Talk:Criticism of Prem Rawat/Archive 6

Boys, pick up the cyber-pen ('tis mightier than the cyber-sword)
Jim and John (and whoever), please consider that the "usenet banter" form of edit ideas placed within heated discussion blocks is rather inefficient. I think many of your edit ideas have merit, but the people you're usually addressing them to are highly unlikely ever to implement them, and it's tough for others like me to comb through the discussions to find them all. I would suggest you: I would actually urge the former, but the latter will do. --Gary D 23:31, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * Enter an edit suggestion and rationale here on the talk page, and then actually implement that edit on the article page (if you stay away from bulk deletions or reverts, you might be surprised how well your edits will stick), or
 * Gather all your edit suggestions at the end of the day into a prominent bulleted list on the talk page for consideration and implementation by others.


 * Will do Gary, but it will have to wait until after the weekend. --John Brauns 23:42, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Loged on and was disappointed not to see any new substantial edit effort... Do you need more time? --Zappaz 04:40, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Is there a particular rush to finish? I hesitate to make any edits because I'm auotmatically considered a liar (a characteriztion made by the sources Melton and Introvigne).

Also,under "Sources of Criticism" second par. 1st sentence, it was not since the 1980s...the sentence should read since the 1990s... Former followers of Rawat didn't start discussing him on the internet until the mid-90s and TPRF didn't even exist until a couple of years ago.

Additionally, all ex-premies are not "disgruntled" and all are not former employees. All were not fired, either. The pro-Rawat camp is making assertions in the article that make them sound like fact.

Finally, who's the owner of One-Reality.net? Is there a copyright permission somewhere to verify that source?

CynthiaG 15:42, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Request for a supporter's point of clarification on kriya secrecy
I note we are saying on this page that "Supporters acknowledge these techniques are referred to throughout Indian history in writings and poems, maintaining the important point is instead that Rawat is skilled at teaching them." Yet we have received requests not to publish them in Wikipedia that say the followers will be very upset if we do. I would like to get a "consistency check" between these two points, preferrably from a supporter who doesn't want the kriyas published here. (E-mailing me is fine.) Are the techniques intended to be secret (putting aside the recent Internet disclosures) or not? --Gary D 00:17, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)


 * Gary, I know you asked for a current student to reply, but I think I know what the problem is here. People who are taught the techniques of the meditation that Rawat calls "Knowledge" are required to promise never to reveal/show the techniques to anyone else -- ever.  Before a "Knowledge Session" this promise or vow of secrecy is required before the techniques are shown to anyone.  I suspect that's the issue for current students, because by publishing the techniques on Wikipedia, students might view it as a breach of their promise to Rawat himself.  This is my speculation, but I can't think of any other reason there would be an objection to publishing them.  Making a vow to never show the techniques of "Knowledge" has always been the case with Rawat/Maharaji regardless of the period of time during which anyone became a student, premie, or PWK.


 * Cynthia Sept 10, 2004

I vigorously object to the process
After reaching a situation in which the article was discussed and edited and somewhat sabilized, to have Jim and others "suddenly" waking up and trying to make this article a soap box for their basesles allegations, is a travesty. They have been plaining this all along. They do not believe on NPOV. They are wasting our time.

Three guys and a cat posting baseless allegations on a webpage, does not warrant to have an article full of innuendo and lies, even if these are rebuted one by one by one.

I will vigorously oppose any attempt by the hate-group to use this as a platform for peddling their innuendo and smear campaing against law-abiding people. They have their website: let them spew their stuff there, not on WP! Enough is enough!

This articlec ould be just one sentece: ''there is a small group of ex-followers (less that 25 for pete's sake!) that have the stated mission to harass Prem Rawat and his students and to discredit them. If you want to know more click here''. Finito. --64.81.88.140 00:54, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but this is the right article for the allegations of the "hate group". I do not believe that it is a smear campaign nor that the allegations are baseless. I promise that I will really try to be fair and accurate but if you systematically obstruct additions of criticism on this article then I will ask for a request for comments. Andries 17:46, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Is there a double standard for harrassment tolerance here?
In my brief, intermittent forays into these discussions I have noticed that other ex-premies and myself have been chastised unhesitantly for saying anything even slightly undecorous, let alone actually insulting, against premies and their supporters. We've even been threatened with banning from Wikipedia for little more than pressing for responsive answers which, I take it, is a bit too aggressive and unseemly for Wikipedia. If you doubt this, just read the archives of the main article. You'll see.

So why is it that anonymous premies like the fellows above enjoy carte blanche privileges to insult as they do? You can just imagine the response I would get, for instance, if I carried on like them. Gary? You seem to be more or less at the helm right now. Can you answer this please?

Thanks,

-- Jim


 * There is no such concept as "at the helm" in WP. Your "standing" is dictated by your contributions, the depth of your research, and your ability to copyedit within the NPOV guidelines. In regard to the attacks by anon above, best policy is to ignore them. Ignoring personal attacks is the best way to avoid escalation... and believe me, I'm taking from experience, if you know what I mean... ;) --Zappaz 03:37, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Jim, I didn't notice earlier you had addressed this to me. I think I'll dodge your question by saying that you seem to be referring to the controversy that has been raging on the talk pages, and frankly I just don't care about any of that. I'm here for article pages, fact building, and text edits, and it is in service of that I have managed to gore each side's ox in here at one point or other. Right now your side appears to be doing less text composition and making fewer edits than your opponents; I suspect that drifts the pages their way. John Brauns has said elsewhere on this page he intends to jump into building and editing text after the weekend, and I look forward to that. While I urge caution on both sides in their editing (we seem to have cut way down on reverts and wars), the truly involved insiders who have done the research can probably do better for their cause and for the article as a whole when they pick up the pen than dilletante carpetbagger copyeditors like me. If I recall correctly, you earlier begged off doing a version of the main PR article, and you say elsewhere on this page that the Wikipedia approach (I presume you mean by that, consensus building) as applied to this topic is doomed. Feel free to hold these opinions, more power to ya, but what am I supposed to do with all this everything-but-the-text activity, when I'm just here to edit and polish text? --Gary D 08:48, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

What happened?
Left this article for less than 24 hrs and what happened?

