User talk:Sylviecyn/Archive

After the events of last weekend (long story short: unpleasant edit warring and wiki-litigation) I've tried to take some time off from Prem Rawat and Wiki. I've already experienced a bit of, eh, let's call it "partisanship" from the pro- camp. It's nice to hear words of encouragement in light of this, and I just wanted to say thanks. Mael-Num 21:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mael-Num

Prem_Rawat well said]. =) Mael-Num 23:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The pain in your tummy?
I think I know exactly what you're talking about. I can completely understand why people who are or were trying to keep objective criticism in the article throw up their hands in resignation. Every time I look at the article, I feel the same way. Mael-Num 08:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

category:Wikipedians by former religion
I created [:Category:Wikipedians_who_used_to_follow_Sathya_Sai_Baba]] You may be interested in creating Category:Wikipedians_who_used_to_follow_Guru_Maharaji Andries 01:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Prem Rawat
I just wanted you to know I looked over Talk:Prem Rawat/Bio proposal and provided some comments there. What else do you think needs to be addressed in the draft? Vassyana 22:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC) You say "at Wikipedia, I could show the premies a quote where Rawat said "I am GOD," and they'd tell me I misunderstood him, or that's not what he meant". Not true. You can't provide one, single quote of Rawat saying "I am God" and I can show you many quotes of him saying "I am not God". Why mislead people?Momento 17:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's interesting that you accuse me of misleading people when you didn't even understand the gist of my post to begin with. You are the primary editor engaging in the vast revisionism of Prem Rawat's biography to the point that you make it look like he never accepted anyone's worship, which is 100% false. Don't forget that pesky thing called an ashram that so many of us lived in and arti that we sange to him twice per day. Have you read those lyrics lately? But, I must have mispoken because I didn't mean there is a quote with Rawat saying "I am God," but if there was one with those exact words, you'd still find a way to explain it away, or exclude it. There are plenty of his quotes where he refers to himself as divine, greater than God, and premies, then and now, knew exactly what he mean them to understand about him. To revise that as if it never happened is fraudulent, plain and simple. And Momento, I don't think you realize how insulting it is when you make comments like "some people don't understand the meaning of divinity." That's just ridiculous. Sylviecyn 20:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * What an absurd statement ("you make it look like he never accepted anyone's worship"), the third section of the article contains - "his mother and three older brothers kissed his feet when they were in his presence as a demonstration of worship". I'm not so easily mislead.Momento 05:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This is really interesting, like asking some one: "Do you still beat your wife?". It is called a Fallacy of many questions argument. No matter what you answer, you lose... he cannot say he is not God, because God is within him as is within each person, as he teaches. If he says that he is, it will be taken as sacrilege and used to discredit him. If he tries to explain that God is not a old man with a beard seating in heaven, etc, it does not work as these are ingrained concepts in the Judeo-Christian culture. What he can do but say, "There is an experience withing you. Feel it, and find out for yourself what it is, who you are, and what role I play"? Simple. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Not a fallacy of many questions at all. The problem lies in the many contradictions and confusion Rawat has himself spawned throughout his 40 year career of speaking. The fact is that Maharaji has claimed to be 1) The Lord Almighty (Buddha, Krishna, Ram, Jesus) or incarnation of God walking the earth -- or at the very least, the Lord of the Universe; 2) That he is able to show people God within them; and 3) that he is Knowledge, which is God within people. He used to tell people to pray to him for crying out loud and you know it. There is no implication or innuendo needed when one examines the vast body of his 40 years of speaking. He has said all three things and more. Sylviecyn 20:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure. You are entitled to your opinion, I am entitled to mine, and the article should describe the opinions of these notable sources that commented on the divine aspects related to PR's teachnings. That's is all. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sylviecyn, Revera here. Momento claims we can't provide one, single quote of Rawat saying "I am God", That simply isn't true. This quote has been mentioned several times: "The only one who can settle the governments down is the Perfect Master, the incarnation of God Himself, who comes to Earth to save mankind" (Guru Maharaj Ji, Tokyo, Japan, October 3 1972). And here's a scan of the article in the magazine "And it is Divine" - of which Maharaji/Rawat was EDITOR-IN-CHIEF! http://www.prem-rawat-talk.org/forum/uploads/page70_Maharaji_Perfect_Master_Plan.jpg, Incidentally, I've gone through the compilation of quotations that came from various mixed sources. Hope it clarifies their origin for everyone (the items in bold are the ones extracted and put together in the following compilation): "Who is Guru? The highest manifestation of God is Guru. So when Guru is here, God is here, to whom will you give your devotion?   Guru Maharaj Ji knows all. Guru Maharaji is Brahma (creator). Guru Maharaji is Vishnu (Operator). Guru Maharjai is Shiva (Destroyer of illusion and ego). And above all, Guru Mahraji is the Supremest Lord in person before us.    I have come so powerful. I have come for the world. Whenever the great come,the worldly oppose them. Again I have come and you are not listening. Every ear should hear that the saviour of humanity has come. There should be no chance for anyone to say that they haven't heard of Guru Maharaj Ji. Those who have come to me are already saved. Now its your duty to save others. Shout it on the streets. Why be shy?    When human beings forget the religion of humanity, the Supreme Lord incarnates. He takes a body and comes on this earth ......    When human beings forget this one way, then our Lord, who is the Lord of the whole universe, comes in human body to give us practical Knowlege, ....   But, most ironically, we don't appreciate the Lord when He comes in His human body on this earth. ...  Similarly, a Satguru, a Perfect Master, a Supreme Lord who is existing in the present time, can give you the practical Knowledge of the real thing...    So God Himself comes to give practical Knowledge of His divinity, of His inner self, which is self-effulgent light, eternal light, all-pervading light. And the Supreme Master, the Satguru, gives practical Knowledge of that light, irrespective of caste, creed, color, religion or sex, to those human individuals who bow before him with reverence, with love and with faith."

