Ex-Premie Forum 7 Archive
From: Dec 02, 2001 To: Dec 08, 2001 Page: 4 of: 5


suchabanana -:- segue to 'Ginger'... -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 04:56:21 (EST)
__ cq -:- Re: segue to 'Ginger'... -:- Thurs, Dec 06, 2001 at 15:24:51 (EST)
__ suchabanana -:- Re: segue to St. Ginger Vitus Dance. -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 17:23:25 (EST)
__ __ such -:- St. Ginger Vitus - Osama connection -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 17:47:14 (EST)
__ __ __ janet -:- sat ire is what we have here -:- Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 03:55:56 (EST)
__ __ __ __ such -:- that's right, -:- Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 07:13:57 (EST)
__ __ __ .. -:- ,. -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 21:20:59 (EST)
__ __ __ such -:- Bin Laden - Ginger link!! -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 17:54:47 (EST)
__ __ __ __ Cynthia -:- Hey Such, talkin' to yourself?:):) -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 18:22:10 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ such -:- gut reaction to party poopers: nth argument [nt] -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 18:34:15 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ such -:- ... -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 18:34:04 (EST)

such -:- ashes in the Ganges... -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 04:11:26 (EST)

Salam -:- Am proud to say that -:- Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 23:15:23 (EST)
__ JohnT -:- Hearty congratulations! -:- Thurs, Dec 06, 2001 at 08:58:51 (EST)
__ __ Salam -:- sheessh -:- Thurs, Dec 06, 2001 at 22:51:18 (EST)
__ malas -:- It's the best that's WHY!! -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 08:01:21 (EST)
__ __ lama s. -:- Re: It's the best that's WHY!! OK -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 17:14:37 (EST)
__ __ __ Salam -:- Re: It's the best that's WHY!! OK -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 20:39:53 (EST)
__ __ __ __ such -:- but, who's cooking tamales? -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 21:47:59 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ annabanana -:- Does he make m look bad or what?!!! -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 23:45:34 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ such -:- you shoulda seen it shake -:- Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 08:06:36 (EST)
__ Brian Smith -:- Good Job Salam -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 04:48:17 (EST)
__ such -:- Re: Am proud to say that -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 00:33:56 (EST)
__ __ Salam -:- guru Watch links alert -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 04:34:26 (EST)
__ __ __ Brian Smith -:- This guy went out for the proverbial -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 07:00:02 (EST)
__ __ __ such -:- guy went nuts at the New Age store -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 06:31:01 (EST)
__ __ __ __ Ramakishka -:- Re: guy went nuts at the New Age store -:- Sat, Dec 08, 2001 at 01:47:29 (EST)
__ __ __ __ salam -:- guy went nuts at the -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 06:40:34 (EST)

Jim -:- My apology to Katie -:- Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 22:54:38 (EST)
__ SC -:- Cat and I are finished! -:- Thurs, Dec 06, 2001 at 22:42:58 (EST)
__ __ Nigel -:- Congrats on your remarkable triumph.. -:- Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 16:43:28 (EST)
__ cq -:- For a moment, I thought you were sincere ... -:- Thurs, Dec 06, 2001 at 14:11:04 (EST)
__ __ Jim -:- Then you must not have read it -:- Thurs, Dec 06, 2001 at 20:56:19 (EST)
__ __ __ cq -:- You still speak with forked tongue -:- Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 13:53:24 (EST)
__ __ __ __ Jim -:- Re: You still speak with forked tongue -:- Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 18:58:49 (EST)
__ Tonette -:- Jesus, Mary and Joseph! -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 14:53:50 (EST)
__ __ Moley -:- Jesus Mary et al - Stop preaching -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 20:57:26 (EST)
__ __ __ Pullaver -:- The Pot Calling the Kettle Black -:- Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 00:28:31 (EST)
__ __ __ __ Nigel -:- My kettle's blacker than your kettle.. -:- Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 17:57:25 (EST)
__ __ __ Tonette -:- Yes, it is nauseating -:- Thurs, Dec 06, 2001 at 02:04:57 (EST)
__ __ __ __ Moley -:- Wrong end of stick Tonette -:- Thurs, Dec 06, 2001 at 19:14:39 (EST)
__ __ __ __ Francesca -:- Tonette, I care about you -:- Thurs, Dec 06, 2001 at 15:33:00 (EST)
__ __ Deborah -:- Re: Jesus, Mary and Joseph! -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 16:06:12 (EST)
__ __ __ Tonette -:- I appreciate that, sort of -:- Thurs, Dec 06, 2001 at 02:59:19 (EST)
__ __ __ __ Deborah -:- Thanks Tonette -:- Thurs, Dec 06, 2001 at 16:48:37 (EST)
__ __ __ Joe -:- Unfair, Deborah -:- Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 15:28:06 (EST)
__ __ __ __ Deborah -:- Re: Unfair, Deborah -:- Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 20:17:22 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- Me too (nt) -:- Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 23:42:42 (EST)
__ Katie -:- If you're serious -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 11:04:52 (EST)
__ __ Deborah -:- I was going to email you Katie -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 13:43:15 (EST)
__ __ __ JHB -:- A small correction -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 16:25:51 (EST)
__ __ __ __ Deborah -:- That wasn't clear, John -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 20:32:50 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ JHB -:- Re: That wasn't clear, John -:- Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 02:12:55 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Deborah -:- It still isn't clear, John -:- Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 20:40:04 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- That's Not True -:- Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 12:34:36 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Deborah -:- Why are you doing this? -:- Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 16:29:08 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- Because you keep distorting what I said -:- Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 17:46:03 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Deborah -:- NO! You keep distorting what was argued -:- Sat, Dec 08, 2001 at 00:05:36 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- Sorry Deborah -:- Sat, Dec 08, 2001 at 01:33:13 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ JHB -:- Can we all do this?:-) -:- Thurs, Dec 06, 2001 at 06:23:25 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Deborah -:- Was that the 'crack' crack -:- Thurs, Dec 06, 2001 at 21:28:10 (EST)
__ __ Joe -:- Oh, Katie..... -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 13:09:32 (EST)
__ __ Katie -:- And to everyone - re my infamous statement -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 11:08:28 (EST)
__ __ __ bill -:- Re: And to everyone - re my infamous statement -:- Thurs, Dec 06, 2001 at 23:35:08 (EST)
__ __ __ __ cq -:- Beautifully put, bill. -:- Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 14:09:43 (EST)
__ __ __ Jim -:- Will you answer this one? -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 21:21:57 (EST)
__ __ __ __ janet -:- you can't m ake the world over -:- Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 04:46:00 (EST)
__ __ __ Chuck S. -:- Please Consider This... -) -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 15:24:13 (EST)
__ __ __ PatC -:- You did it again, Katie -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 14:40:53 (EST)
__ __ __ __ Moley -:- Re: You did it again, Katie -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 21:20:24 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ janet -:- pat and modey-nope! -:- Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 05:10:14 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ PatC -:- You're partly right, Janet -:- Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 13:58:27 (EST)
__ __ __ Jim -:- Please, Katie -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 12:25:08 (EST)
__ __ __ __ Tonette -:- Fucking drop it!!!! -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 15:00:27 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ Cynthia -:- Tonette...I agree... -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 15:24:51 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- I think you are right Cynthia -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 17:00:26 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Tonette -:- M is DEFINATELY up to something! -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 15:52:58 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Cynthia -:- And I have a Beloved Sister... -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 18:15:31 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Tonette -:- I want to say goodbye to you -:- Thurs, Dec 06, 2001 at 02:39:47 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ bill -:- Re: I want to say ... -:- Thurs, Dec 06, 2001 at 23:44:45 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- Hey Tonette.... -:- Thurs, Dec 06, 2001 at 13:14:48 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Barbara -:- I agree with Joe [nt] -:- Thurs, Dec 06, 2001 at 17:30:10 (EST)
__ __ __ __ Joe -:- WHY is this such a big deal for you?? -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 12:52:11 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- Katie explained it. -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 13:20:37 (EST)
__ __ __ Sir Dave -:- It's true what you say, Katie -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 11:50:59 (EST)
__ __ __ Cynthia -:- To Katie... -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 11:48:32 (EST)
__ __ __ gerry -:- About the password -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 11:36:56 (EST)
__ __ __ __ Katie -:- Thanks, Gerry...but -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 11:44:19 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ such -:- hey gerwy, what's da Storwee? hehehe -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 18:45:23 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Katie, did you ever consider this? -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 16:28:50 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ JHB -:- Great post, Jim -:- Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 02:20:28 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ such -:- a point taken. -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 19:58:44 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Thanks such -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 22:03:25 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ such -:- ok, maybe live unplugged... [nt] -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 22:20:05 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- No, I'm not good enough for that :) [nt] -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 22:29:01 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- but, but, ,,but -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 11:58:00 (EST)
__ Salam -:- Are you serious? -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 06:33:47 (EST)
__ __ Divine adjudicator -:- Add another ten names to that -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 08:15:56 (EST)
__ __ __ Moley -:- Re: Add another ten names to that -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 09:58:36 (EST)
__ __ __ __ Stonor -:- Moley ... -:- Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 00:15:45 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ Deborah -:- Re: Moley ... -:- Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 00:59:33 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- Hi Deb! -:- Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 15:52:47 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ JHB -:- Thank you for your kind words -:- Thurs, Dec 06, 2001 at 06:33:50 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- Nothing but the truth, John! -:- Thurs, Dec 06, 2001 at 15:56:57 (EST)
__ PatC -:- The Jim vs Katie debate -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 05:08:32 (EST)
__ __ Scott T. -:- Re: The Jim vs Katie debate -:- Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 00:16:15 (EST)
__ __ __ PatC -:- You're right - not really relevant -:- Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 05:03:26 (EST)
__ __ Deborah -:- Agree! [nt] -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 13:50:16 (EST)
__ __ Moley -:- Pat - you said it just right ! -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 07:23:31 (EST)
__ Brian Smith -:- Commendable ! -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 03:22:52 (EST)
__ __ JHB -:- Yes, Bravo! -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 04:02:54 (EST)
__ bill -:- Re: My apology to Katie -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 00:59:21 (EST)
__ __ Klaus Webber -:- Re: My apology to Katie -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 08:24:11 (EST)
__ __ __ Deborah -:- Troll that who said crap to ABI -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 20:46:36 (EST)
__ __ __ Deborah -:- Don't think you can assure us Klaus -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 13:53:25 (EST)
__ __ __ gerry -:- Hey Santi Klaus -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 12:44:16 (EST)
__ __ __ __ Brian Smith -:- Wow , what a Bio Logical breakdown Gerry [nt] -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 14:56:50 (EST)
__ __ __ Klaus -:- Re: Me -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 08:31:26 (EST)
__ __ __ __ Francesca -:- The information is on the web -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 19:03:31 (EST)
__ __ __ __ gerry -:- Welcome, Klaus -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 12:53:03 (EST)
__ __ such -:- what Charananananand told me -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 03:41:19 (EST)
__ __ __ suchabanana -:- above lost amidst the bickering -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 18:19:55 (EST)
__ __ Barbara -:- The Fifth Technique -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 01:41:11 (EST)
__ __ __ PatC -:- Re: The Fifth Technique -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 04:04:55 (EST)
__ __ __ __ such -:- fessin' up: -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 06:53:48 (EST)

Joe -:- M Apologist Websites/Charles Glasser Jr. -:- Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 19:11:06 (EST)
__ michael donner -:- Re: M Apologist Websites/Charles Glasser Jr. -:- Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 23:13:58 (EST)
__ __ PatC -:- ignoring the dogs barking -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 04:08:10 (EST)
__ __ __ Brian Smith -:- That will only peak curiosity -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 04:22:42 (EST)
__ __ bill -:- Re: M Apologist Websites/Charles Glasser Jr. -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 01:05:30 (EST)
__ __ such -:- yep, classic cult s.o.p. -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 00:43:24 (EST)
__ __ Deborah -:- Question to you Mike -:- Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 23:25:01 (EST)
__ __ __ bill -:- Re: Question to you Mike -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 01:21:09 (EST)
__ __ __ __ Deborah -:- Email is not going through -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 14:18:04 (EST)
__ Abi -:- the error of their ways -:- Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 22:31:38 (EST)
__ __ Perhaps you are dreaming -:- oh holy one -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 08:12:00 (EST)
__ __ __ Abi -:- creepy premie alert -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 19:13:27 (EST)
__ __ __ __ It's Klaus Webber -:- Donor and Friend of Maharaji--not a nice guy [nt] -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 19:28:00 (EST)
__ __ __ Nigel -:- Cryptic troll alert..? [nt] -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 10:51:10 (EST)
__ Francesca -:- Well you and Jim did such a good job! -:- Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 20:08:17 (EST)
__ __ Joe -:- That makes sense -:- Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 23:47:25 (EST)
__ __ Moley -:- Boiling shriek - fab phrase Fran !nt -:- Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 20:14:13 (EST)
__ Nigelandmoley -:- True, Joe... -:- Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 19:34:14 (EST)
__ __ Joe -:- You are looking at the OLD site. -:- Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 19:50:43 (EST)
__ __ __ Nigel -:- Who told you that? I'll sue... -:- Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 20:09:15 (EST)
__ __ __ __ Joe -:- No, Nigel it's gone -:- Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 23:51:16 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ Brian Smith -:- Lessons in Love, comes to mind -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 05:56:44 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- You're sure up early... -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 11:12:50 (EST)
__ __ __ __ Kev -:- Level 42 -:- Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 20:39:12 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ Nigel -:- That's the very same bastard... -:- Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 20:58:45 (EST)
__ Meanwood Meanie -:- And does Jon Cainer have a voice? -:- Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 19:16:58 (EST)
__ __ Moley -:- Does Jon Cainer have Pluto up Uranus??nt -:- Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 19:44:02 (EST)
__ __ __ Joe -:- Crainer involved with CAC? -:- Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 19:45:50 (EST)
__ __ __ __ Nigel -:- Yes and no.. -:- Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 19:58:53 (EST)


Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 04:56:21 (EST)
From: suchabanana
Email: banana@banana_bucks.com
To: All
Subject: segue to 'Ginger'...
Message:
da next cult-ure craze:
http://www.segway.com.edgesuite.net/consumer/

also: http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/ptech/12/03/scooter.unveiling/index.html%00

now, wadda 'bout folks with bad knees or dose amputees, or waddaya do in da pouring rain - git soaking wet, skid around on steep hills, crash into people and cars, poles?

then, y'know, it'll be Formula Segway HT races and then who knows?

we could have: Segway polo, golf carts, locks, Segway racks, Segway trails, Skateboards and Segways prohibited signs, SegwayWear, the 101st Segway Battalion, off-trail Segway rallies, Segway rentals, Segway ordinances, Segway accidents, litigation, insurance, helmets/pads, service shops, recharger industry/system...

Ginger -- the Segway Human Transport: jest 1 of da many material spices of life! Only $3000. Custom model $8,000. Choice of colors.

Hur-ry, hur-ry! Be the first on yer block...
[ http://www.segway.com.edgesuite.net/consumer/ ]
[ Graphic Link ]

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 06, 2001 at 15:24:51 (EST)
From: cq
Email: None
To: suchabanana
Subject: Re: segue to 'Ginger'...
Message:
'It was Arthur C. Clarke who
famously observed that 'any sufficiently advanced technology is
indistinguishable from magic.' By that standard, Ginger is
advanced indeed.'

http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,186660,00.html

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 17:23:25 (EST)
From: suchabanana
Email: banana@Our_Lady_of_Perpetual_Guilt.org
To: suchabanana
Subject: Re: segue to St. Ginger Vitus Dance.
Message:
http://www.satirewire.com/news/0112/sht2.shtmlhttp://www.satirewire.com/news/0112/sht2.shtml
[ http://www.satirewire.com/news/0112/sht2.shtml ]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 17:47:14 (EST)
From: such
Email: banana@amtrak.com
To: suchabanana
Subject: St. Ginger Vitus - Osama connection
Message:
http://www.satirewire.com/news/0112/bin_laden_segway.shtml

What's so far-fetched? hahaha

ok, now, think about this, fer starters...:

I mean, after all, USA's CIA and military trained Bin Laden, USA trained da suicide-bomber pilots, some Wall St. stocks and US holdings funded Al Quaeda, and in the entire world -- Only the US military and CIA have reportedly developed the type of extremely high caliber of anthrax powder (which is almost identical to the anthrax) which was sent to the Senate Democratic leadership offices.

