Talk:Criticism of Prem Rawat/Archive 6

message: Jim and John (and whoever), please consider that the "usenet banter" form of edit ideas placed within heated discussion blocks is rather inefficient. I think many of your edit ideas have merit, but the people you're usually addressing them to are highly unlikely ever to implement them, and it's tough for others like me to comb through the discussions to find them all. I would suggest you:
*Enter an edit suggestion and rationale here on the talk page, and then actually implement that edit on the article page (if you stay away from bulk deletions or reverts, you might be surprised how well your edits will stick), or
*Gather all your edit suggestions at the end of the day into a prominent bulleted list on the talk page for consideration and implementation by others.
I would actually urge the former, but the latter will do. --Gary D 23:31, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
:Will do Gary, but it will have to wait until after the weekend. --John Brauns 23:42, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Loged on and was disappointed not to see any new substantial edit effort... Do you need more time? --Zappaz 04:40, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Boys, pick up the cyber-pen ('tis mightier than the cyber-sword)

message: After reaching a situation in which the article was discussed and edited and somewhat sabilized, to have Jim and others "suddenly" waking up and trying to make this article a soap box for their basesles allegations, is a travesty. They have been plaining this all along. They do not believe on NPOV. They are wasting our time.
Three guys and a cat posting baseless allegations on a webpage, does not warrant to have an article full of innuendo and lies, even if these are rebuted one by one by one.
I will vigorously oppose any attempt by the hate-group to use this as a platform for peddling their  innuendo and smear campaing against law-abiding people. They have their website: let them spew their stuff there, not on WP! Enough is enough! 
This articlec ould be just one sentece: there is a small group of ex-followers (less that 25 for pete's sake!) that have the stated mission to harass Prem Rawat and his students and to discredit them. If you want to know more click here. Finito. --64.81.88.140 00:54, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but this is the right article for the allegations of the "hate group". I do not believe that it is a smear campaign nor that the allegations are baseless. I promise that I will really try to be fair and accurate but if you systematically obstruct additions of criticism on this article then I will ask for a Wikipedia:request for comments. Andries 17:46, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  I vigorously object to the process 

message: *Reformatted Misc Criticism section. Now leaner.
*Removed reference to D Lane. The critics are already making the point, and D Lane did not write about Rawat.
*Shortened some of the titles.
**Zappaz, I do not agree with removing the reference to David C. Lane. This is an important reference to support the view of most vocal critics that Prem Rawat's alleged immoral privat life matters in assessing his authenticity. By the way, neither does Massimo Introvigne mention Maharaji, so I do not think that that is a good reason to remove the article. Andries 13:20, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits

message: Although IMHO it starts to go into trivial detail, the page is very smoothly edited. I suspect when it comes to this subject, no detail is too small if it will either smear or defend Rawat, depending where one's sympathies lie.
I made a few tweaks. In the Dettmers section, I contextualized the time period. I find the allegations distasteful, but there they are, the reader will just have to decide if they give a damn about whther he smoked pot. Maybe I'm a freak about this, but it is always important to say WHEN an event took place. I also went back and tried to encapsulate the context for what the premies were complaining about with the Scattini business. Sometimes I think that Internet access ought to be a licensed affair!!! ;-)
Richard G. 11:23, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gary-- good work--again 

