belief system or it's that there is no reason -- simply no reason -- why it would be true as well as no reason that the ancients would have figured it out if it were. It's colourful junk, is what it is. Yet you chose to use it as if it were some tried and true gauge of human character. Frankly, Zelda, I find that offensive. I don't know why, exactly. I just do. I'm offended that someone would talk like that and if I hear it I'm going to say something. It's like other kinds of offensive speech, really. If I heard you offer some vile, racist explanation for Maharaji's character I'd do the same thing. To me, intellectually, there's no big difference. Both are unfounded and both insult the intelligence of all involved. I guess what you might be looking for if you really want to discuss these things and not be challenged is Katie and Runamok's 'Recent Ex' site. There, I understand, no one challenges anything. Or, if they do, they do so in the most gentle, dulcett tones. They certainly never risk offending anyone. Why not ask for the address if you don't have it already?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 13:25:51 (GMT) From: Stonor Email: None To: Jim Subject: Forget it, Zelda Message:

Jim, you wrote, You know, it's not as if you'd be surprised that some, if not most, people here find astrology empty and, indeed, emblematic of the naive attitudes that got us sucked into this cult in the first place. I'm sure you include any form of belief in 'whatever-it-is' along with naive attitudes that got many sucked into cults, and I believe that you grossly over-generalize. Since an early age, I have been drawn to all things metaphysical, and have examined many possible 'paths' throughout my life, yet have never been 'sucked into a cult'. I find you to be offensively presumptuous, as you are about 'possible' applications of astrology. IMO, you walk on thin ice to talk about others being emotional. Your personal and rather extreme 'flip-flop(s)' in 'belief' systems and the zealousness of your attacks on those who have a different point of view is, to me, highly suspect, and highly emotional. Stonor

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 15:58:00 (GMT) From: Stonor Email: None To: Jim Subject: Above should read: Forget it, Jim (nt) Message:

Above should read: Forget it, Jim (nt)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 15:56:58 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Stonor Subject: Your history's irrelevant, Stonor Message:

Hate to tell you this, Stonor, but being that you weren't a cult member, your own history is irrelevant. I never said that all people who naively believe stupid things like astrology. I did say that that kind of naivite was indeed indicative of the kind of thinking that allowed us to get sucked in. Do your Venn diagrams. And yes, I agree. Any belief system as broad-sweeping and insupportable as astrology would raise the same concerns. Good point.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 16:54:29 (GMT) From: Stonor Email: None To: Jim Subject: No more irrelevant in the larger scheme of things Message:

No more irrelevant in the larger scheme of things than yours, Jim. But then, to me, your personal history suggests that your obsession with insisting on your'absolute rightness', is far more important to you than 'absolute truth', and I suppose that for many lawyers and their clients, that is all that matters. You didn't address my second point, did you? And where did your last comment get twisted from Jim? BTW, could you please document how you came up with the theory that what you call 'naive beliefs' are 'indeed, emblematic of the naive attitudes that got us sucked into this cult in the first place'? This is not what I have understood from ANY of the reading I have done on cult phenomena. And, just a suggestion Jim, but in general I find that it's safer to speak for myself. Stonor

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 09, 2000 at 16:13:40 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Stonor Subject: This is where I turn away, bored Message:

Sorry, Stonor, Maybe tomorrow we can continue this exciting conversation.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 09, 2000 at 23:38:06 (GMT) From: Stonor Email: None To: Jim Subject: Losing argument = losing interest? Message:

Seriously Jim, I have no interest in arguing with you, as I'm sure few people do - it's just too down and dirty below-the-belt unpleasant. The only thing that is more unpleasant around here is watching you jump over and over again on any post that doesn't fit in with your personal belief system. I appreciate that your 'style' does seem to have been beneficial to some in their process of exiting from m's controlling and greedy grasp among other things. But I do sincerely hope that you will reconsider applying your special skills to posts that do not fall into this category. With entirely due respect for the real Work you do do here, Stonor

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 20:06:03 (GMT) From: Zelda Email: None To: Jim Subject: Hmmmm 'I dont know Archie..' Message:

Hey you didnt just critisize-in the heat of the moment what came off you keyboard felt like a Command. 'dont go there' You gave me an order to stop. Dont sugar coat it now by saying that you were merely critisizing astrology Jim. You have thrown the issue off course by coming back at me saying I dont like critism of astrology.By doing this you DELETE my first objection- which was that you had no right to issue an order to me not to go there. I tried to illustrate to ou the error of your ways by ALSO explaining that crisism of astrology could be limited to a destignated thread on that subject instead of erroding the one I was on. Now you further food process it into inviting me to go to another site to talk about astrology and tell me that I should accept objection.. HA! For your own sake at least admit to the mechanics of what you have done you you broken printer you. You aint fooling anybody Admit it you big palooka-say 'ok Zelda- I had no right to order you 'not to go there' and then say ''I, Jim Heller the Great'-have a right to criisize Asrology or any other astrololgy but I should do so on another site if it is out of context of the cult. I will also endeavor to harness my bossy ways and stay my huge paw when I see other free human beings discussing new age philosopys or whatever and NOT COMMAND THEM TO STOP. I will do this because I have no right to issue commands on the forum.' There is substrata to this that have developed Ie I wanted to be ABLE to analyse the cult and Maamamas behavior in light of astrology with anyone who would care to discuss it. To me this is just as much in keeping to the purpose of the forum as is legal or penis talk. Critism of astology is NOT the purpose of the forum and debating it does belong to some other site. I cant believe you are so thick. It is just so waspy of you to set paramaters about what YOU think and consider accepted lines of critsism. There are many many types of people here Jim and when you do that a newcomer might think you are the gatekeeper and that is definitly not so. Your implicationl that there is an unwritten agreement here about this or that is overrulled. If by the percussion of your comments you divert lines of critism because they are not to your taste then you do exs and pre exs a disservice.BUT THE WOSRT THING IS THAT YOU MAKE THIS PLACE SEEM LIKE A CULT ITTSELF- WITH CONSTRICTIONS OF BELIEFS SYSTEMS FIE ON THAT You can be like a green beret in guerilla mode at a army base family picnic. Show me the rules of this forum that say that any line of discussion ABOUT MARJI OR THE CULT is discouraged. Show me where it says that I should anticipate the prejudices of the REGULAR participants and modify what I say accordingly. If some ex or pre ex waltzes on here and wants to analyse Mahaha in relation to color therapy or automobile psychology what are you going to do - push the delete button on that too?? You cannot regulate or police with COMMANDS TO CEASE AND DISSIST. How dare you accuse me of not liking your comment instead of not liking your order to stop and asking to be allowed to discuss with others - free form your rude intervention. Jim this is absolutlely Joeyesk of you. You are as much as saying that what I objected to in the first place was really a coverup for the fact that I did not want to deal with critism of astrology. very presumptous of you nay neck behaviour Oh ya and please spare me the referece to other people on the forum also not believeing in astrology. That has nothing to do with what you did. Z

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 20:12:31 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: zelda Subject: Sorry, Zelda, that post came up empty Message:

Care to try again? Either that or wait a few hours, I'm told.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 20:34:16 (GMT) From: Zelda Email: None To: Jim Subject: again Message:

Hey you didnt just critisize-in the heat of the moment what came off you keyboard felt like a Command. 'dont go there' You gave me an order to stop. Dont sugar coat it now by saying that you were merely critisizing astrology Jim. You have thrown the issue off course by coming back at me saying I dont like critism of astrology.By doing this you DELETE my first objection- which was that you had no right to issue an order to me not to go there. I tried to illustrate to ou the error of your ways by ALSO explaining that crisism of astrology could be limited to a destignated thread on that subject instead of erroding the one I was on. Now you further food process it into inviting me to go to another site to talk about astrology and tell me that I should accept objection.. HA! For your own sake at least admit to the mechanics of what you have done you you broken printer you. You aint fooling anybody Admit it you big palooka-say 'ok Zelda- I had no right to order you 'not to go there' and then say ''I, Jim Heller the Great'-have a right to criisize Asrology or any other astrololgy but I should do so on another site if it is out of context of the cult. I will also endeavor to harness my bossy ways and stay my huge paw when I see other free human beings discussing new age philosopys or whatever and NOT COMMAND THEM TO STOP. I will do this because I have no right to issue commands on the forum.' There is substrata to this that have developed Ie I wanted to be ABLE to analyse the cult and Maamamas behavior in light of astrology with anyone who would care to discuss it. To me this is just as much in keeping to the purpose of the forum as is legal or penis talk. Critism of astology is NOT the purpose of the forum and debating it does belong to some other site. I cant believe you are so thick. It is just so waspy of you to set paramaters about what YOU think and consider accepted lines of critsism. There are many many types of people here Jim and when you do that a newcomer might think you are the gatekeeper and that is definitly not so. Your implicationl that there is an unwritten agreement here about this or that is overrulled. If by the percussion of your comments you divert lines of critism because they are not to your taste then you do exs and pre exs a disservice.BUT THE WOSRT THING IS THAT YOU MAKE THIS PLACE SEEM LIKE A CULT ITTSELF- WITH CONSTRICTIONS OF BELIEFS SYSTEMS FIE ON THAT You can be like a green beret in guerilla mode at a army base family picnic. Show me the rules of this forum that say that any line of discussion ABOUT MARJI OR THE CULT is discouraged. Show me where it says that I should anticipate the prejudices of the REGULAR participants and modify what I say accordingly. If some ex or pre ex waltzes on here and wants to analyse Mahaha in relation to color therapy or automobile psychology what are you going to do - push the delete button on that too?? You cannot regulate or police with COMMANDS TO CEASE AND DISSIST. How dare you accuse me of not liking your comment instead of not liking your order to stop and asking to be allowed to discuss with others - free form your rude intervention. Jim this is absolutlely Joeyesk of you. You are as much as saying that what I objected to in the first place was really a coverup for the fact that I did not want to deal with critism of astrology. very presumptous of you nay neck behaviour Oh ya and please spare me the referece to other people on the forum also not believeing in astrology. That has nothing to do with what you did. Z