I would kindy request from everyone to take a deep breath and look at the article as is. At this rate we will need to expand this article to a second page. I tend to agree with anon above, that posting allegations one after another that are all sourced from the same website creates an innacurate picture. Next, we will see claims that PR beats his wife, has an harem and abuses cocaine... and because someone said that on a critic's website, we will allow it to stay in the article. This is unacceptable, even with a rebuttal following. My feeling is that the current sectioning of the article is creating a POV that is unbalanced. We need to collapse the sections and abbreviate the text. Let us remember that the criticism is all coming from the same group of people and referenced the same website. This needs to be reflected in the article. --Zappaz 03:15, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Zappaz, Yes, of course it all comes from the same website because they are the only one who are interested in Prem Rawat. It took them years to collect it. If the facts written in a NPOV style support one POV, so be it. That is the game (and possibly the aim) of Wikipedia. Andries 04:51, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Zappaz, you don't seem to have any problem with the many scathing and unsubstantiated allegations against ex-premies on the page, do you?  -- Jim


 * Well... this was your idea, wasn't it? You wanted an article in which you could post your criticism of PR. Of course, that brings the rebutals and counter allegations by the pro PR people... We could go the easy way instead, and have a short paragraph on the main article, with a link to your website and we will be done, as proposed by anon above. That will save a lot of time and aggravation to both sides. --Zappaz 03:42, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Zappaz, that is a relevant and good question by Jim. I hope you can still give an answer. Andries 07:38, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Edits

 * Reformatted Misc Criticism section. Now leaner.
 * Removed reference to D Lane. The critics are already making the point, and D Lane did not write about Rawat.
 * Shortened some of the titles.
 * Zappaz, I do not agree with removing the reference to David C. Lane. This is an important reference to support the view of most vocal critics that Prem Rawat's alleged immoral privat life matters in assessing his authenticity. By the way, neither does Massimo Introvigne mention Maharaji, so I do not think that that is a good reason to remove the article. Andries 13:20, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hot potato: the "credibility" subsection
Okay, I have copyedited the last substantive subsection, the "credibility" subsection in the miscellaneous criticism section. I know it's going to be controversial, but there's no point pussyfooting around the allegations with vague text. Love or hate Dettmers, believe or disbelieve him, this is what he's claiming, and the text now clearly sets it forth. I would argue this text, so long as it is clearly attributed&mdash;and it is in its current edition&mdash;should stay, because it has what lawyers would call "indicia of reliability" that raise its potential above gossipy ravings. I do not want to wade into the firestorm of characterizing Dettmers' credibility; rather, what merits its inclusion here is Dettmer's organizational position that could plausibly have given him the personal access he claims, his claim that he personally witnessed or participated in the events claimed, and that Mishler's statement corroborates some of the drinking part of Dettmers' story. If there is a more detailed rebuttal attack against Dettmers' credibility than the general denial currently included, it should be given here as well. --Gary D 08:16, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)


 * Good work, Gary... although I am concerned about were the limits are for including these types of allegations. Are there any standards for what is quotable or not quoatable? If tomorrow an exfollowers alleges this or that and writes in Usenet a "testimony", is that quotable? --Zappaz 15:40, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Zappaz, I agree that this is an important issue and if there are no guidelines for this, then guidelines should be made. I do believe that Dettmers' and Mishler's statements are reasonably reliable, may be even completetly. Andries 17:06, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Zappaz, I think the guidelines are out there in the collective consensus more or less amorphously, even if not explicitly stated. From my background I tend to approach things from the standpoint of legal evidence rules, and whether or not this material if it were offered as evidence could be shown to a jury. Hence I refer to those "indicia of reliability." We can see the difference between the Dettmers allegations, which I support for inclusion, versus the notion of PR knowing of Jagdeo's activities, which I don't. With Dettmers we have someone whose organizational title gives plausibility to his having had personal access and knowledge, and who tells a fairly detailed story of specific events, for example a drunk and abusive PR offending a particular woman on a particular occasion. I didn't include that here because it's not particularly informative, but it means Dettmers is daring to put out specific items that he knows are subject to being specifically tested and disputed, by counter-testimony, corroborative documentation, discrepancies in the details he gives (similar to an alibi), whatever. He says, "I was there and this is what I saw." Now, the guy may be lying through his teeth, but we can't say he's assembling conclusions from other people's info without a basis in his own personal experience. With the Jagdeo thing, by contrast, there just is no one and nothing that pins down PR to knowing about it. That's the kind of inference we keep out. Even in Dettmers' stuff, I left out his characterizations&mdash;PR is a coward, PR is abusive, there is a climate of fear around him&mdash;because those are of no help to us; instead, we can read the specific events Dettmer claims to have witnessed and decide for ourselves. I did put in one characterization, about PR being not cynical but instead believing himself beyond restrictions, because that characterization goes against the more obvious one of hypocrisy being drawn by other ex-premies, and so the very fact of it coming from our witness is somewhat informative. So, to (finally!) answer your question, if an ex-premie gives a testimony on usenet tomorrow, before including it we would ask, Is it specific? Is it testable? Does it come from his personal observations, and not someone else's hearsay? Do the testimony's or the person's situation make it plausible that he might be telling the truth? Is it corroborated? This is what limits the concern over either side just dribbling new material into the article forever&mdash;it has to meet those criteria, and I suspect we're just about to the end of the material that does and that is not obviously minutiae. The PR fact situation is not a blank slate that can be added to indefinitely at will. --Gary D 23:13, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)We'll see, I suppose.


 * Thanks for the clarification. I am still concerned about the issue of plausibility and how it is measured for inclusion. But as you say, we shall see... --23:40, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Gary and Zappaz, see also Verifiability. I copied parts of this discussion to Wikipedia_talk%3AVerifiability because I think Gary D.'s remarks are excellent and important. Besided I want to know what others say about it. Andries 10:34, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Andries: It will be good for you to read in detail the Verifiability article. As far as I can understand, many of the claims made by the expremies here fall dead center into the category of what is considered NOT appropriate.--64.81.88.140 02:32, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Gary-- good work--again
Although IMHO it starts to go into trivial detail, the page is very smoothly edited. I suspect when it comes to this subject, no detail is too small if it will either smear or defend Rawat, depending where one's sympathies lie.