Burn down the Reichstag. Blame the Jews and the Communists. Declare homeland security. Round up Jews and Communists for questioning by the gestapo and try them in secret military tribunals.

Scare everyone periodically with more un-named terrorist threat alerts. instigate a few provacateur incidents. under the umbrella of buzzword 'security', progressively suspend more civil rights. appoint a czar of homeland security. increase govt executive branch sweeping emergency powers.

guilty until proven innocent. wire-tapping. interrogation. isolation. Give us other Names, or else...

stranger than fiction.

btw, sat ire is like sat sang on satire day [which follows fry day]

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 03:55:56 (EST)
From: janet
Email: None
To: such
Subject: sat ire is what we have here
Message:
sat+sang=company of truth

therefore sat+ire=truth of anger

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 07:13:57 (EST)
From: such
Email: banana@oxford.edu.uk
To: janet
Subject: that's right,
Message:
at least according to da banana unabridged dictionary.

P+L,

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 21:20:59 (EST)
From: ..
Email: None
To: such
Subject: ,.
Message:
,.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 17:54:47 (EST)
From: such
Email: None
To: such
Subject: Bin Laden - Ginger link!!
Message:
http://www.satirewire.com/news/0112/bin_laden_segway.shtml
[ http://www.satirewire.com/news/0112/bin_laden_segway.shtml ]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 18:22:10 (EST)
From: Cynthia
Email: None
To: such
Subject: Hey Such, talkin' to yourself?:):)
Message:
Don't worry, I'm listening too. I bookmarked those links.

You lentil you.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 18:34:15 (EST)
From: such
Email: banana@mediation.com
To: Cynthia
Subject: gut reaction to party poopers: nth argument [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 18:34:04 (EST)
From: such
Email: banana@mediation.com
To: Cynthia
Subject: ...
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 04:11:26 (EST)
From: such
Email: banana@dust2dust_R_us.com
To: All
Subject: ashes in the Ganges...
Message:
http://www.cnn.com/2001/SHOWBIZ/Music/12/03/harrison.india/index.html
[ http://www.cnn.com/2001/SHOWBIZ/Music/12/03/harrison.india/index.html ]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 23:15:23 (EST)
From: Salam
Email: None
To: All
Subject: Am proud to say that
Message:
IT IS SO website is first on the list. Beat everyone elses on google. don't ask me how that happened as I never even submitted it to a searxh engine. The Internet has a mind of it's own.

Google Search

Thanks to Stonor for bringing that to my attention.

Salam

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 06, 2001 at 08:58:51 (EST)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: Salam
Subject: Hearty congratulations!
Message:
... and I'm pleased to announce that if one adds the word 'poems' Mr Rawat's own efforts are nowhere to be found.

But mine are. HA!
[ Guru Maharaji poems ]

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 06, 2001 at 22:51:18 (EST)
From: Salam
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: sheessh
Message:
u win I lose.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 08:01:21 (EST)
From: malas
Email: None
To: Salam
Subject: It's the best that's WHY!!
Message:
:)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 17:14:37 (EST)
From: lama s.
Email: None
To: malas
Subject: Re: It's the best that's WHY!! OK
Message:
dungis rule

P+L,

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 20:39:53 (EST)
From: Salam
Email: None
To: lama s.
Subject: Re: It's the best that's WHY!! OK
Message:

STOP WRITING MY NAME BACK TO FRONTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 21:47:59 (EST)
From: such
Email: None
To: Salam
Subject: but, who's cooking tamales?
Message:
swami s. is lama s.

but lil swamis don't wear no 'malas'... no malice intended [but rather molasses]. so, who dat? wondering...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 23:45:34 (EST)
From: annabanana
Email: None
To: such
Subject: Does he make m look bad or what?!!!
Message:
Right on the first page ... EPO is conservative compared to Salam's 'in your face' pics of m at his 'pinnacle'. I clicked on it for the first time in a while just because it was there, and that was the impression I had. Considering the current upheaval in Oz's premie circles, it's great timing, I think! :)

Hope you're well, I thought I'd cleared my plate of the harvest-cook-get-ready-for-winter thing, and then had it loaded again the next minute with something I never expected - life ... ;)

LOL (the 'other' acronym ;)

'Stonor'

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 08:06:36 (EST)
From: such
Email: None
To: annabanana
Subject: you shoulda seen it shake
Message:
hiya anna!

yeah, whenever Massa danced in da mala, he'd make a lil hula motion to da right, then start going to da left, but his blubbery body would kinda follow in slow-motion, one roll of flab at a time [like Jello], with the phlegmie muzak gospel band playin stuff like 'your body is beautiful' or 'I just wanna dance with YOu', or to the sounds of the p.a. cranking 'Do Ya Think I'm SEXY?!' premie chicks in grannie dresses or leisure suits moaning, squealing, gyrating and going into spasms like lovelorn puppies in heat {just like a Backstreet Boys concert], dudes with hands upraised like a tent revival meeting, teary eyed, [yes, Massa, yes, yes, whatever you say, yes, your wish is my command, oh, please grant me the gift of devotion, LORD], then down on their knees, then everybody pranaming face-down before Guru Maharaji on the concrete floor of Miami, LA, Tucson, Philly, Chicago, Houston, SF, etc.

really kinky, in retrospect. like a good ol' Pentacostal meeting, except all the worship going not to God, or the deceased Son of God, but to THE living lord, savior, Perfect Master of our time himself - as he referred to himself in the third person -- da massa, dat perfection, dat savior, dat lord, dat Guru Maharaji, etc. so, in that respect, kinda like a Nazi Nuremburg rally mixed with overtones of da Krishna Millenium + a bubblegum rock concert.

you know, Al Quaeda cult swore allegiance to Bin Laden,too, just like premies did to marji, and Germans did to Hitler. also reminds me of da real-life mafia Godfather scene. we even had our own brownshirts - WPC. The REichmeister's brother ran that operation, under der fuhrer's aegis.

visualize the Osmond family in funky bellbottoms, long dresses, sappy music, lotsa crying begging pleading adoring worshipful faces, marji and staff programming the timing of every vid, every tune, every nuance to intensify the cult idol love-in. those donation boxes coming and going. those darshan money envelopes for the much preferred cash. those tables for making pledges, signing up for sponsorships, writing dose checks, giving it up to the living Lard.

hey, r.e. these new high-priced appointment events: they're requesting 'cash' only. YOu'd think even some of these premie CPAs and accountants would have enough brains left to see Giant red Warning flags, on that account. marji's entire megacash cow machine is NOT exactly GAAP. But once a person is truly brainwashed and cult lobotomized, one begins to overlook, dismiss, or justify things that would be downright suspicious, unacceptable, or unethical in any other given situation -- da pitfalls of subjugating one's intelligence and independence, and putting all the eggs of one's life and salvation in da basket of any other human being.

ciao fer now!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 04:48:17 (EST)
From: Brian Smith
Email: None
To: Salam
Subject: Good Job Salam
Message:
And thanks for providing a stellar resourse of information and options to assist the efforts of those who wish exit the cult.

I have checked up on other ex-cult support groups and they pale in comparison to the outstanding presentation and organization of EPO, F7, and your own It Is So.

A job well done Mate

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 00:33:56 (EST)
From: such
Email: None
To: Salam
Subject: Re: Am proud to say that
Message:
Hi Salam:

good work: re listing for 'Guru Maharaji'.

now try google search on just: 'Maharaji'
[maybe adjust the metatags to boost...?]

btw, now I was just wondering where you were... must be da psychic friends network, or sumptin...

dungis rule!

da lil swami

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 04:34:26 (EST)
From: Salam
Email: None
To: such
Subject: guru Watch links alert
Message:
muy interesting. This premie has had more guru than all of us put together, I think he deserves a listing.

http://www.heartspace.org/misc/teachers.html

while this fellow list him in the general population

http://www.wideopenwin.com/prvcgi/static.asp?overview=alfa&letter=m

otherwise am ok.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 07:00:02 (EST)
From: Brian Smith
Email: None
To: Salam
Subject: This guy went out for the proverbial
Message:
Glass of water a few too many times, You know the old parable, guru asks for a glass of water, devotee goes to fetch water falls heavy into maya, forgets the water,falls in love, finds a career, get's married, has kids, buys a home, just totally spaces out and so on till at the end of his life he remembers that he started out to do find something.

This guy takes that concept to a whole new level here he finds another guru and still another guru, then another guru and so on so forth etc.

Apparently this guy is for real, his story could not be stranger if it were fiction

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 06:31:01 (EST)
From: such
Email: banana@Rainbow_petrochemicals.com
To: Salam
Subject: guy went nuts at the New Age store
Message:
looks like he bought All the pitches -- and probably all the inventory and materials, too. Wow! looks like he done bought da whole Aquarian supermarket... or, kinda like a smorgasbord, or buffet-style spiritualist cafeteria... after all, if he eats one mantra or yoga tech today, he'll just be hungry again tomorrow!

holy leaping ladus! Rainbow Light Om-Da Visions Emporium: our current special is 'guru de jour'. lessee, what day is it? oh yeah, if this is Tuesday this must be Da Free John meds. er, dat's Friday. hmmmm, duh - of course! it's crystal channeling + TM day, right after using da Abdomizer, and getting those expensive tix for the dalai lama [no wait, marji's comin to town - potential conflict of interest - better throw da I Ching]. gotta find some pennies... or maybe consult da ouija board, er, my astrologer. dunno - and should ask my aromatherapist what she thinks about the effects of rennet on auras, and if she has a potion fer that... hari rama hari rama rama rama ramma lama ding dong...

ding dong, ding dong -- ask not for whom the bell tolls;
it tolls for tea. Or, as George Bush Sr. once said, "Read my rose hips!"

PS bet that guy has a great scrapbook of photos and/or various cults' memorabilia. like, when da going gets tough, da professional spirit-seeker goes shoppin'!

wondering: Did he get into or try EST, Rolfing, Scientology, Krishna Consciousness, Angel Guardians, past life regression, da protective tube of light, ascended masters, Urantia book, Seth Speaks, the Farm, tantra, siddhas, nichiren snowshoe, Sun Hung Moon, Church of Wicca, Maranatha, Children of God, Father Love, Charlie Manson, Reverend Ike, Pentacostal church, Gourdchef, Druids, Native American Church of Peyote, sensory deprivation chambers, thousands of hits of LSD+mescaline+STP+speed+opium, enema cleansing, Pritikin diet, wafer diet, wheatgrass fasting, ahimsa, shaolin kung fu, tai chi, sheng dung fui, color therapy, Halpern muzack healing CDs, drum circles, ceremony of da pipe, passing of da jug, flogging of da bogarter, hehehe, hatha yoga classes, zen jogging, the Inner Game of Poker, tofurkey, tiger balm, dhotis, sandals, japa rosary beads, chillums, tie-dye, thankas, personal altars, incense, baragon, cushions, futon, begging bowl, welfare check, foodstamps, organic produce, the Vague Guru Monologues, welfare check rugu donations, da haj, jihad, mission, crusade, holy war, war of da angels, exorcism, santeria, vegeburgers, soylent green, long pig, tofu ham, astral projection, dead sea strolls, gnostech gospells, theosophical society, Taliban, Kabala, Rotary, Masons, Mormons, Betas, finger cymbals, nose ring, dreads, yin-yang tattoo, Loma links, Have-a chips, Tom's toothpaste, Hansen's Mandarin Orange, psychedelic VW, yohimbe bark tea, mushroom tea, place of power, Carlos Castaneda, black light, day-glo, strobe light, grow light, co-op, nudism, prayer of St Francis, UFOs, greys, whites, reds, bennies, purple Owsley, doppio expresso, BMW, All Things Musty Pass, Days of Future Passed, ecological investment portfolio, Paul Horn's album Inside, pyramid power, polarity therapy, acupressure, magnet therapy, palmistry, tea leaf reading, primal scream therapy, death therapy [i.e. What about Bob?], Enlightenment for Dummies, A Breath is like a Rose: the poetry of Rod Prem McKuen, chakra channeling, Mt. Shasta blue people, the tooth fairy, Machu Peachy pilgrimage, bathe in da Ganges, drink bhang lassi, bang lassie, patchouli, walk on coals, believe in Atlantis, Lemuria, lemurs, le mur, la mer, la mere, merde, etc. etc. ... ????

Evidently, he hasn't seen stuff like the guru papers or epo, fer starters. someone otter email him vege links to all dose rugus exposed ex sites! talk about a Wake-up call!!! HELLO-OOO! LOL

but, ah sure wouldn't want to give him any Old Age Cadillac arrest, however, from da shock...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Dec 08, 2001 at 01:47:29 (EST)
From: Ramakishka
Email: None
To: such
Subject: Re: guy went nuts at the New Age store
Message:
Such, yer such a treat!!!! Better than a foot roller! Spiralina anyone?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 06:40:34 (EST)
From: salam
Email: None
To: such
Subject: guy went nuts at the
Message:
where do you come up with all this stuff from. and am reformed now, Yes Sir., I don't do the guru thing anymore. I only pop up here occasionally when I foind something, otherwise am at AG2 having a fight with somebody.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 22:54:38 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: All
Subject: My apology to Katie
Message:
Dear Katie,

After reading what our mutual friends have written about this, I'm prepared to admit I was wrong. It was nothing but my historic hatred of you that made me think that you were disparaging the exes who post here as being as unfairly negative about Maharaji as the premies are positive. It was nothing but my stubbornness that made me persist in trying to talk with you about that. And it was nothing but my excessive lawyering skills that made me think you owed me or anyone an explanation.

Your friends -- sorry, OUR friends -- have very clearly shown me that words can be deceptive. I'm sorry I misconstrued yours. Will you please forgive me?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 06, 2001 at 22:42:58 (EST)
From: SC
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Cat and I are finished!
Message:
I had a team of willing pwk doing all night service reading and transcribing every post in this thread.

The conclusion was already inevitable after only half were printed out for the committee to read.

Cat and I are finished, we cannot sum up this forum any better than several people in this thread already have. The power of the message is much greater having come from 'non troll' computer terminals.

However it is exactly the same and we thank those people brave and honest enough to make their words and feelings known to the general cyberpublic.

We will be assembling, collating and printing the choice posts of this thread and circulating it as a newsletter amongst the worldwide pwk community so that they can rest easy and sleep safely in their beds knowing that the storm of hate has abated and now flutters as a gentle breeze through the willows overlooking the ambling river below the windowsill of time on which we sit.

Salutations to all great souls who fight for their truth!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 16:43:28 (EST)
From: Nigel
Email: nigel@redcrow.demon.co.uk
To: SC
Subject: Congrats on your remarkable triumph..
Message:
So you're saying you and Cat no longer need to be here because your work is done? Kind of remisicent of Goldenballs saying at that LA dinner party (in a recent thread) that his work was done because he (apparently) had spread his good old dad's 'K' to the world - or something. Fantasists the lot of you...

One day you'll all realise you were redundant from the start.

But if your post means you have no further role on the forum, then I won't argue with that. Unfortunately, for the rest of us, our work is not yet done. But I suspect it won't be too long before EV hits critical minimum mass for self-implosion.

Perhaps you'll come visit again when ex-premie is the only kind of premie.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 06, 2001 at 14:11:04 (EST)
From: cq
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: For a moment, I thought you were sincere ...
Message:
Well? Is your apology sincere or not?

