Earon Kavanagh -:- Brian: Comments to Earon on understanding -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 20:00:25 (GMT)

__ Bin Liner -:- Bet you were a whizz at the satsang , gobshite. nt -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 22:18:54 (GMT)

__ Brian Smith -:- Brian: Comments to Earon on understanding -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 21:10:17 (GMT)

__ __ EaronKavanagh -:- Brian: Comments to Earon on understanding -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 22:15:39 (GMT)

__ __ __ Brian Smith -:- Brian: name that tune -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 22:48:03 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Earon Kavanagh -:- Brian: name that tune -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 23:38:32 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Brian Smith -:- to Earon the the premie who never was -:- Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 06:42:08 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ JohnT -:- Earon the premie who never was -:- Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 13:35:35 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Brian S -:- Earon the premie who never was -:- Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 18:46:13 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Patrick Conlon -:- Earon, in the first post I ever put here -:- Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 19:42:41 (GMT)

__ Katie -:- Comment to Earon about 'anti-cult' cults -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 20:20:43 (GMT)

__ __ al-ex -:- Comment to Earon about 'anti-cult' cults -:- Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 01:42:45 (GMT)

__ __ __ Katie -:- Comment to Earon about 'anti-cult' cults -:- Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 13:08:16 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ al-ex -:- Comment to Earon about 'anti-cult' cults -:- Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 22:07:57 (GMT)

__ __ __ Jim -:- Careful with them analogies, keemo sabe -:- Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 02:12:12 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ al-ex -:- Careful with them analogies, keemo sabe -:- Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 11:24:53 (GMT)

__ __ Earon Kavanagh -:- What are the 'Guru Papers' -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 20:30:24 (GMT)

__ __ __ Katie -:- 'The Guru Papers' -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 20:41:10 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Earon Kavanagh -:- 'The Guru Papers' -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 21:01:10 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- The book's great, Earon -:- Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 20:42:28 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- 'The Guru Papers' -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 21:12:40 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- You got it bad, girl -:- Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 01:19:05 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- But not THAT bad -:- Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 04:14:15 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jerry -:- Priests suck! -:- Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 20:47:46 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Earon Kavanagh -:- 'The Guru Papers' -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 21:57:27 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- 'The Guru Papers' -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 22:05:02 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Earon Kavanagh -:- 'The Guru Papers' -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 22:19:44 (GMT)

__ Jim -:- Come on, Earon -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 20:06:29 (GMT)

__ __ SpacyT -:- Cult or no cult -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 22:22:54 (GMT)

__ __ __ Jerry -:- Cult or no cult -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 22:38:15 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ SpacyT -:- Cult or no cult -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 22:59:48 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Jerry -:- Cult or no cult -:- Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 02:31:09 (GMT)

__ __ __ Earon Kavanagh -:- Cult or no cult -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 22:26:29 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ SpacyT -:- Cult or no cult -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 22:45:11 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Earon Kavanagh -:- Cult or no cult -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 23:47:06 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- Cult or no cult -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 23:12:30 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ SpacyT -:- Cult or no cult -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 23:38:15 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ baz -:- to SpacyT -:- Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 00:09:07 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- baz, there's something you should know... -:- Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 00:34:43 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ baz -:- gerry -:- Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 00:41:30 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- gerry -:- Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 01:06:45 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Brian S -:- gerry and baz on being conned -:- Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 11:54:06 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- right on the money, Brian -:- Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 15:53:02 (GMT)

Jim -:- Hey, Brian and Earon (repost, etc.) -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 19:44:21 (GMT)

__ Earon Kavanagh -:- Hey, Brian and Earon (repost, etc.) -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 20:08:49 (GMT)

__ __ Jim -:- Tag team or not -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 20:14:06 (GMT)

__ __ __ Earon Kavanagh -:- Tag team or not -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 20:20:24 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Jim -:- Here's a real loose general one -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 20:31:54 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Earon Kavanagh -:- You're the expert, tell me some more -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 21:06:45 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Jerry -:- One other thing -:- Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 18:28:37 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Depends, I guess -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 23:13:29 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Earon Kavanagh -:- Depends, I guess -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 23:55:31 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ JohnT -:- My two cents -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 22:54:36 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Earon kavanagh -:- My two cents -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 23:58:20 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ baz -:- when is a cult not a cult -:- Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 00:15:27 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Earon Kavanagh -:- Yuk Yuk (NT) -:- Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 00:23:33 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ baz -:- how many ex-premies -:- Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 00:36:29 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Earon Kavanagh -:- Baz: how many ex-premies: Duhhh..How Many? (NT -:- Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 01:45:05 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ baz -:- how many ex-premies: Duhhh..How Many? (NT -:- Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 15:05:39 (GMT)

Patrick Conlon -:- The Earthquake in Gujerat -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 19:11:56 (GMT)

__ Francesca -:- Thanks Pat, for the insight on this -:- Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 06:31:34 (GMT)

__ __ Patrick Conlon -:- Francesca I was just thinking -:- Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 09:09:56 (GMT)

__ Bin Liner -:- The City of Leicester... -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 23:06:03 (GMT)

__ __ Patrick Conlon -:- Gujeratis multiple gurus -:- Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 02:34:44 (GMT)

__ Charles S -:- More earthquake news from India... -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 19:46:46 (GMT)

__ __ Curious George (female) -:- HAve sent you an email -:- Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 18:05:02 (GMT)

__ __ __ Patrick Conlon -:- HAve sent you an email -:- Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 19:06:37 (GMT)

Wish -:- The swine, satellite feeds, a dying cult -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 15:44:20 (GMT)

__ bill -:- Swine (black)Light Mission -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 20:33:15 (GMT)

__ la-ex -:- 5 reasons for digital m, none of which work... -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 17:22:38 (GMT)

__ __ Cynthia -:- la-ex, great post... -:- Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 18:44:41 (GMT)

__ __ Patrick Conlon -:- la-ex you are Ex-lax for the Turd's bullshit -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 19:42:46 (GMT)

icantremembermyname -:- I just heard this for the first time (ot) -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 15:37:25 (GMT)

salam -:- what is the url for the dancing boobs? -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 13:21:40 (GMT)

__ Roger eDrek -:- Here is the dancing boob! -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 18:49:21 (GMT)

__ __ salam -:- rawatsucks have them now -:- Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 05:24:58 (GMT)

AJW -:- The Sky is a Jigsaw Puzzle. -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 12:37:57 (GMT)

__ Bongo -:- The Sky is a Jigsaw Puzzle. -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 23:16:32 (GMT)

__ salam -:- The Sky is a Jigsaw Puzzle. -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 14:58:25 (GMT)

__ __ AJW -:- The Sky is a Jigsaw Puzzle. -:- Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 08:15:34 (GMT)

__ __ __ salam -:- The Sky is a Jigsaw Puzzle. -:- Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 13:31:31 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ AJW -:- Are you kidding salam? -:- Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 15:00:52 (GMT)

JTF -:- Is the rawat group really destructive? -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 12:22:57 (GMT)

__ Jean-Micjhel -:- Is the rawat group really destructive? -:- Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 17:11:59 (GMT)

__ Marianne -:- ****BEST OF FORUM****?????? -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 15:46:01 (GMT)

__ __ gerry -:- Hey Marianne -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 15:56:13 (GMT)

__ __ __ Marianne -:- Hey Ger -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 16:03:49 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ JohnT -:- Hi Marianne -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 16:46:41 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Gerry -:- I think John's right -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 16:52:15 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Marianne -:- I still think it's Catweasel -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 18:51:05 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Brendan Murphy -:- It's not.Same network .Different user -:- Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 04:23:18 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Marianne -:- You said PUNITATIVE -:- Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 08:55:48 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Brendan Murphy -:- You said PUNITATIVE -:- Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 10:38:40 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Marianne -:- If you are extending an olive branch, accepted -:- Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 11:17:44 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Brendan Murphy -:- If you are extending an olive branch, accepted -:- Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 12:36:32 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Marianne -:- Another bombastic Aussie! -:- Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 14:16:34 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Brendan Murphy -:- Another bombastic Aussie! -:- Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 07:40:25 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ hamzen -:- You wanna play them at cricket Marianne, jeesus -:- Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 00:57:45 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Marianne -:- Hey ham -:- Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 02:24:28 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Forum Admin -:- There is a high probability you are correct. NT -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 23:06:32 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ jOhNt -:- Now HERE'S a tough call... -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 17:12:17 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- John, please... -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 17:52:40 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JohnT -:- Actually... -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 18:30:27 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JohnT -:- ... it's New Jersey. Sheesh. -nt- -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 18:38:18 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- Lots of East Coast exes here... -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 18:42:25 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JohnT -:- Lots of East Coast exes here... -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 18:48:46 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- Lots of East Coast exes here... -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 18:53:08 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- Actually... -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 18:38:15 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ gErRy -:- Correct again, John -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 18:37:28 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ gErRy -:- Depends on what you mean by 'it.' -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 17:25:22 (GMT)

__ AJW -:- That's an excellent quiz JTF. -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 12:46:58 (GMT)

__ __ JTF -:- That's an excellent quiz JTF. -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 13:00:22 (GMT)

__ __ __ JTF -:- ...and one more thing -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 13:12:12 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ bill -:- ...and one more thing -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 15:25:35 (GMT)

Forum Admin -:- Revealing Posters' Personal Details -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 11:46:22 (GMT)

__ Jim -:- What about the FA's role? -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 15:50:27 (GMT)

__ __ AJW -:- What about the FA's role? -:- Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 15:22:24 (GMT)

__ __ __ Jim -:- We should straighten this out -:- Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 17:41:50 (GMT)

__ __ Earon Kavanagh -:- What's a CD (NT)?? Thanks -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 18:57:58 (GMT)

__ __ __ Earon Kavanagh -:- (CD) Never Mind - I Figured It Out (NT) -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 19:01:04 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Katie -:- You must be pretty smart! -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 19:06:35 (GMT)

__ __ Katie -:- With all due respect, Jim -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 17:28:41 (GMT)

__ __ __ Jim -:- With all due respect, Katie -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 18:52:41 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Katie -:- With all due respect, Katie -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 19:04:16 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- With all due respect, Katie -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 19:51:47 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- All right, Jim -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 20:02:27 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- You didn't answer me directly -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 20:11:31 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- That's because you didn't ASK me anything! -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 20:24:20 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Well I THOUGHT I did! -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 20:29:06 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- Well you didn't. -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 20:47:54 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Ah, yes, Katie, protector of the weary and the wea -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 20:55:31 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- Changing the subject? -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 20:58:54 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- What? -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 23:20:40 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- Good god, Jim! -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 23:30:09 (GMT)

__ gErRy -:- Runamuck didn't whine about this did he? wahhhhhh -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 15:36:30 (GMT)

__ __ Katie -:- Gerry, please take it elsewhere. -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 17:33:00 (GMT)

__ __ __ gErRy -:- Kah, Kah, Kah, Katie Oh beautiful Katie, -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 17:58:52 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Katie -:- Gerry, darling... -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 18:05:48 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ gErRy -:- Katie,darlingnot to be confused with Katie Darling -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 18:14:48 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- That is one GREAT line ...... -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 18:55:38 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Hal -:- Jim you're a bad influence on nice gerry -:- Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 21:36:39 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- It's not 'sides' -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 18:32:12 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- Funboy, a legend in his own mind... -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 19:10:08 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Runamok -:- why not just post as 'pants on fire', herry g -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 20:15:01 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- Gerry already said he would drop it... -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 20:27:31 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Runamok -:- you mean the post w/several claims, assertions nt -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 21:12:12 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- What post - please clarify? (nt) -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 21:14:38 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- Legends of the forum -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 19:21:18 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ GERRY -:- THEY BETTER NOT, NOT WHILE I'M HERE !!! -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 19:31:17 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- Explain to Patty how you got that black eye... -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 19:38:44 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ gErRy -:- Clue: 'Fight Club' is my favorite movie nt -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 22:54:56 (GMT)

__ __ Runamok -:- dont you wish you paid attention Ger -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 17:30:41 (GMT)

__ __ __ gerry -:- Yer sure Funny, Runny -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 18:00:31 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Roger eDrek -:- Runamok, are you that despicable? -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 19:00:28 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Runamok -:- so r Jim n Ger despicable when THEY do it? nt -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 21:29:57 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Roger eDrek -:- Run, be nice and just keep me out of this (nt) -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 21:36:09 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- I think he will, Rog -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 22:14:29 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Runamok -:- you're so Herry Gerry -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 18:59:10 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Has anyone ever noticed this? -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 19:58:58 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Runamok -:- like i wanna spend all day in tthese stupid soaps -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 20:09:13 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- heyletsjustdroolabitorsumthin (nt) -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 20:15:43 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Runamok -:- yes it's suave when YOU do it JIM nt -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 21:13:08 (GMT)

__ __ __ JohnT -:- Hi Runamok, you're in one of my poems... -:- Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 17:47:56 (GMT)

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 20:00:25 (GMT) From: Earon Kavanagh Email: earonkavanagh@mortimer.com To: Brian Subject: Brian: Comments to Earon on understanding Message:

