You're very mixed up here.  I cite Dawkins and other scientists when the issue's scientific.  Dawkins doesn't inform me one way or the other about the Maharaji cult.  

Duh... no shit! Wasn't anywhere near the point I was making bud. Point was the double standard you project. When it suits you, "experts" are in, when it doesn't, they're out and you are the "expert". When it suits you, a theory will do just fine to argue your point. When it doesn't, it's gotta be just the facts ma'am.

I would argue that ex-premies have the most skewed perspective of Maharaij of anybody. I liken most ex's perspective to that of jilted lovers who feel they have been so "wronged" -- turns out by the negative spin mongers but that's another discussion. Their perspective has been so completely clouded by anger, hurt, and bewilderment that they are unable to see fairly the man or his intent. Like alchemists, you are all only too ready to believe the slanted explanations that support your theories.

You don't even have the guts to spell them out behind your anonymity.  And the idea of doing so with your real name ... well, that's unthinkable, isn't it?  Can you imagine?  No, really, what if, for argument's sake, you thought Rawat was selfish.  You know, that's not such an outrageous criticism to have for a friend. 

I may disclose my critical observations to a friend to aid either him or our relationship, but I wouldn't join a lynch mob who is out to get him... if he is a friend that is. Like I said, Knowledge has been a good thing in my life, and I value his input.

The best you can do is join him in scapegoating others for the failures and shortcomings of his movement over time.

More bullocks Jim.

Brilliant!  Did you struggle over that answer?

Bullocks because sometimes that's the answer you deserve. The statement you made about scapegoating is just pure junk and not worth the brainpower to respond.

Sorry, dude, but you don't have a clue what you're talking about.  I've had many deep, probing discussions with premies.