JHB -:- Rollercoasters, feelings, and the forum -:- Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 19:32:01 (EST)

__ Joe -:- Great post, but..... -:- Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 14:08:30 (EST)

__ __ Jim -:- Sure, joe, anything YOU say -:- Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 22:49:34 (EST)

__ __ __ Joe -:- Sure she agreed -:- Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 23:43:55 (EST)

__ __ __ __ Jim -:- That's absurd -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 00:11:03 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- Get over it Jim -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 11:41:40 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Your opinion's marginal on this one -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 12:29:44 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- For Christ's Sake Drop it -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 12:56:38 (EST)

__ __ __ __ Jim -:- That -:- Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 23:55:00 (EST)

__ __ __ __ Jim -:- That -:- Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 23:55:00 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ PatC -:- Which hand was it (the left or right?;) [nt] -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 04:27:18 (EST)

__ __ Brian Smith -:- You made me realize something, Joe -:- Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 16:48:55 (EST)

__ __ Deborah -:- Great post Joe--I agree w/everything [nt] -:- Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 16:36:42 (EST)

__ __ JHB -:- Re: Great post, but..... -:- Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 14:17:18 (EST)

__ __ __ Lesley -:- Safety on the edge -:- Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 16:22:06 (EST)

__ __ __ __ Joe -:- Terrific Insights, Lesley -:- Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 16:29:45 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ Lesley -:- Thanks Joe, and ditto nt -:- Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 16:41:14 (EST)

__ __ __ PatC -:- ''Safe'' vs ''cozy'' -:- Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 14:44:53 (EST)

__ Tonette -:- Great post. A little of my perspective -:- Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 09:35:53 (EST)

__ __ JHB -:- Dreading Replies -:- Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 09:52:16 (EST)

__ __ __ Jim -:- Yea, there's a reason for that -:- Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 12:10:09 (EST)

__ __ __ __ Jim Fan -:- 'there are assholes on both sides'?? -:- Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 21:08:42 (EST)

__ __ __ __ Francesca -:- Agree - disagree -:- Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 13:32:52 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Let's do a few lawyer jokes, huh? -:- Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 22:35:11 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ Moley -:- Jim ain't a cult leader -:- Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 15:56:22 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ JHB -:- Moley, Jim sometimes won't let go -:- Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 17:57:56 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ M oley -:- Re: Moley, Jim sometimes won't let go -:- Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 19:11:47 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Deborah -:- But why should he????? I & others asked as well -:- Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 20:01:14 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JHB -:- Re: Moley, Jim sometimes won't let go -:- Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 19:30:42 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Deborah -:- Circular argument JHB [nt] -:- Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 20:29:16 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Moley -:- JHB - But who is tolerant of whom??? -:- Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 20:28:53 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JHB -:- Re: JHB - But who is tolerant of whom? -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 01:49:27 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Moley -:- Re: JHB - But who is tolerant of whom? -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 07:34:42 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JHB -:- Exactly my point! -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 09:42:13 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Moley -:- No: Exactly My point! -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 09:57:26 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Selene -:- cliche but - its deja vu all over again -:- Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 19:58:23 (EST)

__ __ __ __ JHB -:- Re: Yea, there's a reason for that -:- Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 13:32:29 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Sure, john, anything you say -:- Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 22:30:07 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ JHB -:- Re: Sure, john, anything you say -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 01:58:18 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- You don't get b/c you don't WANT to get it -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 02:42:02 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JHB -:- But, Jim, I did disagree with Katie -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 04:33:09 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- I'll try to explain -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 12:08:37 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Moley -:- ***Says it all - brilliant post Jim***nt -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 21:29:07 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JHB -:- I'm not with you -:- Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 18:12:00 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- Right John -:- Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 14:13:48 (EST)

__ Janet -:- thank you john -:- Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 03:39:43 (EST)

__ __ PatD -:- Recovering your ordinary nature..... -:- Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 16:07:30 (EST)

__ __ Nigel -:- For goodness' sake, Janet... -:- Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 15:28:09 (EST)

__ __ Jim -:- Get real -:- Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 11:54:34 (EST)

__ __ Tonette -:- I'm going to say this as gently as I can -:- Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 09:01:46 (EST)

__ __ PatC -:- Not controlled by fear, Janet? -:- Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 03:57:44 (EST)

__ __ __ janet -:- no, pat. -:- Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 04:36:08 (EST)

__ __ __ __ PatC -:- janet, pendulum swings -:- Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 14:52:25 (EST)

__ __ __ __ silvia -:- Please -:- Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 11:56:28 (EST)

__ __ __ __ Sir Dave }( -:- Damn it Janet -:- Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 07:58:34 (EST)

__ __ __ __ JHB -:- Janet, we need each other -:- Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 04:49:02 (EST)

__ Jim -:- Re: Rollercoasters, feelings, and the forum -:- Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 00:02:45 (EST)

__ Cynthia -:- It's Not Perfect... -:- Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 22:15:55 (EST)

__ __ Deborah -:- Exactly! [nt] -:- Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 16:58:08 (EST)

__ __ suchabanana -:- lil' Attributes of a Good Forum... -:- Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 16:37:42 (EST)

__ __ __ JHB -:- Such, did you write this? -:- Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 18:01:04 (EST)

__ __ __ __ such -:- you're quite welcome -:- Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 22:54:35 (EST)

__ __ Francesca -:- GREAT POST Cynthia -:- Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 14:21:22 (EST)

__ __ Selene -:- thanks Cynthia -:- Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 13:23:25 (EST)

__ __ gerry -:- Love, love, love... -:- Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 11:32:05 (EST)

__ __ __ gerry -:- btw, ****BEST OF**** -:- Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 11:34:26 (EST)

__ __ __ __ Marianne -:- Agreed, Cynthia's post **BEST** -:- Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 12:36:05 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ PatC -:- Agreed, Cynthia's post **BEST** -:- Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 14:03:41 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Francesca -:- GREAT point PAT!!! -:- Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 14:27:33 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ PatC -:- Hey, sister, love is all you need. -:- Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 14:48:39 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ Cynthia -:- Why, Thanks, Gerry and Marianne:) [nt] -:- Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 12:39:17 (EST)

__ PatD -:- Don't worry about it John -:- Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 21:03:26 (EST)

__ bill -:- good post JHB -:- Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 20:37:12 (EST)

__ JHB -:- Response to Deborah -:- Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 19:40:09 (EST)

__ __ Deborah -:- Re: Response to John's response to me -:- Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 21:25:47 (EST)

Date: Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 19:32:01 (EST) From: JHB Email: None To: All Subject: Rollercoasters, feelings, and the forum Message:

I will try to address Jim’s comments from my 'feelings' thread below, but first an analogy. (Deborah, I will address your comments in a response to this post.) Many people are afraid of riding a rollercoaster. Before riding one for the first time, probably everyone is a little afraid. Some will never ride one because of that fear. Some will ride, overcome their fear, and never be afraid again. Some will ride, and be so afraid they will never ride again. Some will ride, feel fear, but get a buzz out of the fear, and ride again. Now the question is, can the question 'Is a rollercoaster scary?' be answered objectively? Can it be true to say 'No, a rollercoaster isn't scary' when quite clearly it is, and continues to be, for many people. Can it be true to say 'Yes, it is scary', when it quite clearly isn't for many people. No, the fear of a rollercoaster resides in the perception of those who have a view of the rollercoaster. So the question arises; should people be afraid of rollercoasters? Well, those who believe they shouldn't can point the safety record of rollercoasters, and say that the fear is irrational. Conversely, those who are afraid can point to the few disasters that have occurred on rollercoasters. I hope the analogy to the forum is clear. There can be no objective answer to the question 'Is the forum a safe place for premies, waverers, new exes, or even veteran exes, to post?'. If people feel it's not then safe for them, at that time, it's not. If people post, and still feel it's not safe, then again, it's not. If people feel it's not safe, post, and then feel it's OK, then for them the forum becomes a safe place to post. If people never have a fear of posting, then, for them, of course it is safe. For some people it can do some good to tell them that the forum is a safe place. They may listen, try it, and agree. Others may not. Saying that objectively the forum is a safe place to post, or saying that it isn't, are two absolute positions that cannot be supported based on the facts, and those are that some people feel safe and comfortable posting on the forum, and some don't. So to the forum and premies, as I said before, the forum is a negative place, even hateful, to many premies. To wavering premies the forum is at best scary. To dismiss these views by saying they're cult members is to forget our own feelings and perspective when we were premies. I feel fortunate that I was able to overcome my own fear and disgust when I first found EPO to read further. I feel sorry for those who cannot yet. The forum is also a difficult place for many exes, who are unable or unwilling to engage in the type of adversarial debate that occasionally takes place here. Should they be challenged when they say something questionable? Of course they should. Should they be hounded if they don't respond to the challenger's satisfaction? I think not. Am I advocating any changes here? Only minor ones, and a little understanding and acceptance of others' perspectives. I'm certainly not advocating the amusing, but off the point, parody that Jim and Pat engaged in. A little self censorship on some of the more colourful expressions of our feelings might help a little. But the feelings that premies have arise mainly from their cult conditioning, and only a little from seeing posts entitled 'SHUT YOUR FESTERING GOB!!!' (which was title of a post remembered by one private responder to my 'feelings' survey, when they first looked at the forum). So to Katie's post. As I said, I didn't agree with it, but I didn't think it was worth Jim's persistence in trying to get her to support her allegation. Katie probably thought what she said was true, but I doubt she thought it through, or considered that she would be offending some exes here. People have said that Katie has given as good as she gets when she has argued with Jim, but I think there's a difference. Katie gets hurt in those arguments, sometimes very hurt. Now maybe Jim does, but he has never said so. So if Katie tries to argue, she suffers, and if she doesn't then Jim keeps bringing the issue to other threads she participates in, until she feels she is being harassed. I agreed with Jim before that had a premie posted the same thing as Katie, there would have been many responses from exes. We agreed there was a double standard regarding how premies were treated and how Katie was treated. Jim said that it wasn't that premies were treated too harshly, but that Katie wasn't treated harshly enough. The point here is that we give our friends a little slack when they say something we disagree with. We may call them on it, but we don't keep pushing them on the subject every time we meet. Katie has done enough for all of us to deserve a little slack. I have argued with Jim about this many times, and I think the problem is that Jim ignores feelings. I have suggested that when Jim disagrees with Katie, then he should state his position clearly, and if Katie, or anyone else, does not respond, then to drop it. Jim could then 'win' the rational debate and not lose friends. Jim mentioned in a dismissive way that an argument of mine in an earlier post was about 'feelings'. I think feelings are central to the issues here. If we don't take into account how we and others feel about the issues we will not achieve resolution. The only resolution Jim appears to accept is that the other person either convinces Jim by rational argument that their position was true, or they accept that Jim's position was true. Sometimes there is no objective truth, and even where there is, this sort of resolution isn't going to happen every time, or even most times. So for Jim the issue hangs there until next time, and no resolution occurs. To the argument that there is a herd mentality here, this is more difficult to argue, and I am prepared to accept it may not be true, or if it is in evidence, then only in a minor way. Certainly it is subjectively true for some people when they post something controversial, and get many negative responses. I have felt this myself when I've made unpopular decisions as forum FA. But if there is any truth that there is a herd mentality, then it is also true that there are a many free thinking individuals who are not afraid to speak their minds. To the argument that exes have a bias to paint things black, I have argued this privately with Katie, my position being that however black we have painted Maharaji's world, when the facts come out, the situation is worse than we imagined. And now to Janet's post. It's difficult to support Janet at the moment because of her recent stupidity, but the reason I supported her post is because she said what she felt without fear, and I agreed with her central point that one of the main purposes of this forum is to help people escape the cult, and deal with the mental fallout that results when they do escape. When the forum is filled up with a futile argument about what someone meant when they wrote one line it doesn't help. John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 14:08:30 (EST) From: Joe Email: None To: JHB Subject: Great post, but..... Message:

I don't like using the word 'safe' in regard to the Forum. The only way that it's 'unsafe' in my opinion, is, like Tonette said, if you use your own name, post a picture of yourself, or give any personal information, cultmembers might come after you with attack websites, and that can be awful, and in a few cases, tragic. So, in that sense it can be 'unsafe' because we are dealing with a cult. I know of at least one long-time premie who is now an ex who will not post on the forum for that reason, but will provide posts for OTHERS to post for this person. This person is afraid of a CAC-type attack with this person as one of the victims. In regard to the grilling somebody could get for whatever they say here, and getting feelings hurt, etc., that isn't a 'safety' issue because if somebody doesn't want to respond to an attack, they can retreat into the 'safety' of anonymity. 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. That's also partly why so many premies NEVER tell anybody about Maharaji or knowledge, even though M says they are supposed to propagate to people on an individual basis. They might ask troubling questions and it's very difficult to explain, because it makes so little sense. I was talking to a recent ex recently about how some of the most die-hard devotees of M, NEVER tell anybody they are a premie, and certainly not about M or K. So, part of the way to defend a very shakey belief system is simply to not talk about it, or only talk about it to people who will not challenge any of it. A premie is likely to feel, just like John said, that by exposing themselves to the Forum they have put themselves in a dangerous position and that's very uncomfortable, and so they would probably choose not to participate. I think the gist of what Katie was saying was that if it were possible, the Forum could be more of an 'exiting' process, wherein premies could to talked to, made to feel comfortable saying what they believe, asked questions, and slowly have all those beliefs countered and questioned in a more non-confrontational manner. But that isn't going to happen because the Forum is too free-wheeling for that. What I proposed and what I'm surprised hasn't happened, is a group of premies, who think they feel secure in what they believe about Maharaji, to come to the Forum as a group, defend each other, provide support for each other, and respond to the rest of us so that any one premie does hot feel like he or she is the lone dissenter. I think if I was a premie that's what I would do, and I think it would be helpful to both premies and ex-premies if it happened, and from my own Machiavellian viewpoint, it would encourage more premies to come here, and more people would question the things they believe, and that would be to the good. I would like to see that happen, but I doubt it will. It seems the whole thrust of the cult is to just label us as 'negative' and 'hateful' and ignore us. And I think the animosity between Jim and Katie is largely that and goes way beyond a disagreement on some issue or other. There is a real personal hatred there, going both ways, and it's partly due to the fact that they are both incredibly stubborn and are unwilling to let things drop, thus exposing themselves to more of it. So, it keeps coming back. I think that much is obvious.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 22:49:34 (EST) From: Jim Email: None To: Joe Subject: Sure, joe, anything YOU say Message:

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. What she said, Joe, in case you didn't read it was that she agreed. But then I'm probably getting this all wrong. After all, you're a reasonable guy. I'm just a stubborn one.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 23:43:55 (EST) From: Joe Email: None To: Jim Subject: Sure she agreed Message:

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.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 00:11:03 (EST) From: Jim Email: None To: Joe Subject: That's absurd Message:

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. --- Ah yes, the past. If *I* talk about it, I'm dwelling on it, dredging up ghosts and whatnot. If I don't, then *you* will because, face it, you've got nothing else of substance to say in her defence. Katie was not just talking about me, Joe, let alone about me and her specifically, when 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 to a contradictory point of view. All I did was try to discuss this with her. I WON'T take the blame for her stupid little boo hoo session. Anyway, you've got zero credibility on this issue. First, you tried to say Katie wasn't talking for herself but was only realying what her premie friend thinks. Nice try. Not only did she agree but she even anticipated -- quite rightly -- some opposition as a result. So when I point out to you (as if you didn't already know) that she blatantly, clearly said she agreed, all you can do is lay soem big guilt trip on me for making the forum that way for her. What's kind of nonsense is that? Here's what should happen. Some of her friends, people like you for instance, should force her to justify her statement or retract it. If you don't, don't even begin to pretend that you've got anything like a healthy, mutually respectful friendship with her. See, you talk about the past. Okay, I always wanted to be friends with Katie. Why not? Katie's nice, can be funny ... Katie good. But from early on we got into these identical situations where she'd say shit and refuse to work it through rationally. Yes, that pissed me off. I've never denied it. And if only you guys didn't countenance that shit either, she just might stop, she just might learn something. But no, now we have Victim Katie with all her good friends protecting her. Healthy? No.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 11:41:40 (EST) From: Joe Email: None To: Jim Subject: Get over it Jim Message:

Your being on Katie's case like some kind of dog with a bone, has become mucho boring and mucho tired. I notice that you don't dispute that you hate Katie's guts. Isn't it logical that such an opinion is one of the motivating factors here?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 12:29:44 (EST) From: Jim Email: None To: Joe Subject: Your opinion's marginal on this one Message:

Joe, No, much as you might like to dismiss me as someone with nothing but my own selfish agenda here, you're wrong. And I don't really even hate Katie (althoguh I've sure said I do, at times!). But you haven't been forthright at all herer. Your saying that she didn't agree with her premie friend when she made a point of saying exactly the opposite -- even predicting the inevitable 'flaming' she'd get -- makes YOUR opinion here questionable. Too bad.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 12:56:38 (EST) From: Joe Email: None To: Jim Subject: For Christ's Sake Drop it Message:

Jim, the more you talk about this, the more this sounds like just personal vendetta, with you just saying the same things over and over. This is getting weird.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 23:55:00 (EST) From: Jim Email: None To: Joe Subject: That Message:

[nt]

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 23:55:00 (EST) From: Jim Email: None To: Joe Subject: That Message:

[nt]

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 04:27:18 (EST) From: PatC Email: None To: Jim Subject: Which hand was it (the left or right?;) [nt] Message:

[nt]

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 16:48:55 (EST) From: Brian Smith Email: None To: Joe Subject: You made me realize something, Joe Message:

Unlike many premies who never told anyone about M, I did, I wasn't shy about it at all. A couple of years ago I crashed a community co-ordinator meeting with 4 new aspirants in tow. In hindsight it was probably the best thing that happened to them, seeing for themselves the lame, petty, boring interaction laced with heavy religious undertones between the premies. Even the M video at the close of the program and the impassioned appeal by one of the major church ladies to come back on introductory night didn't impress them. They left never to return. I had thought that it was the usual Tuesday night video drivel and well anyway, it turns out all for the best. I had a guest at my last video event a couple of weeks before I appeared on the forum last year. I think that experience was one of my last drips as well. Here we were, the video operator, the announcer, the table person and light switch person, (go ahead and laugh it was a big service position) one other premie, myself and my guest in this large community room at the library, and thats all there were in attendance. I thought to myself, if these people (premies) really think this is so great how come no-one else is here with guests. I mean why isn't this room full and bursting with energy. It was embarrassing, huge empty room, Morose Premies walking around performing mechanical empty functions, delivering canned deadpanned introductions and instructions, then the slick sappy, syrupy, video production, sheeesh. From reading your post, I think I have just realized why more premies don't propagate or post here Joe. For the most part premies are reluctant take a stand for what they believe in, they shelter their beliefs from confrontation and sequester up in little folds and get together for hushed and private massage sessions here and there nowadays. Premies require this safe shelter from challenge and inquiry, their myths must go unexamined to hold up to simple logic. The movement itself has retreated into safe mode, rather than go out and forage for fresh new prospects it is much safer and less confrontational to cannibalize its own for inspiration and participation. I had no qualms about sharing my beliefs about the cult when I was in it, I felt that it was my duty to do so even. That is probably why I feel no fear or hesitation about posting my views and revelations as an ex-premie out here today, I bring the same passion and committment to my experience here as an ex as I did when I was in the cult as a premie. Whether or not M or the cult realizes it or acknowledges it, they lost a damn good soldier when I left.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 16:36:42 (EST) From: Deborah Email: None To: Joe Subject: Great post Joe--I agree w/everything [nt] Message:

[nt]

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 14:17:18 (EST) From: JHB Email: None To: Joe Subject: Re: Great post, but..... Message:

Joe, I struggled with the word 'safe' but I couldn't find an alternative. The point is that it's a subjective feeling, so it doesn't matter if the forum is objectively a safe place, if people feel it's unsafe then for them it is unsafe. I also agree that this place is very unlikely to become a place where premies can go through the exiting process. The premies who manage to overcome whatever fear they have and post here seem to be the diehards that are unlikely to exit soon. Those premies who are likely to exit, do so pretty quickly after reading EPO and the forum. Sandy, Dog, and Mel appear to be unusual in this respect. John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 16:22:06 (EST) From: Lesley Email: None To: JHB Subject: Safety on the edge Message:

You might be feeling a bit sick, but the last thing you look at is your connection to Maharaji. So when you come here for the first time, it is like having your brother turn to you and say 'that tummy ache you've got is because Dad is feeding you poisoned apples.' Quickly, I understood that I had to work it out for myself, and that the only way to do that was to speak up, draw some lines in the sand, as it were, and discover what I DID think, and, very importantly, find out what others thought. But, you have to remember, this is open heart surgery; the only way I could resolve the need to converse with my peers with my emotional commitment to Maharaji was to trust, trust like a child. The responses I received were frightening, bewildering and hurtful, and also kind and encouraging. I gratefully accepted the help, and I decided to address the scary ones, (and they were scary, due to making a misunderstood joke I got cyber screamed at), and so, in the doing set my feet firmly on the exhilarating path to personal autonomy and freedom from Rawatworld. I do not think it is a given, however, that people will successfully negotiate the move. I cannot, for instance, imagine that it is humanly possible for Mr Rawat to manage it, the sheer weight of bad behaviour that he is accountable for seems to argue against a successful transition back to the real world. But nothing, imo, will change the fact that this forum exists at the edge. On the one hand you have people who are completely blocked from feeling their own anger, they are too busy flatlining on 'The Feeling', ascribing everything to Maharaji and Knowledge; the last thing a premie wants is the company of someone who is expressing anger, it just might make them feel their own, and that is a truly frightening prospect. On the other hand, you have people who ARE becoming emotionally accountable, accepting their feelings, making their first moves in learning how to express them safely and responsibly; and, of course, there IS a lot of anger involved in discovering the con.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 16:29:45 (EST) From: Joe Email: None To: Lesley Subject: Terrific Insights, Lesley Message:

It is especially hard for those who are just discovering the anger that has been repressed to refrain from directing it at those who apologize for Maharaji, or who attack those expressing the anger for even having it. What you said about someone knowing that they had to 'work it out' for themselves is so true. If you get to that point, then I think this place is very valuable. Until somebody gets there, this place just seems like a bunch of angry, screwed up people, who insist on seeing nothing positive about Maharaji.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 16:41:14 (EST) From: Lesley Email: None To: Joe Subject: Thanks Joe, and ditto nt Message:

xox

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 14:44:53 (EST) From: PatC Email: None To: JHB Subject: ''Safe'' vs ''cozy'' Message:

As Joe pointed out the only unsafe thing is to reveal too much personal info. Not only this forum but the entire internet chat culture is not cozy and never will be. The medium is harsh. Not even Life is Great is cozy. But ''safe?'' Of course it is. There's no danger except to egos and ideas. John, change the word to ''cozy.''

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 09:35:53 (EST) From: Tonette Email: None To: JHB Subject: Great post. A little of my perspective Message:

This forum was one of the most emotionally charged encounters that I had had for a long time. All the content aside, here on the forum, on EPO, Maharaji's House and what was Sir Dave's site, the reckoning with and reclaiming of my soul, my mind and my heart was attention getting to me to say the least. I think there are phases here new posters, ex's and premies go thru. Kinda like the stages of death. Denial, bargaining, acceptance, etc. And, make no mistake, one does have to have a thick skin to post here and understand some of the rules of the road on this forum. For one, it is a bit of a cliche. Alot of people know each other here both in real life or from their involvement in the cult. Two, this form of communication is severly handicapped in that, it lacks all the normal communicative cues: body language, voice inflection and eye contact to name a few. That's a potential for alot of misunderstandings to say the least. This form of non-verbal communication has labeled the forum as harsher than it really is. Gosh, if you're the least bit sensitive, as I am, you DREAD reading replies to your posts. That's just me and I am NOT a wimp in real life! So far from it! Replies can sometimes be stinging but a new poster has to realize the nature of this communication. I can't think of anyone here as a true beast. Let's say it's a learned skill, to post here without heart failure. Three, if you're not a professional writer, one is severly handicapped here. Some of these people have such a talent for writing and expressing their thoughts and feeling in the format of the written word it is very confronting for a person like me. My weakest intellectual avenue. But shit, if I can let myself hang out here and be accepted, so can anyone! As far as being truly safe: it's not! Posting here carries some risk from what I have seen. My advice is to never, ever post your personal information not even your picture unless that sort of thing doesn't matter to you. I accept and understand why posters here use alias, if you do that, use an alias, and want to remain incognito, it is relativly safe to post here. And just when in the hell can someone install spell check to use with these posts! Just my thoughts and some of what I've learned since reading and posting here. Warm regards to all, Tonette

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 09:52:16 (EST) From: JHB Email: None To: Tonette Subject: Dreading Replies Message:

Tonette, Excellent description of how many people feel about this forum. You talk about dreading responses to your posts. Well, join the club - I'm currently dreading Jim's response to this thread, and I feel like a seasoned veteran:-) John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 12:10:09 (EST) From: Jim Email: None To: JHB Subject: Yea, there's a reason for that Message:

John, You have, just like I warned you, completely twisted the issue out of shape. This isn't about whether or not people feel safe or are scared posting here. It's trite, at best, to say that cultmembers might have some trepidation crossing the line. No one was arguing about that although it sure does provide a very nice 'apple pie' soapbox to stand on. No, John, the issue, much as you might like to obscure it, was what do you or any of us say to Katie's opinion that we're no better than premies, when it comes to facing reality honestly. You said we tend to cut our friends some slack? Tell me about it! In this case, Katie attacked all of us, I called her on it and you told me it just made me look foolish. Then Janet wrote yet another of her crazy, dumb ass posts, this time calling us all a herd of wild dogs and me too narcissistic to see straight and you and my good friend Fran congratulated her on it. Yeah, John, we really do take care of our friends, don't we? I got attacked by a cat last night -- no shit -- and my hand's completely swollen up. Plus, I've got to run off to court in a few minutes anyway. So, you're spared a line-by-line response right now. But maybe you can anticipate mine anyway and get ready for your next move. Here, as a reminder, is what bothered me about Katie's post: 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 to a contradictory point of view. I won't bother finding Janet's. All I ever wanted -- all I've ever wanted -- was to hash this sutff out, hopefully for once and for all, with Katie. Deborah's right. Katie's always saying stuff like this. She's always the first one to agree with premies, for example, that 'there are assholes on both sides', that kind of thing. What she said here, obviously, is much worse. I mean, if we're no more open to reality than CURRENT CULT MEMBERS, what's the point, huh? But every single time this has happened, Katie's hidden behind well-meaning friends like you. I'm sick of it. No one else would get away with this. Why her?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 21:08:42 (EST) From: Jim Fan Email: None To: Jim Subject: 'there are assholes on both sides'?? Message:

Katie.... How could you say that and look yerself in the eye again? gawd woman, where's ye self respect? There are no aresholes on our side none, none at all haven't you even noticed that katie? you shpuld be banned to LG where they are ALL arseholes! yes, every last dam one of them and we,re all good true defenders of the faith shamne on you Katie for speaking ouyt of line!!!!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 13:32:52 (EST) From: Francesca Email: None To: Jim Subject: Agree - disagree Message:

Jim: You're twisting around just what I agreed and disagreed with about Janet's post -- as I stated then, I did not agree with all of it, and didn't give a blow-by-blow breakdown of what I agreed with and what I didn't in all the things that Janet put out there. I had another post in that same thread responding to Joe and Katie that agreed with some of your ideas, as well as some other people's. And I do NOT want to dredge up the whole ugly mess and rehash it, but since you merely dredged up this little piece: '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.' The one 'paradigm' every 'reasonable premie' is going to come upon here is that Maharaji is not a good person. To follow him and revere him is to be in a cult. Thinking that he is a 'master' of anything except making lots of bucks is magical thinking. If premies don't like that, so be it. As I said in my other post, this is not going to be a premie-friendly forum for premies in the post-fence-sitting position. It can't be all things to all people. If someone wants a forum with that sort of 'theme,' they are going to have to create it and maintain it instead of trying to make this forum be something it is not. But I agree with some of the other things John said about your debate style and not letting certain contentious discussions drop. And I just went to a funeral yesterday and I am not in the mood to pick hairs with you. You tend not to want to drop certain discussions and it gets tiresome to me. People do not need to answer to your satisfaction in order for their ideas to be just as valid as yours. One of the points that Janet made that I agreed with was in regard to the use of your lawyering skills. Don't get me wrong, they are a part of your skill set and they are going to be used. It is a trial lawyer's job to defend his or her client, and you often defend your ideas with similar zeal. Sometimes I'm not sure whether you want to get at the heart of things with people or just be 'right.' You have all the tools to get them in the witness box, and make them squirm. Some people have been grateful to you for helping them break down their cult thinking in this manner, so it is not all bad for all people. But for some people, this style of encounter does not advance the ball. I normally do not like to talk to people on this forum in the manner that I am talking to you now. I'd rather attack ideas than people themselves, and I hope you don't see this as an attack, because it is not. But you keep pushing the issue here and asking for comments. However, I also get tired of all the people who accuse this Forum of not being 'open' whenever they don't like something, be it what people say, passwords or not, on and on. Why does it have to be 'open'?? And what does that mean exactly? Why the obsession with it? I don't have a religion about being 'open' either. I am not going to discuss Katie with you, because I'm not here to pick apart people -- I'm here to pick apart a cult. --f