I made a few tweaks. In the Dettmers section, I contextualized the time period. I find the allegations distasteful, but there they are, the reader will just have to decide if they give a damn about whther he smoked pot. Maybe I'm a freak about this, but it is always important to say WHEN an event took place. I also went back and tried to encapsulate the context for what the premies were complaining about with the Scattini business. Sometimes I think that Internet access ought to be a licensed affair!!! ;-)

Richard G. 11:23, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Objectivity and neutrality
Wikipedia articles cannot always be objective. To do so implies that we can get at the "real truth".

So we cannot say objectively that a certain group is a "cult" or a "hate group". Such designations will always be hotly contested, if for no other reason than the fact that even someone who knowingly starts or joins one of these has obvious motives for concealing its real nature. There are other equally important reasons...

Anyway, all we can do for controversial religious groups (and their opponents) is to list the praise and criticism which various sources give them. Okay?

So Prem Rawat is "considered a cult leader" by Joe Blow of Asian Breezes, a major ex-premie group -- and "considered the world's best guru" by his followers.

And the ex-premie group is "considered a hate group" by Raja Genstdamasheen, public affairs director of Elan Vital, the leading pro-Rawat group.

But Wikipedia won't be able to draw any conclusions or give any definite answers. At best, it will be able to provide enough information so that readers can make up their own minds. --Uncle Ed 14:36, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks Ed. First time I managed to smile while reading this talk page. Your sense of humor is great . I just hope that Joe Blow and Raja Genstdamasheen don't start suddenly rebutting this.:)
 * Your explanation on objectivity vs neutrality was much needed. My take is that the exfollowers have a really hard time with the concept of NPOV, as abundantly demonstrated by their own expressions on this matter.
 * The concern that I have expressed and still remain unanswered is the unwillingness of the exfollowers to contribute to this article, or the Prem Rawat/temp2 article (Andries is consulting with them and helping there here and there). I can only see this as a maneuver to have the last word and reject anything that is not just their POV. As for the followers, some are contributing anonymously, with some strong voices here and there in the talk page when these tactics become too obvious. --Zappaz 15:32, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Zappaz, I have committed to editing the article after the weekend (I'll be too busy before), and I will explain each edit here. Even though I've got involved quite late I too would like to see a stable article so that I won't feel I have to keep checking in here. Regards, --John Brauns 16:03, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Folks, I removed the sub-sub heading of other criminal complaints, and deleted the bit about this Canadian lawyer being charged with something or other. (Is that the same "Jim" who keeps quitting and coming back here?). In either event, there's no citation for it, (yes, I saw it above, but marginalia isn't citable, and it has now mysteriously diappeared!) it's more "piling on", and just as I really and truly think the anti-group is hell-bent on going overboard and shoving every negative thing thay can think of, the same has to apply for the pro guys, too.

Look everyone, (especially John Brauns, who is doing his side's edits, ostensibly with the direction of ex chatroom participants Andries and Jim) there is way too much gilding the lilly. Trust me, you have each made your point -- IN SPADES-- that the other side is evil, lacks crdibility, is crazy, and is not to be trusted. Now you're just piling on the mud. I mean really, I saw one part where is said "Critics further allege.." This is NOT a legal pleading!!!

I think Uncle Ed could not have said it better. The goal is to present the main points and allow readers to dig deepr if they want. It is NOT public trial to determine the validity of Prem Rawat(sorry, Jim) nor a police investigation (sorry, Andries) nor a puff piece (sorry, PR folks). Richard G. 16:21, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Trying to get Ron Geaves fired
Can we get this out of the article? It think it is non-essential and as it is phrased now, it gives a one sided view of the matter. I could correct it but then it wil become lengthy. By the way, I think that ex-premies have gone too far and I will say so at forum8. Andries 16:46, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * What do you mean non-essential? Try and tell Dr. Geaves that... The efforts by these people are what they are and must' be told here so that their appalling tactics and motives are know to the reader. --64.81.88.140 17:06, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * true, it is important for Ron Geaves but not for this article. I mean, if we want to tell the whole story, then we would need a whole section for it. That goes too far, I think because it would mean a digression on a side subject. Andries 17:19, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * The issue presented is not about Ron Geaves.... The issue presented is that ex-premies are mounting a campaign of harassement againts followers (not the only one, you know), and this is one example that is documented by evidence. My vote is to keep it. --64.81.88.140 17:40, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * It is either the whole lengthy story about Ron Geaves or no story at all. Doing otherwise would be unfair. Andries 17:54, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Andries: the article is presenting a fact. Exprtemies have and are harassing people because they have chosen to follow Prem Rawat. No other reason. That in my book is called criminal. That in my book is called bigotism. That in my book is called hate. The article is presenting that expremies are using these tactics and there is nothing you can do to alleviate that fact. This stays in the article. --64.81.88.140 18:38, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * It is about exposing flawed scholarship to inform the public and abuse of academic credentials to support a partisan view i.e. not telling the editors of Nova Religio that you are a follower is of Prem Rawat is wrong. He has been warned many times and refuses to answer polite questions by ex-premies about his work. I agree that the ex-premies have gone to far but that is the other side of the story. Andries 18:43, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Andries, if you sincerely believe they have gone too far, they why don't you say so in the chat room of which you are a member? Just wondering...Richard G. 19:05, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * done Andries 19:50, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Before anyone gets to reverting, may I take a swing at editing this passage? --Gary D 18:45, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)


 * go, ahead Gary, thanks 18:53, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * It will be just a little bit before I can get to it. I'm not asking that this material be frozen, feel free to edit it in the meantime, I'm just asking no one push the big, red delete/revert button before then. --Gary D 19:02, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

Go for it Gary. By the way, here's an interesting article about how newspapers are now backing away from anonymous allegations and, and they put it, "rants." http://www.shreveporttimes.com/alanenglish/html/2E6C5ED4-C6D6-43E5-9D17-3B5974426260.shtml There IS hope :-) Richard G. 19:03, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Go ahead Gary. promise not to touch anything ti'll you had a chance. --64.81.88.140 20:02, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