(thinks - what kind of own-goal is it to make all your aquaintances doubt your sincerity?)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 06, 2001 at 20:56:19 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: cq
Subject: Then you must not have read it
Message:
The last thing in the world I wanted to do was trick anyone. My pots was obviously sarcastic. Did you even read it?

Sheesh!

Don't lay this 'deceptive' trip on me, Chris, just because you've got a reading comp problem.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 13:53:24 (EST)
From: cq
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: You still speak with forked tongue
Message:
I did read your post. And I've just read it again. Perhaps you should too. Why? because it could easily be taken as sincere, especially to those of us (me included) who prefer to take people at their word.

So your apology was *fake*, was it?

Well that says a lot about what kind of person you are, Jim. And, quite frankly, it's not the kind of person that I'd want to encourage or support.

Personally, I'm somewhat amazed that you use such a mean-spirited way of:

(a) dissing someone who's opinion you disagree with, and

(b) (especially in your profession) casting the veracity your own words in doubt. Obviously sarcastic it may have seemed to you, but I bet that your average punter would be clueless as to your real intentions in pretending to apologise to Katie.

I don't know what 'reading comp' is. I hope (for your own sake) you're not suggesting that I lack skill in the use of the English language.

You're bringing more than a modicum of shame upon yourself, Jim Heller.

And it's also a shame that so many premies think that you speak for all exes. But admittedly, that's not your fault (no deception intended).

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 18:58:49 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: cq
Subject: Re: You still speak with forked tongue
Message:
I don't know what 'reading comp' is. I hope (for your own sake) you're not suggesting that I lack skill in the use of the English language.

'Reading comp' is short for 'reading comprehension' and yes, Chris, I'm saying you simply missed the obvious.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 14:53:50 (EST)
From: Tonette
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Jesus, Mary and Joseph!
Message:
Beat a dead horse why don't you two!
So you don't like each other. Okay. Move on and a least try and stop the haranging, bickering and insults. You especially Jim.
What's up with this apology? Is it true or not? Part of it seems sincere but really, what exactly do you mean? I cannot imagine you really HATING anyone Jim. I would not like to think that of you and it does not seem true to your nature as exposed here or by those that know you.
Katie is a peacemaker. She reflects on what is good and awful about this forum. I'm sorry she insulted you with her comments. Frankly, this is much adeau about nothing. Surely her contribution here is more valuable than a post which was inflamatory.
Get over it! She is not on trial and did not commit a Capital offense.
Please, Please at least consider this side of it, you two.

I have alot of respect for both of you but this is resembling a bar room braul. Actually, this thread and the others like it more resemble two kids fighting over crayons, it's that stupid and infantile.

Please no fireworks Jim, I'm not worth the time, typing or energy. This is just my two cents worth and I know you don't agree and are very passionate about this issue but enough already.

I wish you wouldn't leave Katie.

A bystander, Tonette

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 20:57:26 (EST)
From: Moley
Email: None
To: Tonette
Subject: Jesus Mary et al - Stop preaching
Message:
at Jim - what a load of complete bollocks you have written. Why do people in this place take it upon themselves, like taking on the mantle of a guru, to tell others what to do? Stop being patronising - it's nauseating, quite frankly.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 00:28:31 (EST)
From: Pullaver
Email: None
To: Moley
Subject: The Pot Calling the Kettle Black
Message:
What you are yelling (quite rudely and insensitively) at Tonette about, you yourself are doing in your post to her - telling her what to do. She has a right to voice her opinion and deserves a civil response if you disagree.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 17:57:25 (EST)
From: Nigel
Email: nige@redcrow.demon.co.uk
To: Pullaver
Subject: My kettle's blacker than your kettle..
Message:
I have noticed that Jim is occasionally less than enamoured by the content of some of Katie's posts (and dare I say, vice versa?) and will say so. Fine - why not say so in public if you are dealing with thoughts posted on a public forum? A public response is appropriate - even when not necessarily welcome. As the saying goes - or ought to: if you are not that interested, then why get involved?

Meanwhile, Tonette and others are less than enchanted by Jim's tone when posting sarcastically about the non-response to his comments on the contents of that first post he disagreed with. OK, in the context of the present thread the import of that original discussion has been lost ('Gawn - and never called me Mother..!') - not to mention the opprobrium he invited upon himself for wishing to perpetuate the discussion longer than Katie would have wished. And she says so (Tonette, that is - as she is entitled to - public forum, etc. blah, blah..)

Moley, along with others, meanwhile, dislikes what she sees as the preachy tone in Tonette's post. And says so - as she is entitled, this being a public urinal with a nice big wall to scribbble on, etc.

Tonette then takes offense at the content of Moley's input, gets mad and demands an apology - as she is entitled to do, this being a public... etc. (Buggered if she'll get one there ;)) and apparently quits forum for a life of more worthwhile pursuits.

Why does part of me sometimes see these dramatic exits as a manipulative strategy for making their antagonists feel bad without having to discuss things properly?

Then Mr or Mrs Pullover jumps in woollily - as all woolly jumpers should - to suggest ('yell', even?) an equivalence between Moley and Tonette in terms of preachiness.... pot, kettle, rude, insensitive...blah, blah.

But how polite and sensitive would you rate Tonnette's post that Moley replied to - on a scale of 1 to -5, say?

And - BTW - calling anyone 'rude and insensitive' in public is about as preachy as you can get, in my book.

Only difference I can see between any of the good folk posting here lies in their willingness to actually discuss the issues in question and not freak out the moment they are challenged - switching the issue to one of tone and netique rather than content.

Moley will do that. How about you?

Nige who never even pretended to keep his kettle polished.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 06, 2001 at 02:04:57 (EST)
From: Tonette
Email: None
To: Moley
Subject: Yes, it is nauseating
Message:
Dear cyber forum person; chat room participant,

I find it totally sickening the dialogue pertaining to the thread and posts from Katie and Jim.
It's obvious from the words written by Jim that he does have a hatred towards Katie and Brian too, if he decided to post again.
I know enough about EPO, this forum, and the history, to realize that this forum is Jim's baby. He started it, has help maintain it, and continues to invest his energy in the forum. Kudos to you Jim.
What I don't like, nor have I ever, is the gang bang mentality of jumping on someone who happens to rub Jim the wrong way. Katie has been dragged from one end of this forum to the other, over a thread which although controversal, she explained. Over and over and over again. I say enough is enough. Katie has made it painfully clear that the things Jim write to her are HURTFUL! Yet, he continues on. Talk about beating someone up.

And what's this response to me about taking on the mantle of a Guru? Telling someone what to do? Being patronizing? Those are not kind words at all, Moley. I'm nauseating also, to boot? What's with this? Not a very nice or kind or gentle thing to say to someone.

Don't people care about each other here? Do you think I don't have any feelings? I'm not valid just because I happen to find Jim's posts to Katie aggressive?

Listen, you don't know me. We have never met. Maybe you know alot of people here. I know you are married to Nigel. Just like Deb knows Jim personally. You and Nigel go way back here on the forum. You two have been a part of this for a long time. Maybe you even know Jim. This is part of the brat pack mentality which is so transparent here it's laughable!

I know the rules. It's Jim's forum for the most part. This place is not really about kindness or understanding. This forum is essentially about whether one is in Jim's club. As long as Jim continues to post his witty, cute, intellectual, well thought out and long posts the group here will go along with his persoanl vendetta. It might not always be about Maharaji. It just might be about someone as sensitive and honest as Katie. Or someone who has made him angry, besides Maharaji.

Fuck that. I see this forum and what is happening behind the curtain of cyber space. And I might forgive you, Moley, for what you wrote to me if you offer an apology. We don't have to agree, nor be friends, but there's no reason to be ugly.

Tonette

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 06, 2001 at 19:14:39 (EST)
From: Moley
Email: None
To: Tonette
Subject: Wrong end of stick Tonette
Message:
I did not call YOU nauseating. I said that what you said was nauseating. There's a difference. I'm not concerned that you forgive me. I'm just expressing my tuppence-worth.

This is NOT Jim's forum - that is ridiculous. NOTE HERE - I am not saying YOU are ridiculous. Just what you have said.

I am NOT married to Nigel and WE don't go way back. Get yer facts right (or at least some of them).

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 06, 2001 at 15:33:00 (EST)
From: Francesca
Email: notinherent@yahoo.com
To: Tonette
Subject: Tonette, I care about you
Message:
And if you get pissed off and leave, please drop me an e-mail sometime. I don't have your address, so here is mine. Internecine warfare is not my idea of fun. I will be scarce in threads like this (and this forum generally if this mess keeps up) but I wanted to give you my support. I don't think arguing and insulting people is good sport. But hey, I'm not a whiner. I can vote with my feet. (or my fingers???)

Bests,

Francesca

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 16:06:12 (EST)
From: Deborah
Email: None
To: Tonette
Subject: Re: Jesus, Mary and Joseph!
Message:
Tonette, this is NOT about Jim and Katie. That myth is being perpetuated with the help of JHB and Joe. If you read the posts from Pat, Moley, and Myself from the past few days, you will get another perspective. Do you think it's fair that our comments should be shunned because it contradicts the 'Jim/Katie myth'? It's not fair, a lot of us have been trying to straighten this out. And Katie's comments started this, it was important for her to back them up. But she fled instead.

Let them work it out. It's a good thing Katie came here to respond. This issue is quite capable of being resolved. If it's resolved Tonette, we won't have to perpetuate the myth. Unresolved arguments create contention, and result in misplaced anger, etc. It is very very unhealthy.

Trust that Jim and Katie are capable of bringing this to a peaceful resolve. You are saying that Katie is a peacemaker while discouraging her from making peace. Don't read the posts if it's bothering you.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 06, 2001 at 02:59:19 (EST)
From: Tonette
Email: None
To: Deborah
Subject: I appreciate that, sort of
Message:
Deb,

They have been going at it for far too long. Jim is haranging Katie and throwing insults as well. And Katie has too! Although Katie has decided wisely to leave. It's ugly. The original post and I did read it, has been gone long since been archived and explained, over again and again and again.

It is not a matter of what Katie said, and I didn't like it either, a blanket insult to the ex's here and the forum in general, but the way Katie's post has been dragged all over the forum is beyond what anyone should have to endure. Okay Jim, you don't like her, that doesn't mean everyone here on the forum should rise up and tar and feather Katie and run her out on a rail.

Read my post to Cynthia, because it's to you too.

Love you and take care, be well and happy

Tonette

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 06, 2001 at 16:48:37 (EST)
From: Deborah
Email: None
To: Tonette
Subject: Thanks Tonette
Message:
I'm really sorry you got so hurt. Wish I could something to make you feel better. In all fairness to this episode, it didn't help to have Joe and JHB drag out the posts for over a week either. It was making me queasy to have to answer to them when every post was being misunderstood and misrepresented. I took it upon myself to stop because I realized it wasn't fair to Katie or myself. Everyone who has participated has to take a share of the responsibility IMHO.

Time for a break, eh? You have contributed a lot to the forum and regrouping and reprioritizing could only do you good. I'm not going to spend as much time myself.

But I don't want to be mad, either. Our life is about making empowered decisions, and not about being victimized into changes. If the followers of Maha would have known decades ago what they're finding out today, they would have made other life decisions. Many people would have left the cult with the best years of their life ahead. Look at how old the premies are Tonette. Fifty and up is more than just an extended adolescence. Falling in love with a normal person, having children, are decisions people don't leave up to senior citizen years.

The pain of being duped for such a long time doesn't go away over night. I left 12 years ago and made a lot of Maha-free decisions but the moment the magnitude of deception hit me, I felt destroyed. I realized how much had been repressed and what a toll the cult indoctrination had done to me. Being in a cult is not the fault of the victims. It's the fault of the perpetrator. Even those who assisted their leaders did so because of the levels of thought reform. People who get close to cult leaders, i.e. the inner circle, are carefully selected for their ability to mentally accepted pretzeled inconsistantcies. If power can make you join a cult and make you think it's your decision, it can make you do other things as well. Once the thoughts are reformed, they are maliable and can be twisted to limitless possibilities. It's like the brain compensates, a part of brainwashing called cognitive dissonance. This is why, I don't hold Dettmers and other PAMS responsible. Actually Michael left on his own long before he realized he was an ex. He was just really quitting his job. It must have been very agonizing for him to unravel the whole mess. All that devoted service for a Cult-leader. Very sad, isn't it?

I think many folks here are either hypersensitive or defensive because of the pain of that deception and don't want anyone else to hurt them again. People have a tendency to fall one way or the other. Politeness can also be pretentious. Even the 'I can handle it, why can't you' another type of defense mechanism. We are all trying to cover our ass in our own way.

You are more than welcome to email me anytime you want. Perhaps you may want to lurk for awhile and discuss topics via email or anyone else. Francisca is a good person to email, so is Selene and Marianne and others. Oh yea, and that other girl friend of mine, PatC. I spend time discussing attitudes and situations I don't want to traipse across the board.

I know how you feel. When Pat became FA, he and I discussed the troll attacks, and he eventually realized that something had to be done, and he has continued to soften the blows of the attackers. I have take quite a beating myself at times, Tonette. I felt very undefended by exes for a long time. In the case of Katie this last week (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for the history) the defenders did more harm than good. It's one thing to protect or defend and it's another to argue for someone. I saw that it didn't work. Sorry you got hurt in the cross fire.

Take a deep breath, perhaps a tea and biscuits break, and make the empowered decision to take a well deserved break. Meanwhile, I send thoughts of happiness and contentment for you.

Lots of love and happiness to you and your family, if I don't hear from you, have a merry holiday.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 15:28:06 (EST)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Deborah
Subject: Unfair, Deborah
Message:
I am not spreading any MYTHS, and I think if you go back and look at the long, long, long history of the Jim v. Katie thing, any reasonable person would see it as very PERSONAL indeed. And I completely disagree that the issue would get 'resolved' by more posting on the Forum between the two of them.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 20:17:22 (EST)
From: Deborah
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Re: Unfair, Deborah
Message:
I am not spreading any MYTHS, and I think if you go back and look at the long, long, long history of the Jim v. Katie thing, any reasonable person would see it as very PERSONAL indeed.

You were perpetuating myths by scolding Jim in recent posts about how he just hates Katie. Your emphasis in that statement a couple days ago was alarming. You see, I know and so does his girlfriend, that that's not true. He is gung ho on issues, not emotions.

I understand Joe, that they have history. But this time it's about something or somethings Katie has said that concerned a lot of us. He's not digging up old stuff. How many of us have tried to get a word in edgewise on this topic only to continuously read about Jim and Katie, Jim and Katie, etc.

Now, I know how Jan Brady felt when she said, it's all about Marcia, Marcia, Marcia!

When you say any reasonable person would see that, well I guess, I'm duly insulted. Be that as it may, I still posted questions for my own sake. So did others. We don't all have that history with her, why couldn't the post made to the forum or to those of you who cared to ask.

And I completely disagree that the issue would get 'resolved' by more posting on the Forum between the two of them.

Public apologies with a declared intent to give civil consideration is definitly a huge step towards 'resolving'. And again, this is not about the two of them. Many of us are asking the same question.

I don't want to fight with you Joe, I really don't. I'm just calling it as I see it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 23:42:42 (EST)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Deborah
Subject: Me too (nt)
Message:
NT
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 11:04:52 (EST)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: If you're serious
Message:
And I have a feeling you're not, but nevermind - thank you, Jim. I don't hate you, although I know I've ACTED hatefully towards you, and I apologize for that. Brian doesn't hate you either - we are both just somewhat burned-out right now.

I know that my writing and thinking style drives you nuts at times, and although I can't really apologize for that (I am TRYING to change it), I admit that I tend to over-generalize, say too much, and get too emotional. (I'm sure you can think of lots of other flaws...)

Something that came into my head last night, which made me expect your post (even if not meant seriously). Sorry I can't show the video that went along with it :)

What do you want me to do,
to do for you, to see you through?
For this is all a dream we dreamed
one afternoon long ago.

