Date: Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 18:42:54 (GMT) From: hamzen Email: None To: Jim Subject: Did the phenomena known as gm's dick, regularly Message:

find itself swimming in the sea of Monica or not, no interpretions needed? Has he smoked so much weed he could be an honorary member of the Wu Tang Clan? Does he need at least $500,000 per month just to live? Has he ever shown any inkling that he gives a fuck about anyone apart from his family?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 20:38:17 (GMT) From: Selene Email: None To: hamzen Subject: when you are on you are on ham!! nt Message:

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 20:08:30 (GMT) From: Mike Email: None To: hamzen Subject: hey ham, why don't you take your gloves off? Message:

ham: GOOD POST and straight to the point..... 'Has he ever shown any inkling that he gives a fuck about anyone apart from his family?' I would venture to say that, if the stuff about monica is true, then you would have to modify that question, too. Something a little more like this, 'Has he ever shown any inkling the he gives a fuck about ANYONE apart from himself?' Waddaya think?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 20:41:18 (GMT) From: ham Email: None To: Mike Subject: hey ham, why don't you take your gloves off? Message:

Well I'm sure your right, but I'm trying to give the guy some slack, god even Carter THOUGHT about it! Amazing reading Dettmers, you can just see the new-age corporate speak suit & matching body language to go with it. Nothing, but nothing is going to allow these guys to lose their 'appreciation' of the moment. I just find it unbelevievably ironic, especially from someone who started out so practical in the 60's and ended up not even contemplating the effects on real PEOPLE of gm's wonderful organizational acumen when it involved insiders (ie shutting ashrams), to the point of organizational adviser to businesses on team-building etc which I bet leaves the notion of POWER out of the equation. Apologies on that last one Michael, if I'm wrong.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 16:05:29 (GMT) From: Deputy Dog Email: None To: Jim Subject: Right on Michael!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Message:

Michael Dettmers said, 'In my view, it was unnecessary and unwise to suggest that devotion to Maharaji was an integral condition for experiencing knowledge. Let the experience itself be the focus of a person’s life. That people would naturally want express their gratitude, appreciation and even love to him for making knowledge available to them would, of course, be understandable. But leave it at that.' That's the key right there!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 16:20:48 (GMT) From: JHB Email: None To: Deputy Dog Subject: Right on Michael!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Message:

But Dog, these were extracts from Dettmers' recommendations that Maharaji disagreed with and ignored for many years!!!!!! John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 16:47:51 (GMT) From: Deputy Dog Email: None To: JHB Subject: JHB Message:

John, The quote from Dettmers is the key to my understanding of Knowledge and it's nice to know I'm not alone. This is why I can't relate to all the personal attacks on M on this site. Knowledge is a personal experience, a moment ot moment individual feeling! The important thing is not what is going on in Malibu but what's going on in us. Are you and I living in the Spirit or not? IMO that's the issue! -- Dogg

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 03:30:40 (GMT) From: G Email: None To: Deputy Dog Subject: your Knowledge Message:

Dogg, Your 'Knowledge' is not the 'Knowledge' that Maharaji talks about, that's for sure. If you were allowed (and you're not) to tell him your version, do you think he would agree? Do you think he would say fine, whatever suits your fancy, sure, just include the techniques and some pseudo-devotion to me as a couple of lumps of meat in your seminar or whatever stew? Of course, it's true, he doesn't own the word Knowledge or knowledge. But the 'Knowledge' that's mostly talked about here is the one he talks about, get it? The whole kit-and-kabooble devotional trip, not the Deputy Dog dance you do. This is a Forum mainly about Maharaji and his so-called 'Knowledge', not yours. So both get discussed. You see, many of us here had devoted our lives to the character 'Maharaji' that Prem Rawt portrayed. You never did. Negative aspects of his life are discussed partially to counter the brainwashing we went through, it runs deep even after many years. Do you understand this at all? By the way, did you post as Q?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 20:41:32 (GMT) From: cq Email: None To: Deputy Dog Subject: The important thing ... Message:

Dep Dog, you say 'The important thing is not what is going on in Malibu but what's going on in us' Malibu=Maharaji? So why the attachment to the guru/teacher? Enjoy the meditation, even if it was 'revealed' by someone who'd like to keep you enslaved to being in 'gratitude' to its 'revealer' for evermore. But why not question the motives of that 'revealer'? What does HE get out of it?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 20:27:36 (GMT) From: hamzen Email: None To: Deputy Dog Subject: If you weren't so far up your own arse, and looked Message:

at the title of this site, you'd have realized ages ago this place is about gm and all guff surrounding him, including knowledge. If your after spiritual pampering I'd suggest one of those cosy sites where everyone's having a 'nice' time discussing their 'nice' experiences. GM, all the hot air and the heated seats made of gold DO have relevance for very obvious reasons, but to see that you'd have to take off yuour rose-tinted virtual reality goggles and listen a little. Knowledge, the meditation techniques, are not on trial here. GM is. By the way you've still not responded to 12 of my last fourteen points to you, and that's being generous. I make this comment after reading your other posts, in which you covered one point. Lets keep it simple, just one question at a time eh. Why your deep interest in Buddhism if gm & k supplied the whole package for you?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 03:50:14 (GMT) From: Deputy Dog Email: None To: hamzen Subject: hamzen Message:

Why your deep interest in Buddhism if gm & k supplied the whole package for you? Buddhism satisfies an intellectual part of me. IMO Buddhism is the sanest of all religions. You practice Knowledge and be a member of any religion if you like. That's why it's not a cult. Buddhism and agnosticism are also compatible. I like listening to M because he just talks about the experience of Knowledge. He doesn't talk about chakras, tantras, engrams, extraterrestrials, astral bodies, three thousand year old civilizations, ghosts, ect. He talks about the experience of Knowledge, which is a personal experience, and he encourages us to keep on keeping on. Hope that satisfies you hamzen. -- Dogg

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 18:49:35 (GMT) From: Jerry Email: None To: Deputy Dog Subject: Deputy Dog Message:

Dog, Are you seriously saying that you don't think or care that Maharaji is, as Dettmers described him, the 'embodiment' of Knowledge? Tell me that the 'inspiration' you get from M isn't due to the fact that you regard Maharaji in this light, and wouldn't hear a word he says unless you did. You think that Maharaji has reached some kind of plateau of bliss and enlightenment that you yourself are striving for. Well, DD, what if he hasn't? That would put a damper on your enthusiam for both M and K, I'd bet.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 03:56:03 (GMT) From: Deputy Dog Email: None To: Jerry Subject: Jerry r.e. Deputy Dog Message:

Jerry, There is something about not being 'the man' that keeps me with M. I'm glad he's the man and not me. I'd prefer to be a follower when it comes to the practice of K. I am also inspired by what he says. IMO M is the Tiger Woods of satsang. He hits them long and right on the money, every time. -- Dogg

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 17:13:16 (GMT) From: JHB Email: None To: Deputy Dog Subject: Criticism of Maharaji Message:

So Dog, is that a criticism of Maharaji? That he didn't take Dettmers advice? John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 16:18:11 (GMT) From: Way Email: None To: Deputy Dog Subject: To Deputy Dog Message:

DD, Judging from the number of your exclamations points, I gather that you WHOLE-HEARTEDLY agree with Mr. Dettmer's assessments. Perhaps your enthusiasm is not just for the quotation that you cite in capital letters but for the rest of what he has had to say, so far. If that is the case, then I strongly suggest that you follow in Mr. Dettmer's footsteps and never again go to any video, satellite feed, or event that Rawat offers, for the rest of your life!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 17:28:07 (GMT) From: Way Email: None To: DD Subject: To DD again, Message:

DD, I've read your response to JHB. But you seem to be missing (or just ignoring) the point that he makes, namely that the key to your understanding of Knowledge is something that Maharaji himself refused to accept back in the seventies. Just how Rawat would react to this statement today is not perfectly clear, mainly because Rawat makes contradictory statements about it. So, as you know, this is one of the basic questions around here -is the Master the indispensable source or not? I think it is also important for you to note that Dettmers is obviously not telling his whole story. There has to be reasons why he has had no contact of any sort with Rawat or his teachings for about 20 years. I do not believe that you yourself have ever before today explained to the exes here just where you stand with Rawat. If you go to every event that you possibly can, if you consider him indispensable to your experience, etc. From what you say above, you are very similar to many exes here who still value the experience of Knowledge but who do not credit Rawat with any divine responsibility, and only give Mr. Rawat a simple, human thank-you for teaching me some techniques.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 04:01:15 (GMT) From: Deputy Dog Email: None To: Way Subject: Way - read my posts to hamzen and Jerry (nt) Message:

Way, Read my posts to hamzen and Jerry, but there may be some truth to what you say.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 02:42:28 (GMT) From: Helen Email: None To: Jim Subject: Dettmers speaks out a little more Message:

I followed that okay until he got into all the relativity shit. COuld anyone give me the Cliff notes version, or was he just building up a smokescreen to keep from saying anything that made any sense?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 04:59:14 (GMT) From: bb Email: None To: Helen Subject: Helen Message:

The short answer is that he is lying. I have a satsang of his that I will post as soon as I can.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 19:32:52 (GMT) From: Jerry Email: None To: Helen Subject: He's Einstein, Helen Message:

Helen, Dettmers is referring to how Einstein's theory of relativity has superseded Newton's theory of gravity in explaining bodily motions. It's kind of funny in a way. Dettmers thinks of M as Newton and himself as Einstein. Cracks me up. I bet you didn't know you were a devotee of Sir Isaac Newton, did you, while Einstein was in the wings trying to point out the error of his ways.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 22:22:03 (GMT) From: Helen Email: None To: Jerry Subject: He's Einstein, Helen Message:

Wel, jeez, it sounds to me like he's just plain ol' in denial about Maharaji since he went off into that abstract diatribe. I mean jeez, what about addressing all of the concrete stuff that happened, I don't give a shit about his version of what M was to him. How bout all the premies who suffered and M's responsibility for it? This is crap.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 00:05:19 (GMT) From: Jerry Email: None To: Helen Subject: He's Einstein, Helen Message:

Helen, It's hopeful that Dettmers will see that a lot of people were disturbed by the closing of the ashrams, maybe not so much by the fact they were closed as by the way in which they were, with no forewarning, no counseling or support, and no explanation outside of 'this is what the master wants'. I think Michael should ask himself if Maharaji had a right to expect these people to carry on, content to be his servants. How much of Maharaji's shit is a person supposed to eat, happily chowing down on it? Where does he draw the line? Is that what a master/devotee relationship is supposed to be about, the master says, 'here, eat my shit', and the devotee says 'thank you, master' (yum yum). Fuck that! These people want an explanation and they've waited a long fucking time for one, and all Dettmers can do is spout some new age rhetoric. If he's got more to say, which I'm sure he does, he is morally obliged to. He was there in the castle when all the shit was going down, advising the king on the progress of his commands. Just what was he telling Maharaji during that time, and what was Maharaji's replies? People want to know. Why won't Michael tell them? He's the one who can. He should.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 02:24:01 (GMT) From: Helen Email: None To: Jerry Subject: He's Einstein, Helen Message:

Exactly. He's hiding behind new age bullshit.Michael, you are probably reading this--your post was ridiculous. Are you so far removed from human feeling that you have to cloak yourself in new age bullshit?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 20:51:35 (GMT) From: gerry Email: None To: Helen Subject: But Helen Message:

He are one, duh. Dettmers makes his dough promoting this gobbledygook bullshit. Small wonder he falls back on such gibberish to 'explain' to inexplicable.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 22:33:55 (GMT) From: bill burke Email: None To: Jim Subject: I will post a dettmers satsang that shows what he Message:

really thought at the time. He is obviously still a premie and has all the cult revisionism that is being pushed at present. I for one do not believe him when he talks about his present involvement and find his reasonings lacking honesty and he obviously has bought into the 'oneness' concept. A sign of weak thinking if there ever was one.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 20:26:05 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: bill burke Subject: When, Bill? Message:

Bill, You've been promising to send me some materials for three years now. Not that it matters but I wonder, should I stay home waiting or is ot okay for me to go to go out to the jail to see a client first? Don't wnt to miss anything. :)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 18:05:53 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Jim Subject: My discussion with Mike last night Message:

I had a chance to talk with Mike a bit more last night after I'd posted his second 'memo'. He asked what I thought about this second set of comments and I began to tell him. I say 'began' because we didn't get all that far before the discussion turned to one about language and terminology. Mike prides himself on being a clear thinker and communicator. He also appears to have read, studied or otherwise familiarized himself with some form of post-modernism theory from which he's learned a bit of new vocabulary. He's more than willing (with me at least) to bring me up to speed on special meanings of terms such as 'assertion', which he defines as a factual claim and which should always be distinguished from 'assessment' which, if I understand him properly, is really an expression of opinion. I can say that my shirt is white, I can make that 'assertion', because it's a noncontentious claim about something specific and factual I might simply know. When I say that 'Maharaji is the Lord', however, I'm making an 'assessment'. There's no way in the world I could really know whatever factual reality (redundant?) there is to the matter. Maybe neither I nor anyone will ever know. All I'm really doing is expressing my opinion in the matter. It's only an 'assessment'. Now, Michael, if you're reading this, forgive me if I mischaracterized anything. I'm trying to understand but, as I told you, I'a laready confused. See, I think that there are a lot of things we might know the truth of but which still have truth value. In other words, and to use my example above, maybe Maharaji really is the Lord. Maybe he really is the creator of this entire universe incarnated in human form. Hey, here's a little context. This is part of a Question and Answer session Maharaji gave on August 15, 1971 at Alta Loma Terrace, Hollywood, California. It was printed in the Spring, 1978 issue of Elan Vital under the title 'Who is Satguru?. The table of contents says: One of the most powerful discourses ever given by Guru Maharaj Ji, this 1971 satsang has never been published before. After an hour and a half of questions, Maharaj Ji finally agreed to tell his audience about the Satguru In the interview, Maharaji says a lot of stuff along this line: We have to give our whole devotion to Satguru, because He Himself is full. Take one glance, one glance at this whole world: peopel mad, they want to cry, but their tears again go back in their heads. So God had to take such a form, because He is so kind, so merciful. And whatever mercy He had, He put that mercy into one form, and placed Himself in that form, and came into this world. Can't you say that Jesus was the kindest man on Earth? So many things people did -- 'Okay, don't bother. God forgive them.' Error for human; forgive for divine. Satguru is divine. Guru is divine. The most divine. That's why Shankaracharya says, [much Hindi that I'm not inclined to try to type in]'Guru is whatever is; nothing else but Guru. Whtever is, is Guru. God first puts whatever mercy is left in a body, and then places Himself. It is said that one nail of Guru is filled with mercy. If he scratches this world, it is for mercy, to dig a whole for mercy.' So, to my way of thinking, that kind of claim, indeed that very claim could, possibly, in fact, be true. Sure, maybe we'll never know if it is, but that's a different story. I guess another way of putting it is that for some, maybe for Maharaji himself, claiming that he's the 'Lord of the Universe' might be a simple declaration of fact. He might know that the matter's true in the same way I know my shirt's white or even that I'm a human being. The question of 'proof' is a whole different issue but this kind of claim is not at all like saying 'Titanic is the greatest film of all time' (yech!). That I could accept as being an 'assessment', if you will. Clearly a matter of opinion now and forever. Michael and I only got into this discussion. We didn't complete it and indeed agreed to leave it for now. He wants to read the feedback he'll get to this second statement and consider then how best to carry the dialogue further. He is, as I said before, very concerned that his name be cleared with respect to the financial questions and all the unsavory things he believes they imply about him over on Drek's site. To that end, he asked me where I think things stand now that he's spoken up a bit. I told him that, frankly, if he's hoping to persuade anyone of anything in that regard, without any supporting evidence(at one point, as I told him, I thought he had mentioned some evidence he could offer to back up some of what he said. He can't remember saying that and --who knows? -- maybe I was mistaken), he's going to have to enter into an actual dialogue with people here. You know, I said, think about it. Here you are telling us about how you started as a 'commoner' and are a 'commoner' again. Why not act like one and simply talk with us like all us other 'common folk'? I don't think Michael knows himself whether or not he might be so inclined. I think he's thinking about it. Before we said goodnight I revisited all the language stuff. I told him that while I, personally, thought I might be able to follow him and indeed found this analysis somewhat interesting, that was me. What about the hypothetical woman who joined the ashram at 20 years old in the early seventies. Not an intellectual, not well-educated, what about her? She entered into a faith premised on certain representations. What if she were now to confront Maharaji and ask him, simply, why he said shit like the stuff above from '71? She doesn't know from 'declarations' and 'word acts'. She's not interested in 'assertions' and 'assessments'. Never was, never will be. She just thought that Maharaji knew what he was talking about when he told her to surrender the reigns of her life to him because he was her creator come to tak her home. What about her? Well, for one thing, Michael told me that he believes that she's perfectly entitled to ask that question. But more importantly, I asked, is Maharaji obliged to answer? Rather than answer and get dragged into the whole big discussion with me alone, Michael suggested that we just let things progress on their own a bit here. He wants to see how others respond to his latest and take it from there.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 20:21:59 (GMT) From: cq Email: None To: everyone Subject: Simple question to Mr Dettmers Message:

Michael Dettmers says that his: ' biggest concern was that the structure, taken as a whole, had all the earmarks of a cult, and I had no intention of participating in the propagation of a cult. For these reasons, I was a strong advocate for closing the ashrams' Seeing how much disaffection that has led to, Mr Dettmers, do you think that was a wise decision for Mr Rawat to take? (and to avoid speaking publicly about ever since?) Is his silence on the issue to be taken as a tacit admission of error?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 22:13:14 (GMT) From: G Email: None To: everyone Subject: Closing of the ashrams, 'earmarks of a cult' Message:

During a Q&A meeting, a former ashram premie asked Maharaji regarding the ashrams 'What was that about?', the only thing that Maharaji said was 'Mistakes were made.' The closing of the ashrams in my area was handled very poorly, and I'm speaking as a former ashram premie. First, there was a 'purge' of the ashrams, leaving only the 'elite' ashram premies. This made some people feel like rejects (from a CULT I might add). It was a great insult. Also, there was an uneven distribution of the few assets and the more significant debts. This was not based at all on what people had earned, but by who was favored. No help was given in reorienting us to OUR lives outside the ashram. No counseling was provided. The barest of explanations as to why the ashrams were being closed was given. More importantly, no explanation was given as to why the ashrams had been started again. Mr. Dettmers, do you have any comments about this? Based on what you wrote, it seems that Maharaji, you, and others viewed the ashram premies simply as pawns in a game, as objects to be used, rather than the human beings that we were and are. How about treating us like human beings for a change and give some straighter answers? I appreciate your response, but what you wrote (which really wasn't much) was veiled in vague philosophical terminology. I'm glad the ashrams were closed, but back then I was devastated, in large part due to the way they were closed and the continuance of the cult. 'my biggest concern was that the structure, taken as a whole, had all the earmarks of a cult, and I had no intention of participating in the propagation of a cult. For these reasons, I was a strong advocate for closing the ashrams' Mr. Dettmers, I'm sure you know what they say about ducks. It wasn't simply the structure, it was also the words, the philosophy, the actions, and the mentality. It still is. So simply by closing the ashrams did not take away the cultness of Elan Vital. Just a couple of years ago, people travelled half way around the world to Amaroo in order to listen to Prem Rawat and kiss his feet, believing he is God incarnate. You know he is a mere mortal. How do you feel about this? Should this continue? How about your concern for fellow human beings?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 19:13:47 (GMT) From: JW Email: None To: G Subject: Closing of the ashrams, 'earmarks of a cult' Message:

During a Q&A meeting, a former ashram premie asked Maharaji regarding the ashrams 'What was that about?', the only thing that Maharaji said was 'Mistakes were made.' Thanks, G. I left the cult and the ashram in the late Spring of 1983. At that time, the ashrams were still up and running, but I think they were closed later that year. So, I never heard any of the explanations as to why that happened. Two things about the Q&A, though. First, Maharaji's passive voice avoidance of responsibility would have made Richard Nixon proud. Second, that's the first time I ever heard of Maharaji ever saying there was a mistake about anything happening in his cult, even though even in this instance he wouldn't take any responsibility for it whatsoever, which I think has been his pattern to this day. Although I wasn't around for the closings, I was around for the 'purge,' in my case the inquisition was performed by David Smith, with permission, he said, given to him personally by Maharaji. David's purge consisted primarily of performing sadistic mental torture on innocent ashram premies and either getting them to leave (despite Maharaji's personal statements that one should never do that), or terrify them into becoming ashram robots. It was hell. Frankly, it was David's sheer inhumanity and Maharaji's support of it, that shocked me enough to question the whole cult and get me out. In retrospect, it may be the ashrams and how awful those people were treated by the Perfect Master, that might dog Maharaji for the rest of his 'master' career. There are plenty of disaffected people out there whom he treated with at best uncarring abandon, and at worst with open disdain. These people aren't likely to forget that anytime soon, and now with the internet, they are getting connected up.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 18:43:02 (GMT) From: JW Email: None To: Jim Subject: The Simplicity Principle Message:

The essence of the claims Maharaji made both about himself and about knowledge was the utter simplicity of it all. It was this simple: You receive knowledge, you surrender the reigns of your life to Maharaji, you experience the pure love that is the purpose of life, and you spend your life serving the living Lord. That was the essence of the trip Maharaji sold us, which manifested for many people as breaking all the strings and attachements they had in their lives and giving everything they had to Maharaji. In this scenario, whether anyone understands the full meaning of what 'lord' means, whether it's an 'assertion' or an 'assessment', while providing some interesting discussion topics over wine and cheese, is completely beside the point. That's a complicated discussion about something that was presented as uniquely simple. Most of us youngsters who got involved with Maharaji came from the Judeo-Christian tradition, and there is a pretty good consensus there as to what 'lord' means. It means someone who is 'all knowing, all powerful, the source of the experience of love, one who has the power to guide your life into something transcendant and wonderful, who dispenses 'grace' that makes it possible to even be alives, and he is the worthy object of devotion of your mind, body and soul.' There may be some variation on that theme, but taken in context of everything else Maharaji preached, it isn't complicated. It's very basic. In that context, these mental exercises, no matter how sincerely believed and discussed, have the disturbing look of complications that confuse the issue. Jim, do you think I'm missing the point here?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 18:47:57 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: JW Subject: Nope (nt) Message:

nn

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 18:33:48 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Jim Subject: Hey, JM -- there's a quote in there u might want Message:

See if you can find it? (Hint: it's not something either Dettmers or I said)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 18:09:42 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Jim Subject: small (but important) correction Message:

See, I think that there are a lot of things we might know the truth of but which still have truth value. should read: See, I think that there are a lot of things we might never know the truth of but which still have truth value.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 22:23:42 (GMT) From: Jean-Michel Email: None To: Jim Subject: sorry Jim, your humor doesn't translate! Message:

hahahaha Really, I don't get it ........

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 02:58:53 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Jean-Michel Subject: That's because it wasn't a joke Message:

JM, I was simply pointing out the nifty quotes you might want to use on your web site.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 09:16:08 (GMT) From: Jean-Michel Email: None To: Jim Subject: Then I don't know Message:

what you're referring to! Shall you tell me?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 16:16:00 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Jean-Michel Subject: Why do I always have to spoonfeed the French? Message:

What is it about you guys? Look, I'm not saying that no one's that smart over there. Hell, it's a big country and it's not like I've met all of you anyway. Besides, waht's the point of complaining? What good's it going to do? But, really, JM ... Okay, here's what I was referring to: Hey, here's a little context. This is part of a Question and Answer session Maharaji gave on August 15, 1971 at Alta Loma Terrace, Hollywood, California. It was printed in the Spring, 1978 issue of Elan Vital under the title 'Who is Satguru?. The table of contents says: One of the most powerful discourses ever given by Guru Maharaj Ji, this 1971 satsang has never been published before. After an hour and a half of questions, Maharaj Ji finally agreed to tell his audience about the Satguru In the interview, Maharaji says a lot of stuff along this line: We have to give our whole devotion to Satguru, because He Himself is full. Take one glance, one glance at this whole world: peopel mad, they want to cry, but their tears again go back in their heads. So God had to take such a form, because He is so kind, so merciful. And whatever mercy He had, He put that mercy into one form, and placed Himself in that form, and came into this world. Can't you say that Jesus was the kindest man on Earth? So many things people did -- 'Okay, don't bother. God forgive them.' Error for human; forgive for divine. Satguru is divine. Guru is divine. The most divine. That's why Shankaracharya says, [much Hindi that I'm not inclined to try to type in]'Guru is whatever is; nothing else but Guru. Whtever is, is Guru. God first puts whatever mercy is left in a body, and then places Himself. It is said that one nail of Guru is filled with mercy. If he scratches this world, it is for mercy, to dig a whole for mercy.'

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 16:22:14 (GMT) From: Jean-Michel Email: None To: Jim Subject: Didn't you KNOW that ALREADY ? Message:

Great quote ..... I'll include it somewhere on my website! To be honest, I'm starting to be fed up with this BS. Don't you think there is alreay enough of it?...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 16:58:57 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Jean-Michel Subject: Didn't you KNOW that ALREADY ? Message:

JM, You mean 'I'm the King of the World!' quotes? Yes, possibly. But that one satsang is too much. Perhaps I should send you the whole thing.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 17:23:03 (GMT) From: Jean-Michel Email: None To: Jim Subject: OK, send it !! (nt) Message:

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 16:46:41 (GMT) From: Gregg Email: None To: Jim Subject: Post-modernism Message:

While I appreciate post-modernism's attempt to open up fields of intellectual inquiry and to demand a higher degree of cultural inclusivity; Dettmer's stance points to one of the pitfalls of post-modernism (which, ironically, is a term long gone from contemporary academic discourse). Phenomenon vs. interpretation. Different, yes. But the implication here is that something happened (knowledge etc.) and all interpretations of the phenomenon are potentially valid. Including Dettmer's. So what we talk about in this forum, by implication, do not concern the reality of what happened (and what is happening); they are just our (dark and disaffected) opinions. As others have pointed out, on this thread and others, devotion to a Living Lord was at the core of the Divine Light Mission experience. You cannot finesse this as 'interpretation.' Devotion was part of the phenomenon. Our 'experience', as we used to put it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 17:56:01 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: Gregg Subject: Post-modernism Message:

Gregg: I see the term 'post-industrialism' used quite frequently, but as you say 'post-modernism' is out of favor. At best a term of the form 'post-anything' is ambiguous about what's really going on, and contingent on a more insightful understanding. But the point I wanted to make below, that Dettmer and other 'post-modernists' have consistently missed, is that the enlightenment project is worth saving and that there have been some rather successful attempts at pointing out the fatal flaws in the radical interpretive philosophies that underly the more popularized versions of post-modernism (like Derrida and Gadamer). The most notable of those contributions comes from Jurgen Habermas, who is probably the most influencial social scientist and philosopher on the planet. He fulfills at least some of the criteria for Mannheim's 'wandering intellectual.' He was, at one time, a 'western Marxist' but it's not clear what he is now, since he seems to have reinvented himself again in his wanderings. He has close ties with the American Pragmatists, however, as well as Max Weber. I also agree that you don't need a degree in philosophy to sort out what's missing in Dettmer's statement. However, it might be important to some that the appeal to post-modernism does not command the respect that Dettmer seems to imply. --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 18:17:08 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: Post-modernism Message:

Scott, I'll be perfectly frank and tell you I never thought your 'egg-headedness' would ever come in so handy here. Shows what I know, huh? :) Okay, if you're still reading, maybe this might help fill in the picture of where Mike's coming form a bit. I asked him where he got his terminology and he mentioned, ever briefly, two guys: Austin and Heidegger (sp?). He didn't say that either of them particularly coined any certain term. He simply said that they were two of the guys he learned some of this from? Am I right, Mike?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 19:50:43 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: freewheeling@bigfoot.com To: Jim Subject: Post post-modernism Message:

Jim: Martin Heidegger was Husserl's student and usurped his mentors' academic chair only to subsequently repudiate the work of Husserl and disown him to the Nazis (Husserl was Jewish). Many people saw that as a stab in the back, including Husserl. (For some reason most of these 20th century German philosophers have names that begin with 'H.') Heidegger was also a rather controversial figure in Nazi Germany, and according to my mentor, Thelma Lavine, had aspirations to become the Philosopher Laureate of Hitler. The Nazis, according to Thelma, were too clever. Heidegger was also Hannah Arendt's mentor and lover, or some might say 'perpetrator' since she was his student at the time. Arendt eventually became the Dean of Chicago University during the period when Lipset was there (my other mentor) and got into frequent arguments with Marty. I think Marty won most of them, but I have enormous respect for Arendt, who is an exceptional political philosopher with deep insight. She outclassed her mentor in my estimation, on just about every level. I'll have to do a bit of reading to make any more comments on the philosophy of Austin and Heidegger, but I'm a Pragmatist and think Habermas wiped the floor with all of them, especially in the famous 'Gadamer/Habermas Debates.' I own both volumes of *The Theory of Communicative Action* and can also scrounge up some material that Thelma wrote on Heidegger's version of 'dasein.' I know little about J.L. Austin except that he followed Wittgenstein in developing the theory of 'speech acts.' Both the philosophy of science (Carnap to Popper) and the theory of speech acts (Wittgenstein and Austin) are reconstructions of an original problematic developed by the American Pragmatist philosopher and n'er-do-well Charles Sanders Peirce. See if this quotation evinces any shock of recognition: 'From the sincere expressions of a speaker we can infer nonexpressive speech acts that the speaker would utter under suitable conditions. If he believes 'p', he is disposed to assert that 'p'; if he regrets 'r', he is disposed to apologize for 'r'. But we cannot infer inversely from these constative or regulative speech acts that the speaker also really believes or feels what he expresses. In this respect speakers are not forced to say what they mean. This asymmetry presupposes the assimilation of convictions and obligations to subjective experiences of noncognitive and nonobligatory origin; this in turn makes it possible to distance a domain of experiences with privileged access from [emphasis added] facts, on the one hand, and norms, on the other.' (Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Vol. II, pg. 67.) Anyway, the missing link here is the psychological theory of behavior which has only recently begun to take notice of the analysis of language through inroads in the science of human cognition. All of this has begun to converge in a rather remarkable way, that holds the promise of rebuilding rationality on a more 'humane' basis. Think about a scientific method that is geared to human capacities and gifts rather than abstract 'ideals,' and without surrendering the ideals themselves. --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 20:36:35 (GMT) From: JW Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: Heidegger Message:

I'll leave it to Scott and others to discuss Heidegger's philosophy, but I can comment on it from the political perspective a little bit, which is how I approached him, except maybe in 'Philosophy 101.' My understanding is that Heidegger was a proponent of the 'antihumanist' school, which was, as exhibited by Mr.Dettmers, a belief that there really aren't any 'truths' only interpretations. Indeed, there isn't even a 'self' only a perspective or viewpoint. This is right in line, I think, with what Michael was saying to Jim about 'assertions' and 'assessments.' Heidegger had started out as a devout Catholic and even studied to become a Jesuit. He married a protestant woman, and gradually became anticlerical, to the point of being especially 'anti' the absolutist teachings of the Church. Some say he was heavily influenced by his reaction to religious teachings, although he ended up supporting Nazi Socialism more as a kind of national religion, than any kind of political movement, if you ask me. He even authored, I believe, some kind of a treatise in which he said that the NAZIs weren't a 'party' they were a means of transforming Germany on an almost religious level. Indeed, there are those who have written that such a relativistic philosophy in which there aren't any rights or wrongs, nor any ultimate values, especially humanistic ones, made it easy for Heidegger to be an enthuasitic Nazi, and although I've never heard that his writings are blatantly anti-semetic, he did, as Scott mentions, denounce a Jewish 'friend' and his treatment of Husserl (who, for some reason I thought wasn't even Jewish, just 'non-Aryan') was pretty bad.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 20:45:10 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: JW Subject: How do I expect anyone to believe you, Joe? Message:

when you misspell 'antisemitic'? Really, thanks for assisting me and others in understanding what the fuck this shit's all about.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 20:47:07 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Jim Subject: That small joke had two big errors Message:

1) I forgot to close my HTMl. 2) I should have said 'How do you expext anyone to believe you, Joe?' Sorry, sorry, sorry. Think I better to to the office now.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 21:33:51 (GMT) From: JW Email: None To: Jim Subject: That's just your ASSERTION, Jim Message:

It's all in how you interpret antisemitic, right? I mean, can you really ever know the truth about how antisemitic is spelled? Isn't it just as valid that it's antisemetic? I mean it sounds the same, and if you were speaking and not writing, it would BE the same. It's all relative, Jim. Isn't it really just an assertion?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 20:00:14 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: Well I DID ask, didn't I? Message:

No, seriously, thanks, Scott. I'm not sure if I understand what you're saying but am I right to conclude from this and your other posts on this subject that, in your opinion, Dettmers is misconstruing postmorbidism and specifically how it relates to factual claims? Mike, you reading this?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 22:30:20 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: Jim Subject: Just a little more, and then freedom. Message:

Jim: Re: am I right to conclude from this and your other posts on this subject that, in your opinion, Dettmers is misconstruing postmorbidism and specifically how it relates to factual claims? After a bit more reading I am a little less sure of myself regarding the nuts and bolts, so perhaps 'misconstrue' is the wrong word. Certainly in the sense that he limits postmodernism to the insights offered by a few of these language analysts. I think the theory of speech acts amounts to a *fragment* of a philosophy. Habermas establishes certain domains of truth claims that each require different sorts of evidence. All of this relates to conceptions of subjective, social, and objective worlds and how claims or statements originating in one can be criticized or questioned. This deals with three models of action: dramaturgical ('self presentations'), teleological (goal directed), and normative (transmission of cultural values). Each is mediated through 'speech acts,' but conceives of language one sidedly, as 'expressive,' 'intentionalist,' or 'reproductive' respectively. In other words, each conceives of language as having to do exclusively with a subset of the objective, social, and subjective worlds: the release of perlocutionary effects, the establishment of interpersonal relations, and the expression of subjective experiences. Each of the first three theories of action are limit cases of the other two. For instance, dramaturgical action, developed by Irving Goffman, gives rise to a scale of self presentations that ranges from sincere communications of one's own intentions, desires, and moods to the cynical management of the impressions the actor arouses in others. Dramaturgical action is bounded on one side by normative action, and on the other by teleological action. Now, the communicative model of action conceives of language as 'a medium of uncurtailed communication whereby speakers and hearers, out of the context of their pre-interpreted lifeworld, refer simultaneously to things in the objective, social and subjective worlds in order to negotiate common definitions of the situation.' This is not inconsistent with Austin's theory of speech acts except that, as I understand Habermas' conception, Austin sets the illocutionary role of language against the propositional content of an utterance as an irrational force. This, in turn, arises because both he and Wittgenstein, as well as Gadamer, parse the world into 'internal' and 'external.' Consider the lower status given an 'assessment' as opposed to an 'assertion.' This gets complicated from a purely theoretic point of view, but Habermas proposes that we, instead, use the illocutionary role as a component that specifies which validity claim is being raised, how it is being raised, and for what purpose. In that way we don't get boxed in by the aforementioned asymmetry and can make judgments about whether a speaker means what he says. Incidentally, the point of doing all this is 'linguistification of the sacred.' As an example, in order for someone to be able to question and correct an inherited belief he must first be able and willing to communicate it sincerely and accurately, and then have the sincerity judged accurately by others. In the negotiation process these others may have to reveal their own inherited 'belief viruses.' Touchy process. I think I've earned a bike ride at this point, if I can drag my butt out the door before the sun goes down. --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 02:48:50 (GMT) From: Scanner Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: DON'T MISS ABOVE THREAD .... SUPERB (nt) Message:

123

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 15:42:57 (GMT) From: Nigel Email: fitzroy@liverpool.ac.uk To: Jim Subject: To Mike Dettmers Message:

To Michael: Thanks for making contact and taking the time to explain a few things. You appear to speak with sincerity; you also clearly believe you acted with honesty and integrity throughout your involvement with Maharaji - and since. So why do I find it quite so extraordinary, unbelievable (and infuriating) to read today that you knew back in 1974 that 'he was a mere mortal like the rest of us'. 1974!!?? For God's sake - this was a good few years before the start of my own journey in and out of the (non?)cult for which you were still such high-profile speaker and representative. If what you are now saying is the truth then I put it to you that you did not go about your duties within DLM with the honesty or integrity you now plead. You claim not to have believed in Maharaji's exclusive necessity for spreading Knowledge, even when every initiator was hammering home that very message to would-be aspirants: that 'only by the Grace of the Living Perfect Master…', 'only by surrendering the reins of our lives…', placing our destinies at the Master's mercy… how 'not a leaf stirs without his consent..' Jeez… the grains of sand unworthy for him to walk upon..?? What were you telling the aspirants at this time, Michael? Seriously, now… Perhaps you remember delivering the following satsang, back in 1978… (You don't? That's funny - neither do I.) >>> MD (arriving in satsang chair and pranaming to the picture of Prem Rawat on the altar) 'Jai satchitanand…' Assembled premies in satsang room: ' Jai satchitanand…' MD: 'Ok, ok, that's enough of the primitive ritual. Let's get real here. Maharaji is not the Lord and there's no point in any more of this superstitious posturing and carrying on as if he were the Lord. He is a mere mortal like you or I. He just happens to like and believe in Knowledge - same as you, same as me. Basically he's just a fan. Likes meditation and does a bit now and then. I find he has an inspiring way of talking about life and everything, which is why I keep coming back for more. But if you don't care for his incoherent style of expressing himself or don't find it quite so inspiring as me then - hey, fine - stop listening! The guy is irrelevant to the process of self discovery. He just happened to be in the right place at the right time. Smart guy. Charming guy. But not the Lord... OK, so maybe we've all just come back from Holi, had darshan even. Sang along with all of Rich Neale's ultra-drippy devotional goo-fest..? Yes? Maybe some of the other initiators there have given you the impression you simply had to go there and bow down - that you had no choice.. even if it meant selling furniture, denying the kids holidays, throwing in your careers or whatever? Yup? Well, let me tell you folks, that simply ain't the case. If you've got Knowledge that's all you need. The guru is surplus to requirements. Follow him, follow Yoganand, Rajneesh, Big brother Bugglegum ji..whoever… follow no-one. It matters not. Darshan…hmm… now just what was that all about? An experience of 'connectedness' with the Lord of Creation? No way. It is just an ancient, charming and revered radhosoami tradition. A bit of symbolism, if you like. Wouldn't even matter who you put up on the throne. There's no more reason for any of us to kiss his toes than for you lot to kiss mine or - for that matter - Prem to kiss yours. It is just the Hindu packaging all of which is totally unnecessary - the Master included! I am gonna try and get him to change his corporate style soon. I think the devotional stuff may be a bit misleading, and passe. Come the eighties simply nobody's gonna want to have a little fat guru guy dancing with a flute and blowing in their ears, are they..? Anyway, we're no doubt all going to sing Arti before we leave tonight. Just try and sing it with a pinch of salt, Ok? Or go home early and meditate if you prefer. Or see what's on telly. Nobody will think any the less of you. If there's any aspirants present, just stick around until afterwards and I'll show you all the techniques for you to pass on to your friends…' >>> I repeat, Michael: what were you telling the aspirants at this time? Seriously… (I'll crawl back into the woodwork now)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 04:29:32 (GMT) From: bb Email: None To: Nigel Subject: I have that for you Nigel, just need a night to Message:

type it up. Been working out of town but maybe sat night or sunday. It is perfectly revealing of dettmers real cult programming of the time.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 17:46:40 (GMT) From: Mike Email: None To: Nigel Subject: Well said, Nigel...nothing need be added(nt) Message:

HEY!!!!! I said I wasn't going to add anything and I'm NOT!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 17:09:22 (GMT) From: Jethro Email: None To: Nigel Subject: For your info Message:

I remember Detmers stayed in one of the ashrams I lived in (Stockwell, London) in late 1976 and he gave the whole devotional satsang spiel. I wonder how he feels about the fact that he was supported by ashram premies who were later thrown out with nothing.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 16:30:51 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: Nigel Subject: To Mike Dettmers Message:

God Nigel, what's the matter with you, you poor sot? Clearly you are incapable of separating the phenomenon from the interpretation in such a way as to allow yourself creative lattitude. Are you saying that Michael had some obligation to reveal his own thoughts and insights on the matter? Where did you dig that one up, for chrissakes? Where does the phenomenon lead to anything like that conclusion? (If it did, I'd still be meditating twice a day.) --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 10:06:39 (GMT) From: The Feline Globetrotter Email: None To: Jim Subject: Dettmers ....A Gem Message:

Dont even bother to answer it . Are you tuning in? Do you get it?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 09:05:22 (GMT) From: Jean-Michel Email: None To: Jim Subject: Dettmers is also denying a very simple fact! Message:

Beside all that's already been said in this thread, and the fact that M. Dettmers believes in something called 'knowledge' (I'm still waiting for a definition for this phenomenon), he says: many premies came to the conclusion that Maharaji is the cause or the source of knowledge. The problem with this is that the premies believed in this BECAUSE m repeatedly said so! And even these days during the aspirant (indoctrination) process, this is one most important notion that's progressively introduced and has to be accepted in order to receive k !!!!!! And this is where the whole deceit starts. Not mentioning the many occasions where Mr Rawat keeps saying he's god, in one way or another ! There are not that many people believing in what you're trying to say Michael! Nice talk that will only satisfy the believers/premies and m's PRs.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 08:52:27 (GMT) From: Angry Email: None To: Jim Subject: This is how most premies exit. Message:

Thanks Jim. This, in particular and the Apter interview to a lesser degree have been very helpful to me. While the number of ex-premies is relatively small, the number of former followers of Maha is huge. These 'walk-aways', as they are referred to in cult studies, need to intellectualize reasons for their non-participation in the Maha cult. This allows them to avoid facing the huge mistake in judgment they have made. It is very difficult for many to face the fact that they once looked upon Maha as God-like and kissed his feet. It still gives me the shivers and the heebie-jeebies every time I remember that I allowed myself to be conned by the charismatic huckster.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 14:47:17 (GMT) From: JW Email: None To: Angry Subject: Well said, Angry Message:

I think you said that very well, and I think it's very true. I think many of us have seen it too many times for it not to be a real phenomenon/defense mechanism.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 17:55:04 (GMT) From: Mike Email: None To: JW Subject: Yes, JW and.... Message:

JW & Angry: The very fact that they can't really admit their own error makes it much more likely that they will make the same mistake again! If you cannot thoroughly 'think' your way through your involvement and acknowledge the mistakes that you made to get there, then you are connon-fodder for the next schuck-and-jive artist. One thing I can say about self-acknowledged ex's is that they, in general, have the gas turned way up on the skeptical-oven..... If it ain't real, it will just burn! At the very least, if they decide to 'do' another belief system, they actually DECIDE to DO it! :-)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 09:37:43 (GMT) From: Jethro Email: None To: Angry Subject: This is how most premies exit. Message:

'These 'walk-aways', as they are referred to in cult studies...' Yes , these people say things like 'I have moved on'. IMO they are bigger wankers than the ones who stay.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 06:03:56 (GMT) From: JW Email: None To: Jim Subject: Well, what could be expect? Message:

It is disappointing that Michael responds to sincere questions about issues that affected real peoples' lives, questions that he is in a position to provide helpful insight about, with condescending new age moral relativism (which philosophy I find partly frightening because of it's lack of values but more by how Michael uses it to avoid responding honestly to honest questions). I personally think it's fine if Michael wants to believe whatever he believes about his very advanced 'post-modern understanding of reality and truth.' But I'm sure I'm not alone in finding this latest 'response' bordering on the bizarre. But let me boil this down to a couple of points that I think Michael as so far avoided like the plague: 1. Michael doesn't want to talk about Maharaji's 'lifestyle' because he isn't interested. You know, I'm not interested either. That wasn't the question. My question was, did Michael believe Maharaji presented himself in a fashion different than he really was. Had the 99.9% of the premies, who never even met the guy, and only saw him on thrones and having his feet kissed, that he had a drinking problem, who cheated on his wife, and smoked dope with Michael Donner in the Kittridge building, it might have done a lot to get rid of that 'devotion' and 'god' thing that Michael says he wasn't in favor of. This is important information, not so people can gossip about it, but so they can understand better, who the hell they devoted their lives to, or are considering devoting their lives to. Michael, maybe it didn't matter to YOU that Maharaji was a 'mere mortal' but I think most other premies didn't would have thought differently, those who didn't have your vantage point to know that he is, and was, a mere mortal. You see, all the while we sang arti which said he was the 'superior power in person' and 'all knowing' and he wore crowns and had us bow down to him. Doesn't it bother you at all to be that selfish that you only think about how YOU related to him and you don't care that many others were deluded into thinking Maharaji was god? Don't you feel some twinge of responsibility towards other people, when you have information that has been intentionally withheld from them and in fact they have been the dupes of an elaborate lie? 2. Michael talks about he ashram like he's talking about the best way to make widgets or do a marketing plan. Michael, do you recall there were thousands of REAL PEOPLE living in those ashrams, who drastically altered their lives being in an institution that Maharaji promoted, to the point where, as late as one year prior to them being shut down, he was scaring the shit out of us at ashram meetings that we didn't dare move out? And how did you plan to help the ashram premies reorient into the real world? Sure the ashrams may have started to become a liability, or not be the cash cows they once were, but what about the people, Michael, what about the people? This wasn't just some balance sheet decision....or was it? Yeah, these people probably didn't have health insurance because they did menial jobs because Maharaji extolled them to surrender their lives to him. Maybe you didn't believe that they should have been doing that, because you KNEW he wasn't divine, but was a mere mortal, but what about everybody else? Do you care? Did Maharaji? I haven't seen any evidence of either. 3. Maybe it was your perspective that devotion wasn't required to experience knowledge, but the fact was that for years, Maharaji himself said the direct opposite, over, and over, and over......So, devotion was the end all the be all of what being a premie was about. Don't you think Maharaji has some responsbility towards those people, who bought what you say was an unnecessary element of the whole trip, because Maharaji said it was central? Maybe Maharaji was your personal friend, if so you must be very disappointed in his failure to ever do that. I'm sure you would think any other human being with an ounce of integrity would. Michael, I have one suggestion. Take a step forward. Come down from your lofty heights and talk like a human being to us, not like some detached, groovy, newage corporate type. Otherwise, what you have to say sounds more like the stuff of musical comedy than a real discussion.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 13:04:18 (GMT) From: CHR Email: None To: JW Subject: Well, what could be expect? Message:

I'm also interested in the ashram question, Joe. Like you I spent about 9 years in M's ashram. This was probably the most damaging aspect of my premie life. It eroded my talents and abilities, my individuality and my potential for growth. I suppose that one could say I made that choice-but I was a sincere young 20 year old who in 1972 believed he had found the living Lord and M made it very clear that it was in the ashram that one truly experienced K. Chris.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 14:45:01 (GMT) From: JW Email: None To: CHR Subject: Exactly, CHR Message:

I agree. My involvement with Maharaji might not have been the biggest regret of my life, but for the ashram, and what that did to my personal development, relationship with my family and friends, and also the simple fact that it was an awful waste of time. I know many people stayed, despite hating the environment, because they believed what Maharaji said. They took it literally. So, when someone like Dettmers turns all that into some kind of intellectual discussion, devoid of the effects it had on people, it's outrageous to many of us, because it was something that affected us personally.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 05:17:26 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: freewheeling@bigfoot.com To: Jim Subject: Oh, I think not... but who am I? Message:

Many of the questions and concerns that have been expressed and debated about Maharaji’s lifestyle are of no concern to me. I have better things to do in my life than to get caught up in such discussions, whether it’s about Bill Clinton, Princess Diana or Maharaji. Scares me a lot. None of those people claimed to be a deity or to have a divine mission, for which personal morality might be an all-important piece of evidence. It didn’t matter to me that he was but a mere mortal like the rest of us. I was convinced that he had the vision, the commitment, and the ability to spread knowledge to people all over the world, and I was glad to play a role in that endeavor. And it apparently didn't matter to him that it did matter to a lot of us, who might have missed opportunities for career, to know our parents and siblings, or to become socially engaged and mentally healthy. Has this guy exercised any moral or ethical judgment at all? Would this be a person I would want to work for, or with? Notwithstanding these arguments for their closure in the West, my biggest concern was that the structure, taken as a whole, had all the earmarks of a cult, and I had no intention of participating in the propagation of a cult. This is an entirely superficial aspect of a cult. He was clearly concerned that it looked like a cult, not that it was one. Innovation, on the other hand, is greatly inhibited when we do not distinguish between a phenomenon and its interpretation. The ability to make this distinction consistently is one of the important divides between our former “modern” and our current “post-modern” understanding about reality and truth. Thanks for the lesson in phenomenology, though I've already read Berger and Luckmann and the paraphrase doesn't really do the philosophy justice. A model of a principle, like gravity, is more than an 'interpretation.' The key is whether the emphasis is on the principle or the model, and the phenomenological perspective places far too much emphasis on the model. The title of Berger and Luckmann's book was, after all, The Social Construction of Reality. I am tempted to say that this fellow has the wrong idea of what post-modernism entails. The truth is that phenomenology has had almost no impact on research or methodology in either the social or the natural sciences, and the reason is that it's not capable of producing useful, reliable, or testable models of anything. It's a nifty sounding point of view, with a fatal flaw. It is my suggestion, however, that we view the structure, practices and his role as a particular interpretation, not as the “truth.” Since there is nothing sacred about our interpretations, they are subject to being re-invented. Well, let me propose this: If a 'phenomenon' that has some substantial value for humanity from a spiritual perspective can be propagated in a way that has long term positive consequences by an individual with Clintonesque moral proclivities (or worse) then it is reasonable to argue that Jon Benet Ramsey was killed in self defense. The moral implications are that stark! There is a disconnect here, that mirrors the disconnect in the phenomenological and hermeneutic account of the universe. The emphasis is on the wrong end of the scales, for even interpretations are 'realities' that must conform to an overall set of general principles. Otherwise we have a perfectly good term for such phenomena. We call them 'lies.' However, when we fail to distinguish between the two domains, claims about the “truth” inevitably result. And there can only be one logical action if we accept that we are being presented with the “truth” (any “truth” by anybody about anything) and that is obedience. Oh I beg to differ my good man. Jurgen Habermas, who in a now legendary series that destroyed the 'interpretive' arguments on 'truth and method' made by Ernst Gadamer, refers specifically to 'truth claims' about which humans can have valid judgments and can make valid determinations. Among the set of principles that govern claims to truth, and that rehabilitates the enlightenment project, are 'transparency' which is to say in a larger sense 'honesty' and 'sincerity.' The only obligation one has with regard to a truth claim made in the absence of these criteria is disobedience and exposure of the miscreant so that we can continue to rely on a process that distinguishes between truth and non-truth (a lie, in this domain). By not distinguishing between the phenomenon (knowledge) and the interpretation (his role, the structure and the practices), many premies came to the conclusion that Maharaji is the cause or the source of knowledge. This was hardly the dynamic, though I agree that the important thing is discrimination. The discrimination that is required, however, allows us to distinguish between a miscreant or liar (who made a consistent claim to godhood or divinity) and a sincere and genuine leader. We have precious little to go on in making such a judgment, and Dettmer would have us foreswear even that small edge. As I said before, this handicap leaves us in a state that's equivalent to being unable to distinguish between self defense and rape/murder. Suggest Dettmer review the history of the 'interpretive turn' in philosophy since Kant. He is not well informed, and his instincts are clearly out of whack as well. I wouldn't say he's philosophically ignorant. Confused is more like it. What a surprise, huh? --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 04:48:08 (GMT) From: Powerman Email: None To: Jim Subject: Dettmers speaks out a little more Message:

Jesus, what a carton of crap. What a house of cards, what a counterfeit watch, what a two-dollar bill. This guy is so full of gobbledygook, it isn't surprising the Hamster chose him as point-man. But the true offense in this big pile of ka-ka is Dettmers' cavalier attitude about shutting down the ashrams. What about all the people in those ashrams who contributed their blood, sweat and tears for up to ten years? Sorry, but someone should have thought about the viability of those ashrams before they fucking opened them up. Especially since they were the fucking, goddamn Lord. What the fuck, Dettmers? Get a fucking clue. People were misled and you helped to mislead them. All the sophisticated web-weaving in the world doesn't change that.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 05:06:01 (GMT) From: Joey Email: None To: Powerman Subject: Dettmers speaks out a little more Message:

What the fuck, Dettmers? Get a fucking clue. People were misled and you helped to mislead them. All the sophisticated web-weaving in the world doesn't change that. Not only DID he help mislead them, but it sounds like he's doing it all over again on this forum. I mean, Dettmers latest letter almost sounds like 'satsang for the new millenium'. Its creepy.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 05:32:21 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: Joey Subject: Dettmers speaks out a little more Message:

Joey: Not only DID he help mislead them, but it sounds like he's doing it all over again on this forum. I mean, Dettmers latest letter almost sounds like 'satsang for the new millenium' Nah, he'll have no lasting influence on anyone here. More importantly, however, he'll probably mislead his employees in a way that's consistent with his former 'misjudgments.' Lots of people in business believe this crap, but most are in real estate or finance rather than manufacturing. Post modernism, or post-industrialism, is a valid conception, but not as our friend here puts it. Daniel Bell knows where it's at, as does Ron Inglehart to a lesser degree. --Scott, MBA, Ph.D.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 04:16:04 (GMT) From: gerry, et al.com Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: Congrats on the degree, Dr T Message:

Well done, very well done indeed. Lots of hard work and dedication. Now if I could only get my GED... :-)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 15:20:27 (GMT) From: Joey Email: None To: gerry, et al.com Subject: Congrats on the degree, Dr T Message:

I agree gerry. Absolutely. And Scott, I'm so sorry I didn't pick up on that. Well, it's sheesh! time for me again. All the best to you!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 05:51:32 (GMT) From: Joey Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: Dettmers speaks out a little more Message:

Scott, Nah, he'll have no lasting influence on anyone here. Maybe not on exes but how about your average premie? They haven't all read Daniel Bell, ya know. BTW, great post! Joey, Diploma of Collegial Studies

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 05:36:26 (GMT) From: Selene Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: Dettmers speaks out a little more Message:

What IS his consulting business? He sounds like the 'corporate consultant' they brought in to teach us all how to work and play together. He came, he went, made a fortune, talked a bunch of shit exactly like the above. and...... didn't make a bit of difference.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 07:15:58 (GMT) From: Jerry Email: None To: Selene Subject: Right on, Selene! Message:

You nailed it! I've dealt with so many of these 'efficiency experts' on my job, and all they were ever good for was taking me away from my work, making a fortune by doing it, leaving with a bundle of money in their pockets, AND CHANGING ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. It was business as usual everytime they left. And if changes that they implemented were put into effect, they were soon discarded, or worked around because of their lack of value in an actual work situation. These guys are nothing but a bunch of bright ideas that serve no practical purpose, whatsoever, in the real world.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 18:52:32 (GMT) From: Mike Email: None To: Jerry Subject: Jerry and Selene, are you surprised? Message:

J & S: Think about it..... Look at the clap-trap that is presented as 'news' by our revered media? When I was a younger fellow, news was news.... you know.... the factual stuff as gathered by a reporter. NOW.... it's an interview with astrologers and yoga teachers. In the last three years here in Phoenix, I've seen more new-age crap presented as 'news' than I ever did during the many years before. In fact, they (the media) wouldn't have even given an acknowledgement to its very existence before. That leads me to believe that the average news person is right smack in the middle of believing in it! Objectivity????? What's that???? Oh, I know, it's 'subjectivity' turned inside out so that all can see it! Therefore, subjectivity really is objectivity! See???? Don't try to understand that last thought..... it was bull.... he he he :-)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 19:18:16 (GMT) From: Selene Email: None To: Mike Subject: Mike are YOU surprised? Message:

We live near Sedona, new age heaven, capital of the universe. I'm told by them they live on the most powerful meridians. Last visit to Flagstaff we visited there. I swore never again. What a shame.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 19:49:25 (GMT) From: Mike Email: None To: Selene Subject: Not surprised a bit.... :-) Message:

Selene: Other than how silly those sedona-ites look and they don't even know it! You are right, they have ruined a really beautiful place. The 'real' residents are pretty pissed about the whole new-age thing there, too. I have a couple of close friends that live up there and, fortunately, they have a terrific sense of humor about it all! Get this..... one of them is a painter during his off-time. He like to do all kinds of stuff.... landscapes, people.... you name it. Here's his new angle (he just told me about it)..... He's going to mix up some natural pigments using red earth from various so-called vortex sites and then sell his paintings to the new-age german tourists. I THINK WE HAVE A WINNER!!!!!! Watch for the web-site..... coming soon to a computer near you!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 18:24:26 (GMT) From: Selene Email: None To: Jerry Subject: the funniest part... Message:

The guy was a former EST trainer. I know this because my co-worker into EST at that time and still knows the guy socially. Michael if you are reading this I want to add, your contributions are apprciated. I just can't buy it is all. If you were in from the start you must know that the majority of maharaji's followers never made the transition from premie devoted to the Lord. I left a few years ago and not much had changed beneath the surface.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 04:20:00 (GMT) From: Jerry Email: None To: Jim Subject: Sounds like an ex-premie to me Message:

Terrific. Knowledge is the 'phenomena', Maharaji is 'Newton', and I guess Dettmers must think of himself as 'Einstein'. So that's what the breakup was all about. 'Newton' was happy being Newton, and didn't want to hear what 'Einstein' had to say about things. I don't think any mystery has been revealed here, other than Dettmers revealing his own personal views of what Knowledge is and how it should be propagated. One thing I'm curious about, is that the way all the PAMs felt, or just some? Was there some kind of unanimous 'mutiny' taking place or was it just a handful of renegades that wanted these changes? Another thing I find curious is how Dettmers was able to just turn off his light of devotion to Maharaji, and re-channel it, soley, toward the Knowledge, itself. Is this the standard 'evolution' that a PAM goes through, I wonder? And Michael, there's no way that Knowledge will ever stop being a personality cult, whether Maharaji presents himself as LOTU or not. The man is an egomaniac, and will, somehow, secure himself as being an indispensable part of a person's experience. He may not call himself guru who is 'greater than God' anymore, but he still makes absolutely certain that you regard him as your guiding light, not any inner experience, in and of itself, that you may have as a result of practicing K. You were right to leave him, and hopefully, some of what you've said will make an impression on some premies who still insist that their 'experience' is unavailable without the M factor. At least, hopefully, it will make them think.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 03:55:41 (GMT) From: alpha_o Email: None To: Jim Subject: the razor's edge Message:

Thank you Michael for speaking out. I appreciate your impulse to refrain from gossip and yet you have taken the time to express yourself in this forum which can quickly become a whirlpool of gossip. I appreciate the fact that you are aware that the organization which Maharai built bears all of the dynamics commonly known as 'cult' and that you wanted no part in the propogation of a cult. I am wondering at what point in your tenure with Maharaji you became aware that the organization had all of the characteristics of a cult. Perhaps from a financial perspective the organization was a great success but in my opinion enlightened management techniques were severely lacking in the trenchs. The rank and file of the organization were and are always in the 'Dark,' waiting for tidbits and rumors to leak out. From and organizational and management perspective any ivolvement with the organization would be extremely detrimental on a resume unless the bottom line is addressed. There seems to be no apparent lack in Maharaji's bottom line. It seems to me that it was run by a Czar who was answerable to no one. Pretty difficult to be a team player in that kind of scenario, isn't it. I appreciate your efforts in the safe house period. It would have been wonderful if you could have leveraged that into helping bring peace to the world. Unfortunately, Maharaji is never going to do that. He is creating one more problem by by attracting and waylaying the energies of many innocent people.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 15:01:17 (GMT) From: Way Email: None To: Jim Subject: Dettmers Message:

My 2 cents: (1)Obviously, Dettmers does not want to dish any dirt. I'm quite sure he could if he wanted to. His reasons for not doing so are disingenuous. Nobody here is asking him to gossip about Rawat's lifestyle so we can be titillated. We want Rawat to be exposed for what he truly is, with hard facts from first-hand accounts. (2)If you take what Dettmers has to say on face value, he doesn't seem to have any perspective about how to run a cult. You must have a superior leader who makes his own decisions or it will fall completely apart. What would have happened if Rawat had taken Dettmers advice? Obviously a precedent would have been established and Rawat would be indebted to Dettmers for any success that his advice generated. Can't have that! Ruins the dynamics completely. But there would have been no success from Dettmer's advice. Without the structure of Master - premie - communities and ashrams, you are left with a totally amorphous mass of what? People meditating. Fine and dandy. But that is not what Rawat is all about, never has been, is not now, and never will be. What Rawat is all about is called a cult. Dettmers should read the basic books about cults, of which there are several good ones, including our favorite: 'The Guru Papers.'

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 17:07:38 (GMT) From: Deputy Dog Email: None To: Way Subject: Dettmers Message:

Way, Would a cult say the following: - if you like Knowledge fine, if you don't like Knowledge fine. - if you choose to meditate fine, if you choose not to meditate fine. A person who practises K can: - vote however they want - read whatever they want - eat whatever they want - go wherever they want - be single, married, gay, or lesbian All M asks is that we meditate an hour a day. That's a cult? Ha! I don't think so! -- Dogg

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 19:14:31 (GMT) From: Way Email: None To: Deputy Dog Subject: To DD Message:

DD, You've posed some questions for me, so I guess I will go ahead and answer them. (Although I think our discussion above is more interesting.) Of course a cult would say 'if you don't like it, fine.' But if you do like it, then you must commit. Read #$%&*'s latest posts and read all about the absolute necessity for devotion. I think there is another reason that Rawat has said, 'if you don't like it, walk.' He wants people who do not like his trip to 'walk,' in other words, go away and be quiet and let the others enjoy it. You say that all Maharaji asks is that we meditate one hour a day. Wrong, wrong, wrong. I was there in 1996 and heard him say that all he asks is three things: (1) that we give meditation a fair chance (by meditating one hour a day), that (2) we don't reveal the techniques to anyone else, and (3) that we keep in touch. Funny that you didn't mention numbers 2 and 3, which are the ones that are extremely cultlike. Now I see that Jim is challenging you to reveal your indentity. I think it is often very frustrating here to discuss the issues with premies because they never tell their own stories, and it is very hard to tell where they are coming from. Many exes have told their stories at length in the journeys section. But every time I ask a premie even a simple question like when did you receive Knowledge, I am always ignored. Anyway, I use a pen-name myself because I don't want my own personality to become too involved here. But that doesn't mean I am afraid at all of people knowing my name or who I am. In fact, Rob once outed me by directing people to the Amazon cite where my book 'Unbounded Light' has been sold. So, why are you so anonymous?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 17:59:34 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Deputy Dog Subject: Justify your anonymity, Dog Message:

Dog, Again, why is it you don't want anyone to know who you are? I need to know because I'm really wondering to myself why I should support you in your anonymous charade here. You avoid the obvious on every issue. I consider that irresponsible and can't help but wonder if your intellectual irresponsibility's bolstered by the fact that here, you're just 'Deputy Dog' a cartoon character, instead of '-------' a real person. So if you want to keep your anonymity any further you better explain why I shouldn't blow your cover. Sorry, the fact that I gratuitously told you I wouldn't isn't working for me anymore. I guessed your identity on my own after you contacted me. What were you going to do when I aksed if you weren't 'Deputy Dog'? Lie about it? No, you wre busted fair and square. So now I've had enough of your game which seems to be to avoid the obvious pith of so many honest, sincere questions and statements to you here. I'm not impressed and, like I say, unless you can persuade me that your anonymity's justified here, I'm going to out you. I'm not afraid to talk openly as Jim Heller about Maharaji. If you are that's your problem. I'm sure that if you combed the speeches and sermons of many a cult leader you'll find similar 'disclaimers'. Jim Jones himself was emphatic about how no one had to stay who didn't want to. Okay, so he obviously took some extreme measures to enforce his real direction, but the point's the same. Maharaji said all sorts of things to pressure people into staying, moving into the ashram, etc.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 04:08:52 (GMT) From: Deputy Dog Email: None To: Jim Subject: Justify your anonymity, Dog Message:

Jim, I prefer it that way. I can say things here as Deputy Dog that I would never say as -------------, admitting that I was in ACOA for example. I have family who has Knowledge and maybe they don't want to be subjected to stares at video events. If you out me I will just stop posting. Is that what you want? If you want me to stop posting I stop right now. -- Dogg

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 20:13:56 (GMT) From: Powerman Email: None To: Jim Subject: Justify your anonymity, Dog Message:

Jim, You're an asshole. --Powerman

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 04:35:25 (GMT) From: Deputy Dog Email: None To: Powerman Subject: Thanks for the power, Powerman Message:

Powerman, Thanks for your support. This should be a site where people can express themselves without having their personal lives involved. See Way's earlier post. I don't use my real name for the same reason. -- Dogg

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 20:23:06 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Powerman Subject: Justify your anonymity, Dog Message:

Care to elaborate?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 20:50:24 (GMT) From: Powerman Email: None To: Jim Subject: Justify your anonymity, Dog Message:

Exposing Dog's identity would be an aggressive, ratty act. It would say more about you than it would about him: That you're a little person; perhaps vindictive or punishing, perhaps malicious, or maybe untrustworthy. Whatever foibles and tresspasses maharaji and premies have, you wouldn't be worth much more. Any slick reasoning to make it appear different would make you just another Dettmers.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 23:25:10 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Powerman Subject: Yeah, maybe you're right Message:

Maybe you're right, Powerman. Maybe we should all wear masks. Could I borrow yours for a while?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 00:15:01 (GMT) From: Powerman Email: None To: Jim Subject: Yeah, maybe you're right Message:

Well, Jim, if you're going to be a schmucko, it might serve you well to wear a mask. When you're a nice, reasonable guy you can be Jim and when you're a schmucko, you can go by the handle, 'Frenchy'. Sorry, 'Powerman's' already taken.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 00:33:12 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Powerman Subject: Yeah, maybe you're right Message:

Would you please honestly consider this not-so-far-fetched hypothetical situation: The forum goes on for years. Throughout that time, Dog continues to dissemble and bullshit. No, let's make it worse. Say Dog spends that time calling me, you and everyone here the worst things imaginable. All along I know his identity and know that he's got no reason other than the arbitrary maintenance of his own comfort level for posting anonymously. Would I be obliged to honour his wish and protect his anonymity? Please answer with something more than a simple 'yes' or 'no'. Give some reasons. This anonymous cult apologist shtick is a fairly new one.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 04:16:45 (GMT) From: Deputy Dog Email: None To: Jim Subject: Yeah, maybe you're right Message:

Say Dog spends that time calling me, you and everyone here the worst things imaginable. All along I know his identity and know that he's got no reason other than the arbitrary maintenance of his own comfort level for posting anonymously. Would I be obliged to honour his wish and protect his anonymity? Yeah but I don't do that. Sure I act like an asshole sometimes but that's the nature of the Internet. In fact, I pride myself on discussing issues and being reasonable. Sure you might not agree with me but . . . . -- Dogg

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 01:48:20 (GMT) From: Powerman Email: None To: Jim Subject: Yeah, maybe you're right Message:

Considering his anonymity isn't integral to his annoying and persistent stupidity, and that exposing him may very well have no impact, it's a bad idea. It really isn't a question of 'being obliged'. You're not obliged to do a lot of things but there's tons of other reasons to refrain from them. Sure, the Dog acts like a moron but you look like more of a moron reaching for heavy artillery. If you can't be effective by addressing what he's posting then just give it up; tattle-taling will just backfire and evoke sympathy for him. Trying to have him banned from posting would even be better.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 02:07:32 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Powerman Subject: Okay, bear with me here Message:

Considering his anonymity isn't integral to his annoying and persistent stupidity, and that exposing him may very well have no impact, it's a bad idea. Two assumptions I'm not prepared to make. First, I'm not at all sure that Dogg doesn't say just that much stupider stuff knowing that no one in his local town is going to bump into him someday and say '----, I saw your posts citing the Forum (i.e. EST)and Tony Robbins and I also noticed that, at one point, you stuck up for Scientology too. Worse, I've seen what you have to say about Maharaji. Have you gone mad?' Or people might ake him to task for his description of how he's lived his life as a premie these past twenty-five years. For example, the other day Dog said that he's not known as a 'cold-hearted' kind of guy. I posted that, to the contrary, he was always considered a very cold fish back in the day (I also said that I personally liked him then but that wasn't the question). Also, who's to say that ripping his mask off won't have a salutory effect? Don't we know that one of the main reasons people communicate anonymously is that it enables them to say dumb shit, whether it be a kid making prank phone calls or an anonymous cult apologist? No guarantees but I woudln't be surprised if having to post as a person, not a cartoon figure, might have a very positive effect on Dog. What it would probably do is force him to stop posting all his bullshit. Silence would be better than that. That would be a good thing. It really isn't a question of 'being obliged'. You're not obliged to do a lot of things but there's tons of other reasons to refrain from them. Well, if outing him would make me an 'asshole' as you said there must be some moral obligation in there somewhere.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 04:30:36 (GMT) From: Deputy Dog Email: None To: Jim Subject: Okay, bear with me here Message:

For example, the other day Dog said that he's not known as a 'cold-hearted' kind of guy. I posted that, to the contrary, he was always considered a very cold fish back in the day (I also said that I personally liked him then but that wasn't the question). Jim, I was always considered a very cold fish, eh. WELL I HAD MORE WOMEN IN THE 70's THAN YOU'LL EVER HAVE. You know that for a fact! Cold fish indeed! Now if you expose me, suppose one of my daughters reads this post and later finds out who Deputy Dog is. How is that going to affect my relationship with her. Ya gotta think long term Jim. If you don't like what I'm saying here then respond. No I prefer to stay Deputy Dog. If you expose me I'll just deny it and start posting as Sheriff Cat. -- Dogg

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 03:57:15 (GMT) From: Powerman Email: None To: Jim Subject: Okay, bear with me here Message:

Jim, I'm willing to consider that outing Dog could result in some really great things but it's still a snotty, petty thing to do. I'd rather have a good Jim than a good Dog.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 17:03:37 (GMT) From: Deputy Dog Email: None To: Powerman Subject: Outing Dog could result in some really great thing Message:

Powerman, Outing Dog could result in some really great things? Like what? An embarrassed guy walking around at programs? Providing of course that they'd even let me in. Embarrassed family members at programs? And for what? I don't want the notoriety. If you want me to stop posting here just tell me, or do to me what you did to Catweasel, just cut me off electronically. If you out me, 1. I'll be pissed off and 2. I'll probably just start posting under different aliases, making things more confusing. At least with Deputy Dog you have some sort of continuity. No, outing Dogg could result in some really bad things. -- Dogg

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 17:26:01 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Deputy Dog Subject: Why are you so embarrassed? Message:

Dog, I don't buy the ACOA bullshit. Who gives a fuck or even remembers for that matter if one or both of your parents were Alcoholics? No, your real reason for wanting anonymity is that you would indeed be embarrassed if you had to defend some of your ideas to some of the people who really know you. As it is, none of you premies have to assert any philosophy any more. It's just assumed that you're all premies. The encounters are simple and essentially social. You've got premie friends who think Maharaji's the Lord and others who never go near there. It's all about as confused as your own posts have been over time. Is Maharaji Jesus Christ all over again (whoever the fuck he was!) or what? You don't know what to think, do you? Are there cults in the world and how to think about them? You're clueless. Remember when you were defending Scientology last month? So you post some real drivel here and have been ridiculed very appropriately all along. No wonder you want to hide your identity. You're shameless and your attitude about this -- even down to hiding behind your parents alcoholism -- is cowardly.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index