Re: Hey Eileen!
Re: Re: Eileen, you might ......... -- eileen	Top of thread		Forum

Posted by: Pat W ® 05/27/2005, 07:05:07 Author Profile Edit Alert Moderators

You really crack me up. You've got a person professing to all the media (though she forgot Good Morning America and Oprah) in total ex-premie lingo that she knows first hand about "today's most dangerous cult" after a four day crash course on the ex-premie website. And you think that's normal just because she agrees with you? And you want to argue with me and wonder why I don't want to pursue dialog? Hi Eileen, I must admit that it is unusual so far for a newcomer to so quickly be come as extremely reactionary to Maharaji. However in RJC's case it seems that she has done quite a lot of objective looking into cults and religious groups and so I think this is the reason her judgements about her Maharaji are more than averagely informed and she feels so strongly. Of course none of her judgements about Maharaji's particular brand of self-knowledge are made from her own experience of having become a premie etc. but we have to accept that objective valuations are not invalid. Wouldn't you agree? I don't think anyone here (ex-premie) is going to overlook the fact that RJC has no historical personal beef with Rawat. Should we disagree with RJC or tell her she is disingenuous for embarking on her own crusade to stop what she sees as a 'diabolical cult' simply because she hasn't become a member or 'tasted the fruit'? I think it is far more appropriate, decent and tolerant to accept that she has her own reasons for making the judgements she has and to wish her luck obtaining in drawing truthful conclusions for herself. As for the ex-premie lingo. Might I suggest that 'anti-cult' lingo is not something that is exclusive to ex-premies by any means. RJC is someone who has researched cults and is obviously somewhat disgusted at certain aspects of them which she now sees present also in Maharaji's organisation. And you want to argue with me and wonder why I don't want to pursue dialog? The natural conclusion to anyone coming here who does not pursue dialogue is that they really don't want to, and just want to sling shots or state their POV without any accountability. In a forum where you avoid answering people it generally means you have no reasonable answer and the other person's point of view is more reasonable. So if you read this please would you mind answering the questions I've taken the trouble to put to you above. (They're easy to spot -there are question marks at the end of the sentence Modified by Pat W at Fri, May 27, 2005, 07:09:40

Previous

Recommend Current page

Next

Replies to this message

Re: Hey Eileen! --- eileen ( Fri, May 27, 2005, 12:49:52 ) ( 6476 bytes ) +5 Err pardon me Eileen --- hamzen ( Fri, May 27, 2005, 15:36:35 ) ( 1675 bytes ) +1 Re: Err pardon me Hamzen --- eileen ( Fri, May 27, 2005, 16:39:47 ) ( 1001 bytes ) +1 Er actually I was referring to that one post --- hamzen ( Fri, May 27, 2005, 16:59:13 ) ( 1206 bytes ) +1 And the irony of you having a pop at Pat W --- hamzen ( Fri, May 27, 2005, 17:29:03 ) ( 235 bytes ) +1 I think Pat is great - wasn't aware of any pop. (no text) --- eileen ( Fri, May 27, 2005, 17:47:14 ) ( 0 bytes ) +1 YOU ARE VICTIMS - YOU ARE ALWAYS GOING TO BE VICTIMS!!! --- hamzen ( Fri, May 27, 2005, 18:17:00 ) ( 156 bytes ) Complete and utter nonsense, Eileen! --- Jim ( Fri, May 27, 2005, 18:52:26 ) ( 1639 bytes ) Re: Hey Eileen! --- Jonti ( Sat, May 28, 2005, 07:54:16 ) ( 1088 bytes ) link Eileen here's my reply --- Pat W ( Sat, May 28, 2005, 08:00:15 ) ( 10.3 KB ) Re: Hey Eileen! --- Sulla ( Sat, May 28, 2005, 19:20:27 ) ( 1389 bytes ) +1 Some answers for Sulla and others --- eileen ( Sat, May 28, 2005, 22:27:56 ) ( 1534 bytes ) +5 Re: Some answers for Sulla and others --- Sulla ( Sat, May 28, 2005, 23:53:51 ) ( 712 bytes ) Hmmm. --- Jonti ( Sun, May 29, 2005, 01:57:20 ) ( 1981 bytes ) link +1 Re: Hmmm. --- eileen ( Mon, May 30, 2005, 10:43:48 ) ( 676 bytes ) +2 Eileen, are you that dense? --- Babaluji ( Mon, May 30, 2005, 12:02:59 ) ( 648 bytes ) +1 Re: Eileen, are you that dense? --- eileen ( Mon, May 30, 2005, 12:24:13 ) ( 223 bytes ) +3 What is it with the 'you all''s? --- hamzen ( Mon, May 30, 2005, 12:36:09 ) ( 270 bytes ) I believe in RJ more than I believe in you, Eileen (no text) --- Babaluji ( Mon, May 30, 2005, 12:43:58 ) ( 0 bytes ) Eileen, try doing a Google search on RJChinook --- JHB ( Wed, Jun 01, 2005, 19:21:48 ) ( 384 bytes ) +1 validation of posters --- Jonti ( Fri, Jun 03, 2005, 12:04:27 ) ( 83 bytes ) +1 Re: validation of posters --- JHB ( Sat, Jun 04, 2005, 18:40:11 ) ( 284 bytes ) A cult shill; a liar and a hypocrite --- Jonti ( Mon, May 30, 2005, 13:27:55 ) ( 1564 bytes ) +1 What's a 'Shill'? <nt> --- Pat W ( Mon, May 30, 2005, 15:33:39 ) ( 4 bytes ) +1 a false enthusiast (nt) (no text) --- Jonti ( Mon, May 30, 2005, 17:09:42 ) ( 0 bytes ) Re: Some answers for Sulla and others --- Rjchinook ( Sun, May 29, 2005, 03:53:30 ) ( 839 bytes ) Typically stupid new age misuse of the notion of responsibility --- Jim ( Mon, May 30, 2005, 11:36:45 ) ( 738 bytes ) The 'healing process' could end sooner, Eileen... --- Nigel ( Mon, May 30, 2005, 17:12:37 ) ( 3887 bytes )