And it's just a box of rain
I don't know who put it there
Believe it if you need it
or leave it if you dare
But it's just a box of rain
or a ribbon for your hair
Such a long, long, time to be gone
and a short time to be there.

Take care, Jim - and watch out for them cats.
Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 13:43:15 (EST)
From: Deborah
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: I was going to email you Katie
Message:
I have always been able to resolve issues with you. That's why I'm so surprised you haven't been able to do it with Jim. You have a talent in that department. Probably the reason that you are good at dealing with premies.

I wanted to tell you that I didn't feel comfortable having to discuss all of this without you being there but the argument was perpetuated by the people who were defending you.

But JHB and Joe were not a good help. They both delivered a couple of sucker punches to Jim last night. Joe shouldn't have said, you probably didn't agree with the comment about black and white thinking, in one post, than abruptly change horses admantly defending why you agreed. There should be more transition in extreme points. And his comment about how Jim viciously hates you was really uncalled for Katie. First of all, that's not true. Jim has told me on numerous occasions that he admired (and he did have some nice things to say about you), but was frustrated with some on-going patterns. To hear Joe say something so mean and put it in someone else's mouth floored me, as I know better. JHB and Joe both insisted that Jim drop it, while they were still issuing insults. That's not dropping it. That's getting the last word by intimidation. Hardly diplomatic.

JHB did promise Jim last week in consecutive days that he would expound and didn't. Than I read a post that JHB accuses Jim of hounding him for responses. What??????????

Unfortunately, your name was repeated over and over in an attempt for clarification with other posters. I'm sure it felt uncomfortable. I realized last night I didn't want to continue the discussion because it was taking a bad turn. I was very relieved to see your post here Katie. This was not something that others could resolve for you.

You are both good people, with different strengths and weaknesses. It's imposrtant that we all take some responsibility for miscommunications. Hope you feel better. Email me if you like.

BTW, I saw Jim's bandages from the cat attack. Think "Life of Brian" with the rabbit. Yea! Pretty bad owie

Take care,

deborah

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 16:25:51 (EST)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: Deborah
Subject: A small correction
Message:
Deborah,

You wrote:-

JHB did promise Jim last week in consecutive days that he would expound and didn't. Than I read a post that JHB accuses Jim of hounding him for responses. What??????????

Firstly I accused Jim of reminding me several times that I hadn't responded, not of hounding me. When I bowed out of the original debate, I told Jim it was 2.45 am and I'd respond in the morning. In the morning, I didn't have time for more than a short response and I said I'd write a longer post when I had time (I didn't say when I would have time). I spent Tuesday and Wednesday morning away from computers (I have a life BTW). I then thought about the issue and realised I was making assumptions about how people feel about the forum, both as premies and before they post for the first time as exes. I needed to know if my assumptions were correct, so I posted the survey. Then, when writing my response I realised I was referring to yours and Jim's posts which were not accessible to you or Jim, so I had to get the archives up to date so that you had the same information as I had. In doing so I encountered hotboards date corruption problems with three of the archive files, but I still put the relevant ones live. Then I posted my response.

Now if you think my delay was unreasonable, that's up to you, but a delay of five days in the circumstances does not seem unreasonable to me.

John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 20:32:50 (EST)
From: Deborah
Email: None
To: JHB
Subject: That wasn't clear, John
Message:
And I don't think you needed the survey to respond. You seem bent on proving the painfully obvious. Whether some premies feel frazzled was never the question. The question always was why Katie said what she did, and why you agreed with her. And, what about Janet's post did you find so spot on.

Even then, I showed you how Elaine's response regarding Marianne's thoroughly, unmistakenly, benign remark was misconstrued to look (only in Elaine's eyes, of course) as being scary. She asked Marianne very direct questions including how she should feel about Maharaji and Marianne's answer was that she should come to her own conclusions. Marianne fairly said, that it was not her job to tell her what to think. Elaine said to PatC, that even that comment was painful.

I think that proved the point many of us have been trying to say, is that the premies think everything we say is scary because of where they're coming from (censored thoughts for years or decades) and their exposure to a new medium. BTW, i am not repeating this to insult Elaine. Not at all. I'm pointing it out for purposes of the discussion which inspired you to do the survey.

I don't know if you were clear w/Jim about why it was taking so long. Your response didn't address his questions. But you did use every opportunity to paint Jim as unreasonable and obsessed w/Katie although more of us were also talking to you about Katie's post.

You haven't been addressing our points, at all, John. But finding new ways to spin the same accusations. Moley told you that yesterday as well. It can't be just in our imaginations.

Maybe you were clear in posts why you hadn't responded. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 02:12:55 (EST)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: Deborah
Subject: Re: That wasn't clear, John
Message:
Deborah,

It seems that you haven't been reading my posts as I've said many times I didn't agree with Katie, and yet you repeat your mistaken view that I did agree with her. You accuse me of not addressing the issue. Well go back to the archives and read my first post which started my debate with Jim. You will see that I have stuck to the same issue throughout. And 5 days is NOT a long time. Why do you think it is?

John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 20:40:04 (EST)
From: Deborah
Email: None
To: JHB
Subject: It still isn't clear, John
Message:
JHB, please let this be the last round.

It seems that you haven't been reading my posts as I've said many times I didn't agree with Katie, and yet you repeat your mistaken view that I did agree with her.

No No No. You are mixing up my posts or comments to Joe. And the word agreed was used in context of ONE particular post. It was where Joe said that Katie propably didn't agree with the premies's comments, than abruptly switched horses in reply to a reply from Jim and went on to say WHY Katie agreed. NOT YOU!

You accuse me of not addressing the issue. Well go back to the archives and read my first post which started my debate with Jim.

I have read and posted to you according to every post you made. The question, which you keep defending, is about how the premis feel but you avoided addressing the more specific opinons of Katie about the exes on this forum. Your posts were never totally irrelevant. You don't mention that I acknowledged the relevance , but highlighted what was still unsaid.

You will see that I have stuck to the same issue throughout.

YES! That's my point for Chrissakes. It's what you're not addressing that I've been continously emphasing.

And 5 days is NOT a long time. Why do you think it is?

Are you on CRACK? John, I agreed that under your confessed circumstances that it wasn't a long time and gave you the benefit of the doubt that you may have made that clear.

I don't want to discuss this anymore. Please do not respond!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 12:34:36 (EST)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Deborah
Subject: That's Not True
Message:
For the record, Deborah, here is what I said, and it is not in the least contradictory, so please stop spreading myths.

I think the issue with Katie is something else. I also disagreed with her post, but having seen Katie around hear for years, I have some context in which to put her opinions. I think she isn't attacking the value of the Forum, as I would think a premie would be doing if the premie said the same thing. She was trying to explain why her premie friend wouldn't come here and say the things the premie is saying to Katie.

But I do agree with her obvious opinion that the Forum is not a place that would encourage a premie to talk openly about how they feel about Maharaji, and why her premie friend does not want to post on the Forum. I can give my opinion, which is that if you scratch below the surface most premies know someplace in the back of their brains, that they can't really defend what they believe about Maharaji, and so they don't want to talk about it to people who will question them.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 16:29:08 (EST)
From: Deborah
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Why are you doing this?
Message:
I thought the subject was dropped. Do you care that once again, this has to be rehashed. Katie said it bothered her and I thought you cared about that.

Once again, I'll tell you that Youve been arguing apples and orangesJoe all along.

I just said to JHB the following.

No No No. You are mixing up my posts or comments to Joe. And the word agreed was used
in context of ONE particular post. It was where Joe said that Katie propably didn't agree with
the premies's comments, than abruptly switched horses in reply to a reply from Jim and went
on to say WHY Katie agreed. NOT YOU!

Because you must be forgetting what you said, I'llmake it clear again. The following paragraph were your words in defense of Katie. Note: They were not Katie's words that were brought into question, but your interpretation.

I think the issue with Katie is something else. I also disagreed with her post, but having seen Katie around hear for years, I have some context in which to put her opinions. I think she isn't attacking the value of the Forum, as I would think a premie would be doing if the premie said the same thing. She was trying to explain why her premie friend wouldn't come here and say the things the premie is saying to Katie.

Jim's response to you about regarding that statement

What she said, Joe, in case you didn't read it was that she agreed.

Okay, Joe. Not my interpretation. I'm not a liar. I just copied and pasted what is written in consecutive posts. It pisses me off BTW that I should have to. If you forget what you said, you should go back and do this yourself.

Now how did you responds to Jim's statement. Don't want to be perpetuating any myths.

Subject: Sure she agreed

Because you treated her like shit, Jim. You hate her guts and it shows. It goes way, way beyond just a disagreement. For her, it the Forum was a completely hostile environment, so I can see why she would agree. Well, she's gone now, and I doubt she will ever be back, so let's just drop this.

It is your posts Joe. Not my imagination. This is where you switched horses. You were defending what was never challenged all along. You can go back and read how Jim had to repost Katie's original words for your clarification.

I think I'll spare Katie any further hard feelings.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 17:46:03 (EST)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Deborah
Subject: Because you keep distorting what I said
Message:
I NEVER said that Katie didn't agree with the premie who said that. You and Jim are both wrong on that. In fact, you conviently left out the following paragraph. Sorry, but you either took out of context or completely misunderstood what I said, and I'm sorry, but I have to correct the record on that. The following paragraph was in the post you quoted from, but you left it out and it makes it clear that I said Katie AGREED with the premie. I have NEVER disputed that. AGAIN I NEVER SAID KATIE DIDN'T AGREE WITH THE PREMIE. Got that Deborah? Sorry you misunderstood.

But I do agree with her obvious opinion that the Forum is not a place that would encourage a premie to talk openly about how they feel about Maharaji, and why her premie friend does not want to post on the Forum. I can give my opinion, which is that if you scratch below the surface most premies know someplace in the back of their brains, that they can't really defend what they believe about Maharaji, and so they don't want to talk about it to people who will question them.

By the way "HER" refers to KATIE.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Dec 08, 2001 at 00:05:36 (EST)
From: Deborah
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: NO! You keep distorting what was argued
Message:
This is the last post, not just about this topic, but for the rest of my life.

The reason I didn't put that paragraph and I can't speak for Jim is because

IT WAS IRRELEVANT TO THE WHOLE POINT OF THE DISCUSSION

I don't give a fuckin shit what you think Katie was talking about. You said you knew from being around the forum, but you didn't know. Hey Joe. Guess what? YOU WERE WRONG!

That whole discourse was your interpretation. Unfortunately, Katie was not here to correct you.

IT'S IRRELEVANT

because her original words, which was being discussed, said something completely different. She said what she meant and she meant what she said. PERIOD. If you weren't such a deluted hypocrite and so zealous on making your own points, you could maybe resolve something.

BTW, the one person you adamantly protested couldn't resolve the issue, remember the one you insisted hated her too much, just so happened to be the one person who DID resolve it.

And you, Mr. NICE, have ironically made an enemy.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Dec 08, 2001 at 01:33:13 (EST)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Deborah
Subject: Sorry Deborah
Message:
But that post makes no sense, and I have no idea what you are talking about. I guess you are talking to yourself. Nuf Said. I have no idea why you want to create enemies. Sorry about that.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 06, 2001 at 06:23:25 (EST)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: Deborah
Subject: Can we all do this?:-)
Message:
Can we all close a discussion by insulting the other person, and then saying the issue is closed? If it's allowed, I'll use it in future!

All the best:)

John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 06, 2001 at 21:28:10 (EST)
From: Deborah
Email: None
To: JHB
Subject: Was that the 'crack' crack
Message:
Or am I still missing sumpthin' here? :p
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 13:09:32 (EST)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Oh, Katie.....
Message:
Of course he's not serious; that 'apology' was complete sarcasm.

Katie, I really like you, but I think one of the 'problems' here is that you don't protect yourself the way you should. This is due to the fact that, like Gerry said, you care too much, and tend to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, maybe to an extent premies and M as well, which might not be popular here.

But as you can see, responding to Jim's sarcasm just sets you up, I am afraid. So, just speaking as a friend, don't do that anymore. It's too painful for me to watch. Okay? If you can't do it for yourself, do it for me and everybody else.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 11:08:28 (EST)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: And to everyone - re my infamous statement
Message:
Dear forum -

It's been an intense, and not very pleasant, experience reading other people's opinions of me, inferences about my character and personality, and interpretations of things that I've said. It has reminded me a bit of John Mac's description of the 'scapegoat' exercise at the training he went to - I certainly feel like the 'weakest link' here, that's for sure. (It didn't help that no one sent me the password for the forum, either - that was definitely an non-subtle message there, although perhaps non-intentional! I got Gerry's virus instead - snicker!)

Re my infamous statement - first, I should make one thing clear - I don't give a damn if premies post here or not. My oft-quoted statement was part of a very civil conversation with Joe. Joe was the one who said that he wished that premies would post here - and a lot of our discussion was about why they would or would not post here. A lot of people have taken my post as a plea to make the forum more 'premie-friendly' - it was not. I was simply stating the reasons why I thought they wouldn't post here - in response to Joe.

And in particular re said infamous statement, which I'll repost again on the chance that someone hasn't seen it :):

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

I have been trying to figure out why people got so upset about this. I read it over and over again - and still had problems. I suppose people thought I was challenging the whole basis of this forum - and once again, I realize that my statement was too generalized (in other words, I should have used qualifiers.) I apologize for that - it resulted from trying to talk about something which I had been asked to keep confidential without revealing too much.

What I meant to say is that when the facts aren't known, then people (both here and on Life's Great) tend to guess at them from the bits of information that they do have. The tone of each forum dictates the tone of the speculation. To give a counter example of this - there has been lots of speculation in the premie world about EPO which is wrong. John Brauns and I (and Brian, when he was around) have spent tons of time correcting various premie's misapprehensions about ex-premie.org. Some of them have listened, many have not.

Let me make another thing clear - I was not challenging anything that ANYONE here has related out of their direct experience (for example, John MacGregor's posts). What I was intending to say was that here on the forum we do engage in speculation about things like cost of the recent small programs M had - no one here, as far as I know, has the facts on that. Although some people here went or were invited to the programs, no one organized one, so there was a lot of speculation about where the money went, why the programs were small, etc.

I asked someone who DOES know about the reasons for the small programs, and about the money, and they were able to give me a reasonably good accounting of what the donations were used for, what percentage of people actually paid the fee, etc. BTW, before people get on me for not revealing this information, I promised to keep it confidential. However, the person who told me this stuff WOULD probably post it on the forum, except for two reasons:
First, as I said, they know they'd be going against the grain here, and would likely be shouted down or not listened to - and I don't mean 'challenged', either.
Secondly, they don't want anyone looking up their IP address, since they could be identified by it.

I was glad to see Hank's post above, since I felt that he also confirmed what I said (and said it a lot better!). He said:
In that many regular posters on F7 have left K more than 5-10 years ago, much of the information of these regular posters is just plain old, no offense, guys and gals…Many current premies and exes have all the latest info and the context needed to understand all the new info coming out, but are afraid to post, so there's a trade-off. Except for our Johnny Mac.

Thanks, Hank, and also thanks for clearing up the misconception about the different kinds of training. I would add that even if you left six months ago, some of your information is out-of-date because of the current changes in EV, etc.

Now, going back to my previous post that also caused a lot of fervor - about the trainings,and the fact that some people experienced something different that what John Mac wrote about. This post and the portion of the post above that caused so many problems were obtained from information that people told me in confidence. In retrospect, I realize that I should have kept my mouth shut and not mentioned anything. I apologize for bringing the subject of the trainings up when I wasn't at liberty to post further. My only justification for this was that I was alarmed by some of the speculation on this forum about suicide, etc. as a result of the trainings, and wanted to say that that some people didn't think premies were about to kill themselves in large numbers.