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 22:35:11 (EST) From: Jim Email: None To: Francesca Subject: Let's do a few lawyer jokes, huh? Message:

Jim: You're twisting around just what I agreed and disagreed with about Janet's post -- as I stated then, I did not agree with all of it, and didn't give a blow-by-blow breakdown of what I agreed with and what I didn't in all the things that Janet put out there. I had another post in that same thread responding to Joe and Katie that agreed with some of your ideas, as well as some other people's. And I do NOT want to dredge up the whole ugly mess and rehash it, but since you merely dredged up this little piece: '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.' The one 'paradigm' every 'reasonable premie' is going to come upon here is that Maharaji is not a good person. To follow him and revere him is to be in a cult. Thinking that he is a 'master' of anything except making lots of bucks is magical thinking. If premies don't like that, so be it. As I said in my other post, this is not going to be a premie-friendly forum for premies in the post-fence-sitting position. It can't be all things to all people. If someone wants a forum with that sort of 'theme,' they are going to have to create it and maintain it instead of trying to make this forum be something it is not. But I agree with some of the other things John said about your debate style and not letting certain contentious discussions drop. And I just went to a funeral yesterday and I am not in the mood to pick hairs with you. You tend not to want to drop certain discussions and it gets tiresome to me. People do not need to answer to your satisfaction in order for their ideas to be just as valid as yours. One of the points that Janet made that I agreed with was in regard to the use of your lawyering skills. Don't get me wrong, they are a part of your skill set and they are going to be used. It is a trial lawyer's job to defend his or her client, and you often defend your ideas with similar zeal. Sometimes I'm not sure whether you want to get at the heart of things with people or just be 'right.' You have all the tools to get them in the witness box, and make them squirm. Some people have been grateful to you for helping them break down their cult thinking in this manner, so it is not all bad for all people. But for some people, this style of encounter does not advance the ball. I normally do not like to talk to people on this forum in the manner that I am talking to you now. I'd rather attack ideas than people themselves, and I hope you don't see this as an attack, because it is not. But you keep pushing the issue here and asking for comments. However, I also get tired of all the people who accuse this Forum of not being 'open' whenever they don't like something, be it what people say, passwords or not, on and on. Why does it have to be 'open'?? And what does that mean exactly? Why the obsession with it? I don't have a religion about being 'open' either. I am not going to discuss Katie with you, because I'm not here to pick apart people -- I'm here to pick apart a cult. --f --- Fran, Q: How can you tell when a lawyer's abusing his lawyering skills? A: You can't. But you might want to say he is if you're trying to say things to him without him responding.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 15:56:22 (EST) From: Moley Email: moldy_warp@hotmail.com To: Francesca Subject: Jim ain't a cult leader Message:

You said,amongst other things, re: Jim - Some people have been grateful to you for helping them break down their cult thinking in this manner, so it is not all bad for all people. But for some people, this style of encounter does not advance the ball. Surely that comment applies to everyone who posts here - i.e. that individual style(s) of encounter go down differently with different folk.What I can't get my head round is why Jim gets singled out for his particular style. He's a poster like the rest of us, with his own style - people can take it or leave it. If Jim tend(s) not to want to drop certain discussions and it gets tiresome to me well then, don't reply - just read another thread instead.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 17:57:56 (EST) From: JHB Email: None To: Moley Subject: Moley, Jim sometimes won't let go Message:

You said,amongst other things, re: Jim - Some people have been grateful to you for helping them break down their cult thinking in this manner, so it is not all bad for all people. But for some people, this style of encounter does not advance the ball. Surely that comment applies to everyone who posts here - i.e. that individual style(s) of encounter go down differently with different folk.What I can't get my head round is why Jim gets singled out for his particular style. He's a poster like the rest of us, with his own style - people can take it or leave it. If Jim tend(s) not to want to drop certain discussions and it gets tiresome to me well then, don't reply - just read another thread instead. --- Moley, I got into this debate because Katie posted something that was critical of exes, and Jim wouldn't let go. If Jim followed your advice and read another thread instead, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. There are debates where there clearly is an objective truth, and debates where there isn't. For the latter, everyone has their own opinions, and has the right to express their opinions. Everyone else has the right to disagree, but how many times? John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 19:11:47 (EST) From: M oley Email: moldy-warp@hotmail.com To: JHB Subject: Re: Moley, Jim sometimes won't let go Message:

But why should he????? You said: If Jim followed your advice and read another thread instead, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. That wasn't my advice to Jim. It was advice to those who keep on whining about him. If you don't like the heat - get outa the kitchen.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 20:01:14 (EST) From: Deborah Email: None To: M oley Subject: But why should he????? I & others asked as well Message:

I don't know why JHB keeps changing the topic. Thank you for clarifying that for him. Fuck, this is not brain surgery. JHB, what part don't you understand? I responded, Pat responded, Dermot responded, I believe Nige (and now Moley) not to mention others whose names I can't recall. Jim and Katie do have history. Yes! That, however, is BESIDE the point. If people want to offer criticism, they should be able to back it up. Katie has responded to many of Jim's posts. Why was it so hard to respond to that one? It is too convenient to use Jim's debate tactics as an excuse for Katie. And Jim's questions to you were also about your opinions. It was not all about Katie. You are dragging this episode out much farther than it should by going round in circles and blaming Jim for not letting go. And we should not hold Jim's ability to debate logically and coherently against him. Is it logical to assume that we are better than Jim because of our debating inadequacies? None of the people around Jim in real life accuse him of the shit people do here. Probably because his sense of humour is so evident. He is hugely admired by all of his friends for his razor sharp wit and friendliness. And these people come from all walks of life. I'm getting a little tired of reading about his perceived faults. I qualify as a witness to the contrary. John, please stay on topic. You are inadvertantly doing more harm to this discussion by attacking Jim's character. His astute critical thinking is not a personality flaw.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 19:30:42 (EST) From: JHB Email: None To: M oley Subject: Re: Moley, Jim sometimes won't let go Message:

Jim should let go because we are human beings with our own opinions, perspectives, biases, and failings; and if we have any chance of living with each other we need a little tolerance and understanding. Katie is also not perfect, and expresses views that others don't agree with. When challenged, sometimes she tries to argue, but lately she finds it too painful. Katie has now got out of the kitchen which I think is sad. Why can't people express their disagreements and then drop it? Imagine if I chased you all over this forum pushing you on something you said. Would you be obliged to respond to everything I asked? And if it's an issue that is clearly a matter of subjective opinion, then how could the issue be resolved? Read the whole thread. Jim is a great guy, with tremendous tenacity in debate, but he can be a pain in the arse. Even in this debate he 'reminded' me that I hadn't responded three or four times. John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 20:29:16 (EST) From: Deborah Email: None To: JHB Subject: Circular argument JHB [nt] Message:

[nt]

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 20:28:53 (EST) From: Moley Email: None To: JHB Subject: JHB - But who is tolerant of whom??? Message:

It cuts both ways, surely... You said: Jim should let go because we are human beings with our own opinions, perspectives, biases, and failings; and if we have any chance of living with each other we need a little tolerance and understanding. Katie is also not perfect, and expresses views that others don't agree with. When challenged, sometimes she tries to argue, but lately she finds it too painful. Look - Sorry John, I just don't get it. I don't get what's wrong with challenges (to Katie, or anyone else). I just don't get why people shoot Jim down. You have your own style, I have mine - Jim has his - surely that's the point. Jim deserves as much tolerance as anyone else. Is this a chivalry thing going on here???? If Katie was a man and Jim a woman, would people leap to Katie's defence at the expense of Jim, I wonder??

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 01:49:27 (EST) From: JHB Email: None To: Moley Subject: Re: JHB - But who is tolerant of whom? Message:

Moley, Read what I said. Of course if someone says something we think is wrong they should be challenged on it, but what happens if they don't respond, or respond a couple of times and then give up? If I disagree with you, how many times should I raise the issue? Once, twice, ten times? Tell me please. John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 07:34:42 (EST) From: Moley Email: None To: JHB Subject: Re: JHB - But who is tolerant of whom? Message:

Moley, Read what I said. Of course if someone says something we think is wrong they should be challenged on it, but what happens if they don't respond, or respond a couple of times and then give up? If I disagree with you, how many times should I raise the issue? Once, twice, ten times? Tell me please. John. --- I did read what you said John. I can see that you think it is some kind of harrassment to go chasing folk round the forum trying to get them to respond. I just don't see it like that though. If you disagreed with me and raised the issue 20 times - well, fair enough. If I ignored you, that's my perogative - fair enough too. Hey, maybe this conversation between you and me will end up like that :)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 09:42:13 (EST) From: JHB Email: None To: Moley Subject: Exactly my point! Message:

Moley, Good example - yes, I do think that is harrasment, especially if it's the twentieth time it's happened, but you disagree. See, we are allowed to disagree, and as harrasment is something that's not black and white, we can disagree and neither of us can reasonably claim the absolute truth in the matter. Disagreements are surely allowed here. John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 09:57:26 (EST) From: Moley Email: None To: JHB Subject: No: Exactly My point! Message:

Moley, Good example - yes, I do think that is harrasment, especially if it's the twentieth time it's happened, but you disagree. See, we are allowed to disagree, and as harrasment is something that's not black and white, we can disagree and neither of us can reasonably claim the absolute truth in the matter. Disagreements are surely allowed here. John. --- John, Disagreements ARE allowed here. Otherwise it would be akin to a fascist state. I don't think trying to get someone to engage with you is harrassment. On the contrary - if someone says something as contentious as Katie did, then buggers off and refuses to engage with people, then what do you expect to happen? It's passive-aggressive to say controversial things and then disappear. Believe me, I'm well experienced on this score. Pass-agg behaviour gets people's backs up big time - and so it should. It stinks. BTW You can keep on at me as much as you like - 20 times or more - I won't think you're harrassing me. For Gawd's sake it's not as if you are banging on my front door or camping in me garden or something - it's only words and I don't have to read it if I don't want to, but that shouldn't stop you trying to get me to talk to you. (Same applies to the Jim and Katie scenario, of course) Moley

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 19:58:23 (EST) From: Selene Email: None To: JHB Subject: cliche but - its deja vu all over again Message:

But I can't recall anyone dying to jump into my fights with Jim and that is overall a good thing. On my own, through these dialogs, I have found out that he is willing to talk and work things out, he asks the same from the other party. But he sure slow at returning email. fourth request Jim. This whole thread is making me wonder why it is here. I think premies who can't handle this place need to go back, read all the pages on EPO, and make some life decisions. This place is getting a lot easier, civil. What's the big deal? The forum 4 or 5 or whatever it was didn't convert me the information did. And a lot of drips and self analysis and a now very grateful push out the door by a few mean premies. good riddance.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 13:32:29 (EST) From: JHB Email: None To: Jim Subject: Re: Yea, there's a reason for that Message:

Jim, I haven't missed the point, but you have completely missed mine. You repeatedly say that Katie is always doing this, and yet you have this stupid belief that somehow by hounding her when she does say something that offends you, you will get her to discuss it and eventually change her mind. So she says she doesn't think all exes are perfect. Big deal. I don't think all exes are perfect either. For example, in case you haven't noticed, I don't think you're perfect. You say:- All I ever wanted -- all I've ever wanted -- was to hash this sutff out, hopefully for once and for all, with Katie. I'll tell you how this is going to happen, if at all. You and Katie make up and become friends. You talk about your lives, films, music, relationships, soil management, the problems defending clients you don't like, laugh and joke about the stupidity of young people believing a teenager from India is God in a bod, go out for a few beers together, and then, maybe, after a couple of years, you can begin to talk about your differences on this forum. Is this clear? John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 22:30:07 (EST) From: Jim Email: None To: JHB Subject: Sure, john, anything you say Message:

Jim, I haven't missed the point, but you have completely missed mine. You repeatedly say that Katie is always doing this, and yet you have this stupid belief that somehow by hounding her when she does say something that offends you, you will get her to discuss it and eventually change her mind. So she says she doesn't think all exes are perfect. Big deal. I don't think all exes are perfect either. For example, in case you haven't noticed, I don't think you're perfect. You say:- All I ever wanted -- all I've ever wanted -- was to hash this sutff out, hopefully for once and for all, with Katie. I'll tell you how this is going to happen, if at all. You and Katie make up and become friends. You talk about your lives, films, music, relationships, soil management, the problems defending clients you don't like, laugh and joke about the stupidity of young people believing a teenager from India is God in a bod, go out for a few beers together, and then, maybe, after a couple of years, you can begin to talk about your differences on this forum. Is this clear? John. --- Yes, John, you're completely right. I missed your point entirely. All Katie was saying was that she doesn't think all exes are perfect. You know, that really shook me up. See, unlike Katie, I DO happen to think that all exes are perfect. I felt deeply betrayed to think she'd say otherwise. And yes, more importantly, I always assumed you thought I was perfect too. Thanks so much for being a real friend and setting me straight. I know I get a bit carried away. So I guess all that's left now is for me to apologize to Katie. After all, here I was bitching about how she was accusing exes of distorting reality so negatively, and every bit as much as CURRENT CULT MEMBERS do, such that reasonable premies can't get a fair hearing, but I was wrong. She never said anything of the sort. Guess I should start taking Janet's meds if she's not going to use them.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 01:58:18 (EST) From: JHB Email: None To: Jim Subject: Re: Sure, john, anything you say Message:

Jim, She did say what you say she said. You and I and Pat and Deborah disagreed. She didn't come back with a response on-line. As far as I can see that's about it. Was there something else? John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 02:42:02 (EST) From: Jim Email: None To: JHB Subject: You don't get b/c you don't WANT to get it Message:

Katie dissed this whole forum. She said it wasn't fair or open. No, not just that some premies don't think it is but that she doesn't either. It's our anti-Maharaji paradigm, after all. We're as imbalanced as the premies and therefore it's nothing but our fault that reasonable premies don't get a fair hearing. That's an ugly insult to all of use here. You call me stupid for persisting in trying to make her explain herself. Well, maybe I am. But tell me, John, how stupid are you for going so far as to minimize Katie's comments as nothing more than saying that not all exes are perfect? Why did you do that? Why did Joe try to say that Katie was only relaying what her premie friend said and not her own opinion even though she went out of her way to say that she agreed and even expected to get 'flamed' for it? I'll tell you why. Because you refuse to face the facts. Remember Glasser? Remember Katie and Brian telling him in email that we're like an ugly mob here or whatever they said? Was that something else you just 'didn't agree' with? I don't know what your trip is but it isn't honest. If you were honest you wouldn't have to evade, twist, minimize, any of it. You had absolutely no problem telling Janet she was stupid when she was. You had no problem calling me stupid just because you felt like it. But Katie says this kind of garbage and you're strangely silent. As you yourself said, you cut your friends some slack. From that I'll accept that your loyalty to Katie is stronger than your loyalty to the truth. I'm not impressed.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 04:33:09 (EST) From: JHB Email: None To: Jim Subject: But, Jim, I did disagree with Katie Message:

What more do you want? For Katie, the forum is not open or fair. That's her view of it. For me, it's open but not always fair. That's my view. Your view is presumably it's always open and fair. I minimise Katies comments because I genuinely wasn't offended by them. Can you accept this? Katie has been hurt on this forum so she has a negative view of it. What are the facts I won't accept? My mother thinks I'm stupid to be still spending time on the guru. Should I be arguing with her every time I see her? I really don't understand why you allow the comments of someone you don't even like to affect you so much. BTW, Katie never wrote to Glasser, Brian did. Katie assures me, and I believe her, that she never saw Brian's mail before he sent it. John. John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 12:08:37 (EST) From: Jim Email: None To: JHB Subject: I'll try to explain Message:

I minimise Katies comments because I genuinely wasn't offended by them. Can you accept this? No. Not in the slightest. Perhaps you could explain what you mean because, to me, that's a big non sequitor. Nor do I even accept that Katie's been hurt on this forum. It's all a myth. Katie's been hounded, often by me, exactly like she is now. That's not being hurt. Look, I hesitate to bring this up but feel that in the interest of honesty I must. A long time ago, after Katie and Brian hooked up, when Brian was webmaster of the whole enchilada -- and Katie was what, his 'assistant'? -- Brian wrote a long and dramatic denunciation of me. I was a stunted human being without compassion, cruel, you name it. With Katie, however, he had learnt a better way. As he said then, he never wanted to see me, talk with me, have anything to do with me, that's how bad I was -- and that's how promising, warm and humane his new path was, the one he learned from Katie. Ever since then, not often but from time to time, Katie has taken these little pot shots at exes. The culmination of this was in her and Brian's correspondence with Glasser. It was indeed a complete betrayal of the ex-premies, I don't care what you say. Here was a guy who lambasted all of us as crazy, ugly misfits, drug addicts, etc., who was hell-bent on intimidating and shutting us up, and what were the two people who held the keys to this online presence doing? Distancing themselves from us. What they said about me personally was much worse but it wasn't just me. It was all of us. And no, I don't buy for a moment that Katie wasn't fully involved in, if not those actual emails, sharing the mindset with Brian that led to that betrayal. So, fortunately, the truth came out and Brian finally gave up his stranglehold on EPO in disgrace. Good riddance! And Katie, too, said that she was gone and, given how she seemed to sincerely feel about exes, that was good too. But, of course, she, like many of us, just can't stay away. So Katie comes back and, warm and intelligent as she is, she makes friends with everyone. Not just here but on RE, he own protected little corner of the world, the 'Jim-free' forum, if you will. Fine. So be it. I see a certain divisiveness in it all; if there's a single ex that's settled in there who we don't know, how can that ever be a good thing? if there's a single good story that's ever told there that we don't hear, well, this forum is all about good stories, too bad for us. But I accept it, more or less. But then when she comes over here and says something like that, not, the bullshit spin you put on it, John, that 'not all exes are perfect' but that, in fact, we're no better than cult members, sorry, them's fighting words. It is indeed an insult against us all and every last one of us who post here regularly should have felt that insult. Instead, you guys can't bear to face the facts and I get branded a bad guy. Anyway, the way I see it, if you don't confrotn Katie when she disses the forum like that, you've given up your right to do so with others. We need to stand together against those kinds of lies, not look the other way or even countenance them. They're like mental viruses and are all the more troublesome when they come from one of our most loved and cherished so-called friends.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 21:29:07 (EST) From: Moley Email: None To: Jim Subject: ***Says it all - brilliant post Jim***nt Message:

xxx

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Dec 04, 2001 at 18:12:00 (EST) From: JHB Email: None To: Jim Subject: I'm not with you Message:

Jim, I guess I just don't see things your way. I said I wasn't offended by Katie's comments which is true. I also wasn't offended by Glasser's comments. I thought they were a joke that reflected badly on Glasser. I think he quickly saw that himself, and toned down his site. Glasser is a premie, like we were. One day he will be posting here apologising for his cult thinking, and we will understand, as we were also deluded at one time. I think it might be helpful if I try to state my current position on Maharaji. I think he's a fraud who is in it for the money, and, to a lesser extent, for the adulation. Contrary to Katie, I want to bring him down, but I'm not going to go too far out of my way to do it. I've given him enough of my life already. I am happy to look after EPO for the time being, but I will only relinquish it when I've had enough and I find someone who I trust to take over. Premies are not the enemy, regardless of what they write on the internet. I will confront them when it feels right, and I will even agree with them when they are right. Mostly of course they are very wrong, but unless Maharaji'ism becomes a religion, passed down from generation to generation, almost all premies will become exes before they die. Have you seen the images from Afghanistan of Taliban fighters giving up, but instead of being arrested as prisoners of war, they were allowed to keep their weapons and join the fight against the Taliban. I think that's what's happening here. Brian gave up EPO because he was tired of the conflicts, and had found someone he could trust to take over. That's not to say that I share the same beliefs and values as Brian, but we both support the integrity of EPO. Anyway, to your final paragraph:- Anyway, the way I see it, if you don't confront Katie when she disses the forum like that, you've given up your right to do so with others. We need to stand together against those kinds of lies, not look the other way or even countenance them. They're like mental viruses and are all the more troublesome when they come from one of our most loved and cherished so-called friends. Is this the world you inhabit? Well I don't. My integrity is not damaged by the choices of fights to fight. 'We' are not a group that needs to 'stand together', we are a group of individuals who may at times agree to stand together for a particular fight. CAC was such a fight. Katie's opinions are not, IMO. John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 14:13:48 (EST) From: Joe Email: None To: JHB Subject: Right John Message:

See my post above, regarding the 'stubborness' and the 'mutual hatred' that exists between Jim and Katie. It's mostly a personal thing.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 03:39:43 (EST) From: Janet Email: None To: JHB Subject: thank you john Message:

this is about resolve and courage. before you judge me, read to the very last word. thank you everyone who commented in my defense yesterday, and in the future. I want to underscore, to all of you, that when i made my post, the other day, about my sentiments towards the cash darshan donations, I made it in full awareness of what could conceivably come to me for daring the devil and standing out so defiantly. It says, at the forum intro, that whoever posts here, speaks strictly for themselves, and takes sole responsibility for what they put up. When I uttered my thoughts, I put on that armor, before ever picking up my sword/pen/keyboard. as John has correctly deduced, some never feel any fear about posting here, and do it without trepidation. for them, it is never an issue. for others, they have fear, but they confront it, and dare to follow their will, and speak, in spite of it. I want to make known to you all, I am sometimes the first, and sometimes the second. but I seethe when i catch myself cowering, and voluntarily crippling my reality, in fear of speaking what is in me. If i see myself diminishing to exist like that, I will resign from having a life on this planet, rather than take living by those conditions. They will not want to have me here, and i will not agree to remaining in a world like that. so at least on that, we will cordially agree-- and i will fulfill two parties' agendas in good faith. Now: If any of you who got distressed about my thread, yesterday, read far enough below the 'horizon', (into the 700 posts total) I ultimately said OK, forget it, I was dropping the subject, already. This, after having owned my awareness of my own state of mind. I made public my knowing I was exploding thru another level of decultification, expressing long buried anger and rage, reaching another benchmark of recovering my ordinary nature, incorporating-- and even reveling in-- the negative side of myself, that for 3 decades was masked, under 'saintlier than thou'falsehoods of feeling and affect. all this, I made clearly extant. I defined myself as apart from the group. I took pains to absolve Jim of being in any way connected to my liability. I clarified for Deb, that when i referred to 'the brainless', I was not drawing a small, local circle, but a vast one. Some called me stupid. I am not stupid. Was I reckless? Seeing as how I reckoned, and I reckoned again, before resolving that I had to say what was with me, no. You could not say I was reckless. People have lay down in the path of the Death Trains, have chained themselves to old growth redwoods, sank on the Rainbow Warrior at the hands of the French nuclear testers. They did not do it recklessly. They called it Civil Disobedience, and they went into it knowing full well how it might end. So did the monks who set themselves afire. while what i posted might have frightened some of you here, I counted on your ultimately understanding my need to dare it, and I was not wrong, as it turns out. You understood and let me. Thank you for that. Now--that said, let me make clear:: I am not going to go creating a false scare at some program, with white powder in an envelope. I am not advocating that anybody do it, or dose the cult leader with anthrax. Innocents would get hurt or die, the perpetrator would as well, in the process, and it is not what we are about, here, at all. What i voiced was a conjecture about aversion therapy, a scenario, in which i imagined an instance, where a man, known to crave untraceable volumes of cash in staggering amounts, with impunity, might be permanently shocked into fearing it forever. I was having and expressing what might be called a moment of black humor, or morbid humor, or forbidden humor. I have not the means to enact it, nor do i think anyone else does, or ought. To think on it is not a crime. To express thinking on it is not a crime. Doing it is a crime. I am absolutely through with being controlled by fear. From any direction.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 16:07:30 (EST) From: PatD Email: None To: Janet Subject: Recovering your ordinary nature..... Message:

....is irrelevant. Going back is impossible. Maybe you mean abandoning certain notions will leave you in the state of mind you were in before you took them up. Not so. Anger at being duped is understandable,fantasising about what you'd like to do to the bastard ditto,although it's not conducive to mental health,but shouting the fantasy from the rooftops is pointless & very bad news for the neighbours. (Agent 008 & a half....please..I don't like being woken up at 4 in the morning.) C'mon Janet, I can handle people using the 'f' word but the 'a' word is waaaaay beyond the pale.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 15:28:09 (EST) From: Nigel Email: nigel@redcrow.demon.co.uk To: Janet Subject: For goodness' sake, Janet... Message:

I don't know whether it shows more respect to assume you need your medication (as many here have done), or to accept your recent posts as a true reflection of how you naturally are, Janet. Whatever - in the context of what I want to say, it makes no difference. Lower down you talk about feeling no fear and being willing to face whatever consequences arise from the things you say (that was a paraphrase - correct me if you didn't mean that). The thing is, Janet, however strongly you maintain that: ' I have not the means to enact it, nor do i think anyone else does, or ought. To think on it is not a crime. To express thinking on it is not a crime. Doing it is a crime', the fact remains that any reasonable person might interpret your anthrax post as incitement to commit a criminal offence. What you intended is irrelevant. What you posted is entirely relevant - and you wouldn't be the only person liaible to face the repercussions, which might have been serious had the post been allowed to remain. Can't you see that? Even now, you appear to be justifying what you wrote. I think an apology to Gerry would be in order, at the very least. Presumably there are some people here whose opinions you respect (I have no idea whether that includes me - no matter) and who have, delicately or otherwise, tried to point out the obvious: that the risks you take personally are your right and nobody else's business, provided you do it elsewhere, but the risks you take with the integrity and possibly the future of this forum are everybody's business - even those of us who lack your self-proclaimed braininess. I hope the medication is the problem, and I hope you sort it out - not least for your own sake. I suggest you read Tonette's post a couple of times.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 11:54:34 (EST) From: Jim Email: None To: Janet Subject: Get real Message:

The more you pontificate on this, the stupier you sound. How dare you or anyone use this forum as a means to tempt trouble from anyone outside here! Whether it be the cult going to town in its CAC-like attacks -- can you even begin to imagine how much hay they'd try to make out of your 'conjecture about aversion therapy'? -- or even some government authority, any such attention to anything anyone of us said here would be extremely detrimental for all. TAKE YOUR MEDS!!!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 09:01:46 (EST) From: Tonette Email: None To: Janet Subject: I'm going to say this as gently as I can Message:

It's obvious from your posting and your general tone that you should not just abandon your meds. You can't just quit psychotropic meds without a doctor's guidance and weaning yourself off. Listen, these meds are very powerful drugs and the least understood of all medications. If you want to ditch some of them that's fine, but, please do so under the watchful eye of your physician, therapist or psychologist. You should not under any circumstances just stop taking them! Besides being dangerous, it leaves you without any transition period. I don't pretend to know the first thing about you. Unfortunately. I would probably find you quite enchanting in real life but.......I do know a little about your effect from reading this forum. Janet, you are brilliant and a great writer. You have also been all over the map emotionally and in your perception this past week or so, at least on this forum. Also you illuminated a personal experience with your son that was way off. Please consider these words from a person who is concerned and not at all ignorant of what you have done in arbitually discontinuing your meds. At least take it a step at a time. PLEASE! Janet, this is your mother speaking. Listen to her. You can't see it but you should take a rain check on being drug free all at once. I love your personality, your medications never hid that aspect of you! Warmly and not just a little worried, Tonette

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 03:57:44 (EST) From: PatC Email: None To: Janet Subject: Not controlled by fear, Janet? Message:

You said: ''I am absolutely through with being controlled by fear. From any direction.'' When one tries to induce fear or wishes fear on another as you did (and still haven't apologised for it but simply rationalized it) you are controlled by fear. You wish what you fear on your enemies. It is obvious to anyone who reads your posts that you are crippled with fear and currently in a very negative and angry state of mind. Rid yourself of your own fears before wishing them on others.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 04:36:08 (EST) From: janet Email: None To: PatC Subject: no, pat. Message:

I'm at where I'm at. No shame. Here, have it back. It's not mine. If you handed me a letter full of anthrax right now, I'd take it from you and tear it open on the spot. I'm through with fear. period. I'm at where I'm at. I'm what I am. I'm not around to please you or live up to what you think I should be or in any other way not be good enough for anyone. oh boo hoo. Pat thinks I'm not loving enough. oh sob. I'm so crushed. I'm not surrendered enough. I don't have 'that understanding'. I'm not in the club. Oh weep weep. I'm not interested, Pat. I'm just living what I am at the moment. And yeah--I have plenty of rage right now. like I told Jim--'blocked? why, no--I'm fairly hemhorraging-- and it feels great. once i got the leeches off me, the blood fairly spurted free. don't worry about the stains. salt water and lukewarm suds will take em right out again'. be whatever. I sure as hell am.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 14:52:25 (EST) From: PatC Email: None To: janet Subject: janet, pendulum swings Message:

Are you sure you haven't swung too far to the other side to prove your freedom? I'm as big of a rebel as you and have done that myself. There really is a happy medium. I hope you realize that I would not bother to talk to you if I did not respect you.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 11:56:28 (EST) From: silvia Email: None To: janet Subject: Please Message:

I do not read all threads, no time, but I'm curious to know what happened with you? Can u direct me to the thred where all started> Curious... Love 2 u, silvia/salsa

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 07:58:34 (EST) From: Sir Dave }( Email: None To: janet Subject: Damn it Janet Message:

I missed all this nasty stuff. What have you been writing to people? I always miss the best bits. Eat plenty of fruit and you won't get blocked. It works for me.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 04:49:02 (EST) From: JHB Email: None To: janet Subject: Janet, we need each other Message:

Janet, The human race has got this far by cooperating with each other. Caring for others is essential to live together successfully, and for own mental health. I don't understand what is upsetting you, but I hope you can find the help you need. John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 00:02:45 (EST) From: Jim Email: None To: JHB Subject: Re: Rollercoasters, feelings, and the forum Message:

John, I think you missed the point but the movie's just started so I'll get back to you later. :)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 22:15:55 (EST) From: Cynthia Email: None To: JHB Subject: It's Not Perfect... Message:

Hello All, I personally am terrified of roller coasters, not because of the rush of the speed which I like, but because I am afraid of heights. I can stand on a mountaintop and look down, but put me on a 40 foot roof and I will not go near the edge. Yet, if my life depended upon it, I would go to the edge of that roof, or climb to the top of a 125' tree and climb down again. I'd probably be in a state of shock, or maybe even faint afterwards. But I would take a risk for my life. Leaving the Maharajism cult is not something I did for fun. I did it to save myself from a life of bondage to a guru who I came to realize never loved me while I devoted my life to him. I believed in all the magic, that he could read my thoughts (which he more than implied) and I believed he was greater than Christ Jesus. When I first came to the forum I was a novice at using computers online. I was also a novice at speaking/writing to people via BBs or any other type of communication. I came here not understanding much except that I wanted to belong here. Why? Because I needed to hear from those who are the only people who can understand what it's like not only to be in a cult, but in our particular cult. I had terrible experiences here until I learned that reading and digesting what's here first before responding is the best recipe for getting along. I've written things here to people and about things that I wish I could take back. In that regard, writing and posting and hitting ''post reply'' is the same as speaking. Once out, once clicked, I can't take it back. The issues discussed in this thread are feelings vs. thinking. We are all different in our orientation, and we fluctuate between how we approach each matter in our lives and what we talk about here. Some people think and keep feelings in the background, some are just the opposite. Some of us know how to keep a balance (I wish I was one of those). One thing I've learned in my life and especially as a married woman, is that I can't expect anyone to change and be different because I want them to change and be different for me. I, however, do have the power to change and be different to improve myself if I want to. On this forum, I don't believe it's my job to ask any premie to give up Maharaji, but I don't expect them to come here and tell me I am wrong about him either. Black and white thinking is incorrect thinking. There is always a grey area that must be considered. Always. When it comes to premies who want to post here but feel afraid, they must realize that they will be welcomed, but not if they wish to distrupt or inflict their black and white thinking upon me. There's always a grey area to consider. Not when it comes to the major issued of this forum, i.e., that maharaji is a fraud and conman and a cult leader, but where premies are in their own places, right now, every day about questioning him. Well, I've managed to ramble quite a bit here. What I want to convey is that Janet is not stupid, but made a mistake, which I am sure she will learn from. Jim is not emotionless, but more inclined to be a thinker, someone who likes to debate using reason, not his emotions, therefore; he scares some folks. Katie is a good person, but tends to take the middle of the road, for whatever reasons, she seems to like to rescue and protect people from harm. We are all just imperfect humans who happened to get stuck in the same mindfucking cult. There are bound to be disputes I would be very leary of this place if there weren't arguments. We are all awakening at our own pace. You know, one of the things that triggered me about all of the political discussions after 911 was that I remembered clearly a rumour that Maharaji 'said' that WWIII would be started by the Middle East. Duh, Yes. But it was stuck in my head and I was afraid. What's needed is tolerance, patience, and trust (with verification), tough love, (when required, as with Janet) but most of all let's not forget what we even were searching for in the first place: Love, maybe??? Okay, that's it, time for bed. 'night 'night, Cynthia

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 16:58:08 (EST) From: Deborah Email: None To: Cynthia Subject: Exactly! [nt] Message:

[nt]

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 16:37:42 (EST) From: suchabanana Email: banana@jfk_harvard.edu To: Cynthia Subject: lil' Attributes of a Good Forum... Message:

Cynthia -- very nice insightful post! r.e. attributes of a good forum -- my own perceptions: 1. common civility and empathy for others. 2. right to respectfully initiate, respond, agree, politely disagree. 3. when debating with others, stick to issues, not acrimonious, vulgar, or denigrating personal attacks [however disguised]. Be fair, ethical, open-minded to at least hear/consider others' perspectives.. 4. respect other posters' personal rights to their own privacy, security concerns, well-being, and boundaries/space. 5. as much as possible, try not to take things too personally. it's easy to misunderstand other people and likewise be misunderstood. Where socially appropriate/necessary, apologize/forgive. 6. show/exercise kindness, whenever possible. 7. constructive fellowship sure looks and feels better than acrimony and nit-picking against one another. 8. while we do share significant factors of empirical commonality here, each person is walking in an individual pair of shoes, and our respective journeys bring us home to our true selves and nature. 9. practice egalitarian, democratic principles and guidelines and consensus-building, avoid cultlike peer pressures/conformity/sanctions 10. altruistic management/monitoring operations/finances 11. the moving hands type and then move on, but once posted, written words are hard to retract. be conscious of one's own emotions/state of mind and intent when writing and reread before posting. 12. Never post anything that could jeopardize the security of another legit poster, or which might cause legal trouble for the website and its admin, or which might incite criminal harm/injury against another [even as a joke]. 13. Do not respond to dirty cult tricks in kind. 14. In general, contribute enthusiastically, thoughtfully, and in the spirit of cooperation and co-existence. 15. Offer assistance, correct information, knowledge/skills, when such assistance is needed or requested, however you can or are willing. 16. The forum is a great place: to learn new things, uncover/discover truth, share information and experiences, heal, grow, make friends, and possibly find some closure, new understandings, new beginnings, in a healthy and supportive internet environment that fosters freedom of personal growth, choices, and discovery. 17. Last but not least: Maintain a healthy sense of humor. Life's baggage is a heavy burden enough. Without a lil' levity -- no levitation! Peace and lentils,

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 18:01:04 (EST) From: JHB Email: None To: suchabanana Subject: Such, did you write this? Message:

If we need guidelines, then these are probably the best we could find - many thanks! John who never really liked lentils:-)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 22:54:35 (EST) From: such Email: banana@hopi_res.org To: JHB Subject: you're quite welcome Message:

John: thank you, too. you are quite welcome. ok, now here's the latest meditation tech: close yer eyes and visualize swirled peas and lentils for 1 minute/day. old yogi axiom: peas and lentils per day, good plumbing at play, constipation at bay, keeps some cancers away. hohoho [+ bananas, cabbage, broccoli, cauliflower, beets, carrots, spinach...] btw, not eating broccoli -- wouldn't be prudent. lastly, a pota-toe is a terrible thing to lose...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 14:21:22 (EST) From: Francesca Email: None To: Cynthia Subject: GREAT POST Cynthia Message:

Dear Cynthia, Great post. If you rambled, it was in directions that I enjoyed and liked going. By the way, if he said it, M did not come up with the 'WWIII will start in the Middle East' idea by himself. He was merely passing on what he heard from the political pundits. Just so you know he has not yet turned to rocket science. It is funny that if I said something like that, people would figure I read it somewhere, but if M says something like that, the premies often think that he is brilliant and came up with it himself. Cuz he's da man on da throne. Bests :) --f

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 13:23:25 (EST) From: Selene Email: None To: Cynthia Subject: thanks Cynthia Message:

I needed that today. I'm thinking we all need to be aware who is reading here and how posts can be used against us and or misinterpreted. And if I've been hard on Janet a lot of it is projection, remembering my own Mr. Toad's Wild Ride(s) with meds. And I love real rollercoasters but forget those ones. Selene who rejected mensa in 1993. Didn't like the pot lucks.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 11:32:05 (EST) From: gerry Email: None To: Cynthia Subject: Love, love, love... Message:

That was a lovely post, Cynth.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 11:34:26 (EST) From: gerry Email: None To: gerry Subject: btw, ****BEST OF**** Message:

Hello All, I personally am terrified of roller coasters, not because of the rush of the speed which I like, but because I am afraid of heights. I can stand on a mountaintop and look down, but put me on a 40 foot roof and I will not go near the edge. Yet, if my life depended upon it, I would go to the edge of that roof, or climb to the top of a 125' tree and climb down again. I'd probably be in a state of shock, or maybe even faint afterwards. But I would take a risk for my life. Leaving the Maharajism cult is not something I did for fun. I did it to save myself from a life of bondage to a guru who I came to realize never loved me while I devoted my life to him. I believed in all the magic, that he could read my thoughts (which he more than implied) and I believed he was greater than Christ Jesus. When I first came to the forum I was a novice at using computers online. I was also a novice at speaking/writing to people via BBs or any other type of communication. I came here not understanding much except that I wanted to belong here. Why? Because I needed to hear from those who are the only people who can understand what it's like not only to be in a cult, but in our particular cult. I had terrible experiences here until I learned that reading and digesting what's here first before responding is the best recipe for getting along. I've written things here to people and about things that I wish I could take back. In that regard, writing and posting and hitting ''post reply'' is the same as speaking. Once out, once clicked, I can't take it back. The issues discussed in this thread are feelings vs. thinking. We are all different in our orientation, and we fluctuate between how we approach each matter in our lives and what we talk about here. Some people think and keep feelings in the background, some are just the opposite. Some of us know how to keep a balance (I wish I was one of those). One thing I've learned in my life and especially as a married woman, is that I can't expect anyone to change and be different because I want them to change and be different for me. I, however, do have the power to change and be different to improve myself if I want to. On this forum, I don't believe it's my job to ask any premie to give up Maharaji, but I don't expect them to come here and tell me I am wrong about him either. Black and white thinking is incorrect thinking. There is always a grey area that must be considered. Always. When it comes to premies who want to post here but feel afraid, they must realize that they will be welcomed, but not if they wish to distrupt or inflict their black and white thinking upon me. There's always a grey area to consider. Not when it comes to the major issued of this forum, i.e., that maharaji is a fraud and conman and a cult leader, but where premies are in their own places, right now, every day about questioning him. Well, I've managed to ramble quite a bit here. What I want to convey is that Janet is not stupid, but made a mistake, which I am sure she will learn from. Jim is not emotionless, but more inclined to be a thinker, someone who likes to debate using reason, not his emotions, therefore; he scares some folks. Katie is a good person, but tends to take the middle of the road, for whatever reasons, she seems to like to rescue and protect people from harm. We are all just imperfect humans who happened to get stuck in the same mindfucking cult. There are bound to be disputes I would be very leary of this place if there weren't arguments. We are all awakening at our own pace. You know, one of the things that triggered me about all of the political discussions after 911 was that I remembered clearly a rumour that Maharaji 'said' that WWIII would be started by the Middle East. Duh, Yes. But it was stuck in my head and I was afraid. What's needed is tolerance, patience, and trust (with verification), tough love, (when required, as with Janet) but most of all let's not forget what we even were searching for in the first place: Love, maybe??? Okay, that's it, time for bed. 'night 'night, Cynthia

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 12:36:05 (EST) From: Marianne Email: None To: gerry Subject: Agreed, Cynthia's post **BEST** Message:

Great post, Cynthia. Marianne

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 14:03:41 (EST) From: PatC Email: None To: Marianne Subject: Agreed, Cynthia's post **BEST** Message:

I was too tired to answer last night when I read it but it is terrific, Cynthia. Love is always the answer but love isn't some sloppy emotion. It's mostly about being respectful and honest. I love roller-coasters and speed of all kinds, driving 100 down Hwy 5 to LA. But I don't do any of that dangerous stuff anymore because I love myself. No I don't look in the mirror all the time. I just respect my living body and don't want to risk it. I was just thinking that, if I had been greeted with touchy-feely socalled love here when I first posted, I may have run a mile. Ever since being in a cult I am allergic to fake niceness. There is no way to make coming onto the forum easy. It takes guts but in the end I preferred the brutal honesty to any amount of fake niceness. In fact it was you who popped my first fallacy.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 14:27:33 (EST) From: Francesca Email: None To: PatC Subject: GREAT point PAT!!! Message:

Yeah Pat! All that touchy-feely stuff comes when people are trying to suck you in. I imagine that if we got touchy-feely they'd criticize us for that. Makes me think that, duh! premies will criticize us no matter what we do, because we are the doubtmaker! Because we don't doubt, we threw it out! --f

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 14:48:39 (EST) From: PatC Email: None To: Francesca Subject: Hey, sister, love is all you need. Message:

Come and have a cup of chamomile tea with me and I'll tell you all about this beautiful lerv right within inside of you....

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 12:39:17 (EST) From: Cynthia Email: None To: Marianne Subject: Why, Thanks, Gerry and Marianne:) [nt] Message:

[nt]

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 21:03:26 (EST) From: PatD Email: None To: JHB Subject: Don't worry about it John Message:

Saying what you feel in public is never safe. To my mind posting here broke my connection with GMJ irrevocably, because I stated in public that I was no longer one of his devotees. Actually it's a very safe place from which to renounce your allegiance. The comfort of your own armchair really. We're sooo lucky, we don't have to confront each other with guns when we disagree,the worst we can do is type 'fuck you' into the ether. You can't be all things to all men John,Jim & Katie's beef is none of your business as an FA. Don't lets resurrect that again. The soapbox is here to be mounted & let the best man win. As for those who are thinking of dipping their toe in the water,come on in,getting bitten by a shark might wake you up, but in my experience you're more likely to be nuzzld by a dolphin. I've noticed a distinct raising of the tone here since I've been plugged in. I'll bet if you did a search on the number of times 'fuck' has been used you'll find a falling graph. The truth will out.All the best:Pat Dorrity

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 20:37:12 (EST) From: bill Email: None To: JHB Subject: good post JHB Message:

[nt]

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 19:40:09 (EST) From: JHB Email: None To: JHB Subject: Response to Deborah Message:

Deborah, I didn't understand all of your post, but I'll try to respond. First of all, I didn't agree with Katie, as I've said above. In particular, I don't think exes particularly paint Maharaji's world blacker than it really is. I never said any exes are bad. I said that sometimes we say abusive things, and that includes me too. I think it would be better if we practised a little self restraint when people annoy us, that's all. The only example posts I have are those in the archives. I agree with you that premies don't argue well here, even when they attempt it, and they often behave badly, including towards you. I'm not sure what you're trying to tell me. You refer to the forum breakup. There have been about five forum breakups since I've been here, and most were caused by disagreements between exes. Let me know if there's anything significant I haven't covered. John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 21:25:47 (EST) From: Deborah Email: None To: JHB Subject: Re: Response to John's response to me Message:

Deborah, I didn't understand all of your post, but I'll try to respond. First of all, I didn't agree with Katie, as I've said above. In particular, I don't think exes particularly paint Maharaji's world blacker than it really is. No problem here. I never said any exes are bad. I had mentioned in my post to you that it was not the first time Katie took pot shots at exes. That comment is based on a couple of posts Katie made where she said, 'not all premies are bad, there are good and bad on both sides.' It was slap across nameless faces. It was also, at the time it was delivered, supporting a misconception that the premies had. Remember the hate and angry labels we were hit with in almost every post. This is all I read when I got here last May. So, IMO, our defenses were justified. Did the premies even attempt to criticise each other for those slurs? NO. Why should the premies expect to have been treated any different. So, to be scolded and branded bad by Katie came across as a betrayal. Nothing was resolved with the premies, they continued using the condescending epithets and we were left with one of our own brandishing us with shame. I said that sometimes we say abusive things, and that includes me too. Yes, we all do. It is almost always said in defense. I think it would be better if we practised a little self restraint when people annoy us, that's all. The only example posts I have are those in the archives. I think we do. This is a very nebulous comment. We can't second guess. What is a restraint to one is a threat to others. Look at Elaine's posts to Marianne for example: So Marianne, ... And I thought - if he really is a jerk in it for the money,women and drugs, let's say - how come he is able to say such beautiful words. That may sound dumb - but,I started to wonder - who IS this guy? ... Have you figured out who he is then? Because he's not your everyday simple con artist in it for the money. Thanks,Elaine Gee, she asked Marianne by name a very specific question. Wouldn't you say. Let's see how Marianne responded. Elaine, look. I do think he's a con artist, but not a simple one. And unfortunately his words have inspired premies to launch personal attacks on me by trying to sully my reputation in the legal community. I find what he says to be simplistic garbage. If you feel otherwise, that is your choice. I do not see it as my job to try to make you into an ex-premie. It sounds as though you are trying to sort out for yourself exactly what all of this means to you. I hope you will continue to do that, and will continue to question the glaring contradictions between what Maharaji says and does. Marianne In another thread, Elaine says to Pat C. This place is still too harsh for me - I take things too personally. Just someone talking about it not being their job to convince me to be an ex-premie hurt my feelings. Job? See what I mean. Elaine is obviously hyper-sensitive. _________________________________________________________________________________________ I agree with you that premies don't argue well here, even when they attempt it, and they often behave badly, including towards you. I'm not sure what you're trying to tell me. You are blending two distinct ideas. When I said that premies don't argue well, I meant that they back themselves into corners, by avoiding what was said, denying historical events, lying, or insult people who say something they don't want to hear. Premies saying bad things to me is another issue. It's a double standard. Do any of the premies come to my defense when that happens. No! Two different ideas, John. You refer to the forum breakup. There have been about five forum breakups since I've been here, and most were caused by disagreements between exes. I'm am only talking about the one that I know. And I was referring to my own confusion and emotional outbursts. The premies had a hayday when the eruption occurred. And it was based on the actions of a PREMIE, namely Glasser. I can't comment on previous outbursts, perhaps Jim can. Let me know if there's anything significant I haven't covered. I hope my elaborations clear the confusion, it seems you missed the real purpose of my commentary, namely that the criticism is one-sided and negates the reasons premies feel threatened. We apparently can't be everything to everybody. I am not going to apologize for our defensiveness. It takes the premies off the hook for their causal behaviour. However, I still don't think you really addressing the questions and concerns raised by Jim. I'll wait for Jim to respond, first. I found your post to be weighted more on stating the obvious, rather than elucidating. IMO. No insult intended. I agree with the fact that fears and trepidations are real and not imagined. But that was never a question, at least, to me. Cheers

Return to Index -:- Top of Index