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 07:02:10 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Zelda Subject: Too bad your post showed up eventually Message:

Zelda, Your foaming a bit. The fact is, I don't really know what you're talking about. I'll just say this as simply as I can. 'Don't go there' wasn't an 'order', it was a friendly admonition. Too bad for you if you can't tell the difference. I do't give orders and don't have to apologize for what I don't do. And astrology has, does and always will invite lots of ridicule here. I apologize for nothing. As for the 'mechanics', I tried to explain earlier. Your mention of astrology in the way you did just cried out for ridicule. Think about it. Honestly.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 08:37:34 (GMT) From: Zelda Email: None To: Jim Subject: Too bad your post showed up eventually Message:

the thread about the critcism of the letter when you really were asking for clarification about who it came from for Joey ring any bells?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 17:59:54 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Everyone Subject: Joey's particular problem Message:

In a thread below, Joey accuses the people who put together the MRC letter of being cult operatives: '...and please don't puke. Imo, it's a load of crap. A cult set-up to allow m to get away scott-free. No mention of the real issues such as the cults sexual abuse, material abuse and m's abuse of power. No mention of compensation to the victims. No mention of means of future accountabilty for his organization to comply with. And we exes are expected to take this shit seriously. BUT WHAT IS talked about is alot of la-dee-dah irrelevant crap. I'll let you decide for yourself ********************************************** MAHARAJI RESPONSIBILITY CAMPAIGN MaharajiResponsibilityCampaign@hotmail.com June 9, 2000 Dear Mr. Rawat a.k.a. Maharaji, We are concerned premies, former premies, and the families and loved ones of both. We are writing to request an honest dialogue with you regarding a number of unresolved issues resulting from an important period in our lives - - a period in which you played a crucial role. When you first came to the West in 1971, you presented yourself, by your words and your actions, as 'Perfect Master,' a divine being worthy of devotion and worship. Your devotees, in turn, signed over trust funds, gave you extravagant gifts, literally kissed your feet, and approached you with unmitigated awe and reverence. You also threatened your followers with dire circumstances that would befall them should they ever stop practicing your teachings, known as 'Knowledge,' move out of one of your monastic ashrams (prior to when you summarily closed the ashrams in 1983), or even entertain doubts about Knowledge or you. Thus, you created a climate of fear that ultimately limited your followers' personal development. We, especially those of us who call ourselves former premies, accept our responsibility for allowing ourselves to be led to believe in you as one worthy of worship and devotion. However, you also have a deep moral responsibility to address these issues and to explain publicly your motivations for your behavior, to take responsibility for your actions, and to explain the steps you are taking to ensure that worship of you does not continue or recur. We also feel you have a responsibility to dissuade, without equivocation, your current followers from the notion that you are a more perfect human being than they themselves are. Some of your former followers feel that Knowledge has some value. Others consider it a quite ordinary set of meditation techniques. We feel, however, that the most honest way to teach Knowledge would be to dismantle all things that are cult-like about your organization, especially the notion that you are a divine being, that you are worthy of worship, or that you have special powers. In fact, we suggest, if you want to continue to teach Knowledge in the 21st century, that it would be brave and revolutionary for you to demonstrate real leadership by dismantling and purging all of the cult-like aspects from your organization and your leadership role within it. Specifically, the first step should be to honestly address the past by taking full responsibility for presenting yourself as a 'Perfect Master,' worthy of worship and devotion. All familiar with you know that you were groomed from childhood to play this role. Nevertheless, you are now 42 years old and have been an American citizen for almost 25 years. The time has long since passed when you should have openly declared that your claims about your divinity, made as an adolescent and as a young adult, were simply not true. The honest declaration of your errors, and admission that you are a human being with all of the qualities and flaws that constitute the human condition, would undo much of what is most cult-like about you and your organization. It might even earn you the respect of the world outside your organization in a way you have never dreamed possible. While we are aware that you have initiated certain changes to eliminate some of the Hindu trappings of your organization, we are very concerned that you continue to reinforce in your followers the belief that you are divine. For example, as late as 1997, you allowed your followers to line up and kiss your feet in Australia. What other conclusion can one reach about a person who allows his followers to kiss his feet? Moreover, based on our interactions with your current followers, many of them, especially those who received Knowledge in the 70s and 80s, still believe you are divine. Since they are predisposed to believe this, you are in the best position to dissuade them, not just by your words but also by your actions. We believe that such actions would benefit your stated aim of teaching Knowledge to anyone who is sincerely interested. With the advent of the Internet, your ex-followers are now communicating in significant numbers with each other and to others about you and your past. We believe that this extensive interest is due mainly to the fact that you have failed to address these issues and put them behind you. Until you do so, they will continue to haunt you publicly. We are already seeing many people who were interested in Knowledge lose interest when they read about your past on the Internet. They are disillusioned because that information was not disclosed to them by you or your instructors in the aspirant process. As more people become connected to the Internet, this process will only accelerate, significantly undermining your mission. Besides clarifying your role, we suggest that you transform your organization so that it becomes the first 'former' cult in history to institute safeguards against ever becoming a cult again. For example, members might receive a text outlining the characteristics of cults and mind control and how to recognize them. Such a text could become required reading before you agree to teach anyone. We believe this would make your followers more independent, with greater opportunity for personal growth. Perhaps your teachings might have value, on their own merits, without a cult-like belief system. You have a great opportunity. We urge you to consider it. This is our challenge to you. We request that you step down from your pedestal and join your brothers and sisters in the human race. Find your place among us. Treat us as equals with the love and respect you always claimed you had for us. Be one of us. It would free us and those premies still trapped in worshipping you. It might free you in many ways as well. There is so much to be gained by everyone. Please respond to this letter by stating your commitment to achieving the goals described herein, and by creating a forum where an honest dialogue can take place. Of course, no response from you to this sincere, respectful and reasonable request will be seen as a response in and of itself. Thank you. Maharaji Responsibility Campaign MaharajiResponsibilityCampaign@hotmail.com' (emphasis added) When Joey first made this crazy leap of logic I posted that I was one of the people who put the letter together and that it most certainly was not at the behest of the cult. This, even IF Joey might have done it differently! Yet he persists with this bullshit. This is exactly what he did with Roger Drek, by the way. Drek didn't quite prioritize his web site the way Joey would have and Joey hasn't quit calling him a spy for the cult ever since. Now, is there anyone else who worked on -- and PAID for -- the MRC letter who wouldn't mind saying so so that we can help brother Joey through this difficult period he's having?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 19:40:22 (GMT) From: Sir Dave Email: sirdavid12@hotmail.com To: Jim Subject: The problem with the letter Message:

I didn't partake in the letter but I find it distasteful in that it is talking about and to Maharaji as if he were of some importance or worthy of some respect. I find even the title a little nauseating and the two words, 'Maharaji' and 'responsibility' are not compatable in the same phrase. But and it's a big but; if this letter was as I presume, really aimed at current premies and not Maharaji himself, then I guess the tone would have to be watered down. Maharaji himself would just laugh at the letter and consider it an irrelevance. Let me tell you what I really feel about such things: If a thief steals your money from your wallet/purse and then you later send him a letter asking him to be more responsible and consider the feelings of others in future - what is the thief going to do? He will laugh at you and be amazed at your naivity. He might also feel pleased that even though you realised that he stole your money, you didn't press charges or bring in the police. His conscience will not be pricked because he is a thief, a crook and considers your money there for his taking. Maharaji is basically a thief and a crook and to expect him to actually respond favourably to a letter asking him to be responsible is really expecting pigs to fly.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 19:43:47 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Sir Dave Subject: The problem with the letter Message:

Yes, Dave, no doubt. Those are very reasonable criticisms, I'm sure. I share some of them and, like I say, I was even on of the people who put it together. But the issue here isn't whether it was a good letter. The issue is whether the letter is self-evidently a 'cult set up'. And your opinion is .......?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 19:55:10 (GMT) From: Sir Dave Email: None To: Jim Subject: The problem with the letter Message:

In a word, no. It isn't a cult set up. It is what you'd expect to be written by people who once were in a cult and still feel some identification with it but not some insider job by people trying to pull strings and play politics. I think the letter is honest and to the point and is the right sort of thing for current premies to read. Maharaji already knows all about what ex-premies feel and knows why they are so angry. He wouldn't need a letter to explain it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 19:57:09 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Sir Dave Subject: And thus .......? Message:

What, then, do you say to Joey's accusation? Don't forget, Dave, that's what my post to which you responded was all about.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 20:23:37 (GMT) From: Sir Dave Email: None To: Jim Subject: And thus .......? Message:

I'd agree with Zelda's initial post. Perhaps Joey is being overzealous but I do understand his reaction. Mind you, when you're on the receiving end it must feel different. (Even though none of this is real etc etc) While the net is great for sharing info the fact that we never see the whole picture because we don't know all the people does mean that inaccurate images are formed. How to address that problem? We're trying to do it now.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 19:03:32 (GMT) From: Zelda Email: None To: Jim Subject: The Letter Message:

Now I am not one of joeys favorites- I think he is not very good at sarcasm when he wants to get at me or else I just dont get the sarcasm. Not like you Jim- you are upfont and rude with no bones about it. As for the letter, I was not part of the writing team but did ask to be put into the info loop and gave comment on a draft, When I heard that there were several of you guys in on it I know it was in good hands. I gave critism that addressed slants that were in the drafts and I know they were at least considered. I think I understand Joeys frustration because an ex can get so pissed of that nothing short of class action type action will appease the revenge one can feel. Of course this is not addressed this letter. If I imagine between the lines - In Joeys eyes anything short of a move towards compenstation of some sort is really a tactic from Mahahas side to divert accoutability. (spy vs spy) Zeal for this accountability from Mahaha can be like a burning coal in the brain of an ex. Hence the wild accusations and undermining of his allies. This is what I come up with if I give Joey the benefit of the doubt and imagine how he ticks. Z

