Talk:Criticism of Prem Rawat/Archive 9

message: As a general rule, I suggest that each of us endure at least 3 personal attacks before complaining about it. That ought to break this cycle of "he attacked me" -- "No, you attacked him first" -- and so on.
Also, you have to make at least 3 separate edits (without complaining about someone's 'personal attacks') before complaining about another user.
Why don't we all follow this rule, eh? --Uncle Ed 21:26, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: OK with me. Thanks for the mediation. --64.81.88.140 23:21, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: And by "edits" I mean edits to this talk page! --Uncle Ed 13:28, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Stick to the point

message: Why the insertion "what critics interpret"? How can someone not interpret the sentences hereunder as a claim of divinity? I had already asked you before but you did not answer me. I may miss something so please explain. 
:"Guru Maharaji knows all. Guru Maharaji is Brahma (creator). Guru Maharaji is Vishnu (operator). Guru Mahara Ji is Shiva (destroyer of illusion and ego). And above all, Guru Maharaji is the Supremest Lord in person before us." 
Thanks in advance. Andries 18:05, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I have explainded this to you before. In Indian tradition you will find  declarations of guru as god or guru as greater than god to be most common. You can read about similar expressions throughout the main Indian scriptures: in the Ramayana, the Upanishads, in Sikhism. In this discourse (that by the way does not have neither a source, nor a date and is missing the beginning and end), like in many other early discourses, he is speaking about his Guru Maharaj ji, or master Shri Hans Ji Maharaj. Throughout the text he referes toHim and not to me or I.  For westerners not accustomed to Indian hyperbole in speeches, this may be strange, I agree. That is why I have NPOVed that text. You can change the NPOVing a bit by stating that "what some may interpret" instead of "what critics interpret". --Zappaz 18:42, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: okay, thanks for your explanation. I do not find it convincing but I'll leave the sentence more or less the way you edited it. Andries 18:46, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Zappaz, please explain

message: I want to remind everyone that the task at hand is to expand this article to include all grievances and criticism. Beyond an initial effort by John Braun that unfortunately lasted just a couple of edits, and small edits here and there by Andries (with some attempt at NPOV'ing by me), not much has happened to the article for the last two weeks. Heated discussions, yes... but little or no text. 
There is still time to expand the article. I encourage the anons, Jim and the newcomers to add as much text as they need. This will be a much better way to expend your energies.
Regarding the Malibu mansion: the stated valuation of $25 million dollars is probably a current valuation. I do not see any evidence that in 1973 the followers were so rich as to donate $25 million. If I took a guess, I would say that price of land in Malibu at that time with an old house on it, would not exceed a couple of hundred K. This could be confirmed with a real estate agent, and I may do just that... Also, the current mansion may have 25,000 sq ft. but no one is presenting what was the size of the original house when it was purchased. So, that paragraph needs both substantiation, sources and NPOVing. 
I understand that at that time, the house and other assets were given as gifts to PR by his followers, I do not think anyone is denying that, neither that many of the ex-premies may feel upset that they gave their money as gifts or donations. This explanation is also missing fron the article.
Concerning the Bell helicopter, I understand that it was sold several years ago and that he does not own any Rolls Royces. 
--Zappaz 17:01, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Less smoke, more fire 

message: *Some ex-premies post anynomously. Some do not, like Cynthia, (PatD I believ), Jim, Mike, John but do not reveal their real names in every post so it is hard to see it. Some ex-premies say that the reason for posting anonymously are the threats and  insults they receive. 
:: ::Hey Andries, this is totally unfair.... The ones using threats and insults are Jim and co. Check out what they did to Geaves with that anonymous website.  Playing the victim when you are the attacker is an interesting tactic. -64.81.88.140 21:16, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not know. At least one ex-premie complains about threats and insults that he received. Andries 18:45, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: on the latest edits by RichardG.

message: First section, clarity about claiming to be an organzation for one purpose but not for another. The back and forth about when people leave (is that the right word?) shortenbed to the fact that people leave at different times. What was there was utterly confusing: people have left at different times. Period. We should try to encourage people to read things into it.  No citation for numbers of people left, so cut. Facts are good things.
2nd graf, subject verb agreement, tense consistency. Also some of the counter-counter-counter charges deleted. Guilding the lilly and trying to get the last word only gums up the works. Someone deleted reference to Rick Ross as professional deprogrammer. restored. This is naughty: he does this for a living, he's been found legally liable for his activities in this regard, , and if you want to cite him as an expert, you should do so honestly. This guy was apparently the "expert" consulted by ATF before the Branch Davidian massacre in Waco, and you saw how nicely THAT worked out! (yeesh! Why the anti-rawat people want to cast their lot with this guy is beyond me...but that's their call, not mine).
Divinity: mostly grammar, a few clarity points. Someone snuck some nasty bits in there that have been cleaned up.
Financial: no cite to Rolls-Royce, and the anti-rawat pages tell stories that the Rolls in thier photo archive was borrowed. Mishler "plan" is confusing and uncited. Besides, what is it supposed to mean? He had a plan that would explain the welath, but he quit before implemented? Same with the dilapidated parcel business: where's the cite? Also, one thing to say, supported by evidence as it is, that the assets are controlled by advsors, that's fair, but "this is the same way other bad people do it" is conspiracy-theory stuff. Show the facts, let readers figure it out: no need to beat them over the head with what the facts "must" mean.
:about cars you may ask Wolfgang Peters who lives in Hamburg,Germany. He was taking care of maharaji's car park for several years and can give accurate information. Just ask the movement for his contact address. Petra  
Miscellany: "falsely" magnify? As opposed to truthfully magnify? (LOL!) Less lawyering and POV, please. :) Richard G. 20:19, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  more tweaks 

message: RichardG. I noticed that you changed at least two items that had already been discussed on the talk page i.e. the article by Introvigne and Ross who was a former deprogrammer. You changed it back without giving a detailed rebuttal to what I and others had written on the talk page of this article. Can you please do that next time to prevent frustration on both sides and waste time? Thanks in advance Andries 20:21, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Please read the talk page incl. archives before making changes