My statement was NOT meant to discredit John - I fully believe his post - and was NOT meant as any kind of apologist view of the trainings. I was relaying information gained from others. My personal opinion is that the trainings were mishandled (in some cases worse than others), that the groups involved were way too large for the kinds of techniques used, and that either the facilitators or M didn't fully understand what the results of the techniques were supposed to be - or didn't communicate it adequately to many of the participants.

As I said in my post to Joe - the very one that the infamous quote came from - there is also a huge conflict between the 'no leaders' concept, and the concept of M as ultimate leader. It would be helpful if people would go back and read my entire conversation with Joe, rather than the one quote (which came from my FIRST post in the thread, not the last one) in order to get a better idea of what we were talking about. I think it's now in the archives.

One final point - because of our past history, I try very hard not to answer posts from Jim, because we often end up getting in fights, which aren't pleasant for anyone, except maybe people who enjoy reading forum as soap opera. I don't always succeed in not answering, but I do try. It was somewhat disconcerting to have a lot of other people post, after the fact, that they also had the same questions as Jim and 'wanted to know'. It would have been helpful if these people had also posted - or had e-mailed me, or whatever. (John Brauns did, actually - thanks for that, John).

I wish you all well - and vaya con dios OR happy trails to all of you - whichever you prefer…

Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 06, 2001 at 23:35:08 (EST)
From: bill
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Re: And to everyone - re my infamous statement
Message:
Hi Katie,
Heck, I know where you stand. Sometimes you emphasize this point, then THAT point, depending on the situation, and the person's comments you are refferring too.
Think back to how MANY times you have taken the time to explain your comments to folks that dont allow for the way you share your thoughts.

Many times you have been helping a person who was limping here on the forum and perhaps they had muddled thinking, and by your ease and flexability and, well, what I think is that you care more for what you
see is the needs of the person than caring about what concepts they may type.
Some of the times a Jim style approach helps a person, and the next person is helped most by another person on the forum.
Since we are so varied, and complex, and flawed, we are lucky that
the forum has helped so very many people that it has.
Excuse my chiming in in my previous post in this thread.

I am busy dealing with attempts to help old premie freinds come to grips with thier dilemma.
And busy dealing with.....well, best not said publically on the forum.

Naturally I have to focus on what is wrong with m. And I am not able to see a positive to his actions in this world.
I agree with jim that there ARE NO positives.
Hank, SAYS that --current folks have all the info and CONTEXT that they need
---
- I say he is quite wrong. The context and understanding
is NOT there and one good way to back that up is to say 'well then WHY cant they post on the forum?'

You are a peacemaker as well as a truth teller.
The peacemaker side of you always gets you in situations where you find yourself needing to explain to someone a clarification.

I see no problem with your habit of speaking and clarifying.
I like to see you post, and your explanations have always been thoughtful and valid.

And I have seen you give no ground in seeing the destruction caused by the cult leader.
Hey, you bend in the wind, people see you move and wonder if you are drifting, well, you are firmly rooted.
Enjoy clarifying things, readers are helped.
So, whatever happy trails means, it should not mean you are leaving.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 14:09:43 (EST)
From: cq
Email: None
To: bill
Subject: Beautifully put, bill.
Message:
In a nutshell - don't let ANYONE prevent you from saying the truth as you see it. And that goes for ALL who decide to post here. Not just Katie, and not just Jim.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 21:21:57 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Will you answer this one?
Message:
Katie,

I'm back from court. Spent the whole day cross-examining this cop who the Crown's tendered as an expert in 'Geographical Profiling' -- As if! So my hand hurts like hell. The doc said that I should see an turnaround in 48 hours otherwise .... hm.

Anyway, I was really excited about my little post to you this aft, the one I squeezed in at the office over lunch. Katie, I honestly think I'm onto something with you. I really do wish you'd consider this little theory of mine. It just might be right.

You have often said this thing about being 'cursed' with the ability to see both sides of an issue. Now, I'm not really sure what you mean by 'see'. I'd like to think that that's a prerequisite to any good discussion. You have to see the other side or else how can you say anything worthwhile, let alone persuade or be persuaded? What I think you mean, though, is something a little different than that. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think what you mean more accurately is that you tend to feel sympathy with opposing viewpoints and, as a result, can't decide which to accept, which to reject. If there are choices to be made, you don't want to go there because of these conflicting sympathies.

Actually, I think that's a very common trait in people, especially nice ones. I know because I've experienced it myself. :) However, although this tendency might be good in terms of getting along with people, forming friendships and the like, it's nothing but in the way when discussing issues. In that case, you can't just strive for moderation and accomodation because, if you do, you're going to get stuck committing the Fallacy of the Middle all the time. You'll end up going out of your way looking for common ground, minimzing legitimate differences, unfairly subjecting truly black and white things to a pretty, but distorted, shade of sparkly grey.

I remember when I took my first Economics class. Econ 101, Microeconomics, must be a hoot to teach because it's there, at least in my experience, where students first find their strongly held convictions about fair systems of wealth creation and distribution challenged. Economic theory is suprising in many respects and it was quite an experience for me to see how if I stayed in the discussion and argued my beliefs, the theory would, at times, just tear them apart. I couldn't fault the prof. He was a nice guy just doing his thing, talking about fishermen and coconut gatherers and all those supply and demand curves. It made sense to me but, in many ways, against my firmest convictions. Thankfully, though, I needed the credits, so I stuck it out and, in the end, conceded defeat to the theory. In fact, I became an Econ major eventually.

Now some students had different reactions in class. They didn't engage the prof in much discussion. They, too, like most of us there, were initially suspect of the theory just like I was. However, because they didn't engage all the way, do the mental arm-wrestling, if you will, they never really gave up their pre-class beliefs. Capiche?

My point is that if you actually worked through some of the things we've argued about at times, like your recent post, for instance, you might persuade, you might be persuaded. But it well might be the antidote for that 'curse' of yours.

Everyone's telling me to drop this, I know, but I'm just too tempted to se if I might not strike a responsive chord in you yet. I think that you could prove to yourself, to your own satisfaction, not mine, surely, that your post was wrong. That, indeed, you must disagree with your premie friend's opinion when it comes right down to it. You can overcome the curse, Katie, by bearing through. I've experienced that in court all the time. Either I've got an argument or I don't. If I don't, something's got to give. It matters not how much I like the judge, the parties, opposing counsel. Katie, you think you and I have history? Some of these guys have daggers out for me ... you have no idea! But when it comes to the argument, you make it, you take it, you win, you lose ...

Maybe this seems like just your typical cat bite hallucinatory pontification. But I really mean it -- your 'curse' has a cure. Believe me.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 04:46:00 (EST)
From: janet
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: you can't m ake the world over
Message:
Jim--there is nothing the matter with the way Katie understands people. you can't make the world--or people--over in your own image. You want katie to be like you. you want her to decide about people against an impersonal standard of black and white. it's not going to happen. and it doesnt make her wrong or you right.
you like to get things all set out and weighed and decided for wrong or right. maybe it's your lawyer training, or maybe it was in your nature to begin with, and the Law just spoke to your innate attraction to ordering existence that way.

Katie doesn't navigate the world that way. She takes people as they ask to be taken.
in reality, Jim, every individual is as far along the path of understanding, or realization, or wisdom, as they can possibly be, for the moment. You can't demand-or command- that at a signal, they all fall in and toe the mark and line up in formation with your definition of what's right and what's wrong.

maybe the endless trouble you seem to have with her is actually biological. katie is a woman. her brain is wired as women's brains are: networked, versatile, intercommunicating, and set for human relationships.
you have a man's brains. it's genetically wired for direct logic, making decisions, action, not looking back, defending what decision you do make. it is not good with relationships and nonverbal nuances and cues.
it is quite futile for you to keep hounding after this issue. would you like all the world to be male? i dont think so.
this isnt some fluff i am basing this on. the research papers are there, the studies as well.

let go of it. there is no reward to dragging her over to your side of the line. the recriminations, the accusations, the pointless targeting, all waste our time and the time of witnesses to the fights. who needs trolls, when we have Jim and Katie going at it again?

if you were a tree, would you want to make everything else in the world a tree, like you?
if you were a dog?
a bird?

a premie?
gotcha.

no one, anywhere, has to answer to your challenges. and their opting not to is not cowardice or fear. they have a different mission in life. an entirely different way of listening to the people around them.

I mean, don't you get your fill of persuasion in your job, Jim? do you have to keep at it when you come home, too?

if this is the only way you can interrelate with humans, you're gonna be in big trouble when you sire your own children.
especially female children.
i would love to watch you try to rationally reason with a baby. or a toddler. or a wiseass 8 year old.
save me a seat. I wanna be there.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 15:24:13 (EST)
From: Chuck S.
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Please Consider This... -)
Message:
Re: a few of your comments:

BTW, before people get on me for not revealing this information, I promised to keep it confidential. However, the person who told me this stuff WOULD probably post it on the forum, except for two reasons:

First, as I said, they know they'd be going against the grain here, and would likely be shouted down or not listened to - and I don't mean 'challenged', either.

Secondly, they don't want anyone looking up their IP address, since they could be identified by it.

Since this forum is in a print medium, it is not actually possible for anyone to be ''shouted down''. It appears in print, and is here for everyone to see. Shouting down means someone is prevented from speaking. People may disagree with what someone posts here, but that is not the same as ''shouting down''.

And When you say ''...shouted down or not listened to - and I don't mean 'challenged', either.'', what are you saying? Again, in this medium, it's not possible to ''not listen''; if it was read, it was ''heard''. It seems that when you say ''not listened to'' you mean ''disagreed with'', which would imply ''challenged''. So if you don't mean ''challenged'', what do you mean? Sorry, but what you're saying here just isn't making sense.

As for your source being worried about their IP number being traced, that need not be a problem. Premies often have a trusted friend (like yourself?) post things for them. The same could be done in this instance, could it not?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 14:40:53 (EST)
From: PatC
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: You did it again, Katie
Message:
You said about your infamous post: ''This post and the portion of the post above that caused so many problems were obtained from information that people told me in confidence. In retrospect, I realize that I should have kept my mouth shut and not mentioned anything. I apologize for bringing the subject of the trainings up when I wasn't at liberty to post further....''

And in this new post of yours you say: ''I asked someone who DOES know about the reasons for the small programs, and about the money, and they were able to give me a reasonably good accounting of what the donations were used for, what percentage of people actually paid the fee, etc. BTW, before people get on me for not revealing this information, I promised to keep it confidential.''

You did it again, Katie. Why mention another piece of confidential info when you are not prepared to elaborate? What game are you playing? I think you are just trying to make yourself out to look more important than you are.

Then you say to Hank about his report on the Trainings: ''I would add that even if you left six months ago, some of your information is out-of-date because of the current changes in EV, etc.''

That's another hint that you know something that us poor peons don't in spite of the fact that Hank left recently and you ages ago. Perhaps cozying up to premies will get you more info about the cult than we are privy to but I doubt it. I think that all you are being fed by your premie friends is cult apologist spin.

And this paragraph absolutely stunned me when you said: ''My personal opinion is that the trainings were mishandled (in some cases worse than others), that the groups involved were way too large for the kinds of techniques used, and that either the facilitators or M didn't fully understand what the results of the techniques were supposed to be - or didn't communicate it adequately to many of the participants.''

Are you sure you haven't gone back into the cult? This stuff sounds like pure cult spin: ''...the trainings were mishandled...'' and ''...M didn't fully understand what the results of the techniques were supposed to be...''

We really are not talking about real estate training seminars here. We are talking about a primitive superstitious fanatically religious cult no matter how much it looks like a sweet New Age religion from the outside. Our objections are not that the trainings were ''mishandled'' but that they even took place.

I cannot believe that you have taken a really good look at the potential consequences of the game that you are playing. Are you simply trying to hold onto the status that you had as Queen of EPO? I can't believe that you are playing the appeaser towards premies for altruistic reasons. Sorry, I'm a skeptic and believe that we are all acting from self-interest and in your case I am beginning to suspect self-aggrandizement as a motive as well.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 21:20:24 (EST)
From: Moley
Email: moldy_warp@hotmail.co,
To: PatC
Subject: Re: You did it again, Katie
Message:
Right on Patrick - I'm right with you on this one!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 05:10:14 (EST)
From: janet
Email: None
To: Moley
Subject: pat and modey-nope!
Message:
you guys are trying to do the same thing to katie that JIm used to do to SHP. as hard as it may be for you to countenance, some people actually do not judge others so much as accompany them, listen, sympathize and walk the road as a fellow traveler. not everyo regards the human race in terms of 'are you with us or against us?' they actually like their fellow humans, and seek to share, but not alienate. it is a big world, with a lot yet unexplored. their motives are high ones, not self aggrandizing. both of you were just now astoundingly cruel, in attempting to explain or characterize her by using that as an account!

did it ever occur to either of you that katie may have gotten excited that she knew something and started to talk before she realized she couldn't go through with it? did it ever occur to you that her motives might be utterly clean and not driven by anything but natural impulse and sincere relating??

I don't like the color of the streaks I just now saw revealed in your posts at all. I thought I liked you two. Maybe I was mistaken!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 13:58:27 (EST)
From: PatC
Email: None
To: janet
Subject: You're partly right, Janet
Message:
I do realize that we are all different and last night was thinking that some people really have to be loved or at least liked by everyone and therefore hesitate to take strong positions because it may alienate someone's affections. In fact I used to be a lot like that.

I've only ever argued with Katie on two occassions and that was because I felt the topics were more important than hurt feelings. But I have made my point and have no intention of rubbing salt into wounds. My intention never is to convert someone to my POV but simply to clarify my POV and let others judge for themselves.

I truly hope that no one gets hurt but that does sometimes happen. We've all been hurt by each other here at one time or another and have criticised and argued with each other. No one is immune to criticism if it is fair but, as I said, it is not in my nature to rub salt into wounds so I don't have anymore to add to this debate and I hope that Katie sees that I have not been motivated by cruelty.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 12:25:08 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Please, Katie
Message:
I have been trying to figure out why people got so upset about this. I read it over and over again - and still had problems. I suppose people thought I was challenging the whole basis of this forum - and once again, I realize that my statement was too generalized (in other words, I should have used qualifiers.) I apologize for that - it resulted from trying to talk about something which I had been asked to keep confidential without revealing too much.

You ADOPTED your friend's comments admittedly conscious, even, that you would draw flak as a result. You didn't misspeak so much as misthink.

Katie, I really, really, really don't want to be your 'enemy'. I never wanted that with anyone here. But I'm just calling 'em like I see 'em.

Now, I'd be happy to dsicuss this with you as civilly as one might ever imagine but we SHOULD discuss it, get it all out in the open. That's healthy, no? Sorry I didn't even see your post before I had to run off to court. I'm late as it is.

So, please respond to this one specific question above and I'll give you a more thorough and deserving reply later.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 15:00:27 (EST)
From: Tonette
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Fucking drop it!!!!
Message:
It is out in the open!
And no, hashing this out again IS NOT HEALTHY!
Jim, your words hurt her! Please agree to disagree.

'A more through and deserving reply'? My God, then get a room you two!
Or maybe some boxing gloves and lots of padding.

Give it a rest. This is my two cents so now, and I'm saying this so you don't have to Jim:

I'm going to Fuck Off!

Tonette

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 15:24:51 (EST)
From: Cynthia
Email: None
To: Tonette
Subject: Tonette...I agree...
Message:
I am so sick of this Jim/Katie, Katie/Jim thing I could puke.

How many times do we have to be subjected to this? Don't we have bigger fish to fry?

Hope you're okay, Tonette. Me? I'm a bit pissed and frustrated over this whole discussion.

Now, why is Maharji giving darshan again....money only? No...he wants to save Amaroo so he can have his Jim Jones style retreat.

My 0 cents,
Cynthia

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 17:00:26 (EST)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Cynthia
Subject: I think you are right Cynthia
Message:
Makes me want to puke too. How many years has it been going on?

Regarding the money, f course, since M doesn't disclose any financial informaton, we are left with speculation, just like Katie said.