Brian wrote: This is really good earon, sounds like we are hitting a nerve here with you, getting a little on the prickly and uncomfortable side of things. My comments: Actually not so. I quite like engaging with people and have a lot of experience doing so. It's a way to get down to the juice and see what a person is made of. I have much more earned respect for those I engage with. So, who knows? Maybe you and I are heading in that direction. You wrote: I like this much better than the warm fuzzy stuff like I am me you are you and we are all Ok. That has it's place but not when we are dealing with issues like being in a cult. At least now we both seem to have concluded that we were in a cult at one time. Good work Earon.... My comments: My friend, I concluded long ago that I was in a cult. I certainly don't depend on your opinions to conclude that, I did it all on my own. In fact, after I left the ashram in 1976 I became an audible critic of the cult, particularly along the lines of the ashram stuff. I will also become a critic of this scene if I start to smell an anti-cult cult in operation (go, ahead, seize the bait and render a comment). The whole human potential movement (east and west) is populated by cults, and I have had the I'm sincerely not sure if they start out as intentional cults (perhaps for m it was just carrying on the family business). And then it turned into a cult as people found power and position? Perhaps you could provide your opinion on this? And Michael Dettmer, if you are reading this, what might be your opinion as a former insider? I wrote: I have no issues with engaging, but you don't set the rules as to how I will engage nor will you get to set the rules as to what the truth is. And you responded: Come on Earon, I have no power whatsoever over you to set up some sort of rules and regulations as to how you will engage yourself in any area of your life. My comments: You are most definitely right on that. I'm big enough in my opwn self not to hand that power over to you. I handed it over to m and the ashram for four years and then I took it back. Sounds like you 'might' be doing the same thing, but I'm not sure just yet seeing as I called you a victim earlier. I guess I'll determine that as I go along. You wrote: The truth just stands on its own, it doesn't follow rules from anyone. The best that we can hope for is to break down our false perspectives enough to see truth clearly. In context here the truth about our involvement in the cult and M. Or do you think you have a better truth and I need to agree with you? My comments: Well, I couldn't care less if you agree with me. That's one of the points I have been expanding on all along. I don't have a need to belong to a cult or an anti-cult, but I am enjoying the exchanges. From my perspective the truth is the fact that a person experienced. The conclusion about the facts is the conclusion. A bunch of things happened to me in the ashram for four years. And at the same time I was doing my own operating, so I was having some fun. But the non-fun stuff was damaging to my beingness to my self-esteem as a person. I took stock of what I was doing (how I was in integrity with myself and how I was operating as a powerful person, how I was making the situation work for me). Then I took stock of all the shit that was happening to me and how it was eroding my sense of self. After I left I concluded some years later that I was in a cult, but not until the mid-eighties when I started to become more aware of social systems. So, in my was of categorizing distinctions, we have rached a common conclusion, I assume separately. Now we are sharing our conclusions. By the way, I don't give truth status to much, only the facts of my experience. I know, I'm getting a little semantic and (I assume) based on past interactions, that you might find that wishy washy because (I assume) it is not congruent with how you describe things exactly. And (based on my asumptions) 'if' that is the case - then too bad, dude. You wrote: Well, you sound as though you just joined another cult. I guess I have my answer. You'll just have to stay here for the rest of your life, eh? Kinda like the alcoholic who gives up alcohol and gets addicted to coffee and cigarettes outside the meetings. I guess that's a form of harm reduction though. Switch one cult belief system for another? You wrote: This [the above]is a very childish accusation, My comments: Well, I gather from your words that you have just set yourself up as a parent figure (more wise, more experienced, more knowing). I know, it's rhetorical, but I thought I'd point it out anyway. You wrote: you seem to be implying that this conversation that I am having with you suggests that I have turned the riens of my life over to the ex premie cult. I do not even know for sure who set this thing up, I think you had better reexamine your motive here for this statement, Sounds like a cheap shot to me. Not to mention that you are blowing smoke out of your ass with your condescending notion that poor little old me will have to stay stuck here out in cyberspace somewhere forever. My comments: Well, now we are getting somewhere, dude. I like it. You state that I 'seem' to be implying. What I like about that word is that it states clearly that you are not sure about what I am implying but that it looks like(blank). Good work, now you are showing me that somethings are indeed located in shades of grey rather than simplistically black and whit. Remember, cults like their adherents to hold views that are rooted in black and white thinking (e.g., m is god, shower of god, period). My friend, when I start blowing smoke out of my ass I can assure you that the smell will get so unconfortable for you you might even run back to your former cult for safety (I thought you might like that one). You wrote: For your information, I quit gave up drugs and alcohol 18 years ago, I went to AA for 3 years, I did not spent the rest of my life sitting around in AA meetings getting addicted to cigarettes and coffee. My comments: Well, that's something that I can respect. It shows that you do have something going for you after all. You certainly had me thinking otherwise there for awhile, poncho. You wrote: you are over your head on this one and your answer is wrong and you are the one who is drawing assumptions here. Where do you get your ANSWERS FROM ANYWAY? My comments: While I admit that I am wrong from time to time I'll also admit that I like swimming with the sharks, nit that I would put you in that category just yet. You wrote: Here you go drawing assumptions again, I suggest you look around the forum some and research other area's of the site. I am including an excerpt of my first post Dec 7th. You may want to read it in it's entireity in the archives or better yet it is posted in the best of the forum under Perimeter of Chaos. You are way of the mark here if you think that I approaching my life through the position of a victim. My comments: Interesting points. Just this morning I was actually thinking of going back 2-3 weeks and looking over the discussions which you referred to earlier, which led you to come out as a cult member. I don't know if I'll get to that just yet, but I am considering examining the process and who specifically engaged with you and what was said. You wrote (inserted from dec 7, 2000): Dec 7 2000 I accept complete responsibility for my own life and for buying into the whole Guru thing, I also know that I can throw the thing out as well. That is the beauty of it all, and I blame no-one for leading me on. I will always have my own choice available every second. I have from day one looked more at what is going on within and depended a lot less on what other people including Maharaji do. I like very much what I discover inside, that is my guide. I can also appreciate engaging and enjoying the drama that usually can be found going on around everyone and everything in life. That is also my choice and one that I will continually make and accept responsibility for as well. Does this sound like a victim talking to you? My comments: Well, for a few moments you realized you were totally powerless in buying into the cult. Can you keep that up without sounding like a victim again, at other moments in your discourses with others? You wrote: Thanks for the great advice my friend, You are preaching to the chior and you have no idea who you are talking to. Like you I never had wealthy parents, and I have no degree, and I still made my first fortune in my early thirties. Today I own a wholesale import business with worldwide distribution and annual receipts that I have no intention of stating here, but they are substantial in the M'S. I did not get to where I am today through anyone's else's hard work other than my own, and I take full responsibility for my success and my failures in life. My comments: Well, we have somethings in common after all. My priority wasn't to make a lot of $$$. But I think I'm starting to want that now. But I have a lot of genuine respect for entrepreneurs, and I humbly tip my hat to you. You wrote: You say that I am coming from a weak position I say that you should examine your position in that regard. Your position is so weak that you cannot even decide what you are, premie or expremie? Now where is the strenth and conviction in that Earon? My comments: I'll note that as a rhetorical remark, delivered by a person who understands that he is outmatched and is not able to convert another to accepting all of his ideas as expressed. You wrote: Go back to the drawing board, before you challenge me on my position again, look through the archives,look around the forum I think you will find that I have a little bit more documented evidence of my journey here than you do thus far. My comments: Comparing sizes are we? As I said before, You don't get to make the rules, son. You wrote: I am going to stop here Earon, I do not want to risk spending all my time out here in this expremie cult and possibly become enslaved to it for the rest of my life. My comments: So long dude, nice 'engaging' with you. You were actually better that I originally gave you credit for. Maybe there is some backbone there after all, despite your having been sucked on my the cult for 29 years. Earon

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 22:18:54 (GMT) From: Bin Liner Email: None To: Earon Kavanagh Subject: Bet you were a whizz at the satsang , gobshite. nt Message:

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 21:10:17 (GMT) From: Brian Smith Email: None To: Earon Kavanagh Subject: Brian: Comments to Earon on understanding Message:

I see where you are coming from Earon, You are a control freak My friend, I concluded long ago that I was in a cult. I certainly don't depend on your opinions to conclude that, I did it all on my own. In fact, after I left the ashram in 1976. I became an audible critic of the cult, particularly along the lines of the ashram stuff. I will also become a critic of this scene if I start to smell an anti-cult cult in operation (go, ahead, seize the bait and render a comment) Seize the bait! What is this a mouse trap or a conversation? I am talking to you about opening up a dialogue regarding some issues with M and the cult and you want to play cat and mouse games. Look if I have to explain the difference to you about what is going on out here as opposed to what a cult is or isn't you are clueless Pal. My friend, when I start blowing smoke out of my ass I can assure you that the smell will get so unconfortable for you you might even run back to your former cult for safety (I thought you might like that one). What kind of shit is this coming from a grown man, but Ok Allmighty Earon. Lets have it you then you petty insignificant Prick. Do you really think that anything that you can say to me can make me uncomfortable? What are you anyway, do you think you are God or something that you have some sort of mystical power over me or anyone? Why do I waste my valuable time on morons like you. I have no respect for anything you say you noncommital jerk-off Still a premie who hasn't got the balls to say what he really is for sure. Get off it Earon, you are worse tham a premie, you are a premie who is pretending like he isn't. I don't have to worry about you running back to a cult, you still haven't gotten all the way out of the last one you were in. Now run along son, go get back under your blanki and play with yourself Welcome to the shark pool

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 22:15:39 (GMT) From: EaronKavanagh Email: earonkavanagh@mortimer.com To: Brian Smith Subject: Brian: Comments to Earon on understanding Message:

Brian: I see we are back at it again. Just a moment while I put on my armour. ...... There, that's better. OK, here we go. You wrote: I see where you are coming from Earon, You are a control freak My comments: No,my friend, I'm just responding somewhat rhetorically to your wannabe attempts at embedding passive-agressive linings into your sincerity schtick and racket. I'm merely incorporating a response to your style of dancing, which, not surprisingly, reeks of control. But, you never really had control, so you're probably trying to get some by going up against me. That won't work (if that's what you're doing), because I don't give a fuck about control (ohh .... I said fuck). You'll begin to notice that I'll change my approach as soon as you change yours. Or maybe you won't. You wrote: Seize the bait! What is this a mouse trap or a conversation? I am talking to you about opening up a dialogue regarding some issues with M and the cult and you want to play cat and mouse games. My comments: No you're not. You are attempting to dominate what you passively-aggressively describe as a dialogue. Go look up dialogue and let me know what you discover. There has been nodialogue here. The basic presupposition to dialogue is a sharing of ideas, difference, and a quest for discovery. You wrote: Look if I have to explain the difference to you about what is going on out here as opposed to what a cult is or isn't you are clueless Pal. My comments: No one has explicitly implied that what is going on here is a cult. You wrote: What kind of shit is this coming from a grown man, but Ok Allmighty Earon. Lets have it you then you petty insignificant Prick. My comments: Getting a little ruffled, are we?? Once again you are setting yourself up as the arbitor of what is an adult and what is not an adult. You wrote: Do you really think that anything that you can say to me can make me uncomfortable? What are you anyway, do you think you are God or something that you have some sort of mystical power over me or anyone? My comment: No comment You wrote: Why do I waste my valuable time on morons like you. I have no respect for anything you say you noncommital jerk-off Still a premie who hasn't got the balls to say what he really is for sure. Get off it Earon, you are worse tham a premie, you are a premie who is pretending like he isn't. I don't have to worry about you running back to a cult, you still haven't gotten all the way out of the last one you were in. Now run along son, go get back under your blanki and play with yourself. Welcome to the shark pool My comments: Well, nice attempt at whatever. I sense once again that you are a little angry. I don't mind that. I don't think that you have what it takes to play with sharks as you consistently demonstrate. You considerably and regularly show that you lack self-control. If I was m I would have kicked you out of my cult a long time ago and then you wouldn't have to be going through all of this with me. Oh, by the way, we can change this tune anytime you are ready.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 22:48:03 (GMT) From: Brian Smith Email: None To: EaronKavanagh Subject: Brian: name that tune Message:

Hey, I am having some fun with this, funny I might suggest to you that your posts would be much easier to follow if you went to forum help and followed the directions as to how to indent and highlight. It might save you some time too. I hope that you can accept these helpful suggestions and not interpret my intentions as some sort of passive aggressive attempt to dominate your posting style. It is Saturday and I am going out to to enjoy the rest of the day, You still haven't answered my first question, and it appears as if you are going to dance indefinately. So Maestro play on ......got another tune for me, this one is worn out, I am listening

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 23:38:32 (GMT) From: Earon Kavanagh Email: earonkavanagh@mortimer.com To: Brian Smith Subject: Brian: name that tune Message:

Brian wrote: Hey, I am having some fun with this, funny I might suggest to you that your posts would be much easier to follow if you went to forum help and followed the directions as to how to indent and highlight. It might save you some time too. I hope that you can accept these helpful suggestions and not interpret my intentions as some sort of passive aggressive attempt to dominate your posting style. My comments: Thanks for sharing, Brian You wrote: It is Saturday and I am going out to to enjoy the rest of the day, My comments: Enjoy, you probably deserve it. Until next time, Earon

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 06:42:08 (GMT) From: Brian Smith Email: None To: Earon Kavanagh Subject: to Earon the the premie who never was Message:

First of all there is no 'ex-premie known as Ed' as you cite in punctuations. There is 'Earon (formerly known as 'Ed') Kavanagh' mentioned as a courtesy for those who knew me prior to 1985. I have never declared myself to be either an ex-premie nor a premie, for that matter. Never declared yourself to be a Premie? This is a very interesting statement coming from someone who lived in Maharaji's ashram and I wonder if you could clarity this for me Earon. Thanks Brian

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 13:35:35 (GMT) From: JohnT Email: None To: Brian Smith Subject: Earon the premie who never was Message:

I doubt Earon can clarify this for you, just yet. Check my asking pretty much the same thing; note that I identified myself as not an ex-premie; then go on to read his reply. In that reply he clearly took not an ex-premie to mean was once a premie (perhaps still am), instead of never a premie. So much for step(ing) out of the either/or. I'm sorry to press you on this Ed, but your words do rather give me the impression that you are still a tad in denial about how deeply you were into the cult. JohnT - not an ex-premie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 18:46:13 (GMT) From: Brian S Email: None To: JohnT Subject: Earon the premie who never was Message:

You are right John, This Guy can dance ......

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 19:42:41 (GMT) From: Patrick Conlon Email: None To: Brian S Subject: Earon, in the first post I ever put here Message:

I called myself an ''un-premie'' because I thought that better described me than ''ex-premie'' as I had been out of the cult for 18 years before a recent excursion back into it. Cynthia very rightly chastised me for splitting hairs. And I conceded that I was simply trying to maintain a certain distance from the group known as exes. It's not like we're joining anything. I'm sure you have seen that it's a good day here when you can get two exes to agree on anything.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 20:20:43 (GMT) From: Katie Email: None To: Earon Kavanagh Subject: Comment to Earon about 'anti-cult' cults Message:

I have one comment on what you wrote to Brian S. (please note that there are two Brian's here!) You wrote: Well, you sound as though you just joined another cult. I guess I have my answer. You'll just have to stay here for the rest of your life, eh? Kinda like the alcoholic who gives up alcohol and gets addicted to coffee and cigarettes outside the meetings. I guess that's a form of harm reduction though. Switch one cult belief system for another? Brian S. commented that this was a childish answer. I would certainly say that it wasn't as objective and clear as the rest of your post - in fact, far from it. I don't know if you've read the 'Guru Papers', but you sure sound like you have. One of their premises is that all authoritarian systems can become cult-like (they mention AA and other 12-Step programs too - as you did.) I have never seen this forum or site as being part of yet another cult, although certain premies LOVE to characterize it as such. I feel that premies do this because they cannot see it in any other way because of their immersion in an authoritarian belief system. I guess the forum could become cult-like for some people, particularly very recent exes, as there is a tendency to follow yet another authoritarian figure or group of people with the same belief system. I have observed a few people fall into this pattern here, but they seem to get out of it pretty quickly - aided by the fact that ex-premies don't seem to agree on much of anything. This is off-topic, but re AA, and the coffee and cigarettes, just try living with an alcoholic, and then living with a recovering alcoholic who is addicted to coffee and cigarettes but doesn't drink. I have done both. There is a HUGE difference - there is no way coffee and cigarette addiction promotes destructive behavior like that of severe alcohol addiction. Also, some recovering alcoholics seem to need to go to AA meetings for the rest of their lives. One of my close relatives does - or else she drinks, with disastrous results. She is also addicted to ice cream. I do not have a problem with either of these behaviors at all. In a perfect world, maybe recovering alcoholics would all be like Brian S., but the fact is that all of them aren't - and they shouldn't be criticized for that. Take care, Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 01:42:45 (GMT) From: al-ex Email: None To: Katie Subject: Comment to Earon about 'anti-cult' cults Message:

Thanks for the post Im a recovering alky myself,3yrs and still using A.A. Im now a recovering m cult member 3 weeks and still using the forum

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 13:08:16 (GMT) From: Katie Email: None To: al-ex Subject: Comment to Earon about 'anti-cult' cults Message:

Hey, congratulations on your sobriety! (IMHO, people should 'keep coming back' for as long as they feel they need to - that applies to this place too.) And congratulations on finding this site, too. Don't forget to read the site, not just the forum :).