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 19:29:25 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Zelda Subject: Come on, Joey, what do you say to this? Message:

Now it's not just me but Zelda, too, who's 'admitting' some involvement in that letter. The letter that you called '[a] cult set-up to allow m to get away scott-free'. What's it going to take, Joey? You need a list of names of everyone involved? What's it take for you to see your own blindspot?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 01:55:12 (GMT) From: Joey Email: None To: Jim Subject: This is what I have to say. Message:

Now it's not just me but Zelda, too, who's 'admitting' some involvement in that letter. Oh yes, Zelda. Zelda, who when I posted about an upcoming workshop for former cult members sponsored by the American Family Foundation, called them a group of 'christian zealots.' Very nice. Zelda, who wanted to see if we could get information about suits about to be filed against the cult posted on the forum thus making the information available to the cult in advance. Very sweet. Zelda, the adorable wacknut, who would want to subject us to her astrological analysis of m and the cult, in an effort to make the forum more credible to premies still remaining in the cult. Very impressive. Quite frankly Jim, I think you and Zelda kinda deserve each other :) Face it, Jim, I don't think too many genuine exes posting on this forum actually like the letter. I don't think the case against it has to be reviewed in depth here. The comments that have already been posted in this thread should do. Although I'd also point out that when it originally surfaced on these pages, there were other comments by at least a couple of posters that the circumstances around this letter were 'suspect' and that it seemed to offer m 'a sense of reprieve.' The letter that you called '[a] cult set-up to allow m to get away scott-free'. Exactly, that's what I said and thats what I meant. And now that we've found out that Dettmers was also involved in the writing of the letter, I mean it even more. I've already stated why IMO, his interests lie in softening the opposition from ex-premies. Should the opposition pick up steam with more people vocalizing their criticisms of the cult, especially if certains Pams get on board-pams with damaging info against the cult, an IRS investigation could be sparked. An investigation that could very well see Dettmers as a subject of it himself, having occupied so many key positions in the cult for so long. What's it going to take, Joey? You need a list of names of everyone involved? What's it take for you to see your own blindspot? I certainly don't need a list. I've heard enough already. I'm relieved that Joe has finally accepted his part in the drafting of the letter, although that really doesn't change much. The final result seems to have proven unsatisfactory to myself, but to quite a few other posters here, regardless of all the explanations. You accepted your part in this at the beginning although it took quite a bit of prodding. It would have only taken one or two people with less than honorable intentions to manipulate the group in producing the kind of result which really is quite dissatisfying to quite a few of us. Finally as far as blindspots go, Jim, I think you should look after your own. Next time you're part of such a group you might might want to know who you're really working with. It seems by the ex-change between you and Joe in this thread that you've just found out today. As a lawyer you should know better.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 06:44:36 (GMT) From: zelda Email: None To: Joey Subject: This is what I have to say-but it has no basis Message:

Joey you have lost touch with reality. You are now changing my words and projecting what you think my intent was. Think! and watch your adverbs. here is what you accuse me of and here is what happened you say 'Zelda, who wanted to see if we could get information about suits about to be filed against THE cult posted on the forum thus making the information available to the cult in advance. Very sweet.' bullshit. I wanted to see information about suits to OTHER cults on the forum to get an idea of what was possible. 'Zelda, the adorable wacknut, who would want to subject us to her astrological analysis of m and the cult, IN AN EFFORT to make the forum more credible to premies still remaining in the cult. Very impressive.' more prefab bullshit I wanted to talk astological shop talk with the people here already. NOT IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE THE FORUM MORE CREDIBLE BLA BLA BAL. When this was interfered with by ex's needing to critisize astrology, I pointed out that SOME premies may be able to relate to astrological refernces and it may help them leave AND that blocking the subject from here could alienate them from the forum and therefore a way out. You are one twisted guy.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 14:01:43 (GMT) From: Joey Email: None To: zelda Subject: You're lying Zelda Message:

I wanted to see information about suits to OTHER cults on the forum to get an idea of what was possible. That's a pure unadulterated lie. It was about suits to be filed against m's cult.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 09, 2000 at 03:12:43 (GMT) From: Zelda Email: None To: Joey Subject: You're lying Zelda NOT -- no I confesss please hel Message:

Joey You are confused Yes I wanted to find out the possibilities for class action for Mahahas cult- and one way to do that was to ask for documentation for other suits for lother cults. Cant you think into detail Joey??? all right all right I confesss!! You are right I am a premie who is only here to see if I can get information about how far these crazy exs will go!! I cant stand you pressure anymore Joey you are just too)))) goood

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 05:35:13 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Joey Subject: Think -- just think for a second! Message:

It would have only taken one or two people with less than honorable intentions to manipulate the group in producing the kind of result which really is quite dissatisfying to quite a few of us. First of all, be honest. You're moving the goal posts like crazy. You start off saying the letter is no less than 'a cult set-up to allow m to get away scott-free.' And now you're down to what? A dissatsifying letter? Not the letter you would have written? Not focused on the real issues? What are you saying, Joey? That Joe, for instance, has been duped by the cult? Again? And Marianne too? Or is it possible, just possible, that maybe .... I don't know if you can possibly get your mind around this, Joey, but let's try ... that just possibly some people tried a different tack than you might have? Not because they're working for the cult, not to assist in some 'cult set-up', but because they're just not you. Ever think of that? And where's your letter, big shot, anyway? Where's your web site? Where's your ad pointing to it? You need to talk this through, Joey. As distasteful as it might seem you have to do it. Only then, I figure, will you be able to see how confused your thinking is. But start with this. Tell me again how Joe, Marianne and I allowed ourselves to be duped by the cult? And who was that secret cult operative that overwlemed us like that. Zelda? Do you think so? Or was it maybe Dettmers, on a secret mission he received after he told Maharaji that I'd contacted him? Unless you can put it together, Joey, you've got nothing. And I say you can't put it together. Anymore than you could when you tried to argue that Roger was somehow a cult operative. That road's the road to madness, Joey.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 06:06:01 (GMT) From: Joey Email: None To: Jim Subject: Think -- just think for a second! Message:

First of all, be honest. You're moving the goal posts like crazy. You start off saying the letter is no less than 'a cult set-up to allow m to get away scott-free.' And now you're down to what? A dissatsifying letter? Not the letter you would have written? Not focused on the real issues? No, I'm down to a letter that's the result of a cult set-up. How? Well I said that clearly. It would have only taken one or two people with less than honorable intentions to manipulate the group in producing the kind of result which really is quite dissatisfying to quite a few of us. Is that so really hard for you to understand? I guess so. Because here you're asking me. ... start with this. Tell me again how Joe, Marianne and I allowed ourselves to be duped by the cult? And who was that secret cult operative that overwlemed us like that. Read my post again. I know it's hard for you to accept that a brilliant magna cum laude genius like yourself could be duped, but again I ask you, as a lawyer how do you allow yourself to get into a situation where you lend yourself to an effort of this nature, where you don't even know WHO you're working with? Unless you can put it together, Joey, you've got nothing Wrong Jim. I've got my common sense, and I've got my gut instincts. And in the final sense, this whole question of the cult's infiltration and manipulation of the efforts of ex-premies began in this medium because the internet lends itself so well to this kind of deception. It's obvious that the issue can't be resolved here, because that will only allow the cult to breed even MORE deception into the situation. As you said Jim, That road's the road to madness, Joey. And I hope you don't take too many people with you, Jim.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 06:47:06 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Joey Subject: Nonsense! Message:

...as a lawyer how do you allow yourself to get into a situation where you lend yourself to an effort of this nature, where you don't even know WHO you're working with? I knew this MRC secrecy thing was going to create problems. I just knew it. Especially with you, in fact. Remember when the letter first came out and you were suspicious? That's when I mentioned that I was one of the people who put it together, thinking that'd satisfy you that it wasn't something more nefarious. So now you know that Joe, Marianne and I -- and Zelda too, apparently -- were involved. And what were there? A few others? I wish this thing wasn't veiled in the slightest so you could see how stupid you're being. But some people wanted to keep anonymous. Their call. Whatever. And yes, you can jump to whatever hasty, idiotic conclusion you want because of that. Whos' going to stop you? But back to this idea of yours that we were somehow 'manipulated'. I take it that you're envisioning a real live spy kind of thing, right? Someone actually infiltrating this group of people and simply pretending to want to challenge Maharaji in any real fashion. How's it work, Joey? Do you actually think someone got a secret order to do this? What's your theory? And then what? This spy ingratiates him or herself with the rest of us and starts lobbying for a really soft letter, one that'll make Maharaji think there's even a glimmer of hope we'd be open to a dialogue with him? That's the only reason you could ever imagine us deciding to write the letter like that? The only one, right? No way it could just be a different tack than yours, right? And here's the good part. This slick, sliver-tongued spy talked at least Marianne, Joe and me into simply going along, as if we'd been drugged or something. Is that it? There's no other possible explanation that you can think of? Again, like it couldn't be just a different approach than yours? You're amazing if you really think like that. Amazing and very, very pitiful. Who can you trust, Joey? How do you know tht any one of won't be infiltrated by the pro-Maharaji virus at any juncture, in any moment? And how will you know? Well, I guess you'll know as soon as the Joey Falowitz Bullshit Detector goes off, huh? 'If Joey wouldn't do it that way, it must be the cult'. Is that your motto? Too much, too fucking much.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 13:54:56 (GMT) From: Joey Email: None To: Jim Subject: Nonsense! Message:

Remember when the letter first came out and you were suspicious? Yes I do. That's when I mentioned that I was one of the people who put it together, thinking that'd satisfy you that it wasn't something more nefarious. So now you know that Joe, Marianne and I -- and Zelda too, apparently -- were involved. And what were there? A few others? Yes, certainly Zelda's involvement gives this thing alot of credibility. Oh Jim, how come you're afraid to mention Michael Dettmers now? He was involved as well. Wasn't he? Dettmers who would have more to gain by taking the steam out of any movement against m, as I previously stated. Jim, 8 months ago I had an opportunity to talk to Herb Rosedale, the President of the American Family Foundation (you know that group which according to Zelda are a group of christian zealots:)We talked about M and his cult, Amtext in particular, Jagdeo and the internet presence of ex-premies opposing m, and my suspicions about whats happening on the net as well. I was at a weekend workshop and we had time to talk. There were two statements he made that were particularly relevant in this situation. 1) He said: 'If your internet forum of former cult members has been successful YOU HAVE GOT TO ASSUME that the cult will try and infiltrate it.' Now YOU think about it for a moment. This forum has been successful, no doubt. Do you think m doesn't have the resources to infiltrate. He has a premie 'intelligence' specialist living down the hill from him in Malibu. Do you think he's not using his services? When he perceived Bal Bagwanji as a threat back in the 70's-you've already heard from KM Darling how he responded ....by having Bal Bagwanji's residence wiretapped. What makes you think m would respond differently today? Especially when it's so easy to get into people's computers, intercept email, and that kind of thing. 2)Mr. Rosedale, whose wisdom on the subject of cults far surpasses yours ( I know that's hard for you to believe, that anybody's wisdom can surpass yours but his does. He's simply one of the foremost experts on cults in North America if not the world -...that's a fact.) also had this to say. 'You cannot and do not take action against the cult on the net' So with MRC, you have an action that was conceived on the internet and because of the internet. And again when the letter first surfaced IT WASN'T JUST ME who felt that the circumstances were 'suspect'. IT WASN'T JUST ME who felt that it gave m a totally uncalled for 'sense of reprieve' It isn't just me today who feels that the letter 'smacks of guru worship.' Now how did people as bright as yourself and Joe become part of an effort that produced such a result if YOU WEREN'T DUPED??? The best and the brightest get sucked in by cults, Jim. Its for YOU to figure out how this happened to you now. I'm just glad my bullshit detector DID go off. I'm also glad I had that talk with Herb Rosedale.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 15:33:15 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Joey Subject: How do you tell a paranoid that he's paranoid? Message:

Joey, Your 'logic' is whack. It just isn't there, Joey. Sorry. Even if Mr. Rosedale is right on the money in warning us -- oh sorry, you -- about possible cult efforts to infiltrate the forum, I don't think even he would stand by the proposition that one should assume that the cult already has done so. It's a fair warning, I'm sure. But what you do with that is just simply crazy. It's that same old Joey thing, quite frankly. Say Rosedale's right and, given long enough, given enough opportunities, the average cult will try to infiltrate whatever critical bodies develop to challenge it. Even so, Joey, that doesn't rationally permit you to jump to the conclusion that the cult's done just that in any particular situation. That's the road of madness. Honestly, it is. I'm not saying that the cult couldn't try something mischievous or worse. Hell, we ourselves 'infiltrated' ELK, didn't we? Sure it could happen. But you don't jump to the conclusion that it HAS happened just because you're anticipating that action. That's called, at best, having a hair trigger, Joey. At worst, it's shooting at anything that moves like a madman. I mean look what you're doing with Zelda now, for God's sake. Really, Joey, I'm sorry. You're acting like even a character of Joey now, if you can believe it. Zelda says something that you think might be something that some possible cult spy might arguably say because it might fit into some greater cult-generated plan of deceit and subterfuge. In particular, she, a newcomer to the scene apparently, starts talking about lawsuits on the page. She's not the first and sure won't be the last to do so. But whatever, she does and you sieze on it. And what do you say? That her broaching this subject on the net can only mean that she is somehow doing so to serve the cutl's purposes. No other possibility in Joey's mind. Not, for example, that she just didn't follow Herb Rosedale's Two Commandments and that she was just fucking asking for God's sake. No it couldn't be that. It must be that she's a cult spy. Like Roger is. Like whoever else is. Why don't you give us your list, Joey? Am I on it yet? Sheer madness, Joey. Sheer madness. And then this craziness: 2)Mr. Rosedale, whose wisdom on the subject of cults far surpasses yours ( I know that's hard for you to believe, that anybody's wisdom can surpass yours but his does. He's simply one of the foremost experts on cults in North America if not the world -...that's a fact.) also had this to say. Talk about hero worship! Listen, Joey, I'm going to contact Mr. Rosedale, you bet. I'm going to contact him to talk about you. Do you have a phone number or should I simply look him up on the net. He seems to be one person that you'll listen to. Maybe that'll change after we've 'gotten to him', you never know, but I have to try something. So if you have his number or email, I'd appreciate it. 'You cannot and do not take action against the cult on the net' This might well be a perfect piece of wisdom. Then again, maybe it isn't. Like I say, he's your hero, not mine. But, for argument's sake, even if it were true and even if you could say that the MRC letter constitutes 'action against the cult on the net' (arguable, of course), let's just say that for argument's sake that's all true, what's the implication? Are you going to now quote Guru Rosedale as saying that 'and any so-called former cult members who try to take action against the cult on the internet are necessarily only doing so because the cult's set them up'? Sorry, Joey, I don't think so. I don't think Rosedale would say anything of the sort. What he'd probably say is that any former cult members who do so might, in his view, be making a mistake. Not that they would then be proving that they're really counter-operatives! How ridiculous! So with MRC, you have an action that was conceived on the internet and because of the internet. And again when the letter first surfaced IT WASN'T JUST ME who felt that the circumstances were 'suspect'. IT WASN'T JUST ME who felt that it gave m a totally uncalled for 'sense of reprieve' It isn't just me today who feels that the letter 'smacks of guru worship.' Well, Joey, it wasn't just you who thought that the letter was a little soft and perhaps too respectful in tone. I'll grant you that much. Indeed, as any of the people involved will tell you, I thought as much myself. But yes, Joey, it's only you that I know of who thinks that the letter was the result of some secret cult operation. That's your baby, Joey. As far as I can tell, you're off on your own with that one. Again, it's that outlandish tendency to jump to extreme conclusions on the flimsiest evidence, evidence that is, in all probability proof of something much more mundane and uninteresting, that is the hallmakr of your paranoia. Honestly. Now how did people as bright as yourself and Joe become part of an effort that produced such a result if YOU WEREN'T DUPED??? Exactly. Maybe we weren't duped, Joey. So, anyway, how do I reach Rosedale?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 09, 2000 at 06:29:23 (GMT) From: Zelda Email: None To: Jim Subject: You can prove paranoia by finding my posts Message:

in the archives. you know the ones which I say some organization IS a fundamental christian organization not MIGHT BE And then the one that I ask for the papers about EV suits to be posted on the forum, not that I asked for OTHER cult suit papers to be put on the forum Joey is mixed up and from that is paranoid . when in the hell is your birthday you twisted pipe cleaner. he has got to be trianed in adverbs or some such go ahead find my posts and prove what you say I said is what I said or not what you say I said I think you are the infiltraitor here Joey - diverting our noble purpose by all this baloney JIM_ by the way I was only part of the info loop in the beginning of the letter drafting and then left it to the others. there was an invitation to be in the loop posted and I responded- I hape you talk to that guy because this Joeys screws are looser than mine.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 16:22:21 (GMT) From: Joey Email: None To: Jim Subject: The more appropriate word would be 'Skeptic' Message:

Jim, Perhaps you don't want to look at the evidence that the cult HAS ALREADY infiltrated the ex-premie internet presence. I say that's what going on with you. It would make you look like a total fool. On one hand you say that Herb Rosedale's statement, 'If your internet forum of former cult members has been successful YOU HAVE GOT TO ASSUME that the cult will try and infiltrate it.' is actually quite reasonable. On the other hand, you say it hasn't happenned here. You ask me to spell out my case. Why don't you spell out YOURS? You'd look like a fool. Again, I'll spell out my case elsewhere. I really don't need to tip my hand here. BTW, Herb Rosedale isn't the only person who's been able to see my perspective on this. Almost every neutral third party professional involved in the field that I've spoken to can see it. If you'd like to speak to him yourself, I'm sure you're more than capable of looking up his numberon your own. Go for it lawyer- boy.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 17:27:07 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: Joey Subject: If I May Interject...... Message:

Just to set the record straight. Michael Dettmers was 'involved' with the letter, only to the extent that, after some ex-premies wrote it, he reviewed and commented on it. His edits surprised me, because in my opinion, they made the letter 'stronger'. It was committed ex-premies who conceived the idea of writing and strong, but non-inflammatory letter, and it was clearly understood that for most of us, it wasn't as strong as we actually felt, but it was nonetheless accurate. Again, part of the strategy was that Maharaji's failure to respond to a 'respectful' letter gave us more credibility. Also, some of us felt that a more 'respectful' letter was more likely to be ready by premies and aspirants, who we hoped would read the letter. Finally, Jim, in my own Machiavellian view, I think it's fine if people think the letter was a cult set up. But if real cult-members would agree to a letter like that, they must be really whacked. But go ahead, spread that idea. I don't think it hurts at all.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 16:06:34 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Jim Subject: Obviously, I meant 'charicature' (nt) Message:

hhhhh

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 19:14:31 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Zelda Subject: Zelda, it gives me great pleasure to agree with u Message:

I agree with all you say, Zelda. I could add, as well, that I, too, was a little miffed by some of the 'softness' of the letter. But that doesn't mean ........