message: Can  we get this out of the article? It think it is non-essential and as it is phrased now, it gives a one sided view of the matter. I could correct it but then it wil become lengthy. By the way, I think that ex-premies have gone too far and I will say so at forum8. Andries 16:46, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean non-essential? Try and tell Dr. Geaves that... The efforts by these people are what they are and must' be told here so that their appalling tactics and motives are know to the reader. --64.81.88.140 17:06, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: true, it is important for Ron Geaves but not for this article. I mean, if we want to tell the whole story, then we would need a whole section for it. That goes too far, I think because it would mean a digression on a side subject. Andries 17:19, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue presented is not about Ron Geaves.... The issue presented is that ex-premies are mounting a campaign of harassement againts followers (not the only one, you know), and this is one example that is documented by evidence. My vote is to keep it. --64.81.88.140 17:40, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It is either the whole lengthy story about Ron Geaves or no story at all. Doing otherwise would be unfair. Andries 17:54, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Andries: the article is presenting a fact. Exprtemies have and are harassing people because they have chosen to follow Prem Rawat. No other reason. That in my book is called criminal. That in my book is called bigotism. That in my book is called hate. The article is presenting that expremies are using these tactics and there is nothing you can do to alleviate that fact. This stays in the article.  --64.81.88.140 18:38, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It is about exposing flawed scholarship to inform the public and abuse of academic credentials to support a partisan view i.e. not telling the editors of Nova Religio that you are a follower is of Prem Rawat is wrong. He has been warned many times and refuses to answer polite questions by ex-premies about his work. I agree that the ex-premies have gone to far but that is the other side of the story. Andries 18:43, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: done  Andries 19:50, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: go, ahead Gary, thanks 18:53, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: It will be just a little bit before I can get to it. I'm not asking that this material be frozen, feel free to edit it in the meantime, I'm just asking no one push the big, red delete/revert button before then. --Gary D 19:02, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
Go for it Gary. By the way, here's an interesting article about how newspapers are now backing away from anonymous allegations and, and they put it, "rants." http://www.shreveporttimes.com/alanenglish/html/2E6C5ED4-C6D6-43E5-9D17-3B5974426260.shtml  There IS hope :-) Richard G. 19:03, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead Gary. promise not to touch anything ti'll you had a chance. --64.81.88.140 20:02, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Trying to get Ron Geaves fired

message: 64.81.88.140, see http://www.ex-premie.org/pages/press_room.htm Why did you removed that in the article? it is a documented fact. Thanks in advance for your explanation. Andries 15:45, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Give it a break, Andries, give it a break. I am getting tired of your minutiae editing, and poor English. Want to contribute? make suggestion on the page instead of doing poor edits.--64.81.88.140 18:14, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I re-inserted it. If you disagree, then please give a detailed rebuttal. Andries 08:29, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Nowadays, there are still a few critical press articles