Itemised quotes:

'''Who is Guru? The highest manifestation of God is Guru. So when Guru is here, God is here, to whom will you give your devotion? '''I want that the general should sign some papers. I need not go to his office when he is sitting in my home. Is it necessary to go in his office when his is sitting in my home? When God has come here, then what is the need to give devotion to God there? Guru Maharaj Ji (responding to a question about the word guru), Alta Loma Terrace Satsang, 1971 - reproduced from Elan Vital magazine, vol. II, issue 1

... have to take the shelter of Guru Maharaj Ji. '''Guru Maharaj Ji knows all. Guru Maharaj Ji is Brahma (Creator). Guru Maharaj Ji is Vishnu (Operator). Guru Maharaj Ji is Shiva (Destroyer of illusion and ego). And above all, Guru Maharaj Ji is the Supremest Lord in person before us.''' Guru Maharaj Ji is the knower of all the Vedas. Knowing everything, He knows nothing. Guru Maharaj Ji, knowing everything, does not know anything. Why? If He knew all the Vedas, then there would be a limit to Him, He would also be limited. Then His thought would not go beyond the Vedas, because the Vedas themselves are limited. Are the Vedas always moving on? Do you think that there is no end to the Vedas! Yes, there is an end to the Vedas. So the Supremest Lord, Shri Guru Maharaj Ji, knowing everything, remains detached from everything just like the lotus flower. The lotus is blossoming in water, but remaining in water, is away from the water. If the lotus flower goes underwater, then the ability of water to take all the good and bad will also come into the lotus. But the lotus, remaining in water, does not take the qualities of water. Remaining in water, the lotus does not accept the qualities of water. Guru Maharaj Ji - scan at http://www.ex-premie.org/gallery/maharaji%20brahma%20vishnu%20shiva.jpg http://www.ex-premie.org/gallery/text/god_claims/Guru_Maharaj_Ji_is_Brahma_Vishnu_and_Shiva.html (- but origin of quote not cited.)

In one of his early discourses, Satguru Maharaj Ji promised to spread the Knowledge of God to the entire world in his lifetime. Before a million devotees in New Delhi, he revealed his plan for a great "Peace Bomb." After weeping for some moments, he said: "These tears are not because I am remembering my Father, but because I am feeling so much power in me. They are tears of strength. I have come so powerful. I have come for the world. Whenever the great come, the worldly oppose them. Again I have come and you are not listening. Every ear should hear that the savior of humanity has come. There should be no chance for anyone to say they haven't heard of Guru Maharaj Ji. Those who come to me are already saved. Now it's your duty to save others. Shout it on the streets. Why be shy?  Give me your love, I will give you peace. Come to me, I will relieve you of your suffering. I am the source of peace in this world. All I ask of you is your love. flask is your trust. And what l can give you is such peace as will never die. I declare I will establish peace in this world. But what can I do unless men come to me with love in their heart and a keen wish to know peace and Truth?" from "Who is Guru Maharaj Ji" p13

