But would other people make the same assessment, or would they conclude that you still think Rawat is above the normal moral codes?

There can be little doubt as to the answer to that question while you claim that only those who have been devotees can criticise the methods and manners of Prem Pal Rawat. If you had really gotten the poison out of your system, you would never have implied such a thing. Yet you not only implied it in your post to Rjchinook which questioned her right to campaign against Rawat, you explicitly confirmed that position in reply to PatW, when he asked you to clarify the specific point.

Listen, I have never, nor am I likely ever to become, a devotee of Mr bin Laden, and his peculiar interpretation of Islam (or, come to that Mssrs Sharon and Bush, and their peculiar interpretations of Judaism and Christianity). But that does not mean I cannot criticise these man or their methods, or indeed, their moral sensibilities. I am sure you find that absolutely clear and easy to understand.

That you accord considerable moral leeway to Rawat that you do not afford to others shows that you are still in his camp. It's not that surprising -- I find many who say they are not Christians, nevertheless irrationally argue for Christian beliefs. My take is that you are in a like position. You say you are not a premie, but nevertheless irrationally argue for, and support at least one core premie belief.

And that is that neither Rjchinook nor I should not work to spike Rawat's racket simply because we never became members of the cult. Sorry Eileen, but that's just a tired old premie line, and a really weird thing to say

As someone who was never sucked into the delusory belief system, let me assure you that you have yet to fully extricate yourself.

Jonti
--never a premie