Talk:Adi Da/Archive 1

message: Most people who have read about the lawsuits from the mid-1980s know that Adidam first sued Mark Miller, after hearing that he intended to sue the Adidam institution. Mark Miller and others then filed their own lawsuits, all of which were settled. Not much has been said about how these settlements came about.
Adidam decided to defend itself on the basis of its First Amendment Rights. It hired a very expensive First Amendment Rights attorney in San Francisco. He did a reasonably good job of arguing - before a judge - that Adidam was protected under the First Amendment. But then the attorney for two of the plaintiffs, Beverly O'Mahoney and Heather Lupa, found a way to convince the judge that the First Amendment did not apply in this case. The judge agreed. 
Adidam's lawyers were smart enough to understand that they were likely not to prevail if the suits were allowed to go to trial. Their insurer, Lloyds of London, who paid the settlements, threatened to pull the policy if there was another lawsuit.
Soon thereafter, Adidam settled with all the plaintiffs. The two people mentioned got around $7 million, with millions more being paid to the remaining plaintiffs. 
-Candace, July 7, 2005
::That's interesting, re the lawsuits; I'd never heard the amounts discussed before and was under the impression that the terms of the settlement were confidential.  What is the source of this information, Candace? -- Jim Butler 9 July 2005 03:22 (UTC)
:::Attorneys talk you know. -Candace July 9, 2005
::::Yes, as do people in general.  They say all kinds of things, don't they? --Jim Butler 06:04, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why Adidam settled the lawsuits and for how much 

message: I don't think it's appropriate.  I'm sorry to be adding another section but the posting of this Mark Miller letter takes up so much room that I am unable to edit it or add to it. Why couldn't you have just added a link to the article?
There are several things that are factual that one should also consider in light of Mr. Miller’s accusations however. 
One, Mr. Miller is one of a handful of anti-Daist activists who have made their livelihood by using the attack tactics that are the norm of all “cult-buster” litigants.  So Mr. Miller has apparently made himself rich by asserting negative charges against Adi Da in civil, not criminal, courts of law.
Two , Mr. Miller claimed in his lawsuit that Adi Da “stole” his onetime girlfriend who was in fact a Playboy centerfold.  Most men who lose their girlfriends to other men have very unkind things to say about such rivals. But the fact that this could possibly motivate Mr. Miller to possibly assassinate the character of Adi Da never once enters into his dialog. Of course anyone would be upset if they had lost their onetime girlfriend to another person, and the fact that she was a Playboy centerfold would only add another level of angst to someone like Mark. It is no wonder that he apparently “hates” Adi Da. I am unaware of anyone ever suing the person who stole their girlfriend, but I suppose it has happened before. It’s not really something to be proud of, and that is probably why he needs to find other justifications for his anger at Adi Da. At any rate, it is not at all surprising that Mr. Miller had negative things to say about Adi Da 20 years ago. Has anyone botherd to ask him how he feels today?
The Adi Da article is heavily weighted as being negative towards Adi Da. 
Specific proof: There only three links in the article referencing positive links to Adi Da’s life and work. Conversely, there are 16 links to negative anti-Daist materials. This is in contrast to the fact that positive materials on the Internet about Adi Da outnumber negative materials by at least 40 to 1. This is a specific objection I have to the negative slant presented in the current form of the article. This and the fact that any attempts to make this article more balanced are met with accusations of “vandalism” by the anti-Daists who continue in their negative campaign against Adi Da. 
The question I ask is this: are people here interested in a fair and balanced representation of Adi Da’s life and work? Or is Wikipedia to be hijacked as just another propagandist tool of the anti-Daist hate group?
D.Gomez, 10 July, 2005
:The better question: is Wikipedia to be hijacked as just another propagandist tool of the Adidam group? There is nothing of the truth in D. Gomez' postings. Nothing! I'm really glad I found this site. -Candace, July 14, 2005
Yes, I agree, MS should have just added a link.  But there's nothing wrong with the letter itself, which is not only totally relevant today, but was posted as a refutation of the notion that Mark Miller was some sort of greedy opportunist who hadn't pondered these issues sincerely.  And you really don't know how much money Mark Miller received.  Candace hasn't offered any evidence.  
As for Mark Miller's grievances, are you aware of the circumstances under which he was "relieved" of his girlfriend, and has it ever occurred to you to ask why on earth a guru would need to ROUTINELY do things like relieve his devotees of their money and girlfriends?  And nothing's changed today, despite the fact that Miller's lawsuit is from two decades ago.  Adi Da is still voraciously consuming money and seeking women for his harem, there is still an inner circle enabling his work, and still an outer circle (e.g., you, David) kept in the dark, lied to and relied on for tithe support.  Nothing has changed at all, except that Adi Da is more bitter and disappointed than ever at his not being embraced and worshipped by the world.  And everyone's a little bit closer to the grave, with nothing to show for their misguided efforts except a whole lot of empty rhetoric and wasted lives.
As for the article's balance, first, I don't see how you get the numbers you do (more below).  Second, what would make you happier -- to have factual (but "unflattering") statements about Adi Da presented with no support whatsoever?  Most of the article doesn't discuss criticisms at all; it's the article as a whole, rather than the link density of any given section, that's a better barometer of NPOV.  The only two sections that do discuss the controversy, other than the introduction, are the "Response" and "External Links" sections.  The former is composed of four paragraphs and 16 links, 12 of which are to a critical site BUT REFERENCED TO FACTUAL MATERIAL.  The first paragraph discusses the group's missionary work and titheing policy (something Adidam would rather not talk about publically, for some reason).  The next two paragraphs discuss the controversy and lawsuits, again something Adidam chooses to be silent about; references abound, as they ought to.  The final paragraph, somewhat pointlessly, is all about Wilber's comments and links to the same.  And the External Links section comprises 19 links, nine of which are maintained by Adidam or devotees engaged in outreach, seven of which are critical or mixed, and three of which are nominally neutral sites.  Doesn't sound real slanted to me.  
In general, with regard to religious and political controversies, I keep coming back to a saying that I believe I first heard in the debate over teaching evolution in schools:  people are entitled to their own opinions, but they're not entitled to their own facts.  Let the article present the facts, and let people draw their own conclusions.  That is of course very irksome to Adidam apologists, who have their own set of ready-made rationalizations for Adi Da's self-serving and abusive behavior and can't stand to see the facts presented without the spin.  However, Wikipedia's not a place to be hijacked as a propagandist tool for proselytizing.  What's especially ironic about apologists like yourself, and those for similar groups like Scientology, is that you're ignorant of the inner workings of the very thing you claim to champion.  What you object to is the divergence of fact from what you idealistically wish were the case.  --Jim Butler 06:45, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding a 20 Year-old Statement to a Live Discussion Board