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 22:07:57 (GMT) From: al-ex Email: None To: Katie Subject: Comment to Earon about 'anti-cult' cults Message:

Thanks-The sites been a real eye opener for me.A sort of light at the end of the tunnel.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 02:12:12 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: al-ex Subject: Careful with them analogies, keemo sabe Message:

Just to be clear, I understood AA to be something that people did indeed use to stay on the wagon. You're not saying that without the forum you'd be 'synchronized', are you? Sure hope not.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 11:24:53 (GMT) From: al-ex Email: None To: Jim Subject: Careful with them analogies, keemo sabe Message:

just a wee jest

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 20:30:24 (GMT) From: Earon Kavanagh Email: earonkavanagh@mortimer.com To: Katie Subject: What are the 'Guru Papers' Message:

No Katie, I haven't read the Guru Papers. What are the Guru Papers? Who is behind them and where are they located on the web? I'm coming somewhat from a human interaction systems perspecive (social sciences). I'm certainly not invested in joining other people in seeing this situation to be cult-like. Who are the people that like to view this site as a cult? Are they the mainstream people that are involved with m? I don't know what it is like there now because I haven't been involved since about 1980. But it definitely was a cult back the, and I assume from what people here are saying, that it still is a cult. Earon

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 20:41:10 (GMT) From: Katie Email: None To: Earon Kavanagh Subject: 'The Guru Papers' Message:

'The Guru Papers: Masks of Authoritarian Power' is a book by Joel Kramer and Diana Alstad. You can buy it at Amazon, and they may have some material about it on the Web (I'm more of a traditional book reader). I think you would enjoy the book, although you might not agree with all of it (I didn't, but it is very thought-provoking). It's a fairly dry read - lots of psychology and philosophy - but worth at least a look. I would say that about half the avowed 'premies' who post here will tend to characterize ex-premie.org and this forum as a 'cult', if they are pressed about Maharaji's organization being a cult. I haven't been involved since 1977, but from what I gather, the backbone of Maharaji's support still comes from people who first became involved during the 1970's, although the most obvious manifestations of 'cultism' have gone underground. If you want to know more about Maharaji's organization at present, there are other posters here who were actively involved until recently. Daneane is a recent aspirant who was turned off by reading this site. SB is a former aspirant coordinator who left M after reading this site. Jean-Michel is a former instructor (a.k.a. mahatma) who was involved into the 1990's. And there are others - like Brian S, Selene, etc. Take care, Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 21:01:10 (GMT) From: Earon Kavanagh Email: earonkavanagh@mortimer.com To: Katie Subject: 'The Guru Papers' Message:

Thanks, Katie. The Guru Papers sounds like an interesting read. I'll look it up on the internet and see if there is something from there I can start with. As for m's organization I don't have much interest. I find the whole thing to be somewhat non-exciting. There are much more important things going on for me nowadays. Sometimes I'm even attracted back towards the Catholic church. Then I go 'nahhhh' too much dogma. Too many people with the same belief system. I've always found that somewhat stifling. I tend to like to be around a diversity of ideas. Earon

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 20:42:28 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Earon Kavanagh Subject: The book's great, Earon Message:

You can get it around town, I know. Check Chapters, maybe. It's really worth reading, IMO.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 21:12:40 (GMT) From: Katie Email: None To: Earon Kavanagh Subject: 'The Guru Papers' Message:

Hi Earon - After being a premie (or whatever you want to call it!), I find it very difficult to be part of any large organization. I don't feel comfortable in 12-Step meetings (Al-Anon, or ACOA), even though other members of my family have found great benefit in them. I could NOT handle becoming a part of any Christian church again - I almost walked out of a Catholic christening the other day :), and I'm not even an ex-Catholic (ex-Episcopalian, though). I don't even like the conventions that I sometimes have to go to for work - and I'm a scientist, so these conventions are based on sharing objective discoveries! So I understand. I do like this forum because the only belief that ALL the ex-premies (or whatever you want to call them) seem to have in common is that Maharaji is NOT who he says (or now implies) he is. And although there are, by necessity, forum administrators, and people who maintain the site, there has purposefully been no attempt to make ex-premie.org into a formal organization, with a membership and so forth. BTW, a lot of people don't like the term 'ex-premie' - some for similar reasons to yours. I tend to view these things from a practical viewpoint, which is why I don't mind it. Take care - and I do think you will enjoy Guru Papers. Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 01:19:05 (GMT) From: gerry Email: None To: Katie Subject: You got it bad, girl Message:

I almost walked out of a Catholic christening the other day :) I hear ya. I went to 'mass' (mass what? indoctrination?) with my parents a couple of years ago and it was all I could do to keep my self from screaming at the priest during the 'sermon.' I should have walked out. The topic of the sermon was-if you can believe this- was 'pedophile priests aren't so bad, we should forgive them, because look how bad the televangelists are. I kid you not.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 04:14:15 (GMT) From: Katie Email: None To: gerry Subject: But not THAT bad Message:

Lord, Gerry, I would have walked out of that one, and I am not even a 'recovering Catholic'. I believe in forgiveness, but not at the expense of someone else and not in 'relative' offenses (sounds like one of Bjorn's sermons!). I did walk out of a Catholic church once when one of the mass intentions was to pray against the pro-choice movement. YUCK!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 20:47:46 (GMT) From: Jerry Email: None To: Katie Subject: Priests suck! Message:

Oh, man, am I ever screwed now. I can just see Sister Mary Catherine wagging her finger at me from the clouds while I burn in hell for what I just said. Last May, at my foster mother's funeral, the priest played on his Sony boombox a recording of that song that goes will the circle... be unbroken... Lah-di-dah, etc. And we just had to sit there thinking this priest has gone out to lunch. I don't think my foster mother even liked that song, and none of us were too thrilled or moved by this priest playing it, either. Priests live on their own cloud that rarely has anything to do with reality. But they command so much respect and the faithful just sit silently in reverence while the priest proceeds to make a fool of himself and us for thinking he's got something to say. It's just so much bullshit.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 21:57:27 (GMT) From: Earon Kavanagh Email: earonkavanagh@mortimer.com To: Katie Subject: 'The Guru Papers' Message:

Katie, I've enjoyed our communications. Seems like we have some things in common. Thanks, Earon

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 22:05:02 (GMT) From: Katie Email: None To: Earon Kavanagh Subject: 'The Guru Papers' Message:

Thanks, Earon - I think we have some things in common too. (The phrase 'veterans of many types of therapy' rings a bell, but I'm not sure that's accurate for you - it certainly is for me!) Take care - and hope to talk to you again. Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 22:19:44 (GMT) From: Earon Kavanagh Email: earonkaanagh@mortimer.com To: Katie Subject: 'The Guru Papers' Message:

Katie wrote: Thanks, Earon - I think we have some things in common too. (The phrase 'veterans of many types of therapy' rings a bell, but I'm not sure that's accurate for you - it certainly is for me!) Take care - and hope to talk to you again. Katie Earon replies: Well, you got that right. But I'm proud to say that I'm still a f----up. I guess that was one of the good things about going thru the therapy, more self-acceptance. Or is it simply encroaching old age existing somewhere beyond 47? Best, Earon

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 20:06:29 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Earon Kavanagh Subject: Come on, Earon Message:

I will also become a critic of this scene if I start to smell an anti-cult cult in operation (go, ahead, seize the bait and render a comment). I did and I will. Timne to define 'cult'. You're taking the most charged term here and turning it on its head. That's what it looks like to me. So let's define it. And show me, please, how this forum could ever be fairly called any such thing.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 22:22:54 (GMT) From: SpacyT Email: None To: All Subject: Cult or no cult Message:

Is there any problem with getting a guide if you want to get somewhere and don't know the way? I don't think so.. And M has never been anything but 100% on the mark as far as I have been.. Yes I am surprised to have felt some love and concern around this forum tonight though it is tinged with sadness too...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 22:38:15 (GMT) From: Jerry Email: None To: SpacyT Subject: Cult or no cult Message:

Is there any problem with getting a guide if you want to get somewhere and don't know the way? No, not if that guide can take you there. For many of us that wasn't the case. But Maharaji never confessed that maybe he couldn't guide us all. He never admitted that some of us would still feel lost, more so, after his guidance. Apparently, that's not the case for you. But I know in my case, when I admitted to still feeling lost after following Maharaji's guidance, I was only told that it was just in my mind that I felt lost; that in reality, I had been found, but just couldn't see it. I call that fucking with somebody's head. What do you call it? If you're honest, you'd call it the same thing. And that's just what Maharaji was good for in the lives of many, perhaps most of us, fucking with our heads. Consider this website a breath of fresh air from that, where a spade is a spade, and bullshit doesn't fly.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 22:59:48 (GMT) From: SpacyT Email: None To: Jerry Subject: Cult or no cult Message:

Hi Jerry, My experience is that Maharaji can guide me. and since I, along with everyone else am pretty much a worst case scenario, then I believe that he can guide you too... However listening to what other people may have to say on the subject is distracting to say the least... All those years ago there WAS a lot of distraction.... and coming to this forum for me is like a kind of time-warp back about 10-15 years. Really I haven't had to listen to what anyone else but M has had to say on the subject of practicing the knowkledge and feeling the Fulfilment about which he talks for about 15 years and I cannot fault the inspiration that I have continuously found to enjoy my life.... therefore the sadness that I feel is that it is not the same for you guys...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 02:31:09 (GMT) From: Jerry Email: None To: SpacyT Subject: Cult or no cult Message:

Do you really feel sad for me, SpacyT? Well, guess what, I think you should feel glad. I'm free, Spacy. I'm my own man again, captain of my own soul, charting my own course. So don't feel sad. You should be celebrating my liberation. Seriously, SpacyT. You sound like somebody dead from the neck up. But that's really what I've come to expect from premies. You were always like that. There's no reason to expect anything different at this late date. I don't know what for the life of me Maharaji has guided you to, but it certainly hasn't been the freedom to be your own person. If anything, that's the price you pay to be a premie. I know you disagree, I'm sure, but if I remember my own days as a premie, I hung on every word Maharaji said as if they were the only words spoken that ever mattered and there was nothing anybody else could say, including myself, that could match him. In all honesty, Spacy, when you place another person on a pedestal like that, you've got to be pretty fucked up. My suggestion to you is to head for the exit, take a breath of free air, and have the balls to live your own life as your own guide, because the truth is that the Maharaji you believe in just doesn't exist. The only thing he knows about life is the one he's lived, and there's a lot of skeletons in that closet, as you'd know if you've been reading this forum for any length of time. Like, what do you think of the allegations that your guide once killed a man in an automobile accident and fled the scene to let another take the blame for it? Would that make you reconsider that perhaps the image you have of him in your mind and who he really is are two different people? Again, Spacy, don't feel sad for me. I think it should be the other way around, me feeling sad for you. I'm not the one who can't stand on his own two feet. You are.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 22:26:29 (GMT) From: Earon Kavanagh Email: earonkavanagh@mortimer.com To: Spacy-T Subject: Cult or no cult Message:

Spacy-T wrote: Yes I am surprised to have felt some love and concern around this forum tonight though it is tinged with sadness too... Spacy, can you talk more about that experience you have had? I'm just curious and would like to know more. Thanks, Earon

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 22:45:11 (GMT) From: SpacyT Email: None To: Earon Kavanagh Subject: Cult or no cult Message:

Yes Earon, I am very new to this forum, and what you all would call a spaced out premie, though I thought the term had been pretty much dumped a long time ago, nevertheless... everything in the 'premie world' has changed, always was/did and it was a rough ride for all of us into 'that'.. last night I looked on this forum and found prettty much a big pile of hate, and that stuff is pretty much like excrement, in my view, and taints the handler most of all... ...but your conversation with Katie was nice to hear. perhaps the sadness that I felt came from you .. or maybe from me ... but either way I have to add that..... It seems to me that if you look at M's influnce through the experience of Knowledge itself then It is pristine pure and even though you might want to pile up all the hate in all of you towards him then it wouldn't even touch him .....