Anyhow, I think based on what MacGregor said about the dire financial situation at Amaroo, that latest tour netted up to $500K to help stem the financial bleeding down under.

For some reason, M has always wanted some kind of festival compound. He talked about it for years, and I think he got that from his father who had Prem Negar, which was a big compound. Of course, Sat Pal owns that now.

So, he wants to hold on to Amaroo. I think part of the problem is that he has no idea the way most people have to live, and that most premies couldn't afford to go to Amaroo, let alone pay $800 registration fees, more than once every five years, and some not at all, and there aren't enough Australian premies to support it either.

Nobody receives knowledge there, so people fly to the remote corner of the world to sit in a field and listen to M say the same stuff they can see on a video.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 15:52:58 (EST)
From: Tonette
Email: None
To: Cynthia
Subject: M is DEFINATELY up to something!
Message:
He hasn't given this many programs in the US in a decade. Yes, I think part of it is about money but it always is. No, He's after something more.
I think he's testing the waters and making a list of who exactly, he has left here in the good old USA who actually has some money. Americans are rich by world standards. M is too lazy to go to all this trouble for nothing. It interfers with his drinking time.
Perhaps he's having a mid-life crisis.
Finanically troubled.
Depressed and needs the dose of adoration.
He's definately taking stock of his flock though. That much to me is obvious. But what is he really up to?
He's attached to Amaroo, that much is true. He loves that piece of rock encrusted badland. Shit, there's not even any water or surf around but well, what the hell, beauty is in the eye of the be-holder after all.
M is up to something. A big push is on for now. He may retreat into his cave if the most recent programs generated enough money for the time being but like a bad virus; he'll be back. I wish there was a vaccine for the likes of him.
In school, in addition to teaching about the perils of drugs, morally, the children should be taught about cults as well. Well, I've taught my children. But when one looks seriously at cults, no one is immune unless they have knowledge about how they operate. Take the Taliban for instance. And extremist Islam. M operates in the same manner. The parrallels to the indoctrimation is shocking!
Yes, this cult is escalating for the inevitable destruction. Now, how close it is to coming to fruition is anybody's guess.

And no, I am not paranoid. Just calling it like I see it and I do know the history of M. M is a cult, history repeats itself.

I am worried. I have people I love who are still premies. I am worried about the ex's I know that are, in a word, fucked up, from their involvement in M's world. None of this is pretty to me. I have a husband who I wonder about, even though he's an ex. now. I definately love him and can't make sense sometimes of his evolution out of the cult. He's okay for the most part.
Listen, I am concerned enough about this mind fucking cult to keep tabs here on this forum as to what is happening. It's not over and maybe it will never be, however, I really think and feel deeply that M is dangerous, not potentially dangerous, but dangerous. I will keep a close watch.

Love and peace to you Cynthia,
Tonette

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 18:15:31 (EST)
From: Cynthia
Email: None
To: Tonette
Subject: And I have a Beloved Sister...
Message:
Who is not currently involved with m, but nontheless, has not exited the cult. She's two years younger than I and my worry is that she will go back.

I have a former lover, someone who I care about, who is still in the cult. Not someone I want to re-establish a relationship with, but someone who I care about and do not want hurt by m, and his stupid Mahatmas, like Charanand.

I know what it's like to love m exclusively. I want so much to see those like me, who couldn't see anything beyond a him, to escape.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 06, 2001 at 02:39:47 (EST)
From: Tonette
Email: None
To: Cynthia
Subject: I want to say goodbye to you
Message:
Cynthia, I will hope and pray for your sister. If she is younger than you, she must look up to you, even in our middle age. Some things time never change. Like the bond between sisters, the importance of family. You know her the best and will be her lifeline should she ever wonder about the cult and what she may be missing. Should she ever consider 'participating' again. Should she ever start to wonder about her spiritual health and want to go back to M. I would not recommend the forum as a place for her to find these answers should this happen. Rather a few hours on EPO would do the trick, I assume.

I am so discouraged with posting here. I've had enough. EPO and this forum will continue to help people but my contributions have played their course. I'm not a PAM, nor an ashramer, or someone who ever bought the bit of 'Lord of the Universe.' I am just a peon who got spiritually raped and am still angry about it.

I am frustrated because I realize M will never be brought to justice. Lord knows there's enough lawyers around here that if that was possible it would of happened by now. There will always be the weary and weak and bankrupt followers of M. M will be able to take this to his grave. Shoot, he could sell his watch collection and disappear from the face of the earth. Retire in comfort. That's what I see happening. He's not so crazy like Jim Jones or David Coresh to take his trip to the next level IMO. He'll just retire and he's already hinting at it. He'll never be accountable. This saddens me greatly. All the people he hurt, well, Maharaji is just going to walk away! And he'll leave alot of people hurt, confused and abused when he does that. Which I think is fairly soon.

Yes, his cult is winding down. Lots of people are going to and need love, support, understanding and empathy. Thank god for the recent ex forum.

I however do not see that here on forum seven. Loads of great people here, like you and Pat C and Joe to name a few but too much of the flavor and dialogue here is so awful. Downright hurtful but well, what the hell, can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Yes, I'm exiting stage right to go turn on the air conditioning.

I wanted to say goodbye and wish you only the very best.

Love, Tonette

ps, boo hoo as Jim would say. That's a joke.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 06, 2001 at 23:44:45 (EST)
From: bill
Email: None
To: Tonette
Subject: Re: I want to say ...
Message:
HI Tonette,
So many people read your posts, why not just concentrate on yourposts
and those that make you happy here, and just dont move your mouse
to threads or posts that you think are not what you are after.
No need to bail out when a sieve will do the trick.

Besides, how can you leave your readership?
We love you.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 06, 2001 at 13:14:48 (EST)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Tonette
Subject: Hey Tonette....
Message:
Be sure to come back. Your energy here is really appreciated.

Joe

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 06, 2001 at 17:30:10 (EST)
From: Barbara
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: I agree with Joe [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 12:52:11 (EST)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: WHY is this such a big deal for you??
Message:
It makes no sense to me. And don't just give me the same tired explanation again. Unless your goal is to grind Katie's nose into something, I can't see what the hell your motivation is.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 13:20:37 (EST)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Katie explained it.
Message:
Jim, here's the explanation of what Katie said she meant, which, by the way, was in a conversation with ME, and although I disagreed with some parts of it and said so at the time, I don't think the following is an outrageous statement that requires you to get all bent out of shape:

What I meant to say is that when the facts aren't known, then people (both here and on Life's Great) tend to guess at them from the bits of information that they do have. The tone of each forum dictates the tone of the speculation. To give a counter example of this - there has been lots of speculation in the premie world about EPO which is wrong. John Brauns and I (and Brian, when he was around) have spent tons of time correcting various premie's misapprehensions about ex-premie.org. Some of them have listened, many have not.

Of course we speculate on little information. That's why we get so thrilled when Dettmers, MacGregor, the moles and others give us actual facts. Now, granted, much of our speculation usually turns out to be pretty close to the mark, but what Katie is saying is NOT wrong.

Actually, the main reason there IS speculation is because M is so secretive and all his organs of information are basically propaganda. So, again, it's mostly his own damn fault.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 11:50:59 (EST)
From: Sir Dave
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: It's true what you say, Katie
Message:
Where you (Katie) wrote:

''However, I know this person feels that there is a dominant paradigm on this forum, and that input that doesn't fit into this paradigm is either stifled or attacked. Thus it's not truly open''

That's just the way it is. This forum doesn't have a life of its own - it's just the people who are posting on it at any particular time. It's unlikely to be a halfway house where it praises Maharaji and also criticises him at the same time, not because that isn't forum policy but because the majority of posters here are not happy with Maharaji. If the majority of posters were moderately happy with Maharaji and just had a few gripes, it would be different.

But there seems to be a massive shift from believing that Maharaji is the Lord (or some such similar being) to having that illusion shattered completely and seeing that Maharaji has perpetrated a con.

There's no room for halfway measures there, after such an experience.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 11:48:32 (EST)
From: Cynthia
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: To Katie...
Message:
Dear Katie,

You said:

''Now, going back to my previous post that also caused a lot of fervor - about the trainings, and the fact that some people experienced something different that what John Mac wrote about. This post and the portion of the post above that caused so many problems were obtained
from information that people told me in confidence. In retrospect, I realize that I should have kept my mouth shut and not mentioned anything. I apologize for bringing the subject of the trainings up when I wasn't at liberty to post further. My only justification for this was that I was alarmed by some of the speculation on this forum about suicide, etc. as a result of the trainings, and wanted to say that that some people didn't think they were as bad as John did.'' My emphasis.

Well, the speculations about possible suicides, as well as Maharaji's state of mind, i.e., his reclusiveness, and alcoholic behaviors, were mine mostly, and I don't apologize for them. I'm still concerned about this issue because there is a very remote area in Australia that is controlled by Maharaji called Amaroo. I had just finished reading Raven ''The Untold Story of The Rev. Jim Jones and His People'' by Tim Reiterman w/ John Jacobs, and the parallels were too stunning not to mention. I highly recommend it to you.

I stand by my comparisons between Jim Jones and Maharaji, based on John MacGregor's personal account of the Training Session he attended. In his post, MacGregor stated methods used by Maharaji and Valerio which I believe are tantamount to psychological terrorism ala Jim Jones style. Anyone who wants to post here to say things were different are fee to do so. It's an internet forum, Katie. Why the need to protect people so much? I just don't get it.

I agree, Katie, you really should have kept your mouth shut on this. There are many possibilities about why someone would not view/experience the Trainings as John M. did. Possibly dissociation? Cultic thinking? Blind worship? But how would we know when you came out with that statement?

I learned the hard way about confidentiality. When someone tells me something in confidence, I keep it in confidence. I don't write here about ''something someone told me'' hinting that I have other information, but can't say what. That's actually breaking confidence with that person, IMO. And, your statement did cause a lot of upset here.

I used to think I understood you. I guess I don't. Your post above sounds very angry to me. And as far as obtaining the password, you could have emailed Gerry for it--just like those who didn't receive it in the beginning.

Otherwise, if I offended you by speculating about your personality I appologize. Yet, I do stand by my writings about how dangerous I believe Maharaji to be to people around him, as well as premies who worship him from afar.

Cynthia

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 11:36:56 (EST)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: About the password
Message:
I sent the password to as many people as were in my address book. I knew I didn't have your's and some other peoples' email addresses so I asked folks to give the password to other exes they knew.

There was no intentionality in anyone's exclusion and I regret any hurt feelings you may have experienced because of this.

This was also coincidental with the Bad_Trans.B1 virus with which I became quite conversant. I deleted all old messages and completely cleaned out my mail program which was, in hindsight, probably unnecessary. But it sure seemed like a good idea at the time.

As far as the other stuff well, I accept you as you are, and though we've had our differences, I've had a 'change of heart' as of late so I really don't care as much anymore about other people's foibles (except the Filament, of course.)

One thing that bugs me though-sorry-is your seeming willingness to assign some legitimacy to Rawat or anything he does. AS IF these 'trainings' had any intended outcome other than to tighten Rawat's rein on his followers. This I believe is a source of much of the conflict you run up against. When you start cutting Rawat slack or, in my opinion 'over-caring' for him and some of his more jaded followers, I doubt you'll garner much support here.

Nevertheless, you've been a great and beneficial presence here and I hope you are not signing off for good. At least you'll have to stop in when I get the new software working.

Best to you and Brian too, and let me be the first to say:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

MERRY MITHRASMAS !!!


.
.
.
.
.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 11:44:19 (EST)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: Thanks, Gerry...but
Message:
I think I WAS in your address book because I got the virus from you. Or it could have sent itself to everyone who was in your in-box, because the heading was the same as an e-mail I sent you a couple of months ago. It's OK though - I know a lot of people were/are mad at me.

Re giving Rawat credit - it's my curse to see things from both sides some times. Yes, I realize it's unpopular here - obviously (snicker).

Re posting here, we're both burned out, and not just because of the forum, although that has played a part. So I don't know - probably not, is what I'd say.

Happy winter solstice to you and Patty, and the boys.
Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 18:45:23 (EST)
From: such
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: hey gerwy, what's da Storwee? hehehe
Message:
Katie:

btw, 1) I had to email and apply to get the password, when I couldn't post.

but 2) I did receive the same blissful virus Free without applying, 2X in fact!

more conspiracy theories... Wot's da storwee? [dat's from some ol' New Joysey radio humor]

LOL

P+L,

da lil swami

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 16:28:50 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Katie, did you ever consider this?
Message:
Re giving Rawat credit - it's my curse to see things from both sides some times.

is nothing but a function of your sometimes (not always, of course) reluctance to argue your opinions out? I think they're inextricably connected. If you simply stayed at the table and discussed, in this case, why you said you agreed with your premie friend, something might give. Maybe you'd win, maybe you'd lose but the 'both sides' problem might fall away a bit.

Jim -- in good faith with tongue in front of mouth, slight behind minor overbite, nothing too serious, thanks for asking.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 02:20:28 (EST)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Great post, Jim
Message:
Much better than the 'I'm sooooooooo sorry' sarcastic post which drew me in to this debate:-)

John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 19:58:44 (EST)
From: such
Email: banana@arbitration.com
To: Jim
Subject: a point taken.
Message:
+1 counterbalances 'apology' [-1]. all even. tabula rasa -- hoho

you know, James, it's a lot about dynamics. For instance, you're well-versed in arguing your opinions. opening argument. rebuttal. making points. closing argument. verdict. appeal. reversal of judgement. victory. winners. losers. [fees! hehehe] One thing I have learned about the various legal justice systems, however, is that oftentimes the wrong side [or guilty party] actually prevails -- and truth and justice suffer, consequently, as well as the losers/victims.

Katie is well-versed in biology -- and probably in looking through a microscope in a lab, too. So, she sees other things, as well, but the microscope only has room for one viewer. She just needs to better express and share her findings, and let those conclusions rest on scientific inquiry, repeated tests, evidence, and careful analysis that will stand up to professional scrutiny.

But, in Katie's personal world, it is not necessarily about winners-losers, however, i.e. junkyard dog vs. snake etc. So, she is obviously a bit self-conscious, and perhaps not as confident in debating issues in the arena -- and understandably gets easily hurt by criticisms.

If you 2 guys could just keep the discussions to the point, the substantive issues - politely, with no fear of direct personal attacks, putdowns, twisting words, mockery, then I think you might find a middle ground. Katie is a sincere person, after all. She apparently happens to prefer less aggressive modus operandi.

Also, we can't ignore that females of the species have traditionally generally been socialized/programmed to be supportive, empathetic, nurturing, mothering. for perpetuation/survival of the species.
On the other hand, males have been socialized to be competitive, aggressive, assertive -- for the hunt/food/shelter, child-bearing mates, etc. survival of the fittest.

This is partially human biological behavior and selectivity. individual survival skills. affecting interpersonal dynamics.

so, a lil understanding and empathy go a long way.

now, as for giving Rawrat 'credit': In my opinion, if [and that's a big IF] anything good Ever came from the cult -- it was because of premies, not miragey. imo, miragey always Took TOO MUCH CREDIT, and CREdit where credit was not due. and miragey Always blamed every screwed-up thing on his subordinates, premies collectively, and other people. In all my years of involvement, I NEVER Once knew him to admit blame, guilt, bad judgement, fault, accept that the buck stops with him. And because he stole any and all credit for anything and everything, he was enabled to manipulate the Big Bucks that never stop with him, either. Without premie funding and slave labor, m. would have been back in India peddling toy planes, or something. His entire operation is based on leeching off thousands of premies, and practicing cheat/deceit with them.

So, if Katie thinks rawat deserves any 'credit', there it is!
I give m. credit for screwing up, defiling and perverting whatever kernel of truth might have been connected with the K. package and message, credit for screwing up the lives of tens of thousands of people in the process, credit for royally lying to and cheating his devotees, and credit for hideously misappropriating tens of millions of dollars in church/charity/non-profit donations. Yes, let's give Rawat That credit -- where credit IS due. [In fact, long overdue.
After the projected class action judgement, we can retain marshals and some repo-men for enforcement/collection.]

