So if it was once a cult, Jonx, was Rawat once a cult LEADER?
Re: Re: Of course it's not a cult, Jon -- jonx	Top of thread		Forum

Posted by: Jim ® 07/13/2005, 22:39:34 Author Profile Edit Alert Moderators

Jonx, Thanks for admitting that it was a cult, at least at some time.  Surely, then, Rawat was a cult leader during that period, don't you think?  Do you think he'd ever admit that?

Previous

Recommend Current page

Next

Replies to this message

See my note to JHB <eom> (no text) --- jonx ( Thu, Jul 14, 2005, 12:55:40 ) ( 0 bytes ) +1 Why? So you can slip out of answering? --- Jim ( Thu, Jul 14, 2005, 13:17:48 ) ( 104 bytes ) +2 And btw, here's another question you can avoid! --- Jim ( Thu, Jul 14, 2005, 13:34:53 ) ( 1600 bytes ) +2 Re: Here is my 2 cents on how he got to where he is... --- MickCable ( Thu, Jul 14, 2005, 14:59:08 ) ( 1507 bytes ) +2 You know, that's as good an assessment as any (with one caveat) --- Jim ( Thu, Jul 14, 2005, 17:09:24 ) ( 390 bytes ) +2 The cleanliness obsession is an interesting one you missed Mick too --- hamzen ( Thu, Jul 14, 2005, 18:31:53 ) ( 48 bytes ) +1 Re: The cleanliness obsession is an interesting one you missed Mick too --- MickCable ( Fri, Jul 15, 2005, 01:48:54 ) ( 90 bytes ) +1 Big fear of germs --- hamzen ( Fri, Jul 15, 2005, 05:52:04 ) ( 149 bytes ) Re: You know, that's as good an assessment as any (with one caveat) --- MickCable ( Fri, Jul 15, 2005, 01:47:41 ) ( 332 bytes ) +1 Yes and no, Mick --- Jim ( Fri, Jul 15, 2005, 18:19:46 ) ( 1541 bytes ) +1 Re: Yes and no, Mick --- mickcable ( Fri, Jul 15, 2005, 21:42:42 ) ( 164 bytes ) He doesn't give a damn about his own mother. --- gerry ( Thu, Jul 14, 2005, 18:19:21 ) ( 134 bytes ) Re: And btw, here's another question you can avoid! --- jonx ( Thu, Jul 14, 2005, 18:09:12 ) ( 1912 bytes ) +1 This is very laughable, Jonx -- always a pleasure! --- Jim ( Thu, Jul 14, 2005, 18:57:30 ) ( 476 bytes ) Re: Why? So you can slip out of answering? --- jonx ( Thu, Jul 14, 2005, 17:47:52 ) ( 1111 bytes ) +1 You're talking out of both sides of your mouth (as usual) --- Jim ( Thu, Jul 14, 2005, 18:12:20 ) ( 630 bytes ) +1 You're displaying the depth of a slug Jim (as usual) --- jonx ( Thu, Jul 14, 2005, 18:25:15 ) ( 318 bytes ) +1 Don't blame me for your dilemna --- Jim ( Thu, Jul 14, 2005, 20:29:49 ) ( 364 bytes ) +1 Re: Don't blame me for your dilemna --- jonx ( Fri, Jul 15, 2005, 10:49:56 ) ( 2066 bytes ) +4 I challenged you on substance, jonx and you ignored me --- gerry ( Fri, Jul 15, 2005, 11:36:09 ) ( 1732 bytes ) The reason your argument lacks merit --- JHB ( Fri, Jul 15, 2005, 13:03:39 ) ( 624 bytes ) Yet another hilarious, unintentional admission on your part, Jonx! --- Jim ( Fri, Jul 15, 2005, 13:07:07 ) ( 350 bytes ) +1 You really are a fool Jim --- jonx ( Sun, Jul 17, 2005, 04:45:18 ) ( 728 bytes ) +3 Jon, do you really believe propagation is happening? --- JHB ( Sun, Jul 17, 2005, 08:27:49 ) ( 678 bytes ) +1 You'd be a fool to think it isn't --- jonx ( Sun, Jul 17, 2005, 08:33:26 ) ( 148 bytes ) +1 Answer my post about Arti and Darshan --- JHB ( Sun, Jul 17, 2005, 08:58:12 ) ( 325 bytes ) +1 Re: Answer my post about Arti and Darshan --- jonx ( Sun, Jul 17, 2005, 17:41:23 ) ( 257 bytes ) +3 Jon, where's your pride? --- Jim ( Sun, Jul 17, 2005, 18:10:32 ) ( 2940 bytes ) So why can't you just be honest --- JHB ( Sun, Jul 17, 2005, 18:55:54 ) ( 425 bytes ) Re: Answer my post about Arti and Darshan --- MickCable ( Sun, Jul 17, 2005, 23:50:31 ) ( 510 bytes ) +1 Yes, MC, you're completely right -- but there's more --- Jim ( Mon, Jul 18, 2005, 11:31:38 ) ( 485 bytes ) +1 Re: Yes, MC, you're completely right -- but there's more --- MickCable ( Mon, Jul 18, 2005, 17:51:19 ) ( 596 bytes ) Oh my God, I can't believe you just did that AGAIN! LOL!! --- Jim ( Sun, Jul 17, 2005, 10:41:21 ) ( 892 bytes ) +1 Re: Oh my God, I can't believe you just did that AGAIN! LOL!! --- jonx ( Sun, Jul 17, 2005, 17:56:30 ) ( 389 bytes ) img +1 I did read it -- and I've got your number perfectly, IMHO --- Jim ( Sun, Jul 17, 2005, 18:24:26 ) ( 339 bytes ) Is this the same K that Jesus, Buddha, and Krishna taught? --- gerry ( Sun, Jul 17, 2005, 11:36:31 ) ( 1407 bytes ) +2 Yeah, and they were so well received, weren't they? (no text) --- jonx ( Sun, Jul 17, 2005, 17:57:44 ) ( 0 bytes ) Re: Is this the same K that Jesus, Buddha, and Krishna taught? --- MickCable ( Mon, Jul 18, 2005, 00:00:16 ) ( 84 bytes ) +1 Almost missed this post, Mick --- gerry ( Tue, Jul 19, 2005, 09:31:59 ) ( 150 bytes ) Discussion??? --- Danny ( Fri, Jul 15, 2005, 16:58:26 ) ( 938 bytes )