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 23:47:06 (GMT) From: Earon Kavanagh Email: earonkavanagh@mortimer.com To: SpacyT Subject: Cult or no cult Message:

I don't intentionally carry that kind of hate around. Although I still believe that m-land was a cult and that m has profited by it and continues to profit. Having said that, what I do hate is 'the act' of wanna-be self-righteous assholes attempting to force their views and beliefs on others. I inherited that from Christian Brothers school and growing up in a ghetto. (Oh, I didn't get rear-ended by any Christian Brothers, although I almost ended up in the infamous Mount Cashel boys orphanage in the early 1960's). Thank god I didn't. Now 'there' was a cult, from which children had no escape, and if you were a young boy living in that orphanage you stood a good chance of being sodomized over the formative years of your life.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 23:12:30 (GMT) From: Katie Email: None To: SpacyT Subject: Cult or no cult Message:

Welcome, and thank you for your most honest answer. I do agree that most of us here could use some lessons in manners at times (myself included). I have met several of the people who post here in person, and they are good people - what you see here is only a small part of what they really are (and of course is subject to the limitations of electronic communication). You wrote: It seems to me that if you look at M's influnce through the experience of Knowledge itself then It is pristine pure and even though you might want to pile up all the hate in all of you towards him then it wouldn't even touch him ..... You are making some assumptions here that I don't agree with. I don't believe that what you are calling 'Knowledge' is necessarily related to the meditation techniques that Maharaji reveals. It wasn't that way for me. Also, I don't believe that Maharaji is necessarily related to your experience of 'Knowledge'. I accept that your experience is valid - just question the relationship that Maharaji (or even the meditation techniques that he teaches) has with your experience. Just so you know, I have to go out pretty soon, so might not be able to answer if you reply to me. Take care, Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 23:38:15 (GMT) From: SpacyT Email: None To: Katie Subject: Cult or no cult Message:

Yes Good night to you Katie, I must go too, but I do appreciate, and feel, everyones honesty here tonight. my experiece is of not being any premie scene but just watching the videos of M's talks ... and they always lift me in that they remind me that however much garbage I get involved in every day, I can turn within and start afresh .. and I have always found M's guidance to hit the spot.. maybe I will catch up with you another time.. bye

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 00:09:07 (GMT) From: baz Email: None To: SpacyT Subject: to SpacyT Message:

hi SpacyT you don't sound that spacey to me. many ex-premies seem to be consumed with a hate for m which is blinding them to the value of k baz

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 00:34:43 (GMT) From: gerry Email: None To: baz Subject: baz, there's something you should know... Message:

Baz why shouldn't we 'hate' Rawat when he took so much and gave so little. He's a thief, a con man and a liar. Are we supposed to love that? There are lot's of ways to skin that specific cat you call knowledge. He's got no special juju and meditation is meditation. One can learn that anywhere. Besides, although there may well be some here who hate Rawat, (I do) many people do not. So that's an unfair generalization. You seem to want to hold onto the fallacious idea that Rawat has something to offer people. He doesn't. Anything you got out of the premie trip was through your own effort. You seem like a sincere person. Shake the mud off your boots and come on in.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 00:41:30 (GMT) From: baz Email: None To: gerry Subject: gerry Message:

when I experience knowledge it feels good so where's the con baz

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 01:06:45 (GMT) From: gerry Email: None To: baz Subject: gerry Message:

Any meditation technique has the potential to make you 'feel good,' as well as any number of relaxation techniques, brain wave synchronization tapes, taking a nap, a hot tub, exercise, making love, playing with your kids, etc, etc. The con is that rawat was somehow the source of your meditative experience or that you owe him some debt of 'graditude' or devotion for simply showing you some mundane, shop worn yoga kriyas. The con is setting himself up as something above us, as some sort of diety to be worshipped, or even that he is a 'master' as he prefers to be called today. Oh he's a master, alright. A master manipulator. You could have read a book about meditation and gotten an experience every bit as good feeling and probably even more so, because it didn't come with all the strings attached. I just read your post to me in the Inactive file so I know you weren't heavily involved in the cult and didn't give much money, etc and I think that's fine. Excellent, even. You escaped and got something of value (meditation) out of it. But lots of people weren't as laid back about it and the intense pressure to do the 'cult' thing infected a lot of sincere and naive people. Please don't give their experience short shrift just because guys like you and I got off cheap. It was hard for me to understand the intensity of the anger and the sense of betrayal many people here expressed, when I first came to the forum. But after reading everyone's journeys and 'talking' with them at length here, I finally came to realize the extent of the damage Rawat has caused. And make no mistake: it's rawat's fault, not the premies fault. My big beef with the guy is not that he's teaching some bog standard meditation techniques, but rather he's still draining other peoples' psychic, spiritual and material resources and always angling for new 'fish.' I feel a moral obligation to do my part, however small, to throw a kink in his works.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 11:54:06 (GMT) From: Brian S Email: None To: gerry Subject: gerry and baz on being conned Message:

You brought up some good points here Gerry, this is the kind of information that lets me know that I am on the right track by cutting M loose. Maharaji came over here with a handful of standard variety techniques and a truckload of dogma. His first con was telling us that this knowledge was his exclusively, the next big con was the dogma that he and his family designed to keep the con going and the flock feeding on it. There should be some truth in labeling in these matters. The same type of disclosure as when you purchase a product or service and the vendor is required to fully disclose all of the facts and conditions of the transaction. Otherwise you have legal recourse to hold them accountable for errors and ommissions. M should be as up front and accountable as any other merchant, he does make his living selling this stuff so he is just another businessman. He should be held to the same standards of honesty as the rest of the peddlers. If he had integrity, he would say right up front, that these techniques are available from many other sources, How he just happened to be in the right place at the right time with the right backing to get the jump on the other Guru's to get over here with it earlier. He would make it clear that he is not really going to be your lifes master , and that he just going to show you something that you might benefit from if you want. He might also add, These are age old meditation techniques, been around forever, here they are, hope you use them. Now get the hell out of here, because you are on your own and lets not pretend that you aren't. If you have any questions refer to the complimentary users manual and/or the terms and conditions clause in our agreement. And Oh by the way don't forget to pay your One time fee of X amount of $. If you decide not to use them don't worry, there are no strings attached, you just wasted your time and money. I am not God or his messenger or anything so don't get any crazy ideas like that, I just want to be up front about that. See ya later and thanks for your business. This is a rough sketch and attempt to illustrate some of what I feel I should have been told going in to this. I wasn't, on the contrary, all of the above options were left out. At least when presented with the facts up front I could have saved myself years of emotional enslavement. A big price to pay for some meditation techniques that work with or without him. As you pointed out in your post Gerry this is not even remotely the case, and here is where my beef with the man and his supporters lies. He may have been young when he started this thing and may have been somewhat pushed into it by his family, but he knows full well what he is doing today. He is running a spiritual con game.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 15:53:02 (GMT) From: gerry Email: None To: Brian S Subject: right on the money, Brian Message:

That was an excellent summation. If Rawat had approached this meditation business as you described, he might not be a gazillionaire now, but at least he'd have his intergrity and there wouldn't be these ever-increasing websites springing up which (rightfully) vilify him. And now it looks like the international press will be getting into the act. Good. I hope he's sweating bullets and it ends up costing him a lot of money.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 19:44:21 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Everyone Subject: Hey, Brian and Earon (repost, etc.) Message:

I'm enjoying watching you two hash it out. Ex-premie bloodsport? Sure, whatever. Beats the crackpipe. Earon, you do say some things that I just can't go along with. Not really. I mean I could let them pass but if we're really talking, well, I can't. Here's a post you made to me yesterday. I want to comment on it and then I want to comment on some of the things you two have been saying to each other. Then I have to go to the office: Hi Jim, Good to hear from ya. I submit that 'being right' and dialogue might not exist in the same space. From my experience whenever I am being right there is little room for dialogue, as dialogue presupposes a spirit that leans toward inquiry and discovery without putting forth judgement. My way is not the right way and either is yours. But there is certainly room in the universe for different views. Knowing that you are a barrister - and I believe, a good one - I will suggest that, within the confines of the courtroom, someone must come out, ultimately, as being right (yes, it can probably be appealed by the one isn't right). The prime directive is to arrive at some form of conclusion. Different views may exist along the process, but ultimately a judging view is laid down. Outside of the courtroom things are somewhat different, particularly in today's world. Dominant views can be told to move aside. Thank god for that. I expand further on your qustion in my post to John T titled 'pardon me'. Yes, we should get together soon and jam. Jamming would be great. And we will. (That is unless we piss each other off too much here but I so much don't want that to happen.) Sorry, I disagree with your whole conceptual framework around this issue. I don't even see how 'being right' and 'dialogue' are ever in conflict. It all has to do with reason. It matters little whether I barely believe in a position I'm advancing (just for 'argument's sake', for example) or if I'm entirely, passionately convinced that I'm right. Reason still governs the dialogue. If your argument's reasonable and better than mine, it wins. That's all there is to it. The complaint I think you're making, reading between the lines a bit, is that people who think they're right are not open to persuasion, no matter how well-reasoned and objectively compelling the argument. Sure that's true but that only means that people with strong convictions on certain matters won't engage in fair debate in those areas. But -- and, to me, this is key -- fairness in debate is an objective standard. That is, a well-informed bystander could well act as a referee. Extending the analogy a bit, some shots are in, some are out and a bystander could call them, irrespective of the passions of the players. Now there are some issues that could never be reduced to simple 'right' or 'wrong', artistic taste being an excellent, common example. Fine, true enough. But when it comes to things that have some sort of truth value in the world, for example, whether or not you're an ex-premie, fair debate has nothing to do with how sure you are you're right. Nothing. Indeed, it's probably best for the quality of the debate that, even if you don't actually believe your position strongly, you act as if you do so as to advance it vigorously and give it a fair airing. Don't get me wrong, if the position is, in fact, a tentative one, advance it like that but still do the actually advancing, or arguing, vigorously. In other words, 'I'm not sure about this but these are the best reasons I can think of for thinking as I do ....' That kind of thing. The law .... everyone's always talking about the law. Well, the law's just fine thank you very much. I was looking at it yesterday as I lost an application in the court of appeal. Without getting into the specifics of that or any other case, let me tell you that the passions of the parties meant zip. The interests of the parties meant zip. The relative status of the lawyers meant zip (or at least it's supposed to and I'll make that assumption.) It didn't matter how much either side believed it was right or wanted to win. It was a reasoned debate on the issues. And that, as far as I can tell, is the only decent way to talk about anything. So when you start talking about how you are going to stand yoru ground no matter what, all I wonder about is 'what about the potential strength of the other side?' How can you ever say you're going to prevail in a discussion? Going back to my tennis analogy, say I challenge Agassi to a game. Even though he's the man and all that, it's always possible that I could win. It's shot by shot and who's to say for sure how the game will end in advance? That's what fair argument is all about. Cards on the table and may the best hand win. Now you said one thing to Brian that was really untenable, not to mention blatantly incendiary, in my opinion. That was the suggestion that Brian's traded one cult for another. Earon, if a discussion group that urges, even strongly urges, one to examine their involvement with their former cult is a cult then we better go back to the drawing board on the definition of thta word. But please, let's not bother! Let's not resort to trying to bend the language out of shape the way people like Sandy do on and on and on. I know that kind of silliness passes for wisdom in some circles but it's really confusing and just a big time-waster. We are all SO much better than that! We're smart and we should act that way. New age word games are below us. Finally, you said someone warned you in email about someone, one person in particular, who might try to 'bully' you into submission or something. Was that person referred to me? I think it's only fair for me to know seeing as you're talking about it here. Also, who said it?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 20:08:49 (GMT) From: Earon Kavanagh Email: earonkavanagh@mortimer.com To: Jim Subject: Hey, Brian and Earon (repost, etc.) Message:

Hey, Jim. I've been waiting for you to wade in on this discussion. Hey, I've watch a bit of wrestling in my day (tag teams and all that). So there are some things that we don't agree on, including my take that you use this venue as an opportunity to hone your court barrister bedside manner (that's an assumption on my part but I'm sticking to it). Earon

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 20:14:06 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Earon Kavanagh Subject: Tag team or not Message:

What does it matter if we're 'ganging up on you'? How does that stengthen or weaken anything either I or Brian's saying? And what does it matter if, exactly as you think, I'm using this forum to hone my skills? So? Red herrings, Earon. Sorry. Now would you please respond to some of the other things I asked you about? Hell, you don't have to if you don't want but then there goes the dialogue.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 20:20:24 (GMT) From: Earon Kavanagh Email: earonkavanagh@mortimer.com To: Jim Subject: Tag team or not Message:

OK-Jim. Take the floor. Render a definition of cult. Earon

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 20:31:54 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Earon Kavanagh Subject: Here's a real loose general one Message:

Joe offered a good one I agreed with some time back. But for now, how about 'any organization that tricks a person into not thinking for themself but instead buying into a belief system'? Anyway, the burden's really yours. You're the one talking about 'anti-cult cults'. What do YOU mean?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 21:06:45 (GMT) From: Earon Kavanagh Email: earonkavanagh@mortimer.com To: Jim Subject: You're the expert, tell me some more Message:

Thanks, Jim That's a good start. I'll add another. How about a group that pressures people to adopt a certain belief system and marginalizes them if they don't comply to those beliefs? Tell if me you accept that one. And, tell me another. I believe that you are probably a bit of an expert since you've been involved with pointing out m's org is a cult for some time. The floor, once again, belongs to you, Jim.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 18:28:37 (GMT) From: Jerry Email: None To: Earon Kavanagh Subject: One other thing Message:

Earon, I think your definition of a cult describes only one aspect of what one is, but I don't think marginalizing people is exclusive to cults. In any organization you're going to find a status quo and people who are marginalized that don't conform. But one very exclusive aspect of a cult is... the secret initiation ceremony. There isn't a cult in the world that doesn't have one. There's no such thing on Forum V. But maybe we should have one. Any ideas, people? (Just kidding for anybody who thinks I'm serious).

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 23:13:29 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Earon Kavanagh Subject: Depends, I guess Message:

Depends on what you mean by 'pressure' and what you mean by 'marginalize'. If the 'pressure' is simply argument and persuasion, no. If the 'marginalizing' is simply losing respect of others involved, no. Your turn? You still haven't offered a definition. I remind you, you're the one who brought the term up, you're the one who raised the spectre (this time) of the 'anti-cult cult'. What exactly do you mean?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 23:55:31 (GMT) From: Earon Kavanagh Email: earonkavanagh@mortimer.com To: Jim Subject: Depends, I guess Message:

Hi Jim, You wrote: Your turn? You still haven't offered a definition. I remind you, you're the one who brought the term up, you're the one who raised the spectre (this time) of the 'anti-cult cult'. What exactly do you mean? My comments: I already addressed that in an earlier post on this thread. You wrote: Depends on what you mean by 'pressure' and what you mean by 'marginalize'. If the 'pressure' is simply argument and persuasion, no. If the 'marginalizing' is simply losing respect of others involved, no. My comments: Let's go back a bit. You wrote 'But for now, how about 'any organization that tricks a person into not thinking for themself but instead buying into a belief system'?' Before I give you my views on marginalization and pressure, explain to me what you specifically interpret from Joes offering. For starters, when does a person actually ever stop thinking for him/her self? What type of belief system would you interpret Joe's statement to be rendering? What kind of beliefs? About whome? About what? To accomplish what purpose? When you answer that I hope to have a little more clarity by which to address your next question or marginalizing and pressure. Thanks, Jim Earon

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 22:54:36 (GMT) From: JohnT Email: None To: Earon Kavanagh Subject: My two cents Message:

The beliefs a cult inculcates are NOT out in the open. A person does not know what they are buying into. I would say that's an important part of what a cult is. So Catholisism (for example), although undeniably cult-like in some respects, would not score on that criterion. One knows before hand what being a Catholic involves. There are doubtless others (maybe a fuzzy definition like seven or more out of ten charactaristics on a list), but for me, secrecy of what is really involved would definately have to be at least on the list; and I would argue is essential to any adequate definition. JohnT - never a premie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 23:58:20 (GMT) From: Earon kavanagh Email: earonkavanagh@mortimer.com To: JohnT Subject: My two cents Message:

Thanks, John I'll note that and if Jim agrees and no one else disagrees I'll not that as one of the criteria. I've posted what you wrote below. Earon John wrote: The beliefs a cult inculcates are NOT out in the open. A person does not know what they are buying into. I would say that's an important part of what a cult is. So Catholisism (for example), although undeniably cult-like in some respects, would not score on that criterion. One knows before hand what being a Catholic involves. There are doubtless others (maybe a fuzzy definition like seven or more out of ten charactaristics on a list), but for me, secrecy of what is really involved would definately have to be at least on the list; and I would argue is essential to any adequate definition. JohnT - never a premie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 00:15:27 (GMT) From: baz Email: None To: Earon kavanagh Subject: when is a cult not a cult Message:

when its a jar (ajar)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 00:23:33 (GMT) From: Earon Kavanagh Email: earonkavanagh@mortimer.com To: baz Subject: Yuk Yuk (NT) Message:

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 00:36:29 (GMT) From: baz Email: None To: Earon Kavanagh Subject: how many ex-premies Message:

how many ex-premies does it take to change a light bulb

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 01:45:05 (GMT) From: Earon Kavanagh Email: earonkavanagh@mortimer.com To: baz Subject: Baz: how many ex-premies: Duhhh..How Many? (NT Message:

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 15:05:39 (GMT) From: baz Email: None To: Earon Kavanagh Subject: how many ex-premies: Duhhh..How Many? (NT Message:

answer: none because they like living in darkness! P.s. this is just a joke :) - I sometimes think this site gets a bit intense baz

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 19:11:56 (GMT) From: Patrick Conlon Email: pdconlon@yahoo.com To: Everyone Subject: The Earthquake in Gujerat Message:

7.9 on the Richter scale lasting 2 minutes. 2,300 known dead, 14,000 injured and 13,000 feared dead. The Loma Prieta Quake of 89 in the San Francisco Bay Area was 7.1 and lasted 15 seconds with 65 dead. Everything in our house that could be moved was smashed. Unlike our usual 5 point quakes, it was violent enough to throw me to the floor and I crawled to a door-frame for cover. The house was cracked but inhabitable unlike many of our neighbors'. We lived on a hill from which we could see the explosions and fires in the Marina sending up a black cloud of smoke like a mushroom. Then the sun set and the city was in darkness because there was no electricity. All you could see was the glow of the fires in the Marina. Everyone came out into the streets to compare notes or because they were afraid when the aftershocks began. The quake in Bhuj was 7.9 and lasted for 2 minutes. If you look at a map of India (there's a link at the bottom of this post) you will see that the triangle whose west leg is the Indus valley, east leg the Ganges and south leg the 20th parallel is Aryan/Vedantic/Mogul India from which all of M's devotees come. The Beas cults began in Punjab close to Gujerat on the west coast. The Gujeratis have a history of Radhasoami gurus and swamis that date back to before Shri Hans. The largest diaspora of Gujeratis outside of India is in South Africa. The banya (merchant) caste came to Natal/Kwazulu in the 1880s. Ghandi lived there for 21 years and his grandchildren from his oldest (estranged son) still live there. Brides are still brought from Gujerat to Durban and many of the wealthiest banyas still own family properties and other real estate in Gujerat. Shri H's mahatmas arrived in Gujerat in the early sixties and immediately went to South Africa. There are premies in South Africa who have ''had knowledge'' long before Mr Rawat. (Perhaps I will one day incur Jim's wrath when I describe the saintliness of the two bais, lady mahatmas, whom I got to know before they died in the late 80s. It may too subjectively novelistic for his objective evidentiary tastes.) There is a strong cross-cultural tie between Gujerat and South Africa. Emigrants from the states of Gujerat and Tamil-Naidoo (in the southern dravidian part of India) represent the largest part of the Indian diaspora. The former emigrated voluntarily and the latter as servants indentured to the British East India Company which managed the Raj. Although both groups went to the same countries (South Africa, the British West Indies, Mauritius, Fiji) only Gujerati banyas follow M and they are loathe to let people from other states or even castes in on the secret. (One day I will tell how Mr Rawat prevented Knowledge from being given to anyone in South Africa in the seventies except Gujeratis and Europeans.) Many of the Gujerati banyas in the USA are from the Patel clan and have cornered the motel business or perhaps your local cheap hotel is owned by a Patel. The highest clan on the banya totem pole are the Sonis, ''jewelers,'' who bankrolled M in South Africa until Mata Ji denounced her youngest son as a playboy in 1974. They then withdrew their financial support. I visited them once in their beach cottage - more like a mansion - where M had stayed during his trip to Durban with Milky Cole in 1973. The point of all this is that outside of the Aryan triangle of north India (the states of Gujerat, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh as well as the nation of Nepal) the only other Indians who are devotees of M are the Gujeratis of the diaspora. They all have relatives back in Gujerat. They are a very stoical, conservative, pious and family-oriented race of people (in South Africa they are called ''brown Jews'') and will be grief-stricken by this earthquake. These are the people (and the Jewish communists) alongside of whom I fought against apartheid in the early sixties and with whom I went to jail. These are the people whom my white trash family called ''coolies.'' These are the people who showed me in my anti-apartheid days and in my two years living in their ''ashram'' in Durban how decent civilization could be if we all worked hard, cared for the poor and loved our children. They spoil there kids rotten with kisses and kindness and don't give them a penny unless they work for it. The Gujeratis are the largest group of educated Indians who are premies and I think they deserve a more honest guru than the one they got or even better - no guru at all. Many of the kids of these old-fashioned merchants are scientists and are now on line. They would just like the facts. This forum is probably quite distasteful to them. I hope that they will read all the information on EPO before looking at FV. I also hope that they don't see it only as group therapy for anonymous spoilt white brats whining about how they were the subjects of a failed experiment by a Hindu ''holy man.'' I hope they will look deeper and see that the anger expressed here by former ashram premies was caused by their guru's incompetence and callous disregard for the people on whom he was conducting his experiments. I also hope that, if you have any evidence of civil tort (perhaps employer sexual harassment) or criminal wrong-doing (such as the alleged vehicular manslaughter) by Mr Rawat, you have a corroborating eyewitness and, if you have a non-disclosure agreement, please remember that a criminal investigation over-rides it. In other words, if you wish to bring serious charges against Mr Rawat, please be sure that they are provable. I personally cannot do so and the only contribution that I can make towards discrediting him is philosophical in that I believe that the tradition of bhakti-guru is no longer necessary or desirable for anyone at all or either it belongs only in India or the Indian diaspora where they know how to take their gurus with a generous pinch of salt and a lot of garam masala. PS I know that the group therapy on FV is necessary for most of us and am not criticizing it. It is simply that it is confined to a couple of thousands of white people and is a fairly small problem in the world-wide scheme of things. FV is also a highly addictive interactive soap opera and I know I will still enjoy watching all of us thrashing it out so conscientiously. Map of India

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 06:31:34 (GMT) From: Francesca Email: None To: Patrick Conlon Subject: Thanks Pat, for the insight on this Message:

Unfortunately, I just checked the news and it's now 11,000 dead and rising. Just horrible. Compared to other countries in the world, we've never had any big-time disasters here in the US. But of course, to someone who has lost a loved one in an earthquake or other catastrophe, one person lost is too many. My prayer list this week is just outrageous. This year is off to a ripping start, I'm afraid. Thanks again for bringing this to our attention and putting it in perspective.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 09:09:56 (GMT) From: Patrick Conlon Email: None To: Francesca Subject: Francesca I was just thinking Message:

as I scrolled up and looked at the latest posts, that I hardly ever bend your ear by email anymore. I'm spending probably too much time here. I'm a people watcher and this is definitely a motherlode. I can remember saying to you about a year ago that it would be nice for you and me and another friend of mine to have an e-group to discuss these sorts of things. Well now I've got it in spades. The quake in Bhuj took place on (Indian) Independence Day. Gujerat state's most famous native son, Ghandi, helped to bring about independence from the British Empire. I just love your unique take on buddhism. I am probably a buddhist - zen - but I haven't studied it much. I skimmed through all the religions and only really read more about hinduism because I wanted to understand Mr Rawat's trip. Otherwise I find all religions just a mixture of plain old folkloric common sense and a superstitious, non-scientific stab at answering the question, ''why?'' But having done pharmacy for 30 years of my 54, I think the same about science.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 23:06:03 (GMT) From: Bin Liner Email: None To: Patrick Conlon Subject: The City of Leicester... Message:

... England ,also has a high Gujerati population. Most of Rawat's English/Indian following is from there. I've always found them to be very nice people ,if a bit standoffish (but we're used to that in England so it's ok). Terrible about the earthquake ,there must be many in Leicester who have lost loved ones .

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 02:34:44 (GMT) From: Patrick Conlon Email: None To: Bin Liner Subject: Gujeratis multiple gurus Message:

Hi Bin Liner. I heard that Bubblegumjee did a program in Leicester a few years back and all of Ratwat's premies went along for the satsang. In Durban the premies used to attend regular Krishna satsang as well as Ratwat's and any new pundit or swami who swam into town. Their altars at home often had pics of Ratwat, Ghandi, their favorite swami and their ancestor who crossed the Indian Ocean to Natal/KwaZulu. All decked with marigolds and to which they sang arti. They treat Ratwat like just one of many people they admire.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 19:46:46 (GMT) From: Charles S Email: None To: Patrick Conlon Subject: More earthquake news from India... Message:

Here is a link to an Indian news website: More India Earthquake News

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 18:05:02 (GMT) From: Curious George (female) Email: None To: Charles S Subject: HAve sent you an email Message:

Dear Patrick, Where do you live? Africa, England or U.S. or none of the above. Curious

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 19:06:37 (GMT) From: Patrick Conlon Email: None To: Curious George (female) Subject: HAve sent you an email Message:

Charles and I live in California. I sent you email.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 15:44:20 (GMT) From: Wish Email: None To: Everyone Subject: The swine, satellite feeds, a dying cult Message:

During the '70s and '80s premies would go up in front of the hall and talk about their lives and how the swine and knowledge made it so much better. Pretty boring stuff but there was a social bonding and many people attended. During the '90s it was the swine's addresses that were shown on video, even more boring, and the attendance fell. But still the die-hard premies kept going because of the remaining social bonding (peer pressure) and the thought that they were following a divine pig. Now in 2001, video libraries that operate via the post office have been set up. And they want to have satellite feeds every day, plus internet news letters sent out on a regular basis. But no more group meetings in a hall, everything is individual and at home, no more social bonds. The swine himself now claims that he's not divine, and amply confirmed by Michael Dettmers revelations. All this will speed up the demise of an already dying cult. At the beginning premies might watch one or two feeds a week, but their interests will fade quickly.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 20:33:15 (GMT) From: bill Email: None To: Wish Subject: Swine (black)Light Mission Message:

If you read a thread that Jim posted down below, he posted excerpts of Swine squealing at the Oxnard Swinefest. You will see that he DOES still claim to be the only light in the world. He has never stopped saying he is the master of life. The one the only. What fools you is that he also says other things.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 17:22:38 (GMT) From: la-ex Email: None To: Wish Subject: 5 reasons for digital m, none of which work... Message:

That seems to be where it's all going, I agree, but I think it's really just an excuse to bow out gracefully, while still pursuing the great goal of propagating K to the world..... In other words, m can still make good on his promise to bring k to the whole world, fulfill dad's agya, and prove to the premies that their hard earned dollars are financing world peace and that,no, he isn't giving up on the great work that he and the very chosen few are still engaged in... I think he is doing this for a few reasons, however all will fall flat as the cult gradually merges into a nothingness, with premies following a bland virtual new age feel good religion, with virtually no experience to it. 1-with $50/month(minimum) to $100/month fees(recommended to be a real sponsor), all that money goes directly to visions(minus broadcast costs). Before, with halls, most of that money stayed in the community for hall expenses, with only about $250 going to visions for video costs.Now, even with a small community of 20 people paying in, they might bring in $1000-$1500/month, rather than $250. Not bad work, if you can get it. 2-this will encourage a 'global digital bonding', a sort of new age network that seems kind of neat for awhile, but is actually very little bonding, or none at all. But that's probably as much 'bonding' as m wants to happen anyway.This also makes it tougher to 'compare notes' with other premies;it makes it a kind of 'one stop shop', where the new premie can get all his/her information from one source, and bypass people like us, on his/her way to bliss.Pravda was good at this for awhile, but I don't think it lasted. 3-this 'virtual community' is harder for exes to bother or disrupt. For instance, if someone wants to bug a community now, they can simply call the landlord of the community hall, or the hotel where they might put on programs for new people. One visit with leaflets to an intro program will soon convince premies that they don't want to put on more programs if the people they might bring are going to be exposed to some sort of protester with a web site to show them. 4-this makes it harder for the press to visit a program, as there might be 10 private homes, rather than one public place where the video is shown. 5-this leads to exact and total control by m. None of that 'messy' satsang by well meaning, but always partially confused premies to the newcomers. Along with lots of editing, m can get his blissful, new age message out to the masses.Digital is so exact, and much easier to control than those wierd premies. He just has to clear up that messy past of his, which embarrasses him so, and it could all be clear sailing....hence, the 'revisionist history' that now takes place over at ELK... There's a lot more reasons than this, but those 5 come to mind right now. One further comment, in response to the Moony saying that 'You don't give steak to a baby', posted by Way... 'You don't feed pablum to an adult'......