Visualize swirled peas and lentils,

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 22:03:25 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: such
Subject: Thanks such
Message:
Such,

By the way, I'm sorry I clouded the day a bit after your important Gurucharand post. And this one is really thoughtful too. Thanks. You've made a lot of excellent observations recently. Some day perhaps we'll get a chance to play a tune or so, huh?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 22:20:05 (EST)
From: such
Email: banana@VH1.com
To: Jim
Subject: ok, maybe live unplugged... [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 22:29:01 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: such
Subject: No, I'm not good enough for that :) [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 11:58:00 (EST)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: but, but, ,,but
Message:
Yeah, you're right. I sent the password to a gang mail list (two, actually) and not out of my address book. My address book (Bill's brainchild) puts every email address I receive in it and I rarely use it or even look at it.

It's easy to see both sides, actually. It's the overcaring that's the bitch. That's what you got, IMNSHO :)

What's this you got somethin' against Mithras, now? You and Brian gonna start a website? Sheesh.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 06:33:47 (EST)
From: Salam
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Are you serious?
Message:
I don't know what you 2 went about, but I can imagine, though I don't believe what am reading.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 08:15:56 (EST)
From: Divine adjudicator
Email: None
To: Salam
Subject: Add another ten names to that
Message:
apology list and it might have some relevance.

it's about as sincere as a wart hog who wants his breakfast

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 09:58:36 (EST)
From: Moley
Email: None
To: Divine adjudicator
Subject: Re: Add another ten names to that
Message:
Gee you're quick.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 00:15:45 (EST)
From: Stonor
Email: None
To: Moley
Subject: Moley ...
Message:
Check out LG, Ferd(inand) - they always enjoy these 'in-fights' - they think it means the end of ex-premies!!!! LOL!!

Anna

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 00:59:33 (EST)
From: Deborah
Email: None
To: Stonor
Subject: Re: Moley ...
Message:
That's because flexing the main muscle is a threat to cult thinking.

So, in the premie minds, it's not safe to argue, it disturbs that feeling for good reasons, of course. They see us argue and it's a sight of death in their eyes. Do you see them post about how life's great over there or are they continuously convincing each other we are wrong about Maha and discussing our posts?

However, we survive beautifully, all the time. That can't compute for them, so they compare notes and voila! they all see the same thing. Than they subconsciously agree never to compare notes about the fact that we almost always resolve our differences and the forum grows, so apologists are happy and continue on in cult-think.

Notice how the apologists adopted the reverse revisionism over night after the SF cult gathering?

Bet you that the premies over there will drip devotional ooze all over the post now that Maha said it's okay to say that again. They never really forgot anything, it's just a blind and deaf march to the tune of the master's whims. They will move like a herd of cattle.

Interesting, I just saw 'the inner circle' again and the icons of cattle were subtly inserted into the film. Good ole Eisensteinian montage. I'm sitting here writing my paper, it's called:

The Inner Circle: Personality Cults and Cult Personalities

This forum must look hysterical to you. But you see, you can't hate a cult-leader you never loved or be angry because guru you never had disappointed you. But we can, we can be accused of hating. You non-premies really short wire their cult brains. I have to admit, I love having you guys here.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 15:52:47 (EST)
From: Stonor
Email: None
To: Deborah
Subject: Hi Deb!
Message:
It's boring, boring, sad, pathetic and boring at LG. Managed to squeeze in a link to Mr. Natural in a post to CW that really pissed him off, but who cares - I just love Mr. Natural! :) Mostly it's moronic posts with them telling very strange distortions of truth or total fiction, and then the mutual back-patting thing. And I've seen some pretty shocking flip flops and contradictions among them as well. JHB continues to amaze me with his gentle but patiently pointed posts. He's a very effective presence there, IMO.

This forum doesn't seem at all hysterical to me - certainly not compared with last year! ;) It's too bad you weren't around when I first landed and was posting my reactions as they happened. You're are wrong about my having no personal feelings about cults. I've seen many friends derailed and damaged by less blatantly irresponsible cult leaders and gurus, as well as some organizations that most wouldn't classify as 'cultic'. In the case of ex-premies and others, my awareness and understanding of their pain and anger has grown over time, along with my respect for their efforts to help others to escape.

I'm sure your paper is going to be great! I hope you share it here at F7 when it's finished! :)

Love,

Anna

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 06, 2001 at 06:33:50 (EST)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: Stonor
Subject: Thank you for your kind words
Message:
Anna,

I quite enjoy engaging the premies on LG. I even admit that it's not for them that I argue, but so that anyone lurking can compare honesty and openness with the cult mentality. And you never know, iIt might even do a little to keep them away from here:-)

John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Dec 06, 2001 at 15:56:57 (EST)
From: Stonor
Email: None
To: JHB
Subject: Nothing but the truth, John!
Message:
Hi John,

Yes, they are kind of 'cute' in their own childish ways! ;) And I figured that the lurkers and new-comers were your main reason for posting, which is why I mentioned your positive 'presence' there. I'm glad it doesn't wear on you too much - it would be a real loss if burn-out hit you!

Anna

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 05:08:32 (EST)
From: PatC
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: The Jim vs Katie debate
Message:
Jim, maybe you and Katie have a history. All of you old-timers do. Some say that you hate her. I don't think so. I would rather say that you two disagree politically. I also don't think Katie will respond on the forum although I wish she would because it seems that her opinion counts for as much as yours here. (For instance see bill's response to your ''apology'' below.)

Personally, I see this as very political (but then I see the problem of who gets to use the bathroom first thing in the morning as poltical;) and hope that Katie will clarify her final major statement on the forum as she owes it to her fans. She said:

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

I found this particularly upsetting in light of the Glasser debacle: ''On this forum, we discuss and make assumptions about a lot of things re M's world that we don't have the facts about, and there seems to be a general consensus on this forum to put the WORST possible face on things - just as premies tend to...''

I am tempted to insert at the end of that: ''...as premies tend to with the Glasser and CAC websites...'' but Katie mentions only the innocuous ones.

I don't think Katie was thinking clearly when she said that. As for exes making assumptions and not having the facts? No, no, no. Not all of us left the cult 20 years ago. Some of us saw it up close and personal as little as a few months ago like John MacGregor and a bunch of us newbies.

Yes, it's plain old politics and some of us take sides. I found this post by Scott on AG today. It was written to someone else but it also sums up my impression of the Jim vs Katie debate. Simply substitute the political words such as ''the left'' with ''ex-premie liberal.''

Scott T said: ''I think you have all the inclinations and impulses of the left, but simply don't want to expose those beliefs and attitudes to any scrutiny, so you claim to be apolitical and detached. For instance I have no idea what the following statement means: 'I don't think we will ever know the whole truth, or anything close to it, but some general issues are hard not to pick up on if you don't wear selective blinders.'''

He added: ''I don't think it's particularly healthy to be disengaged, but don't think you are. You're a pretty run of the mill romantic, or counter-enlightenment fellow traveler. That's the 'great divide,' and not the left-right thing which is just a shoddy one-dimensional invention of the French Revolution. And like most counter-enlightenment sympathizers you resist being pinned down about anything, as though that's some sort of admirable trait.''

But of course I am biased as I see eye to eye with Scott poltically. And the Jim vs Katie debate is political: ''ex-premie appeaser'' vs ''uncompromising anti-cultist.'' I know which side I am on.

Now I'm beginning to look at the ''Jim is a bully'' campaigns in a new light too.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 00:16:15 (EST)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: PatC
Subject: Re: The Jim vs Katie debate
Message:
Pat:

I'm not sure this is entirely relevant here, but I've been thinking seriously about getting into some of the debates on the Rahdasaomi site involving David Lane. David seems to take the position that most of the gurus he knows are, in fact, quite sincere... even though it's also quite clear that they deliberately mislead people, and certainly know beyond doubt that they aren't 'godmen.' I think this counter-enlightenment stuff runs deep, and must accomodate some serious self-hynosis. (I mean, after all Kant was no dummie, and he scored a few major hits on the Enlightenment. But I digress.) The point, I think, is that we'd be damned surprised to find that they *are* sincere about anything... and so would they. I mean, it's not a very tidy world so anything's possible. But I'd love the chance to herd the sincerity from the insincerity, instead of just taking David's [David Lane's] word for it. (Not that just because someone is sincere, that they're necessarily right or even in their 'right mind.')

And from there I guess the issue drops to premies or satsangis, who must be sincere about some things and rather cynical about others... and not necessarily honest about either. Jim may be a bit of a bully in the sense that he never allows for the possibility that people might be sincere, but just exercising really poor judgment. But if we could tolerate shame then there'd be no real harm done. People would recover their self-respect pretty quickly, absent th delusions they thought necessary to preserve it. Well, I'm not sure about that last bit, but something's fucked up there and it can't be compensated for by being 'nice.' Loving maybe, but that's a whole different thing, and if there are any adepts at that they're probably performing triage someplace where they're needed alot more than here.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 05:03:26 (EST)
From: PatC
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: You're right - not really relevant
Message:
I mostly quoted you to point out the reasons and consequences of not arguing one's POV. Of course, we all see both sides of everything. How could we choose which side to be on if we did not? Using that as an excuse....well.

Last night all this seemed clear but tonight I think I have been too dogmatic and that I did not take into account ordinary human frailty. Like Katie, I now don't feel like pushing my point lest I cause hurt feelings so I will back off from this subject.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 13:50:16 (EST)
From: Deborah
Email: None
To: PatC
Subject: Agree! [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 07:23:31 (EST)
From: Moley
Email: moldy_warp@hotmail.com
To: PatC
Subject: Pat - you said it just right !
Message:
IMO some folk here haven't got out of the mind-set of looking for a guru. So they project that role onto Jim... and then shoot him down. This place is an ex premie forum. Of course it is also a democracy - so ''ex-premie appeasers'' are free to say what they like, BUT ''uncompromising anti-cultists'' will, justifiably, challenge them all the way.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 03:22:52 (EST)
From: Brian Smith
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Commendable !
Message:
I have stayed out of this debate because being a relative newcomer here I did not have sufficient facts and background to submit a credible comment on the issue.

I will however clearly recognize and acknowledge an honest gesture to lay past matters to rest here with a genuine apology extended on your part Jim.

For that I commend you on taking the first step Jim, You not only have a great head on your shoulders for dissecting bollocks and argument you have shown a good heart as well.

I have appreciated both your's and Katie's input on the forum and I hope that your apology is accepted by her, you both have too much to say to the ex-premie issue to remain alienated by personal differences.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 04:02:54 (EST)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: Brian Smith
Subject: Yes, Bravo!
Message:
I second that, Brian. Jim does have a good heart in addition to his formidable debating skills.

John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 00:59:21 (EST)
From: bill
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: My apology to Katie
Message:
got a call tonight from a premie who went to NY program and is all
blissed out. The old devotional bhakti lord of the universe
bells are ringing again apparently.
Great old friend, but I had to tell her I would call back later.
To give me time to think about her.
She wasnt on my short list of things to deal with in the m world.
There she is, an example of someone who gets what appears to be a positive from the old cult programming being recharged.
Not wanting to unfairly negative, I came to the forum hoping to get
'clear' on the issue of what to say to her, only to have your capitulation hopelessly muddle the issue for me.

I do hope she appreciates that NOW it is time for m to finally thing about his OWN needs. As he said, he has ONLY been spreading the knowledge, and hell, since Raja Ji says it is now time for M, then by golly it is finally time for M.
I dont want to be unfairly negative of course, but seems like it has ALWAYS been just about him and his desires and demands.

He does have non premie freinds you know, and non premie business freinds and partners you know, and aviation peers,
MAY THE LORDS PRIVATE LIFE ALWAYS REMAIN PRIVATE!
None of our business you know!
Wouldnt want to upset THAT applecart!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 08:24:11 (EST)
From: Klaus Webber
Email: None
To: bill
Subject: Re: My apology to Katie
Message:
I just went to a program too Bill and I can assure you it has nothing to do with cult. It is about our owne journey and our attitude to that. he is a wise speaker and fills the heart with love and hope. No way I'm afraid Bill that I can describe such thing to you! But you will have no very good word to tel your friend who may be inspired now.mind and heart can never talk like that.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 20:46:36 (EST)
From: Deborah
Email: None
To: Klaus Webber
Subject: Troll that who said crap to ABI
Message:
Don't give the asshole the time of day. Shit! There I go, being unhospitable. Gee! Why can't I be nice to new posters. Now, he may not comfortable posting here.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 13:53:25 (EST)
From: Deborah
Email: None
To: Klaus Webber
Subject: Don't think you can assure us Klaus
Message:
but I and presumably others would be interested in hearing about the night.

Lots of details please.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 12:44:16 (EST)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Klaus Webber
Subject: Hey Santi Klaus
Message:
I just went to a program too Bill and I can assure you it has nothing to do with cult. It is about our owne journey and our attitude to that. he is a wise speaker and fills the heart with love and hope. No way I'm afraid Bill that I can describe such thing to you! But you will have no very good word to tel your friend who may be inspired now.mind and heart can never talk like that.


---

The heart and mind do indeed communicate, all the time, in fact. The heart has a neural equivalency the size of the brain's cortex and is connected to the brain by the Vagus nerve and also through nerves running up the spinal chord.

Incidentally, doctors have no way of reconnecting these nerves in heart transplant operations but the heart still maintains its own impulse to beat because of it's neural capacity.

The heart 'brain' as it were, influences and communicates with the brain's mind and the two can have a little chat, so to speak. It's a matter of knowing how to connect to this heart intelligence.

I can refer you to further information if you'd like.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 14:56:50 (EST)
From: Brian Smith
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: Wow , what a Bio Logical breakdown Gerry [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 08:31:26 (EST)
From: Klaus
Email: None
To: Klaus Webber
Subject: Re: Me
Message:
I guess I introduce myself if not rude.

My name is Klaus Rene Webber, I am an international business man who owns and runs an internet company based in Bonn. I travel often to see M and am a major donor (so I guess not too popular here!) but have other interest in shipping and motor sport. I count Maharaji as a friend and we hang out together when he is in Europe. I am curious as to why he is attacked by those here.

greetings Bill.

K

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 19:03:31 (EST)
From: Francesca
Email: None
To: Klaus
Subject: The information is on the web
Message:
Read the site above. There is a lot of information and no need to rehash it here.
[ Ex-premie.org ]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 12:53:03 (EST)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Klaus
Subject: Welcome, Klaus
Message:
I think your popularity here will depend more on your honesty and sincerity rather than the size of your pocketbook.

I image Prem Rawat could be good company. Do you see him as you would any other friend?

Why is he attacked here? You're joking, right? Have you read the ex-premie website and people's written account of their time in the cult? They are referred to as 'Journies'on the ex-premie website.

There's a link to ex-premie.org at the top of the page. Take the time to read about some things you might not know about your friend.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 03:41:19 (EST)
From: such
Email: banana@golf_flagellants.com
To: bill
Subject: what Charananananand told me
Message:
r.e. da lard's private life = None of our business!

When I still considered myself a premie, several years ago: mahatmaji and i were crusing around in the car one evening - he had a cold and was getting cranky [i also didn't know how much he wanted some wine to drink].

Anyway, I said something harmless like, 'Gee, it must be great being around maharaji a lot. What's it like?'

Charananand suddenly snapped, 'Maharaji's personal life is Nobody's business!!!'

[whew, what set Him off? what was That all about? perhaps I should rephrase this...]

'No, I didn't mean anything by that, mahatmaji. Well, it must be really inspiring to be around him, right?'

Charananand replied, 'Maharaji's smart.'

[ok, so maharaji's smart. that's it? ok, what else?]

'I mean, you know, the energy must be really high and intense being around maharaji.'

