My impression of the letter is that it's tone is indignant and defensive.  It screams, "We a not a cult and no fair saying so!"  The cult came out with the "cool" idea for premies to spread knowledge by using "word-art," and then when someone actually did it and then got scrutinized by the local writer, they get angry.  It's laughable really, because it just goes go show how out of touch with the world premies are and it's also pretty evident that premies believe the Elan Vital faqs about the ex-premies and the media.  The only other explanation is that premies are just very cynical and angry.

Well, I for one, haven't contacted any media.  The only thing I ever did was write one itsy-bitsy letter to the Bristol Post editor when Rawat was in Bristol, England, and I used my real name and my address.  What EV and Rawat don't realize is that a cult is a cult from very far away and close up, so regular, normal people in the world see it that way, investigate, and call it as they see it.  With the way EV describes the press in its FAQs, what do they expect? And then they get "journalist" Burt Wolfe to "interview" Prem Rawat!   What a bunch of idiots!  I mean really, just read this FAQ about the "ex-premie hate group!"

Is it true that this small group has manipulated some media?

Members of the group have actively sought, and in some cases found, reporters who have re-published false and defamatory statements without endeavouring to undertake a direct investigation of facts or to exercise a fair measure of due diligence or professional journalistic caution. They have successfully fed misinformation to newspapers and sent multiple letters to editors using fictitious names. In Australia in 2002, journalist John Macgregor filed complaints against Elan Vital with many tax authorities around the world and then encouraged other reporters to write about tax fraud investigations without disclosing to readers and editors that he had instigated the story. He also misled reporters about his credentials, claiming to have been a high-level organiser of Elan Vital, when he never held any such position. In 2003, the hate group contacted the newspaper at a California university where Maharaji was going to speak. They bombarded a young journalism student with emails containing hurtful allegations. A hate group member then posed as a fictitious "spokesperson" of Elan Vital and gave the newspaper silly quotes supporting the hate group's allegations. The student newspaper was duped and published a false and hurtful story. When Elan Vital contacted the newspaper's faculty advisor, the newspaper published a retraction. The hate group re-published the false and retracted article on its website, but never acknowledged its role in fooling the press or that the article was retracted. This hate group has come to rely on the laziness or irresponsibility of a minority of reporters to "do their dirty work" by republishing false and defamatory statements with no measure of due diligence or journalistic caution. It is not sufficient for publishers to simply precede these allegations with cautionary phrases such as "some critics say…" and then add a token response from Maharaji or Elan Vital. This is more important than ever, given the anonymous and undocumented nature of Internet hate speech. Given the fact that the hate group is composed of people with woefully inadequate credibility and malicious motives, reporters and editors who are manipulated by these individuals are in breach of journalistic ethics and may put themselves at legal risk.