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 18:44:41 (GMT) From: Cynthia Email: None To: la-ex Subject: la-ex, great post... Message:

Hi la-ex, You said as part of your post above: ''In other words, m can still make good on his promise to bring k to the whole world, fulfill dad's agya, and prove to the premies that their hard earned dollars are financing world peace and that,no, he isn't giving up on the great work that he and the very chosen few are still engaged in...'' (my emphasis) I think I mentioned this a few months ago, and if I'm not mistaken, during that same speech goomraji gave in Spain, 1999, in which he said there are no more Mahatmas in India, he also said that Phase I was over. By this he meant that he had already fulfilled his agya to his father by spreading k around the world! I don't remember his exact words, but that was the gist of it. He said Phase II would be training sessions, great participation opportunities....YUCK! Then, of course, he went on to explain how important participation is. Asked the question (again, and again) do you want to be a part of what the Master is doing? You can a have the ride of your life...Blaa Blaa Blaa... I don't have a copy of the tape, but I think because goomraji has flown all over the world and given k to people in a cajillion (smirk) countries, he considers his agya to Shri M, completed and fulfilled. That one speech, was really packed with stuff. It would be interesting to hear again, if I could stand the sound of his fucking voice! Best, Cynthia

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 19:42:46 (GMT) From: Patrick Conlon Email: pdconlon@yahoo.com To: la-ex Subject: la-ex you are Ex-lax for the Turd's bullshit Message:

Exactly what I felt the satellite broadcasts were all about - destroying what little community was left as you say to stop premies from ''comparing notes.'' This completes the cult's solipsism.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 15:37:25 (GMT) From: icantremembermyname Email: space To: Everyone Subject: I just heard this for the first time (ot) Message:

I think fv needs a little levity.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 13:21:40 (GMT) From: salam Email: None To: Everyone Subject: what is the url for the dancing boobs? Message:

pervert

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 18:49:21 (GMT) From: Roger eDrek Email: drek@oz.net To: salam Subject: Here is the dancing boob! Message:

the dancing boob Warning: Do not look at the dancing boob too long or you risk being put into a hypnotic state where you will be susceptible to suggestion by greedy people.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 05:24:58 (GMT) From: salam Email: None To: Roger eDrek Subject: rawatsucks have them now Message:

look at the bottom of the page yummy tits

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 12:37:57 (GMT) From: AJW Email: None To: My Premie Pals Subject: The Sky is a Jigsaw Puzzle. Message:

Imagine a jigsaw puzzle that is a picture of the sky. You finish the frame, and the pieces in the centre have formed three, beautiful white clouds. But something’s not quite right. You can’t seem to get it finished. Even though all the bits you’ve done so far fit exactly together- still you can’t complete the puzzle. Somebody comes up behind you, looks over your shoulder and says, “If you want to finish that puzzle, you’ve got to do take those clouds out, they're wrong.” You say, “What? I’ve been working on this puzzle for years, making excellent progress. The clouds are beautiful. What do you know?” They reply, “I had exactly the same puzzle. The clouds are upside down. It won’t fit until you take them out and turn them around.” Because of all the hard work you’ve done, and because all the pieces fit perfectly so far, you really don’t want to break it up. You have faith in yourself and the effort you’ve made. Maybe someone else comes by and tells you the same thing in a different way, 'The frame is upside down'. But what if there were a bunch of you sitting together, who all had the clouds upside down? Someone had convinced you that was how to do it. Would you tell each other to have faith and carry on? The only way to avoid rearranging the puzzle would be to block your ears, and refuse to even discuss it with anyone. I can’t think of a single negative effect leaving the 'Perfect MasterRoadshow' has had on me. I feel better and more complete within myself. I feel happier about my relationships, my work, my family and my friends. It really is a great relief to feel my life is going in a healthy direction again. I have never, not even for a single second, regretted leaving 'Captain Rawat' and his rusting hulk, sinking slowly into the mud. Anth who has finished the puzzle

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 23:16:32 (GMT) From: Bongo Email: None To: AJW Subject: The Sky is a Jigsaw Puzzle. Message:

I get it. I like it. Love Bongo

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 14:58:25 (GMT) From: salam Email: None To: AJW Subject: The Sky is a Jigsaw Puzzle. Message:

Sorry big boy, but I cann't follow what you're saying. Do not understand the relation to the jigsaw puzzle and the last part of you post. You suddenly shifted position. Can you explain it to this third rate underbelly uncoth big boobs pervert hit man that has nothing else to do but bagger such enlightened and profound speakers like youself. merci.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 08:15:34 (GMT) From: AJW Email: None To: salam Subject: The Sky is a Jigsaw Puzzle. Message:

Don't ask me Salam. I wrote it yesterday. I've slept since then. I think it's about this jigsaw puzzle I had when I was kid, I couldn't do it so I blamed Maharaji- something like that. Anth the multi-personality.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 13:31:31 (GMT) From: salam Email: None To: AJW Subject: The Sky is a Jigsaw Puzzle. Message:

It just I thought there was something wrong with me. But it's ok, now I know that am not the only confused person here.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 15:00:52 (GMT) From: AJW Email: None To: salam Subject: Are you kidding salam? Message:

I've met some of these characters on the forum. I tell you salam, they are really on their best behaviour, trying not to give the game away how nuts they really are when they post here. What's amazing is that anyone ever takes any notice of any of us. We are a bunch of mega-nuts without a doubt. Anth the comeback cashew.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 12:22:57 (GMT) From: JTF Email: None To: Everyone Subject: Is the rawat group really destructive? Message:

Are you 'UNDER THE INFLUENCE' of a destructive group or belief system? Find out with this SELF QUIZ: Does your group discourage doubts, criticism or ideas that differ from their belief system? Yes____No____ Do you tend to rationalize whatever the group does even when it goes against your sense of right and wrong? Yes___ No___ Do you often feel exhausted from lengthy group activities, meetings and projects? Yes___ No___ Does your group have its own unique words, clichés, slogans, chants, prayers and doctrinal phrases that reinforce the group viewpoint? Yes___ No___ Are doubts viewed as a lack of faith, dedication, commitment or disloyalty? Yes___ No___ Have 'your thoughts' become 'the enemy?' Yes___ No___ Do you often find yourself doing more and more things in the group or because of group peer pressure that you would not have done on your own? Yes___ No___ Does your group publicly humiliate or criticize members? Yes___ No___ Does your group have a system of punishments and rewards for behavior? Yes___ No___ Group paranoia: Does your group obsessively think other groups or people with different beliefs are out to get them? Yes___ No___ Does the prospect of leaving your group seem scary, difficult? Yes___ No___ Do you feel the need to leave in secret? Yes___ No___ Have you been told something bad might happen if you leave? Yes___ No___ Does your group/belief system think they have/are the only or highest truth, or have the solution for the world’s problems? Yes___ No___ Are your leader’s ideas or belief system considered beyond reproach or sacred? Yes___ No___ Do you follow a particular individual or belief system that requires unquestioning obedience and loyalty? Yes___ No___ ) Do members of your group feel specially chosen, superior, exclusive, elite? Yes___ No___ Do you feel the need to save or convert others to your belief system or ideology? Yes___ No___ Is your group secretive to outsiders about its inner workings, teachings, activities or beliefs? Yes___ No___ Does your group equate purity and goodness to being in your group, and impurity or evil to those outside your group? Yes___ No___ Do you place your group’s mission or agenda above your own goals and ideals? Do group interests come before your own interest Yes___ No___ Do you find yourself thinking in a we-they, us-versus-them mind set? Yes___ No___ Does your group/system have a clear outside enemy? Yes___ No___ Do you see less and less of your family and friends who do not belong to your group or who do not subscribe to your group’s belief system? Yes___ No___ Does your group use frequent public testimonials, confessions, or sharings that reinforce the group’s mission or agenda? Yes___ No___ Is communication within, into and out of your group controlled or censored in any manner? Yes___ No___ Does your group criticize, shun, abandon or demean individuals who leave the group? Yes___ No___ Do members seek approval or get permission from group leader(s) for personal life choices? Yes___ No___ Do you feel pressured to attend meetings, events, lectures, seminars? And do you feel guilty if you don’t attend? Yes___ No___ Do you feel pressured to give a portion of your income to the group, or spend money on courses, books or special projects? Yes___ No___ Are the group’s financial needs more important than your own economic well-being? Yes___ No___ Does your group discriminate against anyone regarding race, gender, belief, or sexual orientation? Yes___ No___ Does your group have a totalitarian structure: a strict, top-down centralized control? Yes___ No___ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Do you wonder if you have been in a destructive group? Do you... ...have difficulty forming new friendships and intimate relationships? Yes___ No___ ...have low self-esteem, poor self-image or loss of identity? Yes___ No___ ...have difficulty making simple decisions and choices? Yes___ No___ ...often feel depressed, anxious and nervous? Yes___ No___ ...feel isolated, lonely, guilty, cynical? Yes___ No___ ...feel like you are just now growing up, becoming a mature adult? Yes___ No___ ...have short-term memory difficulties? Yes___ No___ ...feel you have nothing to believe in? Yes___ No___ ...often feel anger and rage towards the group? Yes___ No___ ...have nightmares or unpleasant dreams? Yes___ No___ ...find it difficult or impossible to stop mental or other group ritualistic practices? Yes___ No___ This quiz has no scientifically predetermined number of 'yes' answers to indicate a destructive group. However, answering 'yes' to any of the above questions means you may need to examine your group and its influence in your life in those areas. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 17:11:59 (GMT) From: Jean-Micjhel Email: None To: Self Quiz now on EPO Subject: Is the rawat group really destructive? Message:

Here's the link: Self Quiz

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 15:46:01 (GMT) From: Marianne Email: delores@gofree.indigo.ie To: JTF Subject: ****BEST OF FORUM****?????? Message:

JTF: I think this quiz is the best of all these sorts of things that get posted from time to time here. It is excellent. Thanks for posting it. Hopefully Jean Michel will put it in the 'best of' section. Marianne

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 15:56:13 (GMT) From: gerry Email: None To: Marianne Subject: Hey Marianne Message:

They Brendan guy sum sharp pencil, ain't 'e? Had us both pinned in under twelve seconds! wooowowooowowwwooooooo!!! PS I might need a lawyer with some pull with the FA for I think they might think I did something bad, but it really was the other guy you know who...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 16:03:49 (GMT) From: Marianne Email: None To: gerry Subject: Hey Ger Message:

Oh, I've been plagued by jerks like Brendan my whole life. He sounds just like some of the more rabid prosecutors I try cases against. They can't stomach an assertive woman. His claim that I am 'grandstanding' is just a euphemism for saying that I am an uppity girl. Notice he does not tell us if he is a premie or an ex. Are you in the betting mood? You're on your own with the FA, Ger. Bad boy! Marianne

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 16:46:41 (GMT) From: JohnT Email: None To: Marianne Subject: Hi Marianne Message:

I think he's a fake. He claimed to know more about US civil law than you; then said he is not from the US himself... Also, the way he reacted to Gerry suggests to me he may be nursing hurt feelings from a previous encounter with gErRy. I suggest he may be just some regular lurker here adopted an Irish moniker knowing you're in Eire. Now, who would do a thing like that... Just my tuppence worth.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 16:52:15 (GMT) From: Gerry Email: None To: JohnT Subject: I think John's right Message:

People are always mixing me up with that gErRy thing. Somehow he's been able to co-opt my ISP and browser type. The internet can be a scary place sometimes with all this cloak-and-dagger stuff going on behing the scenes...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 18:51:05 (GMT) From: Marianne Email: None To: Gerry and John Subject: I still think it's Catweasel Message:

The cat likes to jump into my legal posts all the time. And the cat is always taking swipes at me when I mention EV being interested in the legal discussions. So I say it's the cat. If it's not, so what. I also figured that the name was adopted due to my current location. Thanks for defending my honor. And by the way Ger, I was out for only about an hour last night before I threw in the towel. Next week, I'm going to Amsterdam to see Anth and his wife. Now that will be fun! Love, Marianne

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 04:23:18 (GMT) From: Brendan Murphy Email: None To: Marianne Subject: It's not.Same network .Different user Message:

No mystery really. People have friends.I had no idea that my collegue goes by the name Catweasel here. My apologies.Brendan Murphy is not an alias.It is my name. You should muster up all your investigative powers and see if you can decipher what you have been told.I'm completely cold as to whether you be man or woman. I'd respond to you the same either way. You ARE grandstanding, no other definition. The basic tenets of US law are based on British precedents, as are ours. The laws surrounding copyright,intellectual property and their usage do not involve rocket sience John. Finally 'Punitive damages?' -adjective involving the infliction of punishment.Capice Marianne? Waste of time.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 08:55:48 (GMT) From: Marianne Email: None To: Brendan Murphy Subject: You said PUNITATIVE Message:

You did not say punitive. Go back and read your own post, smarty pants.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 10:38:40 (GMT) From: Brendan Murphy Email: None To: Marianne Subject: You said PUNITATIVE Message:

It was late. My mistake. How old are you Marianne. My reckoning would have you at around 40? Automatically that becomes 29 doesnt it?By the way I was referring to a LAN network.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 11:17:44 (GMT) From: Marianne Email: None To: Brendan Murphy Subject: If you are extending an olive branch, accepted Message:

I'm 17.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 12:36:32 (GMT) From: Brendan Murphy Email: None To: Marianne Subject: If you are extending an olive branch, accepted Message:

Hell , I knew that! I'm 35, contest Iron Man contests (Surf /swim /surfski/run) and I promise I'm not gay. Bombastic maybe, but never sexist!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 14:16:34 (GMT) From: Marianne Email: None To: Brendan Murphy Subject: Another bombastic Aussie! Message:

Let's just put this chapter behind us, shall we? We disagree about a legal matter -- that is the end of it. Now you may be a 35 year old Iron Guy -- I still think you're the Cat -- but are you a premie or an ex? That is what I really want to know. If you have read my journey, you know that I am a wee bit older than 17. But you can see me in my 17 year old glory on the LOTU video -- virginal (for some reason, lightning bolts have hit the place I'm staying), celibate (geez, loads of thunder now), ashram devotee to the living Lord... So put up some pics of you and your pecs, Iron Man. I'm callin' yer bluff! And post your law degree too! Marianne

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 07:40:25 (GMT) From: Brendan Murphy Email: None To: Marianne Subject: Another bombastic Aussie! Message:

The law degree...well that's on the register. Easy Peasy for you to gander at. The Pecs? ahhh I'll just thumb through a few sites...oops I mean albums to find Mr Right...er I mean the right one....Picture that is

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 00:57:45 (GMT) From: hamzen Email: None To: Marianne Subject: You wanna play them at cricket Marianne, jeesus Message:

They've turned sledging into a fine art, they make Jim look almost Colin Cowdrey'ish by comparison, sorry sporting in-joke, but you get the drift. But the one thing I will give the REAL aussies credit for is that they always come forward and take it straight, unlike us whining poms. A REAL aussie would NEVER hide. And yeah, barring financial disaster, which is on the cards at the mo, I'll be well up for March, just don't stand too close if JHB gets me on that latvian porteiris or whatever it's called!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 02:24:28 (GMT) From: Marianne Email: None To: hamzen Subject: Hey ham Message:

I'll be looking forward to seeing you in March. There will be some new faces. Write Nigel and do some verbal arm twisting. He's not to be missed. Marianne

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 23:06:32 (GMT) From: Forum Admin Email: None To: Marianne Subject: There is a high probability you are correct. NT Message:

NT

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 17:12:17 (GMT) From: jOhNt Email: None To: Gerry Subject: Now HERE'S a tough call... Message:

OK now, I know this is hypothetical but you gotta imagine it's for real, y'dig? The deal is you get to dump FOR EVER one of ... . . . . Stonor (Anna) OR Sandy (Sanford) . . . . You choose. You can take your time (not that I'd need to...)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 17:52:40 (GMT) From: Katie Email: None To: jOhNt Subject: John, please... Message:

Everyone on here has their 'least favorite posters'. So what? I know you don't like Sandy or Anna, but they haven't broken any rules here, and I feel that they attempt to post sincerely. Please lay off.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 18:30:27 (GMT) From: JohnT Email: jtucker@dircon.co.uk To: Katie Subject: Actually... Message:

I just accepted a raincheck from Sandy for lunch together in New York sometime. He does seem to be able to learn from his experiences here, as you can see from our ensuing exchange over that invitation. But just a year ago, I hastily backed out of a conversation with Sandy - he was far too solipsist for me to get to grips with at that time. No longer. He is still very easily triggered by reading Rawat's words (he really did think people could get swept into the cult by reading that incoherent rubbish from Rawat that Jim posted recently) but I get a nice vibe off his feeling-tone. I said my question was hypothetical, and the posts are clearly marked as eccentric (probably even to those who do not fully understand the language here). Also, it was made in the context of Gerry's similar fooling about kap and shp (he used the word ship rather than dump), below. It seemed to me from his reply that he would not dump the person struggling to come to terms with thier cult involvement. It was a hypothetical question, of course, but sometimes it is useful to do these thought experiments, if you feel like entertaining the dilemma, that is. You are a nice person, Katie, and I have great respect for you. Take Care. JohnT - never a premie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 18:38:18 (GMT) From: JohnT Email: None To: JohnT Subject: ... it's New Jersey. Sheesh. -nt- Message:

jbv

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 18:42:25 (GMT) From: Katie Email: None To: JohnT Subject: Lots of East Coast exes here... Message:

I thought you lived in the UK, but I might have gotten you mixed up with someone else (you don't have to tell me). Anyway, there are a lot of us exes on the East Coast (Brian and I live in Virginia), if you ever want to meet any of us. Can't think of anyone in New Jersey, but maybe they just won't admit it (snicker - that state has a bad rep!)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 18:48:46 (GMT) From: JohnT Email: None To: Katie Subject: Lots of East Coast exes here... Message:

East Coasters are almost European compared to Aussies and the Pacific crowd. As for me, I'm Brixtish!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 18:53:08 (GMT) From: Katie Email: None To: JohnT Subject: Lots of East Coast exes here... Message:

Hey, nice poem, and great site! East Coasters are almost European compared to Aussies and the Pacific crowd. Not me (I'm a Virginia redneck-wannabe - just ask Jean-Michel), or Brian (from Seattle). But good try :) - I'm sure it was a compliment to someone on here!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 18:38:15 (GMT) From: Katie Email: None To: JohnT Subject: Actually... Message:

Hi John - I appreciate that you were trying to be eccentric (funny?) in making the post, and, obviously, you are coming to terms with Sandy (and vice versa). The problem I had with your initial post is that these kinds of posts can be hurtful, even if they are meant to be funny. Sandy's obviously got a tough hide (he IS from the NYC area, after all), or he wouldn't have persisted on here, but I don't think the same could be said for everyone else who posts here. I don't want to single out Anna in particular - I get hurt too by 'joking' posts, and so do other people I know who post here. I wouldn't have even answered your post if I didn't think you wouldn't 'hear' me - that's a compliment :). Take care, Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 18:37:28 (GMT) From: gErRy Email: None To: JohnT Subject: Correct again, John Message:

It seemed to me from his reply that he would not dump the person struggling to come to terms with thier cult involvement. Although I'da never spelt 'thier' that way there, it's 'the're.' Well, their you go...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 17:25:22 (GMT) From: gErRy Email: None To: jOhNt Subject: Depends on what you mean by 'it.' Message:

jOhNt, what does 'dump for ever' mean in this context? Keep 'dumping' on them or stop dumping on them? gErRy the confabulated

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 12:46:58 (GMT) From: AJW Email: None To: JTF - Jean-Michel Subject: That's an excellent quiz JTF. Message:

Where did you get if from and who wrote it? Jean-Michel, we should put this on EPO as a test for premies, 'Is the Knowledge of God and their faith in the Master powerful enough to let them do a two minute questionnaire without self-destructing?'. I think not. Anth, onto the next round.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 13:00:22 (GMT) From: JTF Email: None To: AJW Subject: That's an excellent quiz JTF. Message:

http://www.goldhammer.com/index.html Hi- This seems almost real time! As a long timer like yourself, I find it interesting to answer these questions from the early days and the more recent. Of course some of the answers change but I think it's because we were already conditioned, no longer needed it and the 'group' realized new victims were not likely to sit for many many hours being programmed like us 'true' devotees were. Take care-I enjoy both your serious and humorous posts.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 13:12:12 (GMT) From: JTF Email: None To: AJW Subject: ...and one more thing Message:

Your post earlier about Last Chance Saloon reminded me of something I read earlier about Last Train to God. If I can find it, I'll post it because it helped me some in forgiving my ignorance. ....now where was that site

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 15:25:35 (GMT) From: bill Email: None To: JTF Subject: ...and one more thing Message:

Thanks for the quiz, I will use it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 11:46:22 (GMT) From: Forum Admin Email: None To: Everyone Subject: Revealing Posters' Personal Details Message:

The following are against forum policy:- 1. Revealing any personal details about posters' here against their wishes. This includes any part of their names if they wish to be anonymous, any part of their address, their phone number or place of work. Regardless of personal feelings towards the poster, just don't do it. 2. Revealing home addresses or phone numbers of people who don't post here, such as PAMs or other premies. The following is definitely within forum policy:- 1. Revealing personal details about Prem Pal Singh Rawat. Forum Admin.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 15:50:27 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Forum Admin Subject: What about the FA's role? Message:

What about the other side of the coin? It's against the rules to post under different alias', right? So what about when someone like X shows up? I think it's CD and ask him? He won't answer. What's your role as FA in a situation like this? Will you insist that he answer? Will you check to see if indeed he is CD? What if he is? Will you out him? We have a right to know who's talking to us in those circumstances. What will you, as FA, do about it? I mean fair is fair. If you 're going to restrict us from pushing the envelope that way, you've got to be vigilante to uphold the law from the other side too, I think.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 15:22:24 (GMT) From: AJW Email: None To: Jim Subject: What about the FA's role? Message:

Hi Jim, A couple of points about this. If someone reveals personal details about someone who wishes to remain anonymous, there is a good possibility this person will be personally distressed because of this. This is serious- it can scare them and make them feel nervous and ill. This isn't likely the be the effect of someone using more than one alias. I accept that someone could use more than one alias to post something that distresses somebody- but you can do that with a single alias. Also there's the practical aspect of 'policing' the single alias rule. What should have been done about Patrick, for example, who has posted as the Fat Fag, Patrick, Thelma, Patrick/Thelma/fat fag and probably a few others? What about people who want to use another alias to hide the source of some information they are revealing? What about the comic characters, like Pauline Premie, Ted Farkel and Roger eDrek, created by people who post under other aliases? What I'm getting at, is that it's not clear and straightforward with multiple aliases, like it is with revealing personal information. So in the end, you have to use your common sense. When I was an FA, it would be fairly clear who was using another name for a joke, or whatever, and also if a someone came on and became disruptive by using lots of names. In those cases I had no hesitation in outing the person, and listing all their aliases. This felt like an obligation to the forum participants who had been talking to the character. Anyway, that's my five dutch cents worth. Anth the ex-wimp-admin

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 17:41:50 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: AJW Subject: We should straighten this out Message:

Hi Jim, A couple of points about this. If someone reveals personal details about someone who wishes to remain anonymous, there is a good possibility this person will be personally distressed because of this. This is serious- it can scare them and make them feel nervous and ill. Sure, that's true. This isn't likely the be the effect of someone using more than one alias. I accept that someone could use more than one alias to post something that distresses somebody- but you can do that with a single alias. What are you talking about? The question is whether one who breaks the forum rules about adopting more than one alias is going to feel scared, nervous, ill or distressed if they're outed. I say, who the fuck cares? They're breaking the forum rules and they deserve it. WE deserve the information, otherwise we're being played like fools and the forum 'rule' means nothing. Also there's the practical aspect of 'policing' the single alias rule. What should have been done about Patrick, for example, who has posted as the Fat Fag, Patrick, Thelma, Patrick/Thelma/fat fag and probably a few others? Well, what do YOU think? It's a matter of some discretion, as most rule enforcement is, wouldn't you say? It seems that these joke personas aren't a problem in that no one gets confused. And confusion is the problem the rule was intended to prevent. What about people who want to use another alias to hide the source of some information they are revealing? That's a clear violation of the forum rules and shouldn't be allowed. No matter who it is, it shouldn't be allowed. Otherwise, let's junk the multi-alias rule right now and be honest about things. Of course if we do that I'd say we're acting very, very foolishly. The problem is enforcement. The rule is there for an excellent reason. It just needs to be enforced better. What about the comic characters, like Pauline Premie, Ted Farkel and Roger eDrek, created by people who post under other aliases? Didn't we just talk about this? I guess I consider these joke aliases in the same light as Patrick's 'Thelma' etc. Not used to mislead people into thinking that the poster is NOT someone we already know. THAT is the intolerable problem, not a little joking around. What I'm getting at, is that it's not clear and straightforward with multiple aliases, like it is with revealing personal information. So in the end, you have to use your common sense. Yeah, but like I say, that's the same with all rule enforcement. It's clear enough to me, for example, that we all have a right to know whenever CD or anyone we already know joins the conversation. That's the purpose of the rule and we're played like idiots when it's not working. How would you like it if I started posting under a new name, never admitted who I really am, confused a bunch of people (I'd have to work on 'jsut' and 'taht', etc.) and vogorously protestd at all efforts to 'out' me, citing, amongst other things, my 'distress, nervousness, fear and illness'? It'd be ludicrous and not just because I couldn't hide effectively. What if we all did it? Changed our names regularly so no one knew who the fuck they wree talking to? When I was an FA, it would be fairly clear who was using another name for a joke, or whatever, and also if a someone came on and became disruptive by using lots of names. In those cases I had no hesitation in outing the person, and listing all their aliases. This felt like an obligation to the forum participants who had been talking to the character. Fine, that's just what I'm advocating. But what about X though? Do you not agree that if he is indeed CD we have a right to know that? I've talked with CD for the better part of four years now. I have the right to know when I'm talking to him again, don't you think? Jim

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 18:57:58 (GMT) From: Earon Kavanagh Email: earonkavanagh@mortimer.com To: Jim Subject: What's a CD (NT)?? Thanks Message:

NT

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 19:01:04 (GMT) From: Earon Kavanagh Email: earonkavanagh@mortimer.com To: Earon Kavanagh Subject: (CD) Never Mind - I Figured It Out (NT) Message:

NT

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 19:06:35 (GMT) From: Katie Email: None To: Earon Kavanagh Subject: You must be pretty smart! Message:

CD is a premie that used to post here. Jim and I are discussing whether the premie currently known as 'X' is the premie formerly known as CD. Really exciting, huh?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 17:28:41 (GMT) From: Katie Email: None To: Jim Subject: With all due respect, Jim Message:

Although you think the two situations are equivalent, they are not - not even logically (sorry). Furthermore, the FA's have been great about outing people who are posting under several pseudonyms, and I think they deserve appreciation for this. 'X', no matter how much you dislike him, has consistently used the same pseudonym for the entire time Forum 5 has been in operation. Don't get me wrong - I think that X is CD too, just based on his writing style, (and I can think of a lot of reasons why he'd want to change his pseudonym without announcing it in public.) But he isn't posting as X and CD at the same time - in fact I don't think 'CD' has ever posted on Forum 5. Plus there is NO WAY the FA can 'prove' that X is CD.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 18:52:41 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Katie Subject: With all due respect, Katie Message:

Of course the issues are logically connected. It's all about identity, accountability, playing games and complying with forum rules. But beside that, are you catually saying that you think it's okay for CD to post under this new disguise, as X, if indeed that's what he's doing? Katie, we've tlaked to this guy for years! How could it possibly be justifiable for him to suddenly assume a new persona and keep on going? That's nuts. I don't know if CD ever did or didn't post on this particular version of the forum under his own name but what difference does that make? It's all the same and he has no right to change names like that secretly. If he does, please explain but I sure don't see it. As for the FA being able to suss this kind of bullshit out, well if it's not possible then what's the rule about single name posting in the first place? You're saying it's unenforceable? So what is this? A big game? Forum rules that mean nothing, silly anonymous premies changing faces like cartoon voice-over guys taking on new characters? I'm sorry but I thought that it WAS possible, in many cases at least, to find out who's posting. Circumstantially at least. Am I wrong?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 19:04:16 (GMT) From: Katie Email: None To: Jim Subject: With all due respect, Katie Message:

Starting from the bottom: As for the FA being able to suss this kind of bullshit out, well if it's not possible then what's the rule about single name posting in the first place? You're saying it's unenforceable? So what is this? A big game? Forum rules that mean nothing, silly anonymous premies changing faces like cartoon voice-over guys taking on new characters? I'm sorry but I thought that it WAS possible, in many cases at least, to find out who's posting. Circumstantially at least. Am I wrong? No, you're right, but the key word is 'circumstantially'. And I didn't say it was 'unenforceable'. Obviously the FA's do enforce this. The rest of your post is a bit over-the-top, IMHO. That doesn't happen on here and you know it. If it wasn't CD, you wouldn't be so het up about it in the first place. From the top: I didn't say the two issues were not logically connected, I said they weren't logically equivalent. They deal with two different forum rules. I also didn't say that CD had a 'right' to change names like that, but I'm not sure that the FA's have a 'right' to out him, either. It is up to them, anyway, not to me or you. Re forum version - I'm talking about new FA's, new records (especially when you consider we switched from Paradise), and so forth. Why don't you just post to X as if he WERE CD? That's what I've been doing for the past year - and no, I haven't checked the originating IP. Do you really need an official call on this?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 19:51:47 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Katie Subject: With all due respect, Katie Message:

I also didn't say that CD had a 'right' to change names like that, but I'm not sure that the FA's have a 'right' to out him, either. It is up to them, anyway, not to me or you. This part's simple. If it's against club house rule sto post under another name (in other than an abvious joke), then of course the FA's have the right to out him! Whether or not they have the right to out him al lthe way bakc to his rel name if his first was also a pusedonym is debatable (I say yes). But there can be no question about them having the right -- indeed, perhaps the responsibility -- to ourt him back to the original posting name. Otherwise there's no remedy and we're all suckers.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 20:02:27 (GMT) From: Katie Email: None To: Jim Subject: All right, Jim Message:

I tend to prefer to err on the side of conservatism, which means NOT outing anyone unless there seems to be a real need. I feel that this encourages more people to trust the FA's and post here. I do not see that CD's posting as X, if that is the case, presents a real problem. But go ahead and plead your case to the FA's - although I guess you already have.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 20:11:31 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Katie Subject: You didn't answer me directly Message:

Katie, Why take short cuts? Most unsatisfying from this end. I asked you some stuff but instead of answering you kind of throw up your arms and brush off your hands and say 'fine, then'. I don't ask people questions as conversation pieces. I ask because I'm interested in your answer. Could you try again please?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 20:24:20 (GMT) From: Katie Email: None To: Jim Subject: That's because you didn't ASK me anything! Message:

Unless it was a couple of posts back, in which case I might remind you that you didn't answer some of my questions either. I read the last post you made - you simply stated your opinion and I answered it by stating mine.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 20:29:06 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Katie Subject: Well I THOUGHT I did! Message:

Yeah, your'e right. But the questions are all in my second last post. What should the FA's do to enforce the no multi-alias rule?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 20:47:54 (GMT) From: Katie Email: None To: Jim Subject: Well you didn't. Message:

Frankly, Jim, I think the FA's are doing fine on enforcing the no multi-alias rule the way they are doing it right now. As I said earlier, I do not think someone who posts under one alias for a few years, and then switches to another for the next few years, is a menace to the forum. Most of the people here know 'X' as 'X' now. Furthermore, I would guess that, if X is CD, then CD just didn't want you to keep on trashing his girlfriend, or talking about his personal phone calls to you, as you've done in the past. Although I don't approve of him switching aliases (I did call him on it once, if you recall), it's certainly understandable.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 20:55:31 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Katie Subject: Ah, yes, Katie, protector of the weary and the wea Message:

nies! If you're suggesting that I'm to blame for CD not wanting to post under his own name, you're getting a little too Katieish, even for you. Nice try, though. Go ahead, blame the victim. Stonor!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 20:58:54 (GMT) From: Katie Email: None To: Jim Subject: Changing the subject? Message:

Talk about red herrings :)! I didn't say you were 'to blame' - I said some reasons why I thought CD might not want to post, and YES, I do think it's understandable, although not very admirable.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 23:20:40 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Katie Subject: What? Message:

Changing the subject, nothing. Look, you in your typical fashion, offered CD a bullshit way out. I say the real reason he's posting now under a fake name, if he is, is because he had absolutely no respect from anyone here because of years -- yes years -- of posting brain-dead non sequiturs that make Forrest Gump look like a rocket scientist. So many people tried to engage him in discussion over time but he never succumbed to the temptation to be a real person instead of a cult freak. He had more than enough reason to be ashamed and it had nothing to do with feeling harrassed by my talking about his phone call to me or his girlfriend. Typical, typical Katie. You can't see it apparently but it's you all the way. By the way, is CD still your 'friend'? Remember how you called him that? Like Mili (the guy who tried to shut us down)? No basis for friendship with either one other than your own compulsion to have everyone like you.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 23:30:09 (GMT) From: Katie Email: None To: Jim Subject: Good god, Jim! Message:

Look Jim, you are the one who just CALLED someone else on a red herring - what's the matter with you? I DID NOT offer CD a 'bullshit way out' - I just gave my opinion about why he suddenly changed his name. You can use this, as you have, as a generalization about 'Typical Katie' - why am I not surprised? Could it be because this over-generalization is 'Typical Jim' behavior? You can't see it apparently, but it's you all the way. Yeah, I still like CD - so what? (Your reference to Mili is yet ANOTHER red herring - and pretty funny too, since you imply that his 'effort to shut us down' was actually taken seriously at the time!) I'm just hoping CD will reveal himself and put you out of your obvious misery here. Personally, I can't believe you're spending so much time and energy on this non-issue - no one else seems to see CD as a threat to this forum.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 15:36:30 (GMT) From: gErRy Email: None To: Forum Admin Subject: Runamuck didn't whine about this did he? wahhhhhh Message:

(Personal information about another poster deleted by FA) wish I remembered his last name, the weasel...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 17:33:00 (GMT) From: Katie Email: None To: gErRy Subject: Gerry, please take it elsewhere. Message:

Hi Gerry - Again, with all due respect, you were concerned a while ago that new posters might not want to contact you because you were supposedly on some 'bongo' list. Do you think that continually outing someone who doesn't want to be outed is going to make new posters want to e-mail you? I can't speak for the FA's, but you probably will get blocked if you don't cut this out. Plus we ALL know that you and Run don't like each other now - and your continuing fight with each other is just really old.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 17:58:52 (GMT) From: gErRy Email: None To: Katie Subject: Kah, Kah, Kah, Katie Oh beautiful Katie, Message:

(She really is a nice looking lady, er woman, guys...) I really dislike that expression: 'With all due respect.' It just so, well, phony sounding. Like you really want to say 'Listen here, you asshole, straighten the fuck up or I'll kick your ass' but some how it doesn't quite come out like that in the translation from brain to keyboard. But that's OK, it probably means you're mature or something. E-mail? Who said anything about e-mail? My main concern is that people don't mix me up with that wimp, gerry. And I feel a deep and abiding affection for Runny. But I wish he'd wipe his nose and stop sniveling. And Brer Fox, pleeeeeease don't throw me into the briar patch...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 18:05:48 (GMT) From: Katie Email: None To: gErRy Subject: Gerry, darling... Message:

Ha ha, Gerry - I just used 'with all due respect' because I had just finished posting to Jim :). If you prefer, I'll use one of YOUR phrases when talking to you (excepting the part about ass-kicking - I don't kick ass, I just hit people with my broom). Here goes: Run has a very valid complaint against you, IMHO, and if you don't cut out this outing bullshit, you will get kicked off this forum. And I'll support the FA's in doing this. Sincerely, Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 18:14:48 (GMT) From: gErRy Email: None To: Katie Subject: Katie,darlingnot to be confused with Katie Darling Message:

You'd really side with Runamuck against me ??? After all I've done and do for this site? (snicker) Do we really have to put up with ole S*** of H******? Do we? Can't you just smack him with your broom and make him go away? He's got his own sandbox. Why does he have to play in ours? He's such a spoil sport and he throws like a girl...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 18:55:38 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: gErRy Subject: That is one GREAT line ...... Message:

he throws like a girl... Good one

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 21:36:39 (GMT) From: Hal Email: None To: Jim Subject: Jim you're a bad influence on nice gerry Message:

When you weren't around he was behaving nicely and recovering from his schizophrenia well. We didn't even see gErRy for a while and now he's popping out all over the place !!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 18:32:12 (GMT) From: Katie Email: None To: gErRy Subject: It's not 'sides' Message:

Hi Gerry - You wrote: You'd really side with Runamuck against me ??? First, I don't see it as 'taking sides', although apparently lots of the other people on here do. You would not believe the shit I got for 'defending' Jim the other day. Well, I wasn't defending Jim so much as the right of everyone on here not to be smeared like that. Ditto for the present situation - NO ONE who doesn't want their real name on here should have it posted by other people. This is not a personal issue - it's a forum issue. I've always told you that I appreciated you taking on the FA responsibility when Brian and I were at the end of our collective rope. I am sorry that I and VP persuaded you not to be anonymous, too - although, as you recall, that was a new concept back then. And I'm sorry you got so many personal attacks as FA - that sucks. I don't think anyone but you and Run knows exactly what went on between you back then, and I have my own ideas about who was right and who was wrong (in which neither of you comes across as 'right') but the entire situation did make me change my mind (and I think helped many other people change their minds) about FA anonymity. I do appreciate that, believe me. But basically, the whole battle between you and Run (and Jim, who got into it too concerning Recent Exes, which btw AIN'T 'Run's sandbox') is ancient history. IMHO, it's boring and stupid to keep bringing it up, especially when half the people on here have no idea what you are talking about. Well, you asked!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 19:10:08 (GMT) From: gerry Email: None To: Katie Subject: Funboy, a legend in his own mind... Message:

Katie, there really weren't any 'issues' between the Funboy and myself other than the little twerp posted some email I sent him in confidence and also posted some lies about a telephone conversation we had. Come to think of it, the person I had most problems with (besides the odd remark from that tosser catweasel which I kinda liked) was the Funboy himself. He went nuts after I blocked him from the forum and changed the admin password, after one of his more irrational tirades against Jim. I was embarrassed to be associated with him. Let me say this unequivacally: Funboy (S*** of H****** aka Runamuck) was the sole reason I stepped down from my exalted position. Nothing else 'went on' other than that, and the fact that he's a humorless little weenie who contributes zero to the conversation IMO, and starts major fights. Sorry to be such a bore here...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 20:15:01 (GMT) From: Runamok Email: None To: gerry Subject: why not just post as 'pants on fire', herry g Message:

You change your story every time you tell it. Didn't post your email, posted it but changed it, made it up completely. Every story every time- bad 'long term memory' you said (you meant short term). Move on. Go back to your bizarre personal details and leave your aging recollections of yesteryear out of it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 20:27:31 (GMT) From: Katie Email: None To: Runamok Subject: Gerry already said he would drop it... Message:

...how about YOU? There is no way you and he are ever going to agree on what happened. I don't think EITHER of you has a good long-term memory - based on previous interactions with both of you. Your posts don't even sound like you, Run - sheesh!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 21:12:12 (GMT) From: Runamok Email: None To: Katie Subject: you mean the post w/several claims, assertions nt Message:

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 21:14:38 (GMT) From: Katie Email: None To: Runamok Subject: What post - please clarify? (nt) Message:

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 19:21:18 (GMT) From: Katie Email: None To: gerry Subject: Legends of the forum Message:

Thanks for explaining. I do agree with your assessment of why you resigned your job as FA. One question - you wrote: Nothing else 'went on' other than that, and the fact that he's a humorless little weenie who contributes zero to the conversation IMO, and starts major fights. Why do you persist in attacking him so persistently then? Sheesh, there are people here who would characterize ME that way! Yourself included, during certain moon phases anyway :). I was going to suggest that you and Run make up but based on your personalities, I don't think that will ever happen. I do wish that both of you would just drop it - or take it outside, as we say around here.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 19:31:17 (GMT) From: GERRY Email: None To: Katie Subject: THEY BETTER NOT, NOT WHILE I'M HERE !!! Message:

Nothing else 'went on' other than that, and the fact that he's a humorless little weenie who contributes zero to the conversation IMO, and starts major fights. Why do you persist in attacking him so persistently then? Sheesh, there are people here who would characterize ME that way! Let me at'em! Let me at 'em! OK I concede except for this teen weeny tiny iddle widdle point: I was going to suggest that you and Run make up but based on your personalities, I don't think that will ever happen. That droid hasn't an ounce of personality.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 19:38:44 (GMT) From: Katie Email: None To: GERRY Subject: Explain to Patty how you got that black eye... Message:

...from punching yourself out :).

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 22:54:56 (GMT) From: gErRy Email: None To: Katie Subject: Clue: 'Fight Club' is my favorite movie nt Message:

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 17:30:41 (GMT) From: Runamok Email: None To: gErRy w/ bad memory Subject: dont you wish you paid attention Ger Message:

You don't even remember correctly. Probably because you don't really care about anyone but yourself. I remember all kinds of details about you that you've posted that I really never had any wish to know, like when you post TMI (too much information) about your sex life or when you've responded to discussion about forum history with multiple versions of the same story. You can't claim that several different stories about the same incident are true, but that's what you have done with me more than once. Why don't you give up your personal vendetta? What info about me you claim have was received because of official forum business (i.e., me working as an FA- oh yes 'under' you- although you weren't around for weeks at a time). We'll probably never be friends, but I could be pretty cordial at ignoring you. Or I could out eDrek in response. I've avoided making any specific comments that would stir up old arguments. That's your department. Why don't you downsize?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 18:00:31 (GMT) From: gerry Email: None To: Runamuck Subject: Yer sure Funny, Runny Message:

I remember all kinds of details about you that you've posted that I really never had any wish to know, like when you post TMI (too much information) about your sex life I guess the obvious retort here would be 'at least I HAVE a sex life, Runny.' Oh yes, and Official Forum Business. Yes, you too, were once in the inner circle of the Ex-Premie Cabala and to think how low you've sunk. And pray tell, dear boy, when was it I was gone for weeks at a time? Do you mean 'weekend?' oh former junior FA? Time distortion can be a useful thing. I don't know why you'd bother to out old eDrek. That would spoil a lot of fun for many people. But then you are a bit of a killjoy, aren't you? And run, did I ever tell you about the time in the Phoenix ashram in the furnace room when I pulled the plug on Michela and she... Oh, you heard that one? Well how 'bout this version...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 19:00:28 (GMT) From: Roger eDrek Email: drek@oz.net To: gerry Subject: Runamok, are you that despicable? Message:

Of course, I'm sure that you were just speaking hypothetically about 'outing' me. You wouldn't really do that, would you? Until you mentioned 'outing' me I had no interest in this thread. Runamok, please don't out me. I really do not wish any personal details revealed about myself other than the fact that I am now living in Camarillo, California.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 21:29:57 (GMT) From: Runamok Email: None To: Roger eDrek Subject: so r Jim n Ger despicable when THEY do it? nt Message:

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 21:36:09 (GMT) From: Roger eDrek Email: drek@oz.net To: Runamok Subject: Run, be nice and just keep me out of this (nt) Message:

asdf

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 22:14:29 (GMT) From: Katie Email: None To: Roger eDrek Subject: I think he will, Rog Message:

It's just sort of an 'if...then' hypothetical situation, if you know what I mean. I have used the same argument myself, and I would never 'out' you without your permission.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 18:59:10 (GMT) From: Runamok Email: None To: gerry Subject: you're so Herry Gerry Message:

honest i don't want to know but i remember quite clearly but remember quite clearly you telling us about your dad's indescretion+ so could we not go there unlike your recollections and 10 days is weeks weeks (11/2) is were other units of 7+ enuf bugoff i want to post freely don't forget to argue with jim to leave the impression that you're not his lackey and you'd prob agree with my points on dettmers but oh well i throw up reading you

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 19:58:58 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Runamok Subject: Has anyone ever noticed this? Message:

It's always a bad sign when they start to drop their capitals, isn't it?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 20:09:13 (GMT) From: Runamok Email: None To: Jim Subject: like i wanna spend all day in tthese stupid soaps Message:

springer boy oh yeah and ee cummings was lame- how unscientific

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 20:15:43 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Runamok Subject: heyletsjustdroolabitorsumthin (nt) Message:

jjjjjjjj

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 21:13:08 (GMT) From: Runamok Email: None To: Jim Subject: yes it's suave when YOU do it JIM nt Message:

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 17:47:56 (GMT) From: JohnT Email: None To: Runamok Subject: Hi Runamok, you're in one of my poems... Message:

(well, sort of). It's called Awakening. Hope it gives you a laugh.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index