Okay, I think the whole thing is pretty simple. I didn't check your reference, but I'll take your word for it that Mischler said that he never heard Rawat claim he was God. But Mischler also said that Rawat allowed his followers to believe he was God and worship him as such because it provided him with alot of income and nice lifestyle. That is a very damning statement. He also said alot of other damning things about Rawat. So either you accept Mischler as a credible source or you don't, you can't just pick out the parts that you like. And if you call that twisting your mind around, then I think it needs a good twisting. That's just common sense.As for Andries, once again I must ask you to re-read my post. He went to an intro programme and read about both sides of the story - current as well as past. He has listened to the current words of Rawat. He merely responded to your reference to Mischler as I am doing now. What is so hard to understand about that?
Hey, you don't need a PhD in Knowledge to be able to read an interview and quote from it as Andries did. Does he have to receive Knowledge before he can quote Mischler?