September 10 copyedit pass
Reaction edits to recent material and edits, and work on the Geaves thing...
 * Changed "speak for" a large group to "share their viewpoint"; it's not quite what John has suggested, but it's less out in the ozone than my original wording, and I'll let John diddle with it when he starts text contributions
 * Cleaned up first sentence in "claims of divinity": had centers/central twice in the sentence
 * Note: Can anybody do something with the puja ref? Right now it's just hanging out there, and I don't know what its significance is. Did they do puja to him?
 * Changed "guru" to "master" regarding Indian usage; the sentence makes a more sensical point that way
 * Specified Gulfstream V jet
 * Reverted "any wrongdoings" to "wrongdoing"; this is a non-attributed Wikipedia statement, and "any," "ever," "never," "at all" etc. confer subtle advocacy
 * Cleaned up the "tools not perks" point
 * Specified the fifteen years for Dettmers began in 1974; removed the "teenage" adjective from his account, as Rawat would have been 16 through 31 during that fifteen years; "teenage" does still pertain to the time period of Mishler's statements
 * Clarified the "apostate" rebuttal point
 * Identified "Type III" ref to a CESNUR article, with wikilink, per a talk page request
 * Reworked "hate group" motives sentence, and de-wikified, as it's linked above
 * Copyedited the Geaves stuff and fleshed out. Removed the John Brauns rebuttal ref for the same reason as before--we need the rebuttal points themselves, not just a reference that someone made a rebuttal. I think that would be excellent for John himself to add next week, if not someone before then.
 * Moved the Scattini item back to the motives section; a pending complaint is not a legal action. More importantly, it just fits better there.
 * Copyedit nit on the UDRP proceeding

Okay, I think that's everything I have on the substantive sections. Thanks, all. --Gary D 21:32, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)


 * Addition copyedits:
 * Removed puja wikilink
 * Small edits to Claims of divinity - added rebutal
 * Spaced paragraphs on critic's characters. It was too dense.
 * Edit: Called the attack on Geaves what it is: an attack. Not a "complaint". You do not publish an anonymous spoffed website with the logo of his college to make a "complain". Maybe you can smooth it and write it better Gary, but not so much that it hides the real motive.
 * 64.81.88.140 22:00, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * You may have seen I added back the "every day" reference nit, as it's part of an attributed claim. I agree with most of these edits. As to the last one, if labeled as an attributed characterization, words like "attack" can be used, but I attempted to write this part of the item as unattributed, Wikipedia-speaking factual. In this portion, I think "attack" has to go back to "complaint." I haven't reverted, but I do propose to the group the former (well, okay, my) version instead. --Gary D 22:07, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * P.S. point of clarification: the "complaint" referred to in my version isn't the website, it's an actual letter they appear to be preparing to send to the college. Do I have those facts straight, "anti" guys? --Gary D 22:11, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)


 * Forget the letter for a minute. What would you consider this website to be:
 * http://www.geocities.com/rongeaves/
 * HTML title: "TRS Senior Lecturer: Ron Geaves in Academic Fraud"
 * Description metatag: 
 * Keywords matatag: 
 * Purpose: smear the name of a person by getting listed on Google.
 * Gary: I can call an attack when I see one. And this is a perfect example of Cyber-terrorism. Nothing to do with a "complaint". I do not object to adding something about a complaint letter if and when they do that, but for now we need to keep the information about this attack in the text.
 * I qualified it a Cyberstalking attack, for accuracy.
 * 64.81.88.140 22:24, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * The website is indeed quite polemic. Maybe I can do my magic on the passage and work the website in separately. Meantime, let's see what the group has to say about it. --Gary D 23:16, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * Ok with me. 64.81.88.140 23:25, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 64.81.88.1.10, I do not think that it clearly fits the definition of cyberstalking. It is not about the person of Ron Geaves but only about his writings with regards to Prem Rawat. I changed it accordingly. Andries 13:25, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * You are absolutely blinded by your POV, Andries. This is a disgrace that you cannot see the harm these hatemongers are doing. --64.81.88.140 15:23, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * 68.81.88.140, you may be right that I am blined by my POV. Please explain me why you think it should be stated as a documented fact that Emile committed cyberstalking by creating this website about Ron Geaves. I try to be open for evidence that I am wrong. 15:49, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Article about cyberstalking Andries 19:16, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I read the article on cyberstalking and I do not think that it is clear that the website on Geaves can be caterogized as cyberstalking. So I have removed it as if it were a documented fact. Andries 08:29, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Looking good! I did some minor edits here and there, but I feel this cake is almost baked. Let's see what the anti group comes up with during the weekend. Hopefully we can resolve the Geaves passage as well after they comment. Gary, in the meantime, pls note that Richard, me and some anons have done substantial work on Prem Rawat/temp1, maybe it is time for a visit there and let us know what you think.
 * --Zappaz 03:33, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I promised I would be right over, and that I shall do, lickety-split! --Gary D 06:33, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)


 * Great job, editors! I have not been involved for a while, but I see things are shaping up. Will have some more time during next week. While you are busy here I shall take a stab at the ancillary articles. Is there a list of these somewhere? --Senegal 04:44, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Senegal, related articles are Divine Light Mission, Premie, Ron Geaves, Elan Vital, Divine_United_Organization that contains factual mistakes, Hans_Ji_Maharaj, and Kriyas contains some information about the four technqiues. Andries 06:18, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 *  ...or, just follow the handy new category, Category:Maharaji!  --Gary D 06:33, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)

Characterizion of Ex-premie website in the external link section
I do not think that ex-premie is critical of Maharaji's students but mainly of M. himself and the organizations that support his work. I changed it accordingly. Andries 08:28, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Andries, you need to read the ex-premie page more carefully. There are dozens of attacks and defamtory statements about individual premies. The ex-premies with which you have aligned yourself in their chat room have posted many many horrible things about Maharaji's students. Look at the archives of the chat that is accessible on the ex-webpage. I will not rename them here, but many people have been subjected to malicious and downright nasty and intrusive personal attacks at home and at work. Jim and the other core haters live for this stuff. It is shameful and hateful. The hatemongers have a right-wing talk-radio kind of pattern of response, one that we've seen here on this page over and over:
 * 1-First deny saying it;
 * 2-Then say it's true;
 * 3-Then change the subject back to their complaint;
 * 4-Then make personal attacks and uncivilezed comments;
 * 5-Then publicly announce withdrawal from the debate;
 * 6-Then come slinking bcak in a wekk or two and start the whole ugly mess over.

