By your definition, I am one of those fence sitters who had "no real investment in the practice of k or in following m." I'm going to make this brief since I don't want to invest much time in a post which will most likely be deleted. I don't remember coming here and "boasting" about anything. I was just speaking from my own experience. But so many people had such a defensive reaction that they obviously saw some truth in what we was being said, and didn't like it. So you rationalize that it was because we were never committed in the first place, rather than acknowledge that a valid point was being made, the point being we all had a free choice and we chose to stay. Even though we felt weird about it, we chose to stay because we were too scared to leave. We wanted to be sheltered. The things that m was saying in the 70's was very different from what he was saying in the 80's and 90's. He's the one who closed the ashrams and told people to get jobs and support themselves and make their own decisions. This was hardest on the ashram premies and instructors because we were used to doing what we were told and living where we were told to live and traveling where we were told to travel. I was one of those and therefore by your definition, shouldn't be labeled a fence sitter. Most of the premies that I know who were in that situation are either still supporting m or are no longer interested and have moved on quietly without regrets. There is only a very small number of ex-premies who are carrying on a crusade to bring m down because he ruined your lives - kept you from "reality". What was so great about reality anyway. Isn't that why we chose an alternative path - because we saw that reality was total BS? But if this is what you choose to do with your lives at this point that is your decision, but like I said you are a small minority of the people who have left. To label everyone who feels differently fence sitters, when you really know nothing of their stories is kind of missing the point.