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 21:29:23 (GMT) From: Lotus Eater Email: None To: Jim Subject: the letter smells of guru worship Message:

I never considered the possibility that the letter was the handiwork of active cult members, but i can understand why it rang alarm bells. The whole tone of the letter is one of conciliation between children and their father. When I first started questioning the validity of Maharaji's claims, I would have loved to have a conversation with him, now I really don't care to. I'm much more interested in conversing with other premies. Of course, if M wanted to talk to me (ha ha) that could be fun! The good thing about the letter is the way it hammers the point of his fallibility, it just smells a bit. Oooh, that icky icky premie feeling. My bet is that the hamster is addicted to it in a big way hahahahahaha, time for him to go cold turkey imo.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 21:55:35 (GMT) From: MRC Email: None To: Lotus Eater Subject: The letter was a compromise...like so many things Message:

I have re-emerged as the spokesperson for the Maharaji Responsbility Campaign. I just wanted to clarify a few things. There were quite a number of people, both premies and ex-premies, and people who consider themselves neither, involved in drafting the MRC letter that is currently on the internet at www.openlettertomaharaj.org. The MRC tried to accommodate everyone involved in writing the letter, hence the tone is probably different that it would be if any of those individuals wrote the letter alone. Anyone who has been involved in doing anything by commitee can understand the dilemma. In retrospect, everyone compromised something, and it's astounding we actually got a letter eveyone could live with. We felt it was important to keep the coalition of people together. There is nothing in the letter that is false. It makes a number of very critical points about Maharaji, including that he claimed to be god, that he tried to scare his followers into not leaving, and that he hasn't taken any responsbility for his past, among other things. The letter just makes those points without anger and name-calling. Plus, there are a number of things in the letter that are outright punches at Maharaji in the face, but sound respectful. One example I particularly like, is a suggestion that aspirants be given a book on cults and make it required reading before receiving knowledge. It was just too delicious to consider Maharaji reading such a thing, which, considering how he claims not to be heading a cult, sounds very reasonable. Most of the members of the MRC felt that Maharaji was unlikely to respond to the letter, but that it was important as a first step to publish a thoughtful, 'business-type' letter first, and then report how even in that case Maharaji did not respond. Finally, as Dave mentioned, the audience of this letter was not only Maharaji, in fact, it mostly wasn't Maharaji. The audience of this letter was premies and aspirants, as well as non-practicing premies who have not really made a clean break from Maharaji. We felt that a moderately respectful tone would make it easier for these people to read the letter without seeing it as just a bunch of angry people. The 'reasonableness' of the letter, we believed, might make it easier for people to read it, and think about it. The dispasionate tone, we believed, tended to make the points more stark and vivid, without the emotional loading. Finally, the MRC has always believed this letter was just a beginning. We felt that, seeing how simple it was to do something like this, other ex-premies could do other letters, possibily as part of MRC, or as a another group of premies, ex-premies or whomever. This letter shouldn't be seen as the only perspective. I would also say, that I understand the need to express anger at Maharaji for the dreadful things he has done to many peoples' lives. Those of us in the MRC who wrote this letter, very likely wouldn't have written it if we had left the cult recently, although some involved in the drafting are very recent exes. For many of us it would have been too close, too soon, to be able to write a letter like that if we had only recently discovered how ripped off we were by Maharaji.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 20:46:07 (GMT) From: Lotus Eater Email: None To: MRC Subject: Respectful name calling Message:

Okay, I guess calling someone fuckface is a tad inflammatory and emotive, and I wouldn't express myself in those precise terms if I were writing a letter to Mr Pissing Against the Wind. There are two things which I find strike home with premies. One I got from here: Information. The other is from my own observation: the presence of someone who has been there and now is no longer, someone who NO LONGER ACCEPTS Maharaji as relevant. I agree about the difficulty I am currently having with expressing myself on this topic without reverting to emotive namecalling. It feels like a log jam. I start to write, and then it floods too much for me to control and jams up, a bit of gratuitous insulting humour helps and every time I get further. I have started writing the journey of my exit, finally got a construct I can work with. Don't hold your breath, but i will post it when finished. Finally, when I wrote my previous post, it was for the purpose of clarification not criticism, thanks for your response. Lesley

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 21:15:34 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: Lotus Eater Subject: Respectful name calling Message:

Lesley, I can only base my comments on what happened to me, but I think the anger you are feeling will never completely go away, but I know I was REALLY angry at Maharaji and the cult, during the first year or so after I left. In fact, I was so repressed and out of touch with my feelings as a premie, that anger was about the only 'real' feeling I could feel. And it was great. It was great to feel angry and not feel guilty about it, like I did as a premie. So, go ahead, feel it, say it. It's real and very important to feel validated in those feelings. I still feel really angry at Maharaji, especially when I hear stories of what others went through. But, really, I no longer feel the anger with the emotional intensity I did in the first year after I left. The MRC less as much more a dispassionate attempt to try something. To try to break the log jam of silence coming from Maharaji and Elan Vital. And you know what, it worked! But it wasn't meant to be a full and complete statement of how everyone feels about this. Joe

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 21:17:20 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: Joe Subject: Sorry, correction Message:

That should say that the MRC LETTER was a dispassionate attempt to try something.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 22:49:57 (GMT) From: SB Email: None To: MRC Subject: The letter was a compromise...like so many things Message:

I don't like this at all because it's not true. We, especially those of us who call ourselves former premies, accept our responsibility for allowing ourselves to be led to believe in you as one worthy of worship and devotion. If you remember how maharaji captured young people's attention on the 70s, is it possible that somebody can say those people should accept responsability for having been trapped? I don't get it. I understand the trick he played on me too well to accept responsability; how HE played with my mind takes away the responsability from being my responsability, but solely his. He did all the talking. Who wrote that?? I would like to know. That is simply ridiculous!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 23:01:15 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: SB Subject: The letter was a compromise...like so many things Message:

Just speaking for myself, it is indeed true. I don't think it's as simple as just being 'trapped.' I DO have some responsbility for getting involved with Maharaji and staying involved and for allowing myself, at least to some degree, to fall for it. Part of the reason, for me, was because I very much wanted it all to be true. So I accept responsbility for that. Some people I knew saw through it and just walked away. I didn't. I accept resonsibility for that. It's hard for me to tell Maharaji he has to accept responsbility for what he did if I haven't done so as well. Clearly, what Maharaji did was also deceitful and fraudulent. He has a LOT more to be responsible for in all this, and he also was deceitful to thousands of people.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 18:52:18 (GMT) From: cq Email: None To: Joe Subject: The victim mentality versus taking responsibility Message:

Is it either one or the other? If my house is burgled, am I a victim? - Yes. Can I take more responsibility? Again, - yes (by making the premises more secure so it's less likely to be burgled again). Let's face it - we fell for the Maha. More fool us. But does that make him any LESS responsible for HIS part in conning us? NO. And would you like to see him continuing to con people? ... whose responsibility is that, I wonder?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 21:08:55 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: cq Subject: The victim mentality versus taking responsibility Message:

Accepting my own responsibility does not make anyone else LESS responsible, of course not. Let's face it. My involvement with Maharaji was not a simple thing, but in some ways very complicated. Clearly, Maharaji bears great responsibility for both current and earlier words and deeds. And there is one other thing, again, speaking from my Machiavellian side. One of the responses from cult members is that ex-premies are just blamers. That no one 'held a gun to our heads,' and that we are blaming others, especially others, for all our problems. That isn't true, and accepting, publicly, your own responsibility, I believe, cuts short that argument. So, I think it's a good PR action, as well as a good thing personally, for me to accept my own responsbility for my involvement with Maharaji.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 09, 2000 at 19:29:31 (GMT) From: cq Email: None To: Joe Subject: The victim mentality versus taking responsibility Message:

I think that by posting here, we're also taking at least a step in the direction of responsibility - in the hope that others might be warned off the Maha before committing themselves to becoming his victims too. (that's to say nothing of the therapeutic value in being free at last to slag off your guru!)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 19:07:43 (GMT) From: anonymous MRC member Email: None To: cq Subject: well at least for today...responsibility Message:

This sentence was debated in detail by those of us who put the letter together. And Jim is totally right in that he did not like the tone or this sentence. I for one thought the tone made it more powerful for the audience I felt was most important....wavering premies. It reasonably asks the questions that need asking,without the MRC falling into the hate filled ex premie stereotype that EV perpetuates us all as. If someone comes to my door to sell me London Bridge, and I give the guy my Master Card number, he is definitely the crook, and I the victim. That is how I personally see myself falling for the cult. That whereas most people when presented with the idea that this fat little rich kid is some sort of messiah/god/perfectmaster immediately see no...he is a CON MAN, I for whatever reason did not. I take responsibility for the fact that I was somehow gullible, vulnerable to this form of charlatan. I can't speak for all, but that is what the sentence meant to me. I wondered what it was about myself that made me fall for it, when the vast majarity of people see he is a crook and and charlatan at first glance. After all, it really is quite obvious. In no way does the fact that I take some responsibilty for my own vulnerability mean he is less responsible for exploiting myself and thousands of other people.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 21:19:00 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: anonymous MRC member Subject: Thanks, I agree with anonymouse here... Message:

Well said.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 22:15:32 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: MRC Subject: Hold on there, that's not exactly true Message:

There were quite a number of people, both premies and ex-premies, and people who consider themselves neither, involved in drafting the MRC letter that is currently on the internet at www.openlettertomaharaj.org. I'm not even sure who I'm addressing this too. I also don't recall ever appointing anyone to speak for me although I recall that someone posted as 'MRC' back when the letter first came out explaining where it could be found, etc. But I think it's quite misleading to say that a) 'there were quite a number of people' involved. That's not how I remember it. More like a handful or b) that any were premies. The closest we got to having a real live premie invovled was Dettmers and that was simply a gesture to accomodate him as he promised to go further if the letter prompted no response from Maharaji. Were there others that I just can't remember? Maybe, but again, I don't remember any.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 22:30:35 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: Jim Subject: Hold On.... Message:

Yes, Jim, we did appoint someone as spokesperson and it was me. And I agree, that was done at the beginning, but there wasn't any term associated with it, so I guess anyone involved is free to talk about it now, who was involved. As I said in my post, I re-emerged in that capacity, mostly just re-stating what was said back then. There were at least 10 people involved in writing and/or commenting on the letter before it was put on the internet and it was a bit of a pain in the ass as a result. For writing a letter, that is 'quite a number.' There were many drafts. In addition to Michael Dettmers, there was at least one individual who was considered a premie at the time the project started who also edited the letter. I believe that person no longer identifies as a premie, however.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 16:22:52 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Joe Subject: Hold On.... Message:

Yes, Joe, I recall that you wre appointed 'spokesman'. Like I say, I'd kind of forgotten the process (and lost all my old emails as a result of a hard-drive reconfiguration). Sure, you were asked and graciously agreed to do it. No problem there. Dettmer's involvement was, I think, indirect, was it not? I know he'd had some but I think that by the time I got around to commenting (I was vey busy then) he wasn't. Does that ring a bell, that he gave some inital input but didn't comment on the last revisions and finishing touches? But 'premie involvement'? I'm scratching my head on that one.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 17:02:33 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: Jim Subject: Hold On.... Message:

As I said down below, Dettmers helped write the letter, and actually made changes to the letter, and that's why I think it reflects his opinion. But I don't think he was aware of whether the letter would be would just delivered to Maharaji, or put it on the Internet. There were discussions with Dettmers that he might take the letter directly to Maharaji. The decision to take out the ad in Boston, and put the letter on Internet, I don't think he had any involvement in, although he may have known about it. 'Premie involvement' might depend on what you consider a 'premie.' It is an abiguous term, is it not?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 16:31:41 (GMT) From: Joey Email: None To: Jim Subject: Hold On.... Message:

Dettmer's involvement was, I think, indirect, was it not? ... ...But 'premie involvement'? I'm scratching my head on that one. As I said Jim, as lawyer you should really have known what you were getting yourself into.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 02:53:03 (GMT) From: bill Email: None To: Joe Subject: Hold One Message:

Hi Joe, You make a good spokesman. It would be interesting and helpful if you remember dettmers 2 cents contribution to the letter. I did read your posts about it that are now in the inactive file.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 20:26:29 (GMT) From: Zelda Email: None To: Jim Subject: I dont like the sound of this Message:

The people that were involved in the letter writng should be consulted before their names are given to Joey When Rob was around in the beginning- I thought he infiltrated and snuggled up to exs in order to determine whether any legal action was pending. When he couldnt take the suspense, he made an accusation much like what Joey has. My memory is dim on that but that is how I remember it. So, based on the fact that Joey doesnt like me and has accused me of being a premie- I think he should be regarded by the whole forum as a closet premie who is trying to smoke out some info. He is a bit to rhetorical in his critisms sometimes if you ask me. Which you didnt. hae a nice day Z

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 00:27:04 (GMT) From: Rob Email: None To: Zelda Subject: Excuse me Message:

You know, I have taken a fair amount of flak in my time on the forum, but comparing me with Joey is going a bit too far, thank you very much. You memory is not only dim, it is trying to fill in the blanks with snippets from your imagination. OK, so you're really taking a swipe at Joey here, but pay attention to who gets it with the backswing, will ya? Snuggle, indeed! Yeah everyone's been blowing me kisses all year, haven't you noticed?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 01:51:24 (GMT) From: Zelda Email: None To: Rob Subject: Rob Rob Rob Message:

I hope I said those were my suspicions back then. No offense present tense. Please know that you lit you a virtual candle before you came back just awhile a go like you asked. As one who is had much of the same - heres mud in yer eye. Z Joey could be a anti-agent detector detector detector.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 02:49:15 (GMT) From: Rob Email: None To: Zelda Subject: Aw shucks Message:

Now I feel all gooey. Thanks Z. Sorry to be a grump, but you might have noticed I've been sniped at a bit last couple of days & it made me edgy. Time to roll a fatty & chill.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 04:43:42 (GMT) From: Selene the snipe Email: None To: Rob Subject: that should help Message:

awww so cute. poor rob. I almost feel bad. hey you have my email.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 05:04:02 (GMT) From: Selene Email: None To: who????????/ Subject: oh and that WAS a joke Message:

nt snit snipe snit snipe bye bye

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 02:54:57 (GMT) From: zigzag Email: None To: Rob Subject: Aw shucks Message:

When you fire up the fatty, start typeing and let us read the results:)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 01:43:58 (GMT) From: Roger eDrek Email: drek@oz.net To: Rob Subject: You are excused, but first... Message:

Come on, Rob. We all know that you are Joey! Just the other day Raja Ji just told me that he thought you are doing such a good job that he is going to go to bat for you and will ask Maharaji to get you that new Mac laptop that you've been clamoring for. JSCA, Brother!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 16:13:19 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Roger eDrek Subject: Aren't you tired of that shit, Roger? Message:

Why? It's not even funny anymore.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 09, 2000 at 01:02:04 (GMT) From: Roger eDrek Email: drek@oz.net To: Jim Subject: But, Jim... Message:

You said: Why? It's not even funny anymore. This entire topic will always be funny to me. It is something that you can only experience firsthand. You cannot read books about it or see a movie about it. That experience has forever profoundly affected my life and I will never be the same again. At least that's what my doctors say.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 16:34:30 (GMT) From: Joey Email: None To: Jim Subject: Aren't you tired of that shit, Roger? Message:

Finally a point of agreement. I think most people would agree with you on this one.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 03:09:35 (GMT) From: Rob Email: None To: Roger eDrek Subject: Man of many faces, huh? Message:

Well I wouldn't mind being compared with that great, yet enigmatic actor, Sir Alec Guiness, who sadly parted this world yesterday. Through his passion for anonymity he was able to conceal himself in full view, as it were, behind the mask of his chosen characters. Unforunately I get lumbered with being Joey (from you), You (from catweasel), Cerberus (from Sir Dave), and a PAM spy (from Joey). Why can't I just be ME, Robert Anderson? Have you not got the joke yet? Hint: 'concealed in full view'. Figured it out yet 'Roger'? So you got the story half-right. Raja Ji was going to ask M. to reward me, but not with a laptop, but a lapDANCE from his foxy concubine, Monica. (Hey show me a premie guy who hasn't had impure thoughts over that little honey?) Love ya bro'. PS You don't really live in Boise, Idaho, like Katie said, do you? Do they even *have* the internet up there?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 20:14:47 (GMT) From: Zelda Email: None To: Jim Subject: to Jim from Zelda: 'sigh...;)' NT Message:

NT

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 14:17:48 (GMT) From: Anon Email: None To: Danny Subject: Some responses to what Danny raised below.. Message:

Changing the subject slightly Danny- Whilst I tend to agree that publishing names and addresses is generally a bad practice, I wondered whether you think that it is appropriate that new premies, aspirants etc. should know details about the extent of Maharaji's wealth, his personal life etc. how money was raised etc. I say this because I was talking to a relatively new premie the other day and she had been warned to not read the ex-premie site (she is computer savvy) by her older-premie boyfriend. He had basically told her that it was a lot of moaning old ex-premies spinning lies. That's not entirely the case is it? It was soon apparent that she had little idea of the extraordinary and intense stuff that went on in the past, and when I told her a little of my experience she seemed to develop some sympathy and seemed a little shocked. As far as I can tell, these newer premies who didn't suffer such pressures to surrender etc. are considerably relieved that they didn't know about Maharaji at that time! They are so impressed that exes are so negative and things have changed so much for the better that they find it hard to really appreciate that these things actually happened at all...let alone appreciate that some of this supposedly positive evolution happened sometimes at considerable cost to others . (such as people giving their inheritances to M etc. when they moved into the ashram) Nothing will dissuade me from my opinion that it was wrong to pressure people in the way that Maharaji and the initiators did. Maharaji was responsible for this and there is no getting away from the fact that a direct apology is overdue if just for the religious intimidation that sometimes appened. All that he seems to manage by way of redress, is to get Glen or whoever to spin him some rather embarassed sounding excuses over at EV's site. I acknowledge that this is a step in the right direction although I suspect that this reaction is more of a reluctant response than a true attempt to face the nitty gritty of the issues. This aforementioned lady I spoke with said that there were many more 'believers' now than there were then , as if it somehow justified the past craziness. I pointed out that certainly in the UK, the number of people that continue to practice knowledge is dwarfed by the mostly silent hordes who have drifted away- mostly because of their frustration at being treated babdly and tired of being told by Maharaji (and others) to be grateful over and over. I said that, as one who was interested to discuss my misgivings, I had hoped that the forum discussions would be a positive development-as indeed I do think they have been. For a start it has prompted- no.. sorry- 'forced' Elan Vital to abandon their former policy of trying to brush the past under the carpet and has made Maharaji and them, at least attempt to answer some of the criticisms which, in my opinion, is a response that is well overdue. Thus the seemingly negative exes are surely doing him a service of sorts. There are may so-called 'exes' out there , like myself, who are sad that it takes a seemingly over-the-top, negative, pro-active 'anti' movement to force some sense into the cultic aspects of Maharaji and premies, but are nevertheless aware that it is apparently the only way that any influence has so far been effective on an organisation which although I have some appreciation for, has failed to really clear up some of it's past messes. I suppose that what I am saying is that I have some sympathy for people who are so dissafected by their experience of being a premie that they do extreme things to hurt their former Lord and Master. It is trite to suggest that all their sufferings are petty, self-inflicted or imaginary. What might be good would be for Maharaji to have a meeting with the exes and people with serious problems, where he could answer their problems and possibly even offer some direct apologies. Then maybe the 'us and them' scenario could be broken down a bit. Is that so hard to consider?? It is rather strange hearing all these familiar names (Mike Finch, Jossi, Ray Belcher etc.) being bandied about as evil henchmen. I knew many of them well and was good friends with several of those mentioned. They are not evil people but there should be no secrets about the affairs of Maharaji who is such a powerful figure. Don't you agree? It's just a shame that the whole thing is so secretive. If it were otherwise then maybe there would not be such an extreme reaction.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 17:56:18 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: Anon Subject: Questioning the Point of this. Message:

Anon, I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Of course, taking responsibility for his own actions, is a starting point for Maharaji. That's were anyone in a situation of causing harm has to begin. But that's just the beginning. There is also an intrinsic problem with Maharaji that continues to this day. He is peddling meditation techniques, but then he tries very hard to get people devoted to him and believing in him as the source of whatever positive experience people have, which is just plain false. That's also wrong. And no talking about the past, in and of itself, really addresses that. Also, you say: . All that he seems to manage by way of redress, is to get Glen or whoever to spin him some rather embarassed sounding excuses over at EV's site. I acknowledge that this is a step in the right direction although I suspect that this reaction is more of a reluctant response than a true attempt to face the nitty gritty of the issues. A step in the right direction for WHOM? Certainly not the ex-premies. If anything, it is nothing more than demonstrating the audacity of Maharaji, that he would have Glen or whoever write bald-faced lies and spin about portions of our very lives, which I find very insulting and dismissive. It's really more insult upon injury to exes, and because it is so blatently fraudulent, in the end, it is very damaging to Maharaji as well, for a number of reasons. There are may so-called 'exes' out there , like myself, who are sad that it takes a seemingly over-the-top, negative, pro-active 'anti' movement to force some sense into the cultic aspects of Maharaji and premies, but are nevertheless aware that it is apparently the only way that any influence has so far been effective on an organisation which although I have some appreciation for, has failed to really clear up some of it's past messes. I don't know what you consider 'over-the-top,' but the vast majority of the things discussed in this 'movement' is merely reciting and showing what Maharaji actually did and said, which your premie friend wasn't aware of. Sure, that is 'over-the-top' for Maharaji, but it isn't anything more than preventing Maharaji from re-writing history, which is a very reasonable objective. Sure, some people call Maharaji names, but other than recording the past, the other major thing that appears to be going on here, besides some research into the current financial and legal set-up of Maharaji, is a chance for recent departees from the cult to get support. And that certainly isn't 'negative.'

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 21:18:58 (GMT) From: Anon Email: None To: Joe Subject: Questioning the Point of this. Message:

Joe wrote: Anon, I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Of course, taking responsibility for his own actions, is a starting point for Maharaji. That's where anyone in a situation of causing harmhas to begin. But that's just the beginning. There is also an intrinsic problem with Maharaji that continues to this day. He is peddling meditation techniques, but then he tries very hard to get people devoted to him and believing in him as the source of whatever positive experience people have, which is just plain false. That's also wrong. And no talking about the past, in and of itself, really addresses that. yes, I agree. A step in the right direction for WHOM? Certainly not the ex-premies. If anything, it is nothing more than demonstrating the audacity of Maharaji, that he would have Glen or whoever write bald-faced lies and spin about portions of our very lives, which I find very insulting and dismissive. It's really more insult upon injury to exes, and because it is so blatently fraudulent, in the end, it is very damaging to Maharaji as well, for a number of reasons. I take your point but is it not a good thing that they at least publically acknowledged that a less than perfect past occurred? Come on Joe...you can't deny that can you? That is what I mean by a step in the right direction. I don't know what you consider 'over-the-top,' but the vast majority of the things discussed in this 'movement' is merely reciting and showing what Maharaji actually did and said, which your premie friend wasn't aware of. Sure, that is 'over-the-top' for Maharaji, but it isn't anything more than preventing Maharaji from re-writing history, which is a very reasonable objective. Sure, some people call Maharaji names, but other than recording the past, the other major thing that appears to be going on here, besides some research into the current financial and legal set-up of Maharaji, is a chance for recent departees from the cult to get support. And that certainly isn't 'negative.' I was really thinking about the publication of people's names and addresses as being a dubious 'over-the-top' practice. Sorry not to make that clearer. However I don't think it is a particularly inaccurate choice of words if used generally to describe some of the more passionate posts that appear here regularly.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 22:08:07 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: Anon Subject: Questioning the Point of this. Message:

I take your point but is it not a good thing that they at least publically acknowledged that a less than perfect past occurred? Come on Joe...you can't deny that can you? That is what I mean by a step in the right direction. Setting aside whether this 'step' is helpful to Elan Vital and Maharaji or not, I'm not aware of any statements by Elan Vital of the 'less than perfect past' except that there were some Hindi terms that were confusing, and/or that people wanted Maharaji to be something he wasn't. That isn't an acknowledgement of anything, it is merely a way to try to fend off questions that are arising because ex-premies are being vocal. I think Glen chocks up everything to disorganization due to the fact we were all hippies and funds were shor in the beginning, but again, no actual admission anything actually went wrong, other than a few humerous anicdotes. When were the names and addresses published, that weren't already public information? I'm afraid I missed that. Regarding the 'more passionate posts' I see them as mostly part of the healing process. When you have been indoctrinated to worship the spirit and form of a human being, which you did publicly and often, and then you realized he is a con man, I think you need to say and read things that tear him down. I think it's important for people to be able to vent that to others and get support. I think that's what that is about.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 18:05:16 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Joe Subject: That's why Anon is anon, apparently Message:

Joe, Anon is someone who continues to do business with the cult. For all his smarts and articulateness he's not about to take them on directly. Indeed, I get the impresson that he looks forward to a day when Maharaji says a few nice things, thereby 'dealing with the past' and Anon's personal world doesn't get shaken up. Not too badly, anyway. At that time, Anon might tell one or two trusted friends that he was instrumental in helping Maharaji work through these difficult issues albeit from the 'other side'. Right Anon?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 20:43:25 (GMT) From: Anon Email: None To: Jim Subject: That's why Anon is anon, apparently Message:

Jim wrote: That's why Anon is anon, apparently No, I am not bothered about being anonymous so as I can later slip back unnoticed into premiedom. It's not a big deal to me actually. If you want to 'out' me go ahead, I won't bother about it if you feel it's such a big issue. I will miss my 'handle' though... Anon is someone who continues to do business with the cult. Completely wrong. I haven't done any business with the cult whatsoever. I very occasionally see old premie friends and quite enjoy discussing Maharaji with them. I did have a talk with Glen Whittaker several years back when I told him my feelings and showed him the Forum One posts. I also lent him 'Radhasoami Reality' which he read and returned. He informed me that I was 'notorious' (NB: despite my 'Anon' pseudonym) amongst premies for what I had written there and particularly because I had printed some out and shown them to a few people. I occasionally meditate but I fail to see how that could amount to what you suggest. Most of my premie friends are actually effectively 'exes' by virtue of their disinterest and/or dissapproval, although they are not involved in the ex-premie internet scenario. You seem to think that I move, spy-like from two opposing camps faithful to neither one nor the other. A Back-Stabber where it suits. For all his smarts and articulateness he's not about to take them on directly. If you're suggesting that I wouldn't care to devote my time further than I already do to criticise Maharaji, then you are probably right. My priorities now are my family and work (in that order) and I just don't have time to do anything else. You will appreciate that since I devoted my life substantially to M from age 17-38 ish, I have a little catching up to do in making a life for myself. As you know, I have not totally neglected addressing the injustices that I felt had occured to me in my life as a premie. I don't have a problem with 'taking on directly' any premies, or M himself for that matter, in discussion or argument. Indeed, I get the impresson that he looks forward to a day when Maharaji says a few nice things, thereby 'dealing with the past' and Anon's personal world doesn't get shaken up. Not too badly, anyway. Firstly, the stability of my personal world is hopefully not dependent on anything Maharaji says or doesn't say about the past. If he were to 'say a few nice things, thereby 'dealing with the past' I would be quite impressed I suppose. However, I honestly think I have managed to come to terms with my the past rather well over the last few years (undoubtedly helped by this forum) and I am fortunately not awaiting his apology to soothe any hurt. Secondly, I am not under any delusion that any nice words from Maharaji (however sincere) will make good all the ills of the past. There are clearly others, who are obviously more upset with him than I, who have their own ideas of what they would like to befall Maharaji for his mistakes. My attitude to all this is probably more moderate. At that time, Anon might tell one or two trusted friends that he was instrumental in helping Maharaji work through these difficult issues albeit from the 'other side'. Right Anon? I wouldn't mind having that to brag about if it really meant that all the things that have been identified as being wrong were rectified. You know as well as I do that that is a remote chance so are you suggesting that I am not sincere in my criticisms? or that I would compromise my integrity regarding what I have said just to stay 'in' with M? I would refute that. Just because I am not crowing for Maharaji's head on a platter doesn't mean that I am a closet supporter or that my comments are innappropriate here, for that matter. I simply believe that in a war of words with premies it is often helpful, in communicating one's argument, to express oneself diplomatically and not to put people's backs up all the time by being aggressive or offensive. I'm sorry if I am not extreme enough in my damnation of Maharaji for your taste.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 20:49:47 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Anon Subject: My apologies, then Message:

Anon, Perhaps I've misunderstood. First, it's certainly not for me to 'out' you and you know that I was intimating no such threat in my post. I was referring to various things you and I spoke of some years ago at which time I got the impression that you had done some business with the cult (I won't specifiy further) and didn't want to 'rock the boat'. Am I simply wrong about this? I want to be fair. I hope you know that. I'll be the first to say I was imagining things if that's the case. But wasn't there some kind of tie you were hoping to avoid severing? Maybe things have changed over the past couple of years. Could that be the case? Or maybe, like I say, I'm just wrong. Which is it?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 21:28:23 (GMT) From: Anon Email: None To: Jim Subject: My apologies, then Message:

There was a time that I was attempting to re-ingratiate myself with some premie friends who would not have taken kindly to my writing on the Forum. I may have been referring to them. One in particular I did not wish to offend. At first I was admittedly anxious not to do anything to threaten our relationship. He's now in prison so he won't know! (Actually he knows my feelings well) Sure I used to do service and was actively involved. There was a fade out period until I really was no longer participating at all.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 03:13:25 (GMT) From: bill Email: None To: Anon Subject: My apologies, then Message:

Hi Anon, I am glad Jim tweaked you because it got you to talk more about this. Your post did hit a lot of areas so naturally some were not dealt with enough.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 04:37:24 (GMT) From: Salam Email: None To: Anon Subject: He's now in prison so he won't know! Message:

Did not you know that prisoners can access the internet now. The mostly gamble, make money, go into chat rooms and talk about what they did.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 18:10:06 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: Jim Subject: What kind of business? Message:

And how can he stomach doing that?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 18:14:56 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Joe Subject: What kind of business? Message:

Joe, It's not for me to say. And, indeed, maybe I'm wrong or maybe that time has passed. I don't know. Ask him.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 14:59:25 (GMT) From: this is one of the best Email: None To: Anon Subject: posts I have ever seen on the forum Message:

Everybody read it. Whoever this is, I wish you were not anonymous, you have great perpective on the whole thing.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 17:37:26 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: this is one of the best Subject: Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! Message:

Who the fuck are you?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 18:03:30 (GMT) From: Salam Email: None To: Jim Subject: Do I need to have a dialouge with gm? Message:

I do not think so. How about a meeting with all the exes, you can count me out. There is nothing that he can do to wipe out 25 wasted years that I spent thinking what the hell is wroung with me. There is nothing that he can say to explain why I almost jumped over a cliff. Is he going to bring back the people that committed suicide because of him? Or how about the broken families? Or the insults that he directed towards the premies because he thought he could do it. Ev could change as much as it wants and the new premies can be as ignorant as they want of the past, that is not going to change the fact that he has to be brought in and held accountable for his action. He should face justice in court in front of a jury, not in a hall that he chooses surounded but his body guards. Maybe when he is humilated and stripped of his GOAL to bring peace to this earth, then he will shut his big mounth and find a place in a gutter to hide in.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 19:24:56 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Salam Subject: You could have your cake and eat it too (a bit) Message:

Salam, I'm with you in many ways. There's no way I'd ever be satsified with Maharaji saying 'I'm sorry', keeping his wealth and toys and carrying on, business as usual. But that's not to say that it wouldn't be fun having a discussion with him. Hell, man, you only live once! (Before you come back as a snake for dissing your Lord and Master, that is.)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 04:17:02 (GMT) From: Salam Email: None To: Jim Subject: If that is the case, I may consider it..Nt Message:

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 17:46:57 (GMT) From: Rob Email: None To: Jim Subject: Hi Jim Message:

Take a look at 'Danny's' post to me below my 'BestWay'. Do you think that's catweasel again, using his real name? Did he ever contact you when he came over to 'coach aussie rules footy in Canada' as he mentioned in a now inactive thread? You could always get in touch with the International Australian Rules Football Council (http://www.iafc.org.au/) and ask who was on that Canadian coaching tour, if you were concerned about it. Immigration would have records too.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 02:57:39 (GMT) From: bill Email: None To: Rob Subject: Hi Jim Message:

Do you think that was the weas a few years ago who promised to take you out to dinner when he came to canada?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 08, 2000 at 03:28:59 (GMT) From: Rob Email: None To: bill Subject: Huh? Message:

Was that meant for Jim, bill? I don't live in Canada.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 09, 2000 at 04:19:04 (GMT) From: bill Email: None To: Rob Subject: Huh? Message:

Hi Rob, Yup, One poster a couple years ago mentioned doing that. This was when I was seeing prem rawat posting on the forum every other post. Chances are he did to some extent but chances are, I was wrong mostly.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 09, 2000 at 19:32:06 (GMT) From: cq Email: None To: bill Subject: Huh? Message:

'Prem Rawat posting of the forum every other post?' Call me paranoid, but have you ever wondered who the real Raina might have been?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 18:13:14 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Rob Subject: Hi Jim Message:

Rob, I did read that post and thought it was kind of funny, from a premie perspective, of course. Of coruse he's entirely off the mark slagging you for collecting all this 'boring, superfluous' information but, if you can forget that for a moment and pretned he was right, well it's pretty funny. The fact is, he's not right and that's everything. False premise? Misplaced sarcasm. Sorry, Danny boy. Do I think he's Catweasel? Hard to say. I don't recall ever hearing Cat talk like he wasn't brain-damaged. You know, clear sentences, stuff like that. Oh maybe he whined a little coherently when he was first being kicked off the forum but maybe not. Not sure what I remember about that. So I don't know. But you also ask if I care and I guess the answer's 'no'. Mind you, you've given me a good idea here and I jsut might follow up on it. I'll let you know what, if anything, I find out.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 23:41:39 (GMT) From: Rob Email: None To: Jim Subject: Actually I laughed too Message:

I mean for all it was an assault on me, not the first recently either, it was quite clever in and of itself. The reason I thought it might have been the cat was because of what triggered it. When I posted similar stuff (now inactive) I was set upon by a character called 'hey', who seemed pretty peeved that I was revealing the sacred knowledge of the Lard's businesses. Well he turned out to have whiskers and a rather fishy smell to him - yes, Catweasel, rising to the aid of his Purrrfect Master. He added to his comment of last year, and mentioned again wanting to 'demonstrate the shirtfront technique' to you, which I take it is an Aussie Football kind of tackle. Well off the field that would amount to a physical assault, so you would be quite justified using your attorney priveleges as you see fit in the circumstances.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 16:22:00 (GMT) From: bill Email: None To: this is one of the best Subject: leaning tower of posta Message:

You yourself are doing the anonomous thing. Anon is Anon, that has always been his name on the forum. I also have always liked reading his posts. At the core however, there is a fundamental building block which turns out to be loose sand so it gives the whole post a noticable tilt. They just sort of 'fixed' the leaning tower of Pisa. Well, not really but it should stop tilting farther now. So, thing of beauty, built on a faulty foundation, tilts but will last longer. I for one am not interested in lending my freind a crutch, I say put in an actual cornerstone.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 14:59:06 (GMT) From: bill Email: None To: Anon Subject: Some responses to what Danny raised below.. Message:

Hi Anon, My guess is that you also had a hand in writing that mrc letter.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 19:05:00 (GMT) From: Anon Email: None To: bill Subject: Some responses to what Danny raised below.. Message:

Hi Bill, No I didn't know anything about it actually. I did read it and thought it fairly well-put. Nothing to do with me at all though.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 13:06:54 (GMT) From: Salam Email: None To: Shroomanand Subject: Shroooom! Message:

You are sick, retarded, half human, deluded , bible reader, that has nothing better to do but hang around a bunch of people, that do not belive in anything that you say. You have the stupidest habit of saying 'was I talking to you'. You are the biggest fart I have seen on this forum, which has nothing whatsoever to do in what you belive in. Your teacher was, is and will always be a pervet of truth, a cowerd, a lier, a nothing more than a money seeking mangrol with no blood line. I do not understand why you come here and talk objectively about an unothinticated book that has been written and rewitten so many times. Anyone that qoutes or referes to it must belive in santa. Please shut up and stop talking bullshit about your belive that gum ji is giving the same knowledge as JC. It is irrelevant wether he does or not. Gum ji is a fraud. His family and all his roots are fraud. But then you are bump, deaf and blind to anything that crtisize gum ji. So again why do not you shut up and go somewhere else with your peanut size brain. This is what your mishaya says why he is a perfect master: Interviewer: So what makes you the Perfect Master? 1973- This voice came to me 3 times and said you are HE. So I accepted. 1983- My father left instructions to do this. He chose me. 1995- I'm a master because I care. It's not like somebody taps you on the shoulder and says, 'you're a master'. Maybe your bible has the answer for this question. Oh yeah here it is, 'whoever answered this question deserves to be on the cross instead of me'

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 04:46:21 (GMT) From: Church Lady Email: None To: Everyone Subject: EPO site /churches Message:

Has anyone any experience with alerting churches and synagogues across the country about the EPO site? I think it would be a good thing, and fairly easy to do... Also, colleges and community colleges.. I would like the community contact people in various communities across the country to know this... Does Pat Robertson have any cult watch part of his organizatiion that might help? These might be fairly easy things to acccompish, not take any money to do, and be interesting for m to think about for awhile...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 05:40:00 (GMT) From: Joey Email: None To: Church Lady Subject: EPO site /churches Message:

Has anyone any experience with alerting churches and synagogues across the country about the EPO site? Most churches and synagogues already have cult awareness programs in place dealing with the problem of cults in general, but more specifically, the many Jesus cults that seem to be springing up all over the place. Eg. the Interational Church of Christ (aka the Boston Movement) is experiencing an exponential rate of growth these days, comparable to TM in the 70's. M's cult is small potatoes in comparison. Ditto for colleges and universities where the ICC is doing most of its damage recruiting students. Does Pat Robertson have any cult watch part of his organizatiion that might help? You gotta be kidding. In terms of help, that might only help m. To many, Pat Robertson is a cult leader all by himself. Good luck

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 04:49:48 (GMT) From: Rob Email: None To: Church Lady Subject: EPO site /churches Message:

I would suggest you visit the Cult Solutions website at: http://www.cultsolutions.com They have a tremendous amount of influence worldwide and work closely with Church and community leaders. They will also undertake to investigate any cult, or let you know if they are already watching one, if you email them at the address given on the site. They will respect your privacy.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index