"No Light Without Master" The following discourse was given by Mata Ji, Mother of Guru Maharaj Ji, on the 12th of March, 1972, at Panespo, Neuchatel, Switzerland. No Light Without Master A devotee of Satguru, of God, when he liquidates himself, or dissolves himself, or effaces himself on the Lotus Feet of the Lord, he makes the Lord agreeable in all respects. There is such a relationship between Lord and devotee that is so pious, that is so emotional, that when a devotee weeps he compels the Lord to weep. When a devotee cries for his Lord, the Lord is so kind that He is compelled to come before His devotee. The pleasure and pain, success and failure, sent by the Lord are just like gifts for the devotee. Brothers and sisters, today is Sunday. Today you are free from your office and home, and each of you according to your faith and according to your belief goes either to the temple, or mosque or church. You pray there according to your belief, but the use and utility of religion is to give perfect peace and bliss to the mind. From your infant age, from your boyhood, you continue to go to temple, mosque, and church. You do prayers, but your mind is not controlled, your mind is not steady. You don't enjoy perfect peace and bliss. Why? You have to consider the reasons for this. The condition of your mind is the same as it was twenty years, thirty years before. If a boy goes to school, a primary school, and if he continues to go for twenty years, twenty-five years, staying in the same class, and if he does not progress, the parents would certainly say something to that boy. After so many years, after such a long time, he should have attained the highest qualifications, the highest degree in the university. So isn't it strange that a man, in the name of religion, goes to a temple, a mosque or a church, yet the condition of his mind continues to be the same? There is no change. Why? Today we have to consider this question. '''When human beings forget the religion of humanity, the Supreme Lord incamates. He takes a body and comes on this earth''' to teach us not a new religion, but one and the same religion that is the religion of humanity which is the same for all human beings. And what is the religion of all human beings? It is the religion of love. But how will we learn to love all human beings? Only when we come to know practically the one and only source of love. What is that one and only source of love? God is the only source of love. There is one God for the whole creation. This whole creation is created by one God, and the way to realize this one God is one and the same for all. And realization of God within oneself is the only religion, for all human beings. We should consider why human beings have become scattered in the name of religion, divided in the name of religion. What is the reason? It is because we don't know how to realize the divinity, how to realize that one God who is within all of us. This one and the same God is sustaining the whole world, He is sustaining the entire universe. Whether we are black or white, whether we are small or big, whether we are wealthy or poor, the God which is within us is one and the same for all. When human beings forget this one way, then our Lord, who is the Lord of the whole universe, comes in human body to give us practical Knowledge, the practical way of realizing Him, and that is called real religion. So, my children, the Supreme Master does not create a new religion. Rather, He gives us the most ancient religion. This is the religion of humanity. And now the time has come when that realized God who is within us from the beginning of creation is here. The same Lord came as Vishnu, Ram, Krishna, Jesus Christ and Buddha. They preached and gave practical Knowledge of God. They spoke of one way. But, most ironically, we don't appreciate the Lord when He comes in His human body on this earth. If you are a patient, only a living doctor can cure your disease. A photograph or statue of a doctor who is dead, who has passed away, cannot cure your disease. A king who is present and who is pleased with you can give you wealth or any position. A king who is dead, who has passed from this world, can give you nothing. Similarly, a Satguru, a Perfect Master, a Supreme Lord who is existing in the present time, can give you the practical Knowledge of the real thing, the true Knowledge of God, Knowledge of truth. Because truth is one, truth is eternal, truth is all-pervading, truth is indestructible, and truth is the same for the whole world. So, brothers and sisters, only a living master, only a living Perfect Master, is able to enlighten all human beings. A practical Knowledge of divinity is Knowledge of one's own self. What is the form of God according to all Holy scriptures? The form of God, the form of the Master, is light, and that light is self-effulgent Light. From that light, this whole universe gets Light: the sun, moon, stars, and fire all get light from that supreme light that is called Divine Light. And that supreme light, the light of God, is within all of us. But we don't know that light, we don't know that divinity, and therefore our mind is unsteady, our mind is fickle. So when the Perfect Master comes on this earth, he gives us practical Knowledge of that light. The same light, the same Knowledge, has been referred to in the Bible as white stone. Jesus used to distribute this white stone. What is it? White stone is the same light, the self-effulgent light, which is within us. When that supreme power comes in human body He is called Satguru. And Satguru, only Satguru, is able to give practical Knowledge of that light. What is the meaning of Satguru? In Hindi, "gu" means dark and "ru" means light. One who dispels darkness by giving us practical Knowledge of light, is called Satguru. So, my children, if you don't go before the Supreme Master, you can never get light, you can never get that supreme Knowledge. In India, there was a Satguru, a Perfect Master called Lord Kabir. In a poem he says, "Everyone knows it is good to have a purpose, a destination, and work towards fulfilling it. But man, do you know your destination? Do you know your goal? First, know your destination. And then walk. Then your life will be fulfilled." Similarly, human beings don't know that light, human beings don't know that soul, human beings don't know that spirit. They read of the spirit, they talk of God, they read of God, they hear of God, but they don't know God. '''So God Himself comes to give practical Knowledge of His divinity, of His inner self, which is selfeffulgent light, eternal light, all-pervading light. That light of God has engulfed the entire universe and the same light, since that light is all-pervading, is within us. And the Supreme Master, the Satguru, gives practical Knowledge of that light, irrespective of caste, creed, color, religion or sex, to those human individuals who bow before him with reverence, with love, and with faith. '''May God bless you. Mata Ji, 12 March 1972, Panespo, Neuchatel, Switzerland, quoted on p 295 of "Who is Guru Maharaj Ji?" Hope this helps Revera 09:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's like a breath of fresh air after the smoke bombs being thrown around here in recent weeks. Premies aren't going to allow any real honesty in the article. Maybe I'll just place these qotes into the Wikiquote page. Sylviecyn 11:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

