Hi John,
I don't know if you've read any of the responses to your apology on the forum but I wonder if you'd be so kind as to clear a few things up for me please.
In your post you assume that you won't have any ex-premie friends left afterwards. Why is that, John? Is it because exes are generally unfair people? Or is it rather that you know that you've done an unfair thing to them?
Many exes, including myself, have been worried for you over time and very sympathetic to your plight. You know, from our several email exchanges and conversations that I've always been concerned for your personal welfare and respected your decision to call off the fight, such as it was, whenever you felt necessary. I never turned my back on you or called you down when you decided to "sue for peace" (apt phrase, eh?), even though I thought it was a foolish and unnecessary move. I was still your friend, even then, and told you that the bottom line was, as a friend, I had to respect your wishes.
So, tell me, how is your latest gesture anything but a stab in the back, a complete betrayal, of your fellow ex-premies?
Or do you know that it is and that's why you assume that we'll hate you now or something along those lines?
Anyway, despite your fervent assurances that you're not at all using your post on the ex-premie forum as a bargaining tool, I have to assume that your hope of a settlement was ever foremost in your mind. Why? Because you're pre-occupied with it and are willing to say or do anything to get the cult to leave you alone. This leaves me thinking that you were lying about that. No, John, I take that back. This leaves me knowing that you were. Now isn't that something?
Well, the good news is that anyone with half a brain reading your post can see how absurd it is. Really, I dare you to go back through your "Blinded by the Light" article and find a single sentence that was unfair given Rawat's unique claims and the hold he has on people. I did. I looked it over and tried to see if there was anything at all that deserved that revisionist crticism. There's nothing there. Nothing at all. Anyone reading your post will be able to see that you're simply saying whatever you think you need to to appease the cult.
So my question is what if that's not enough? What if the cult wants you to actually retract some of the substantive things you reported in your article? You diss investigative journalism generally in your post. Is that just to prepare yourself to ignore your professional principles even further should the need arise?
I can't imagine what your letter to Rawat must have looked like. No, sadly, I think I can.
Jim