Jim has done this on many chat rooms and has done it here. Look at the archives of this page. It got so bad that reportedly some misguided premie tried to respond in kind, and using the example set by Jim, started writing to ex-premies' employers. I have seen your postings on the expremie chatroom, and you have clearly been acting as a surrogate for these people. It's too obvious. I calls it like I sees it. -Skippy


 * skippy, I have to study the archives more carefully but it is certainly not the main focus of the ex-premie website. Andries 14:36, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * See? Now you are backing away, changing the question to the "main focus." Very cute, but it doesn't get to the point. There's TONS of it. Go the forum archives, just for starters. But I suspect you'll be back with instructions from your masters (and I thought you were "done" with having a master) to say that these victims of hate speech and private intrusion deserve it, or that it's "relevant" or some other lawyerly response... -Skippy


 * Skippy, we are only talking about a short characterization of the ex-premie website in the external links section of the article. And of course that characterization should describe the main focus of the website. Andries 14:56, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Andries the Greaves attack is by no means of measure a a legitimate attempt to inform the public about flawed and fraudulent scholarship and to stop abuse of academic credentials. Deleted. Ask for concensus about that attack. You are blinded. --64.81.88.140 15:18, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree that ex-premie, Emile, has gone too far but that is how he and some others see it. I think Emile's POV, which was worded as a POV, should be included too. I warned you in advance that the whole story about Ron Geaves should be told otherwise it is not fair. Andries 15:27, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Whar warning Andries? You are doing a disservice by supporting a hate grouo. Leave it to them and stay out. --64.81.88.140 18:12, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Hello again, i also think the way Emile has published his site was wrong, but why then speak in plural of ex-premies , mr 64.81.88.140 , you yourself playing the accurate guy here were deleting the links to critical websites on the german wikisite without any comment. so what are your goals here working on the critics page, would you allow me to publish on the prorawat-page as an ex-premie ? thomas


 * Thomas. Don't play the naive or the rioghteous here. You wrote a POV article, just because you thought no one will be monitoring the German version. Let me prove you wrong. Want to help? translate the CURRENT version of the article. Not your own. Verstehen Sie? --64.81.88.140 18:12, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * deleting critical links that are marked as critical, done by andries is not POV? the article wasn't  written by me. there were minor edits that have been  corrected, if you would have watched the article's history you would see that. you just exchanged the whole thing, i guess because of your lower german language skills. yet deleting the links without comment is inexcusably in my opinion. this reminds me of jossi's behaviour, so hello.by the way, i see you attacking andries in a completely unfair way. it is hard for me to understand, why somebody, who in his understanding is serving the highest master, seemingly experiencing this peace for decades, can get so respectless and insulting to another human being. maybe the knowledge isn't working for you too. how about a change? ;-) .thomas

Introvigne says nowhere that apostates makes outrageous allegations

 * "They categorize these men's remarks as the type of outrageous allegations typically made by apostates" [32] (http://www.cesnur.org/testi/Acropolis.html.

I mean, what the article refers to are narratives "evil", "capture", and powerful theoretical concepts as "mind control", and "brainwashing", not concrete stories about drinking too much, and the teacher not living according to his own standards, as written down in the current Wikipedia article. Hence I removed this sentence accordingly. Andries 13:50, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * You have no clue. What the text said, (reverted) is that supporters says that these are outrageous. Intovigne explains the causes. --64.81.88.140


 * Okay, but it is worded as if the article, not just the supporters, says that apostates generally make outrageous allegations. Can you please reword it? thanks Andries 15:19, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * How about the following? Andries 15:38, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * "They categorize these men's remarks as the outrageous allegations that apostates, according to them, typically make, for which, they say, an article by Massimo Introvigne explains the causes. "


 * That is poor copyedit. Too many commas. It does not flow. Let pass it onto Gary.64.81.88.140


 * 64.81.88.140 Corrected in the article. Andries 08:29, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Nowadays, there are still a few critical press articles
64.81.88.140, see http://www.ex-premie.org/pages/press_room.htm Why did you removed that in the article? it is a documented fact. Thanks in advance for your explanation. Andries 15:45, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Give it a break, Andries, give it a break. I am getting tired of your minutiae editing, and poor English. Want to contribute? make suggestion on the page instead of doing poor edits.--64.81.88.140 18:14, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)~


 * I re-inserted it. If you disagree, then please give a detailed rebuttal. Andries 08:29, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Will you guys quit lying about me for a change, please?
Listen, premies, I know that it's hard trying to defend the indefensible but will you give it up already on the irrelevant personal attacks and lies on me? I've never emailed anyone's employer or even suggested it.


 * BUT YOU HAVE TELEPHONED THEM. VERY CUTE SPIN THERE! HERE WE GO AGAIN. THANKS JIM!!--Skippy

I don't know of any exes who have.


 * ANOTHER LIE, JIM. YOU APPLAUDED THEM DOING SO IN YOUR HATE CHAT ROOM. CHECK THE ARCHIVES. -- Skippy

No matter how often you repeat a lie like that, it doesn't just get tired one day and turn into the truth. Sorry about that. It IS true that one of you made some bogus and forged law society complaints against ME, though. I mean if you really want to talk about it.


 * HOW ABOUT THE ONE FILED BY ANOTHER EXPREMIE WHO HAD IT WITH YOUR HATE SPEECH? YOU KNOW, THE ONE THAT WAS REPOSTED HERE BUT YOU HAD DELETED?--Skippy

And talk about cyberstalking and online harrassment? Are you serious? What do you think jimheller.info is? Or one-reality.net? Or the original CAC attacks or Glasser's first, ugly website where he called us all drug addicts, crazy and the like?