And I hope this helps you Revera, an incarnation or manifestation of God is not God. God is eternal and infinite. A manifestation or incarnation is not.Momento 19:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That is your opinion only Momento, and it's absolutely incorrect. It also shows how little you know about theology and religion. Try telling something like that to a Christian about Jesus, a Muslim about Mohammad (they call Mohammad the Lord of the Universe). I don't know where you get your ideas, but you're incorrect. Again, your opinion only. Sylviecyn 11:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Wiki says - Theologians and philosophers have ascribed a number of attributes to God, including omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, perfect goodness, divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence. Incarnation = embodied in flesh; given a bodily, esp. a human, form (therefore temporary). Manifestation = reveal its presence or make an appearance; "the ghost manifests each year on the same day" (temporary). I hope that's cleared that up for you. God is eternal and manisfestations and incarnations are not. Therefore they are not the same thing but you won't accept this important and obvious difference.Momento 19:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC) "At this point, the issue is the argument concerning Maharaji's denial of his divinity". Not it's not. It's about some people's inability to distinguish between being "God" and being "divine". Rawat has always denied being God but he has never denied being "divine" (of or from God).Momento 21:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, really? I'd be interested to hear what you make of the following then. This is an example of how, according to Momento, Maharaji denied being God!


 * "The great leaders think that I have come to rule and yes, they are right! I will rule the world, and just watch how I will do it! Even the lion and sheep will embrace each other. Has there been such a king before? Krishna was not such a king. Rama also was not such a king. There were lesser powers in Ram, there were lesser powers in Krishna, but I have come to the world with full powers. Accept my words, accept me. I will give you Knowledge. If you mistake my meaning, if you mistake a single word of what I am saying, I will not forgive you".
 * Guru Maharaj Ji
 * excerpt from "The Peace Bomb" satsang
 * India Gate, Delhi
 * November 8 1970


 * Printed in the magazine "And It Is Divine"
 * Volume 1 Issue 10 p. 17
 * August 1973


 * scan here - http://gurumaharaji.info/pages/golden_age/number_49/thumbs/page17_maharaji_peace_bomb.shtml
 * Revera 22:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Too easy Revera. Unless you believe that "lions and sheep will embrace each other", you're going to have to put it down as an analogy.Momento 00:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC) And yes Sylvia, you're absolutely right. What I wrote is Rawat's religious doctrine. Not surprising really, since that is what we're talking about.--Momento 00:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That reference to the lions and sheep may well be an analogy. Are you seriously suggesting that, because of that one analogy the rest of the paragraph should also be taken as analogy? "There were lesser powers in Ram, there were lesser powers in Krishna, but I have come to the world with full powers. Accept my words, accept me. I will give you Knowledge". Deal with the meat, Momento, not just the sauce. Revera 19:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Krishna, isn't he the god with blue skin and the topless gopis? And Rama, wasn't his offsider a monkey? Give us a break. I'm happy to keep educating you but why not take this conversation to your talk page.--Momento 19:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Your input
Your response to some questions regarding the Prem Rawat article would be sincerely appreciated. Thanks!! Vassyana 00:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
This message delivered: 12:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