'Maharaji's very smart.'

[then an awkward silent pregnant pause...ok, whatever. that was the long and short end of that topic. then, onto another subject of conversation...]

(Later, I thought about that brief and uncomfortable segment of conversation. Why was my respected friend so paranoid and defensive about anything pertaining to maharaji's personal life, and why when I alluded to maharaji's rumored spiritual energy did mahatmaji simply respond with 'Maharaji's smart,' that's it? kaboom.)

...I changed the subject:

'mahatmaji, so, how are you doing?'

Charananand: 'when the end comes, I hope it comes soon...'

[what's he talking about? something Big, or perhaps he's really ill. No, maybe he's just a lil depressed. i'll cheer him up.]

'C'mon, don't talk that way. Here, listen to these bhajans by Jagit Singh. [singing...]

Charananand: 'When the end comes, I hope it comes soon.'

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

Go figure. Read between the lines...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 18:19:55 (EST)
From: suchabanana
Email: banana@_Arbitration.org
To: such
Subject: above lost amidst the bickering
Message:
above post lost amidst the bickering

meanwhile,

love lost amidst bickering

Q: when is an apology Not an apology? A: when it makes excuses, justifies -- or is downright disingenuous, facetious, or another back-handed slap.

Q: when does whining start looking like a martyr act? A: when it recurs ad nauseum.

Q: when does the slam-dance [er, tango] end? A: when the music's over, or the 2 partners disengage -- or when they learn how to dance together without stepping all over each other's toes.

C'mon awweddy, guys! sheesh...

ok, it's Latvian Polka time! Choose your partners. [to the band: a vun and a 2...] LOL

Peace and lentils,

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 01:41:11 (EST)
From: Barbara
Email: None
To: bill
Subject: The Fifth Technique
Message:
Bill:

I think Jim was practicing the fifth technique here (tongue firmly planted in cheek). I assume Jim will correct me if I'm wrong.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 04:04:55 (EST)
From: PatC
Email: None
To: Barbara
Subject: Re: The Fifth Technique
Message:
And I think so was Charananand (as told by such in his wonderful segue above) but in a more sinister way and with far different motives than Jim's.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 06:53:48 (EST)
From: such
Email: None
To: PatC
Subject: fessin' up:
Message:
true story.

peace + lentils,

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 19:11:06 (EST)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: All
Subject: M Apologist Websites/Charles Glasser Jr.
Message:
Interesting.

It appears that all references in any of the websites premies have set up to ex-premies criticizing Maharaji on the Internet have vanished. Please Consider This was taken down, practically mid-sentence. Erika Andersen posted an 'article' and the site was gone literally days later with the authors claiming victory and the need to think about what to do next. They also said that their website was inadvertently bringing too much attention to what the critics were saying.

It Ain't So, which was even more disparaging of Maharaji's critics, disappeared about the same time as PCT did.

The Elan Vital website dropped it's entire Press Section, so all the press releases dealing with criticisms on the Internet and the Jagdeo sexual molestation scandal are gone, as are the witnessing statements of Joan Apter, Mitch Ditkoff and others. It then dropped it's entire, embarrassing, FAQ section, which also tried to address critics, even the cute little video clip of Maharaji in which he lies about never having claimed to be God is gone.

Around the same time, the CAC-type attack websites also disappeared.

Finally, the 'Truthaboutmaharaji' website set up by Charles Glasser Jr. has been modified to drop all references to any of the Maharaji critics, and droped all references to who 'Charles' is. That somebody like Charles dropped all that self-praise about his accomplishments and how he works for a big New York law firm, is really something.

Is this all part of the new Maharaji PR program? It is just way too coincidental for all those changes to happen so quickly. It is particularaly astounding that the Andersens and Mitch Ditkoff would abandon their site, after what was obviously a lot of time and money that went into it, and because they were going great guns until just a few days prior to it evaportating so quickly.

So, I think they were probably told by the new PR team that Maharaji wanted them to take those sites down, or at least refrain from addressing any criticisms raised by ex-premies. That they complied says quite a lot.

Can the Andersens, Mitch Ditkoff, Pia's son and/or Charles Glasser let us know what happened?

Also, it's time to spend some time deconstructing Maharaji's website. God knows there are plenty of lies on that site as well.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 23:13:58 (EST)
From: michael donner
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Re: M Apologist Websites/Charles Glasser Jr.
Message:
i'm surprised they lasted this long. m's constant media strategy was to ignore critics, pretend they do not exist...not call any attention to them...the ole elephant ignoring the dogs barking story, remember.

this dismantling goes hand in hand with the 'appointment tour' he has been doing. reinvigorating the up close and personal cult...makes sense to me...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 04:08:10 (EST)
From: PatC
Email: None
To: michael donner
Subject: ignoring the dogs barking
Message:
Exactly. Word has also probably gone out on EV first-class email not to engage the exes anymore. Even the mischievous cult imps are missing from the forum.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 04:22:42 (EST)
From: Brian Smith
Email: None
To: PatC
Subject: That will only peak curiosity
Message:
more by making those directives you would think. Maybe not the hardcore hope to die handicapped headcases, but for many of the other segments of premie land this kind of announcement might not only invite inquiry but could also arouse curiosity.

Word has also probably gone out on EV first-class email not to engage the exes anymore.

Here again if true, another classic example of the cult shooting holes in itself.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 01:05:30 (EST)
From: bill
Email: None
To: michael donner
Subject: Re: M Apologist Websites/Charles Glasser Jr.
Message:
The shopping section and trinkets will also disappear is my guess.
Too late, ALL the stuff is in the forum archives.
We can recreate it if we want.
He is hoping to give us no targets, no such luck!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 00:43:24 (EST)
From: such
Email: None
To: michael donner
Subject: yep, classic cult s.o.p.
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 23:25:01 (EST)
From: Deborah
Email: None
To: michael donner
Subject: Question to you Mike
Message:
Am I wrong to say that the devotional sappy shit went out of style in the inner circle. The malibu premies I met were very adamant on how Maha only wanted to be around the mature premies. My up close and personal encounter seemed to verify that.

And, if some of the mature premies, swallowed the revisionism about the lord crap, do you think they'll be able to revert back to the old paradigm. For example, some premie kept referring to him as my lord in SF? What's that about?

I think Maha is burning the candle at both ends on this last one. I think the 'group' that Maha cultivated, i.e. professionals and Richy Richs are going to have a huge brain fart. What do you think?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 01:21:09 (EST)
From: bill
Email: None
To: Deborah
Subject: Re: Question to you Mike
Message:
Hi Deborah,
Could you email at
bill52 at rocketmail.com
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 14:18:04 (EST)
From: Deborah
Email: stars@uvic.ca
To: bill
Subject: Email is not going through
Message:
I think an email went throught last week. Don't know what's up with your email.

My email is enclosed.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 22:31:38 (EST)
From: Abi
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: the error of their ways
Message:
Perhaps it is a silent admission that they made a PR mistake. But the damage is already done and wont be forgotten.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 08:12:00 (EST)
From: Perhaps you are dreaming
Email: None
To: Abi
Subject: oh holy one
Message:
you're correct about damage not being forgotten though

so where you gonna go when the dust settles huh?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 19:13:27 (EST)
From: Abi
Email: None
To: Perhaps you are dreaming
Subject: creepy premie alert
Message:
where am I going to go...given that I live my entire life through this forum...

what I wont be doing is sticking my tongue down the back of my own throat for extended periods of time and slobbering over someones feet.

Anyone who does that must be half-mad and in desperate need of a life.

Wouldn't you say?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 19:28:00 (EST)
From: It's Klaus Webber
Email: None
To: Abi
Subject: Donor and Friend of Maharaji--not a nice guy [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 10:51:10 (EST)
From: Nigel
Email: nigel@redcrow.demon.co.uk
To: Perhaps you are dreaming
Subject: Cryptic troll alert..? [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 20:08:17 (EST)
From: Francesca
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Well you and Jim did such a good job!
Message:
Joe,

You and Jim were the main ones who kept doing well reasoned point by points on stuff posted on the other websites. As I recall, Nige did some, and perhaps Patrick Wilson. I think their websites were free advertisement for EPO and F7, and certainly at least got people curious as to what people here were saying.

On top of everything else that was here, you guys refuted and blew holes in so many of the ridiculous non-arguments and straw man arguments going on over there. Not to mention the accusation that crazed drug fiends who have left the Master sat at computers, foaming at the mouth in the dead of night, raving on the Internet. They made it sound so ... so ... tabloid.

And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to come up with EPO or Forum posts in the search engines once someone gets their curiosity up. Of course, even if they ignore us, EPO and the Forum is still here, and in the first bunch of hits on many search engines!

Tough noogies guru ji. Boiling shriek, I got burned.

--f

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 23:47:25 (EST)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Francesca
Subject: That makes sense
Message:
Right. I guess they figure the damage has been done, and they at least might try to refrain from aggravating the situation. True, EPO is still there, but at least they aren't pointing big arrows at EPO without ever using the actual name.

Thanks, Francesca

Joe, the crazed drug fiend

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 20:14:13 (EST)
From: Moley
Email: None
To: Francesca
Subject: Boiling shriek - fab phrase Fran !nt
Message:
xx
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 19:34:14 (EST)
From: Nigelandmoley
Email: nigel@redcrow.demon.co.uk
To: Joe
Subject: True, Joe...
Message:
and reinforces the point I made below about rawatweilers turned poodles..

Funny thing is, we just checked out the Glasser site, and with the personal detail and ad hominems removed, the place still reads like the ravings of a soft vegetable after too long cooking in a primordial vegan soup (or something - it's late and the metaphors ain't flowing just so..)

So driven is the Hate Club, that they have made disgusting 'deals with the Devil.' One Hate Club leader is now being paid to track Maharaji by a racist, anti-religious movement which has been condemned internationally by feminists, Catholics, Jews, Muslims and even the United States Congress. In France, one of these people actually got on the radio and encouraged listeners to phone in bomb threats. But the harassment goes from the global to the local. I ought to know. After this website first appeared, I was harassed at work, got threatening e-mail, they published my picture and phone number world-wide on the Internet to encourage others to abuse me and much more. Those decent people who condemned this were bloodied and badgered by the Hate Club until they finally left. (On the bright side, I've gotten letters from several who are practicing Knowledge again!).

(Moles says it's probably her who a couple of months back was leading CG a merry dance about practising again... Moley: well wot could I do? - he was pretty damn sexy in that photo.. never could resist that blues-man/haiwaian shirt/phallic-guitar/baggy pants thang... uuummmh )

Still pretty strong stuff, though, and potentially embarrassing for the cult, I would think.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 19:50:43 (EST)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Nigelandmoley
Subject: You are looking at the OLD site.
Message:
That section you quoted has now been removed from Glasser's site. Are you looking at an older version of his website?

Also, Nigel, is it true that you played in a band that was the predecessor of Level 42? I was told this by a Darwin enthusiast who thinks you should not have left the band when you did.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 20:09:15 (EST)
From: Nigel
Email: nigel@redcrow.demon.co.uk
To: Joe
Subject: Who told you that? I'll sue...
Message:
re. Glasser - we have repeatedly hit the 'refresh' button, but still get the hate club stuff.

re. Level 42: yes it's sadly true. I played in a succession of early bands incorporating three of the four original mambers, dating from our schooldays. (Mark 'thumberthumbs' King was actually a drummer before he switched to bass). In fact, it is only because the bass player in the last of these bands happened to be a f****** premie, that I walked away from all that to go get Knowledge, otherwise I might be a millionaire by now. Having said that - I HATED Level 42. So maybe I have at least one thing to be grateful for in this life (apart from meeting my Moley).

Anyway, who told you this? You have either been talking to Jim or my co-founder of Friends of Darwin, Richard Carter. I suspect the latter, though it was only an hour ago I mentioned this Level 42 stuff to Jim in an email - but I never had him down as much of a gossip...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 23:51:16 (EST)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: No, Nigel it's gone
Message:
You must be looking at an older version on line. Are you using an old bookmark? The 'hate club' stuff is definitely gone.

It was from your co-founder that I heard about Level 42. It wasn't from Jim. I can't really remember anything Level 42 did, except they were part of that strange early 80s blandness.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 05:56:44 (EST)
From: Brian Smith
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Lessons in Love, comes to mind
Message:
as one of level 42's bigger hits, the only reason I remember that cut is because a few years back I played Bass in a group and we covered that tune.

I had to learn that formidible and challenging Mark 'thunderthumbs' King Bass line. I loved playing that tune, The Bass in lessons in love really carried the song.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 11:12:50 (EST)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Brian Smith
Subject: You're sure up early...
Message:
I just sent you an email.

Patty wants to learn bass. Oh boy! I know what she gets for Mithrasmas.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 20:39:12 (EST)
From: Kev
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Level 42
Message:
Hi Nigel,
As a matter of interest do you know Rychard Bennett from the Isle of Wight who was also in Level 42 before they were Level 42. Also became a Premie.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 20:58:45 (EST)
From: Nigel
Email: nigel@redcrow.demon.co.uk
To: Kev
Subject: That's the very same bastard...
Message:
Lovely bloke and very first Isle of Wight co-ordinator, when the entire community consisted of him, his three sisters, his mum, his girlfriend and me (we last two were the very first aspirants). BTW: sorry I never replied to your email a couple of months back, Kev - I lost it in a mailbox explosion. Rich giving me satsang during intervals in this bar we used to play in turned my life around. I often wonder how I would have turned out if that chance meeting had never happened... (sigh)..but, as I said in my birthday post lower down, there are many more ways of being dead or fucked-up than being alive and healthy, so I am happy the way things have turned out eventually - once the last shred of cult-think was expelled from my system.

BTW: it's spelt 'Richard' - unless he has more recently opted for a pseudo-archaic formulation. He was also the part-time initiator I mentioned visiting mid-eighties in my Journeys post - just before his ilk were abolished. In fact, I might be the one and only 'Knowledge review' he ever administered. Actually, up to now I have avoided mentioning any of these people by name, because I like them and wouldn't want to unnecessarily upset them - but then, I don't think I have said anything defamatory about any of those old Isle of Wight premies, and, in spite of everything I now believe, I'd love to make contact with any of them for old times' sake. Last I heard about Richard he was in Amsterdam and back into playing bass - mid-nineties, or so..

(Hey Dave Brian - are you out there?)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 19:16:58 (EST)
From: Meanwood Meanie
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: And does Jon Cainer have a voice?
Message:
If so, perhaps he could tell us about his part in the CAC site.

MM

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 19:44:02 (EST)
From: Moley
Email: None
To: Meanwood Meanie
Subject: Does Jon Cainer have Pluto up Uranus??nt
Message:
Sorry - in rude mood. He's shit at astrology. And who are you???
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 19:45:50 (EST)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Patrick W
Subject: Crainer involved with CAC?
Message:
The nerve of the K Webber guy to rub out history,& the folly if he thinks anyone can really call the inscrutable spoilt brat incarnation a friend.

How can you be friends with the Master?

I wonder though about him & the recent Announcement. Still, face value is all we have to go on here.

All the best : Pat Dorrity

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 19:58:53 (EST)
From: Nigel
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Yes and no..
Message:
Certainly Cainer has distanced himself completely from the cult since that episode where he had a run-in with Francis Wheen of the Guardian - who even used info from EPO to justify his critical story about Cainer and square it with his editor. At the same time he was switching papers from the Mail to the Express (or vice versa - I'm losing track - they're both utter tabloid shite anyway) and hence desperate not not to let his cult-associations damage his income. He resigned from ELK at the same time. As Fleet Street's highest-earning journo (estimated £6 million pa - much of it derived from his astronomically-priced, premium-rate, astrological phone-lines) he does have a lot to lose.

As for the libel laws: I understand we are changing ours (or have done so) to put us in line with the US, ie., the burden of proof will now lie with the aggrieved party rather than the accused to establish who is lying.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index