message: Listen, premies, I know that it's hard trying to defend the indefensible but will you give it up already on the irrelevant personal attacks and lies on me?  I've never emailed anyone's employer or even suggested it.  
:BUT YOU HAVE TELEPHONED THEM. VERY CUTE SPIN THERE! HERE WE GO AGAIN. THANKS JIM!!--Skippy
I don't know of any exes who have.  
: ANOTHER LIE, JIM. YOU APPLAUDED THEM DOING SO IN YOUR HATE CHAT ROOM. CHECK THE ARCHIVES. -- Skippy
No matter how often you repeat a lie like that, it doesn't just get tired one day and turn into the truth.  Sorry about that.  It IS true that one of you made some bogus and forged law society complaints against ME, though.  I mean if you really want to talk about it.
:HOW ABOUT THE ONE FILED BY ANOTHER EXPREMIE WHO HAD IT WITH YOUR HATE SPEECH? YOU KNOW, THE ONE THAT WAS REPOSTED HERE BUT YOU HAD DELETED?--Skippy
And talk about cyberstalking and online harrassment?  Are you serious?  What do you think jimheller.info is?  Or one-reality.net?  Or the original CAC attacks or Glasser's first, ugly website where he called us all drug addicts, crazy and the like?  
:NOT ALL OF YOU. JUST A FAIR AMOUNT. THERE YOU GO, BUILDING A STRAW MAN AGAIN! --Skippy
Or how about all the premie threats, like Catweasel warning he was going to smash me with a baseball bat or even shoot me, I think he said once, or Carlos' threat to try to get whatever dirt he could on any of us and "ruin" us all somehow (I've got a bunch of them saved, if you don't believe me)?  
:WHY DIDNT YOU EVER FILE A COMPLAINT? YOUR PUPPET BRAUNS SAYS IF YOU DON'T FILE A COMPLAINT IT MUST BE TRUE! DID YOU TEACH HIM THAT, COUNSELOR? --Skippy
I mean, you want to talk harrassment, what do you think EV is doing lying about my joke -- WHICH I IMMEDIATELY SAID WAS JUST A JOKE  -- about stealing money?  Doesn't that just say it all, fellas?  I mean, really, how can you possibly defend that kind of unconscionable libel?  
Indeed, look at EV's ridiculous FAQs about all the exes who dare to speak out.  Not a credible, rational, honest person amongst us, to hear them tell it.  You know what that means, fellas?  That means that you and your guru actually think that he can jump onto the world stage as the Lord of the Universe, Saviour of Mankind, get richer than hell one way or another over the next couple of decades, seriously affect countless lives, and even change his story so that, whatever else you can say, we all agree that he's no longer openly claiming much of his former stuff, and what?  No one's going to ever criticize him?  No one's going to actually try to analyze the whole trip?  
And no, I don't mean Ron Geaves.  I mean, SURE, Ron Geaves.  Why not?  Don't get me wrong.  He can study and write whatever he wants about Rawat.  It's too bad that he does so without disclosing that he's a premie.  It's too bad he won't openly dialogue with his REAL peers in this area -- other premies and exes.  
:HE'S NOT ON YOUR CROSS EXAMINATION, DIMWIT. --Skippy
But Ron can do it.  But you know what?  So can we.  We, too, can study, analyze your guru.  
:OOPS! YOU DID IT AGAIN, LIAR! YOU LEAPED FROM CRITICIZING GEAVES TO ASSUMING IT'S OK TO THREATEN HIS EMPLOYMENT. IS KARL ROVE YOUR NEW GURU? -- Skippy
Better still, we can even criticize, question, challenge and condemn him.  We can laugh at him just as we laugh at ourselves for ever taking him seriously.  Your problem is that you can't defend him on the facts. You can't get past the fact that just 14 years ago he publically scolded his followers for forgetting that the guru's no regular teacher, he's Hari -- WHICH, YOUR OWN ORGANIZATION TRANSLATED AS "GOD".  You can't answer stuff like that so you take to attacking us.  
:AND YOU "LEFT" MAHARAJI 20 YEARS AGO? SOUNDS LIKE YOU THINK ABOUT HIM EVERY DAY!!!
:-- Skippy
God, this is so obvious.
Well, quit lying about me here. I don't like it.
:WHO CARES WHAT YOU LIKE? I THOUGHT YOU WERE GONE, ANYWAY! YUP, SLINKING BACK, GOTTA JUST THROW THE MUD IN THERE. YOU ARE COMPULSIVE, YOU KNOW... YOU REALLLY OUGHT TO QUIT OBSESSING ON MAHARAJI AND SEE A BONE FIDE THERAPIST. -- Skippy
:)
-- Jim
*********************
Skippy, I never telephoned anyone's employer either.  That's a pure lie.  What, are you trying to match EV or something?  Other than that, your inability to answer my comments responsively and your tone say it all.  
-- Jim
:Jim, this article is not about you. It is about the Criticism of PR. As far as I can see, your name is not even mentioned once. So, please relax, and note yet again that what you and Skippy are doing above, i snot appropriate for this page. Let us focus on copyedit, please. --00:59, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Will you guys quit lying about me for a change, please? 