Please be cautious in your approach
Regardless of the validity of your claims regarding COI, please avoid badgering and aggressive posts. If you feel it necessary, the situation can be reviewed by outside editors/admins by posting your concerns at WP:COI/N. However, flinging implications and accusations in such an aggressive tone is just not civil, and could be considered a personal attack. Please try and keep a cool head. I understand the situation can be frustrating and heated, however we should remain civil and polite. If you feel unable at any point to stay calm and courteous, it may be helpful to focus on other wiki articles and tasks. Take care! Vassyana 02:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC) I apologize if my polite warning came across as bullying. (I truly don't see how. If you would, please explain.) It was not at all intended that way. However, I must say if you wrote that post while utterly calm, it is considerably more worrisome. As Jayjg clearly indicated, your post and tone were inappropriate. He is a long tenured admin and one of the most prolific contributors to Wikipedia, and has indicated no bias on guru-related articles. If he is also concerned about your approach and is assured Jossi is working within COI guidelines, you may wish to reconsider. Talk page contributions explicitly permitted for those with a clear conflict of interest. Again, if you feel Jossi has a conflict of interest an aggressive post, or "strong request" is the wrong way to go about addressing the issue. If you were going to post to him directly, you should have left a polite message on his talk page asking for clarification. Instead, you left a message that definitely comes across as uncivil, clearly implying that Jossi is dishonest or similarly has something to hide. You may simply see it as a strong request, but it is inappropriate. You also could, as I suggested, post your concerns to the conflict of interest noticeboard, which is the appropriate place to raise such concerns. On a somewhat separate note, please avoid making accusations of bias against me the future. If you have a concern that I am biased, you could solicit other outside opinions (WP:RFC) or ask for someone else to act as an informal mediator (WP:MEDCAB). Also, you are free to raise those concerns on my talk page, with explanation so I can correct the issue. I have clearly made myself open to comments and correction. I have also clearly invited others (including you) on Talk:Prem Rawat that if my opinion is seen as unfair or biased to seek other outside input. I ask you to reconsider your accusation, or address your concerns with me so I can answer them, and adjust my attitude/behaviour if needed. At the very least, if you truly believe I am biased, I implore you to seek further outside comment. Take care. Vassyana 18:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you Vassyana. Also, I apologize for any name-calling you may have been made aware of by Prem Rawat's students who reported it here. Sylviecyn 18:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Apology accepted. We're all human and I understand how easy it is to build up some steam during frustrating exchanges, particularly on topics we're passionate about. Take care! Vassyana 21:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Your recent posting on the anti-Rawat forum - "Vassyana is such a f**king idiot. Read this exchange between myself and Vassyana (from my talk page, to which I replied on his talk page, and now he tries to have the the final word (on mine). All those experienced Wikipedians don't know their ass from a hole in the ground" - is contrary to editing in good faith.  Wikipedia cannot regulate behavior in media not under the control of the Wikimedia Foundation, but personal attacks elsewhere create doubt as to whether an editor's on-wiki actions are conducted in good faith. Posting personal attacks or defamation off-Wikipedia is harmful to the community and to an editor's relationship with it. Such attacks may be regarded as aggravating factors by administrators and may be used as evidence in the dispute-resolution process, including in Arbitration cases. .Momento 22:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I would appreciate it if, in the future, you refrain from following me around the internet in an effort to monitor what I say elsewhere in order to report it here on Wikipedia. You are free not read the forum on which I post. Additionally, I didn't personally attack anyone on these pages, as Jossi states on the Prem Rawat talk page. I cannot be blamed for his over-reaction to my post. My request for more information concerning his COI may have been poorly worded and perhaps too strong, but I didn't personally attack him. I already know that Elan Vital workers monitor the ex-premie forum and also keep files on me and other ex-premies, and even on people who have never been premies but happen to be concerned spouses of premies -- despite the fact we have a right to free speech as citizens of the free world. I am a citizen of the United States, btw, the place that hosts Wikipedia. However, I view your post above as an effort to escalate pre-existing disagreements on the Rawat article. Also, I feel very uncomfortable as a woman online who posts under her real name being followed around the net, while