 * NOT ALL OF YOU. JUST A FAIR AMOUNT. THERE YOU GO, BUILDING A STRAW MAN AGAIN! --Skippy

Or how about all the premie threats, like Catweasel warning he was going to smash me with a baseball bat or even shoot me, I think he said once, or Carlos' threat to try to get whatever dirt he could on any of us and "ruin" us all somehow (I've got a bunch of them saved, if you don't believe me)?


 * WHY DIDNT YOU EVER FILE A COMPLAINT? YOUR PUPPET BRAUNS SAYS IF YOU DON'T FILE A COMPLAINT IT MUST BE TRUE! DID YOU TEACH HIM THAT, COUNSELOR? --Skippy

I mean, you want to talk harrassment, what do you think EV is doing lying about my joke -- WHICH I IMMEDIATELY SAID WAS JUST A JOKE -- about stealing money? Doesn't that just say it all, fellas? I mean, really, how can you possibly defend that kind of unconscionable libel?

Indeed, look at EV's ridiculous FAQs about all the exes who dare to speak out. Not a credible, rational, honest person amongst us, to hear them tell it. You know what that means, fellas? That means that you and your guru actually think that he can jump onto the world stage as the Lord of the Universe, Saviour of Mankind, get richer than hell one way or another over the next couple of decades, seriously affect countless lives, and even change his story so that, whatever else you can say, we all agree that he's no longer openly claiming much of his former stuff, and what? No one's going to ever criticize him? No one's going to actually try to analyze the whole trip?

And no, I don't mean Ron Geaves. I mean, SURE, Ron Geaves. Why not? Don't get me wrong. He can study and write whatever he wants about Rawat. It's too bad that he does so without disclosing that he's a premie. It's too bad he won't openly dialogue with his REAL peers in this area -- other premies and exes.


 * HE'S NOT ON YOUR CROSS EXAMINATION, DIMWIT. --Skippy

But Ron can do it. But you know what? So can we. We, too, can study, analyze your guru.


 * OOPS! YOU DID IT AGAIN, LIAR! YOU LEAPED FROM CRITICIZING GEAVES TO ASSUMING IT'S OK TO THREATEN HIS EMPLOYMENT. IS KARL ROVE YOUR NEW GURU? -- Skippy

Better still, we can even criticize, question, challenge and condemn him. We can laugh at him just as we laugh at ourselves for ever taking him seriously. Your problem is that you can't defend him on the facts. You can't get past the fact that just 14 years ago he publically scolded his followers for forgetting that the guru's no regular teacher, he's Hari -- WHICH, YOUR OWN ORGANIZATION TRANSLATED AS "GOD". You can't answer stuff like that so you take to attacking us.
 * AND YOU "LEFT" MAHARAJI 20 YEARS AGO? SOUNDS LIKE YOU THINK ABOUT HIM EVERY DAY!!!
 * -- Skippy

God, this is so obvious.

Well, quit lying about me here. I don't like it.


 * WHO CARES WHAT YOU LIKE? I THOUGHT YOU WERE GONE, ANYWAY! YUP, SLINKING BACK, GOTTA JUST THROW THE MUD IN THERE. YOU ARE COMPULSIVE, YOU KNOW... YOU REALLLY OUGHT TO QUIT OBSESSING ON MAHARAJI AND SEE A BONE FIDE THERAPIST. -- Skippy



-- Jim



Skippy, I never telephoned anyone's employer either. That's a pure lie. What, are you trying to match EV or something? Other than that, your inability to answer my comments responsively and your tone say it all.

-- Jim


 * Jim, this article is not about you. It is about the Criticism of PR. As far as I can see, your name is not even mentioned once. So, please relax, and note yet again that what you and Skippy are doing above, i snot appropriate for this page. Let us focus on copyedit, please. --00:59, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Additional explanations about my edits, apart from the ones hereabove
To Skippy/ 217.160.219.178
 * 1) removal of the assertion that Steven Hassan and Rick Ross are deprogrammers. Untrue. They used to be deprogrammers.
 * 2) Dettmers claims have been independently verified by Mike Donner
 * Andries 08:29, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

To 64.81.88.140
 * I have reverted all your changes for which you did not give a detailed rebuttal hereabove to what I said on the talk page.
 * Andries 08:29, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * And I will revert these back. There is nothing written about having to substantiate each and every one of my edits. I explained them on the comments field.
 * You actions are appalling. Shame on you. --15:21, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * To 64.81.88.140, Jimbo Wales wrote that it is better to fight on the talk page then plunging into revert wars. I am not saying that you have to explain every edit here. But with regards to contents that I dispute and have written about here, then I think you first have to give me a detailed rebuttal. I will do the same with the contents that you dispute and talk about here. Isn't that a fair deal? What is the alternative, endles edit wars? Andries 18:58, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What do you mean, this isn't about me?!
How can you say that this isn't about me when the whole issue in dispute is the fairness of the article passages that slag the character and activites of exes and me, amongst others, in particular? Exes are being accused of outrageous stuff, much of it lies. You say it's relevant, we say it's not. But the FOLLOWERS have made this an issue, not me or us. That's obvious.

And if this was about Rawat, you'd be all over the quality of proof. But if the allegations are about former premies, for some reason, you're not. Does it matter that so many of the premies' claims about exesa re lies and baseless, passed along ad nauseum through the cult, perhaps but lies and baseless nonetheless?

So, bottom line,it's fully relevant for me to rebut the allegations, at least as far as they apply to me (which the most definitely do) as I have. It's just not true that I or anyone I can think of has bothered someone's employer because they're premies. And anyone who says otherwise should back that claim up with some specificity and some proof because, as far as I know, it's just a lie, as stupid as claiming, as EV does, that I embezzled $18,000 dollars from them.

-- Jim
 * Jim, I prefer to see the irrelevant ad hominem attacks on you and others to be removed from the article but supporters will probably not allow this. I agree that you have the full right to give rebuttals to their charges. Andries 10:02, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course. Andries will defend the outrageous behavior of some of the ex-premies for reasons only known to himself.
 * Jim: stop playing the victim OK? Should I remind you again about your statements about the "visceral hate" you profess against Rawat and his followers?

Introvigne is he an attorney or sociologist?
Zappaz, do you know? Andries 11:12, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Introvigne is a patent attorny in Turin, Italy. He also majored in the sociology of law, not religion.