message: Well, someone keeps editing without making notes here. Some also lunched up Gary's edits pretty badly, but derring to the process, I left as much as I could. A few changes, noted here:
Moved the testimonials link down to the other weblink sections. Its non sequitur where it was. Added NPOV approach to anti groups' characterizations of EV and PR. Someone added some redundant language, it appears elsewhere, so has been deleted.
Added "ex-premie" to Mishler. Important to qualify and disclose interests always.
Switched around sentences in last graf of financial section, to give anti group last word.
In Miscellaneous secion:
Deleted the redundant loaded speculation about why or how Rawat cobbles up the false association with universities. There's no citation here, and as it was, it looks like conspiracy theory stuff. If you accuse someone of deceitful advertisning you really ought to at least cite something -- anything -- but don't just throw it out there. If you can show something to support this, it should go back in. Similary, deleted the premie rebuttal on this that is redundant.
Maybe I missed something here, but I couldn;t find reference to a ritual called "X-rating." I left in that Dettmers was in the inner circle -- I think that's the major point here, that he knows what he's talking about-- but referring to secret ceremonies is weird. If there was such a ceremony, it should be referenced if relevant. Cleaned up the rebuttal to this.
Dr. Greve's section:
What is a "spoofed" website? It confuses reader. I looked at the page (which is excreble, IMHO)and it is NOT satire. Deleted "spoofed." I suspect it's one of those internet-specific words, but here it's made to look like a defense. Again, redundant language here (and poorly structred english, I might add). The allegation of academic fraud is made in middle of graf, not need to add it at the end again.
As for the chat room back and forth on this page:
Skippy: relax, dude. Have a beer. Works for me.
Richard G. 12:47, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Richard G. Skippy, there is a reference to x-rating. thanks for your explanations. Please anyone get a userid or a sockpuppet and login when editing this article. Thanks.  Andries 12:50, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Richard G., I still think that it is important to state how some critics see their attack on Ron Geaves. The academic fraud is not mentioned now. 12:57, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: The edits by Andries are just a waste of time. The original prose crafted by Gary is now in shambles again.  It is minutae editing, adding ZERO value and pushing an undeniable POV to show the hate group under a more bening light. An impossible task Andries. Give it up --64.81.88.140 15:25, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing on a merry go round 

message: I think it goes a bit too far to put the adjective controversial before any scholar or person mentioned in this article. I mean, to be fair, Introvigne is controversial too. Can we just leave that adjective out. Who is not controversial who writes about NRMs? Andries 15:33, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Introvigne is controversial in the eyes of the anti-cult movement only, because they are fighting them. Duh!. Ross and Hassan are controversial because of their deprogramming techniques, some of which were criminal. --64.81.88.140 20:50, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Are there any non-controversial scholars and activists?

message: Above he says he never telephoned anyone about premies.
But here's what he says on the hate group message board, defending his cyber-stalking:
:"I contacted the editor of Nova Religio to ask her if Geaves had disclosed his 
:relationship with Rawat"
http://www.forum8.org/forum8/posts/5721.html
My goodness, how obsessed can one man be? --Skippy
Skippy, the allegation was that exes, including myself, have contacted premies' employers.  Nova Religio is not Geaves' employer, it's a journal that published his article about Rawat without knowing that he's a premie.  Think of my call like a letter to the editor.  Or would that be "harrassment" too?  LOL!
:Letter to the Editor, my foot. This is malicious behavior, and  anyone can see it.  And tell me that you were not "delighted" when you saw that website on geocities? Be honest: you surely were. --64.81.88.140 20:22, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Why should he? It is only malicious in your eyes. --64.81.88.140 20:22, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Of course he does not want to talk to you. Duh! Who would? And what do you know about accepted principles of academic scholarship?  Absolutely nothing.-64.81.88.140 21:56, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Jim, the master of spin.... in a wild chase on Google to try and coverup for his peers anonyous and viscious attacks on Geaves. The first quote reads " A conflict of interest can only constitute misconduct if there is a deliberate deception of editors, referees and readers." In your view Geaves did that because you judge him as a person that wants to deceive.  On the second quotaton is about peer review process for submittted manuscripts and related to the sourcing of funds for a research project. Forget it Jim, your wild chase is just that wild, and proves nothing but your lack of ethics in supporting a website such as the one created by your kind friends. Yikes! --64.81.88.140 02:25, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  More proof Jim cannot be trusted