you enjoy anonymity. Btw, I was venting. Excuse me for being human. Thank you for your consideration. Sylviecyn 18:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Your insinuation -" I feel very uncomfortable as a woman online who posts under her real name being followed around the net, while you enjoy anonymity" - is a disgraceful. You have posted disparaging comments about me and other Wiki editors on the anti-Rawat forum for months and I enjoy reading them. If you don't want people to read your comments, don't make them.Momento 20:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * What you said about Vassyana in a publicly accessible forum reflects poorly on you. You have a right to free speech, but do not expect that if you verbally abuse editors off-wiki, that your comments on-wiki are taken in good faith after that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You ought to be more cautious with what you say publicly, if you do not want others to call it as in this instance. When third party Wikipedians come and assist with content disputes, we ought to extend a welcoming hand and thank them for volunteering to lend a hand. Calling them the way you did, is thoroughly inappropriate and unwarranted. As said before, it only reflects very poorly on you. Nothing more. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to conclude that your concern isn't genuine about what reflects upon me well or poorly. Momento makes disparaging, insulting, and baiting remarks to me and others right here on Wikipedia all of the time. Those remarks have received no warnings or other responses from you. Were you so concerned about absolute fairness and neutrality, you'd dish out your finger-pointing and hand-slapping more evenly among all parties, imo. Yet when I dared to press you about your COI, you gathered the clout that you apparently have garnered on Wikipedia in the form of "disinterested" or "neutral," parties who are people that are quite uninformed on the Rawat issues in the article(s), not to mention what constitutes a real conflict of interest. If you were genuinely concerned about what reflects upon me, Jossi, you would have long ago demanded that Gstaker remove the libelous material from his talk page about ex-premies, where he libels them using real names, including the link to his viral website. All you've done about Gstaker is to welcome him to Wikipedia. Don't forget, Jim Heller and John Brauns are registered editors here. Don't forget, Gstaker was legally forced to agree to remove the poisonous libel about Marianne Bachers, who is a well-reputed human rights, death penalty attorney in San Francisco, from his website after she sued him for defamation. That removal included a photograph of her. Don't forget, ex-premies are living people, who, unlike Prem Rawat, are not public persons. That was a law suit in which you were a named party, Jossi and that is a matter of public record. So, I'm perplexed by your double standards and myopia. My venting steam on another website that's completely unrelated to Wikipedia, which you feel compelled to read and monitor, and your immediate response to it here by running around to fellow editors to inform them about what I said there, only to complain about me, demonstrates that you are not concerned at all with fostering good will and good faith here. That leaves one only to speculate what does constitute your interests. Have a good day. Sylviecyn 13:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I will not discuss legal matters with you, or anyone here. But I was not named in that lawsuit, as it was a John Doe lawsuit. Any further attempts to discuss personal legal matters will be refactored. Now, If you excuse me, I have better things to do than to help you embarrass yourself further. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems that your interest is to bring your personal crusade to Wikipedia, and not to further the aims of this project. You will be ill advised to continue with that attempt, See WP:NOT and WP:NOT. As for User:Gstaker, see my warning to him. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It takes two to tango, Jossi. 1) I didn't ask you to discuss your private legal matters. I didn't ask you to discuss anything. 2) I have done nothing wrong, therefore have nothing to be embarrassed about -- and I'm not embarrassed in the least; 3) Please don't project, assume, or characterize what my interests are or are not; and 4) It's you that keeps pointing out what I post about elsewhere, not myself. I'm quite happy to keep the two very separate.


 * I now consider this subject closed and ask that you stop responding in this thread, as I shall also do. I think that would be the best for you, myself, and others. I shall be archiving this talk page in 24 hours from now. That'll be around noon Eastern Standard Time On May 21, 2007. I'm planning to take a break for a few days so that I can regroup, get refreshed, and return with a better state of mind, ready to edit articles. Thank you very much for your consideration. Sylviecyn 16:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Note added post archive
I just attempted to clean up the messy archive. Nothing changed except perhaps some format errors remaining I can't be bothered with. Sylviecyn 16:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)