 * Cynthia Sept 13, 2004

Editing on a merry go round
Well, someone keeps editing without making notes here. Some also lunched up Gary's edits pretty badly, but derring to the process, I left as much as I could. A few changes, noted here:

Moved the testimonials link down to the other weblink sections. Its non sequitur where it was. Added NPOV approach to anti groups' characterizations of EV and PR. Someone added some redundant language, it appears elsewhere, so has been deleted.

Added "ex-premie" to Mishler. Important to qualify and disclose interests always.

Switched around sentences in last graf of financial section, to give anti group last word.

In Miscellaneous secion: Deleted the redundant loaded speculation about why or how Rawat cobbles up the false association with universities. There's no citation here, and as it was, it looks like conspiracy theory stuff. If you accuse someone of deceitful advertisning you really ought to at least cite something -- anything -- but don't just throw it out there. If you can show something to support this, it should go back in. Similary, deleted the premie rebuttal on this that is redundant.

Maybe I missed something here, but I couldn;t find reference to a ritual called "X-rating." I left in that Dettmers was in the inner circle -- I think that's the major point here, that he knows what he's talking about-- but referring to secret ceremonies is weird. If there was such a ceremony, it should be referenced if relevant. Cleaned up the rebuttal to this.

Dr. Greve's section: What is a "spoofed" website? It confuses reader. I looked at the page (which is excreble, IMHO)and it is NOT satire. Deleted "spoofed." I suspect it's one of those internet-specific words, but here it's made to look like a defense. Again, redundant language here (and poorly structred english, I might add). The allegation of academic fraud is made in middle of graf, not need to add it at the end again.

As for the chat room back and forth on this page: Skippy: relax, dude. Have a beer. Works for me. Richard G. 12:47, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Richard G. Skippy, there is a reference to x-rating. thanks for your explanations. Please anyone get a userid or a sockpuppet and login when editing this article. Thanks. Andries 12:50, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Richard G., I still think that it is important to state how some critics see their attack on Ron Geaves. The academic fraud is not mentioned now. 12:57, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it's right here- "they allege that Geaves published papers they believe favorable to Rawat in academic publications allegedly without informing the publications that he was a follower of Rawat' Pretty clear. Also, it's not the reference to X-rating, it's the description of it as a "ritual." That's an important distinction. The WP text went further than the source. Richard G. 13:02, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * The edits by Andries are just a waste of time. The original prose crafted by Gary is now in shambles again. It is minutae editing, adding ZERO value and pushing an undeniable POV to show the hate group under a more bening light. An impossible task Andries. Give it up --64.81.88.140 15:25, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Are there any non-controversial scholars and activists?
I think it goes a bit too far to put the adjective controversial before any scholar or person mentioned in this article. I mean, to be fair, Introvigne is controversial too. Can we just leave that adjective out. Who is not controversial who writes about NRMs? Andries 15:33, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Introvigne is controversial in the eyes of the anti-cult movement only, because they are fighting them. Duh!. Ross and Hassan are controversial because of their deprogramming techniques, some of which were criminal. --64.81.88.140 20:50, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The article says that Mike Donner was fired. Reference?
Are there any references for the assertion in the article that Mike Donner was fired? Ex-premie seems to suggests that he left voluntarily. Thanks in advance. Andries 16:07, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * You do not seem to read the material, do you? He was indeed fired. --64.81.88.140 19:51, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Where is proof that Donner was fired? If he was fired then from what position and by whom?  I don't see any indication of his being fired by Donner yet it's stated as fact within the article.  Where is your proof, 140?


 * Cynthia Sept 13, 2004


 * thne proof is in the text of apostate Michael Dettmers referred in this article. read and know.--64.81.88.140 16:14, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No you are incorrect, 140. Dettmers testimony refers to Bob Mishler's firing by Maharaji, not Michael Donner. Reverted CynthiaG 22:11, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Thank you Cynthia, but all the fellows I have spoken to say that he was indeed fired. Does any of the supporters have a reference to this firing? In the meantime, we could write that supporters claim he was fired.--Zappaz 22:25, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * he may have been fired but after he lost his paid job he stayed as an unpaid instructor, according to John Brauns. Zappaz where do you get your information? Please believe, I am sincerly interested in hearing the other side of the story. Andries 22:36, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

More proof Jim cannot be trusted
Above he says he never telephoned anyone about premies.

But here's what he says on the hate group message board, defending his cyber-stalking:
 * "I contacted the editor of Nova Religio to ask her if Geaves had disclosed his
 * relationship with Rawat"

http://www.forum8.org/forum8/posts/5721.html

My goodness, how obsessed can one man be? --Skippy

Skippy, the allegation was that exes, including myself, have contacted premies' employers. Nova Religio is not Geaves' employer, it's a journal that published his article about Rawat without knowing that he's a premie. Think of my call like a letter to the editor. Or would that be "harrassment" too? LOL!


 * Letter to the Editor, my foot. This is malicious behavior, and anyone can see it.  And tell me that you were not "delighted" when you saw that website on geocities? Be honest: you surely were. --64.81.88.140 20:22, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

By the way, Skippy, do you think Geaves should have disclosed the fact that he's a follower? :) -- Jim

It's not shown that he hasn't. It's not "like" a letter to the editor. It's a hell of a lot closer to interefering with his employment...but the courts will probaby decide that. --HaveFun


 * Why should he? It is only malicious in your eyes. --64.81.88.140 20:22, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing wrong with my action. How else could I or anyone find out if Geaves had disclosed that he was a premie? Don't forget, he refuses to communicate with any of us, apparently. And yes, Geaves should have disclosed that fact. At least according to generally accepted principles of academic scholarship. Can't you see what a conflict of interest he's in? On the one hand, he's making videos and posting testimonials to assist Rawat in promulgating his "message". On the other hand, he's analyzing Rawat's history in the west and finding that Rawat's not to blame for anything. Obviously, he's trying to help Rawat. Anyone reading his article without that knowledge is duped.

