Just seeing those names again makes me feel unclean, but apart from being people who took it on themselves to defend Rawat almost entirely by disrupting the conversations on the then forum, who they were is an interesting (maybe) question.
Bjorn I have no idea, but I think he was the least objectionable, in fact I can't remember having much of an emotional reaction to what he said then, & now can't recall even the general tone of it.
Not so the other two, as Catweasel was eventually revealed to be Derek Harper. He was the worst with a prolific & never ending outpouring of vile insinuations, personal attacks, & what one might call psychic threats. If Rawatism had a developed theology, which it most certainly hasn't, then he would've fitted into the manic hell fire preacher role like a hand into a glove.
It was alleged later that he had a serious drink problem, which if true explains quite a lot.
David Roupell was a different type. He actually revealed quite a lot about himself in the course of trying to defend the indefensible, though whether he intended to is moot.
I would say he was a classic in many ways. The black sheep of the English upper classes were often sent as far away as possible, but whether he went down under of his own volition or not I couldn't say. I was disgusted when he boasted about stealing paintings from his mother in order to finance trips to see Rawat.
I think his defending Rawat had a large element of his own malicious entertainment to it.
I never thought then & still don't that either of them were getting any direction from the top. If there was any of that it was the guy who worked for Bloomberg whose name I've forgotten.
I'd guess that the more professional PR approach by the cult since was a reaction to the above dreadful freelancers.
Whether the slow on the uptake Perfect Master used to read the early extrusions from the likes of Catweasel & go 'that's my boy' we'll never know, but eventually even he must've realised it was counter productive.