Simple logic. -- Jim
 * Of course he does not want to talk to you. Duh! Who would? And what do you know about accepted principles of academic scholarship? Absolutely nothing.-64.81.88.140 21:56, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Every policy statement on the subject I can find says that authors must disclose this kind of conflict of interest:

6. Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest

6.1 Disclosure of any potential conflict of interest is essential for the responsible conduct of research. Researchers have an obligation to disclose any affiliation with, or financial involvement in, any organisation or entity with a direct interest in the subject matter or materials of researchers. A conflict of interest may also arise if any organisation or entity with a direct interest in the subject matter provides direct benefits to the researchers such as sponsorship of the investigation, or indirect benefits such as the provision of materials or facilities or the support of individuals such as provision of travel or accommodation expenses to attend conferences.

from: http://www.aera.net/about/policy/ethics.htm

6) Conflicts of Interest Conflicts of interest are those of an authors commitments that may not be fully apparent to the reader of a paper or those commitments that may influence the judgements of reviewers or editors. The key question is whether the subsequent revelation of these commitments would make a reasonable reader feel misled or deceived.  Commitments may be personal, commercial, political, academic or financial.  Relevant interests must be declared to editors by authors.  A conflict of interest can only constitute misconduct if there is a deliberate deception of editors, referees and readers.

from: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/submit.asp?ref=0141-9889

Here's another:

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Conflict of interest for a given manuscript exists when a participant in the peer review and publication process has ties to activities that could inappropriately influence judgment. These activities may include academic competition or personal relationships, although financial relationships of industry are considered the most important. Public trust in the peer review process and the credibility of published articles depend in part on how these conflicts of interest are handled. Some journals do not accept submissions from authors with a conflict of interest.

Financial relationships and their effects are less easily-detected than other conflicts of interest. The authors should disclose to the editors any commercial associations, contractual relations, or proprietary considerations that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted manuscript. All sources of funding for the work, personal connections, and institutional affiliations of the authors should be acknowledged in a footnote on the title page.

According to these policies, what Geaves did was unethical. -- Jim


 * Jim, the master of spin.... in a wild chase on Google to try and coverup for his peers anonyous and viscious attacks on Geaves. The first quote reads " A conflict of interest can only constitute misconduct if there is a deliberate deception of editors, referees and readers." In your view Geaves did that because you judge him as a person that wants to deceive. On the second quotaton is about peer review process for submittted manuscripts and related to the sourcing of funds for a research project. Forget it Jim, your wild chase is just that wild, and proves nothing but your lack of ethics in supporting a website such as the one created by your kind friends. Yikes! --64.81.88.140 02:25, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You're flailing there, pal. Typical. :) -- Jim

I am not flailing and I am not (thank God!) your pal. I am your nemesis. --64.81.88.140 04:12, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please continue your discussion here
This talk page is not a discussion forum. Thanks Andries 21:04, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Prem_Rawat/

You're contradicting yourself, Andries. You said above you thought I was entitled to try to defend myself against allegations here. Anyway, I've got no intention of going to your imaginary cyber closet. Thanks anyway.

-- Jim


 * Thanks, Andries for the initiative. Jim, .140, skip and others, please, leave this page for discussions on the editing of the article. It is becaming very tedious to sift through all that verbage. Thank you.--Zappaz 04:43, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Why thank you once again for your balance and perceptive observations, Zappaz! My mistake. I thought the article had taken on some scurrillous, unsubstantiated slurs against former followers and that I, amongst others, was pointed out in particular. And so, I mistakenly thought, this was the place to try to rectify that. But I see now how tiring that verbiage must be for you. Why, it's almost as bad as a full-blown class five polemic, isn't it?

Zappaz, until you deal with your obvious dissembling over Rawat's 1990 claim to be God AS PUBLISHED BY HIS OWN ORGANIZATION, your involvement here is a travesty of scholarship or whatever hat you think you're wearing. Anything you have to say to me is seen through that lens.

But if you have something to say about whether or not Geaves behaved ethically in not disclosing his relationship with Rawat, I'm all ears.



-- Jim

what about an article with comparison of the former terms like e.g. "propagation" and satsang and those used today? likes Satsang then, now inspiration through the speaker, service then, now participation, and so on. also the attempt to adress western culture with e.g. quotes from sokrates. but having rawat refer to devotion as the highest goal,on closed meetings, still is very intersting, because of the controversy compared to the introducing events.i mean you come for peace maybe or self-knowledge and later you will find out that this is only reachable by devotion to the master. some may find that deceiptive.thomas


 * Thomas. This is already covered in the ain article and in this article. BTW, when was the last time you attended a "closed meeting"? According with my sources at the movement, all meetings are open.--Zappaz 15:08, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * a closed meeting, means an event for PWK's only,there is a video from 2002 where rawat did such quoting, but you can ask your premie contacts, if rawat talks about devotion on those meetings, so far they are allowed to. i couldn't attend those meetings recently because i am blacklisted, for what i don't know exactly.  i found that part n the main article, but why not give more detail? and a personal question i would like to ask you. would you agree that people might feel deceipted if they knew above mentioned  controversal points? thanks, thomas

The critics modus operandi
I was reading this page and found this description to be 100% accurate of the work of the critics here at WP. I have added a couple of things:


 * 1) First deny saying it;
 * 2) Then say it's true;
 * 3) Then change the subject back to their complaint;
 * 4) Then make personal attacks and uncivilised comments;
 * 5) Then publicly announce withdrawal from the debate;
 * 6) Then come slinking back in a week or two and start the whole ugly mess over;
 * 7) Then ask for time to prepare some contributions;
 * 8) Then engage in another round of discussions a-la-bulleting board (they are soooo used to posting in their froum, that they can help themselves);
 * 9) Never contribute to the article, thus reserving the "right" to dismiss it, using poor Andries to do the dirty wort;
 * 10) Portraying themselves as victims when the opposite is true;
 * 11) Claiming the moral high ground when their behaviour belongs in a cesspool.

My take? This article is providing them with yet another venue to engage in their obsession. That is why they do not want this to end. Compulsive behaviour at its best. --64.81.88.140 16:28, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * i am sorry for you that you have to express yourself so hatefully, i just asked to contribute but got told this is already done, as if there couldn't be any further contribution at all. i mean this is about knowledge (not the technics) and you can learn always more from more material and consideration.  thomas