|
|
|
That's one person's reality. 'Boo hoo hoo! My Maharaji's gonna sue you. Boo hoo hoo!"  They've got nothin. 
Modified by Cynthia at Sat, Nov 25, 2006, 11:47:45
|
|
|
|
EV can't sue us without Rawat being deposed or even cross examined. That would be about as close to justice as we will ever get.
|
|
|
|
In our wildest fantasies EV would sue for defamation. I would just so LOVE to watch Rawat be subject to a deposition and cross examination on any of these topics. My goodness I REALLY REALLY hope they do sue! For Rawat to have to answer for what he has done...not something we have any likelyhood of seeing ever. But EV bringing a lawsuit against ex premies would be the best possible thing to make it happen.
|
|
|
|
I think what Geoff Staker is so moronically trying to say is that Rawat could still sue the paper that published John MacGregor's article "Blinded by the Light." As far as I know, MacGregor never recanted on anything he wrote because he didn't write anything that was untruthful. Besides, EV and Prem Rawat would have been all over that newspaper with lawsuits, instead of what they really did, which was to send out the big bully-type lawyers after MacGregor, in an attempt to ruin his career and life. Rawat wouldn't have a chance bringing a lawsuit against me personally, becasue I've never lied about anything!!! Maybe the cult members see that as a technicality, but still...I'd love to see them just try. 
LOL!
|
|
|
|
Rawat wouldn't have a chance bringing a lawsuit against me personally, becasue I've never lied about anything!!!
If they ever try it on you Cynthia, be assured that there will be serious backup. Just don't sign anything, or do a runner from an injunction.
|
|
|
|
OK let's take Staker's words at face value. Firstly he appears to be referring to the case brought against John MacGregor - perhaps someone would like to draw Staker's claim that Elan Vital would consider using the Law as a means of income generation, to the attention of the Queensland Attorney General and ask that the MacGregor case be examined in the light of Staker's informed opinion. Secondly, while EV in Australia is merely a closed member Association (anyone know who the members are or how you get to be one ?) and can pretty much behave like any group of private persons, EV US is a philanthropic entity operating for Religious purposes. How would a 'church' justify using Tax exempt funds to pursue a Court case from which it hopes to make money ? Thirdly, EV US hides behind its Reg. 990 status to avoid having to expose its financial affairs in public - any Court case is likely to allow an examination of the last thirty years of DLM/EV finances. Fourthly, even if Rawat were to bring a defamation case in his own name, 99% of all the criticisms that have ever been made about him have been in the public domain for years without Rawat making any attempt to challenge them. EV claiming copyright with the aim of pushing a 'chilling effect' agenda hardly counts as taking a stand against untrue statements. Fifthly - Rawat's critics have a long history of demonstrating a willingness to acknowledge and correct mistakes. If there is anything on ex premie sites that is actually false, Rawat and/or EV should be expected to furnish contrary evidence and ask for corrections before resorting lawyers. I would guess the Geoff.S must be one of Rawat's favourite premies right now - the invitation to spend Christmas at Trancas Canyon is no doubt on its way as we speak. Nik
|
|
|
|
Jossi has learned his lessons well, as seasoned seaman and paid-up defender of the EV truth: as your ship crosses the river of bondage to maya, you need to stay in the middle of the boat to avoid getting seasick when the waters get choppy. And when doing Wiki, that means serving two seamasters: Rawat out of devotion and salary, and the Wiki rulebook out of distasteful necessity. Jossi knows which side his salt-mutton is buttered (if that’s not mixing too many metaphors for one post). But if Jossi is the steady helmsman, then Staker is the loose cannon – once a valuable weapon to your cause - which has broken loose and is careering from leeward to starside as the ship rolls, crushing fellow sailors in its path and misfiring at an imagined enemy… That was an excellent post, Nik. Kudos to you too for keeping abreast of all the charity laws and legal implications. But was that last paragraph ironic? >>I would guess the Geoff.S must be one of Rawat's favourite premies right now - the invitation to spend Christmas at Trancas Canyon is no doubt on its way as we speak. Hmm, silly of me to even ask? I can’t see Mr Staker being anything but a ghastly embarrassment to EV right now. Buttons will be pushed, quiet words will be spoken. He’ll be overboard ere lammastide, you mark my words…
Modified by Nigel at Sun, Nov 26, 2006, 12:24:47
|
|
|
|
yes, I agree that Staker is more likely EV persona non grata than getting invited to the res...Rawat does not want to be deposed.
|
|
|
|
Yes Tom does seem to be doing a good job in all this. He appears to be taking a great deal of time finding out exactly how Wikipedia works, its policies and its practice. I wish him well, he will obviously need to stick at it as people like Jossi are constantly on guard. The premie guy gstalker says: To date, EV and PR have shown no interest in suing for defamation. That could very easily change. Its time that EV and PR started giving serious consideration to litigation. Well founded defamation suits have the potential to generate much needed income.
Amazing! I've heard of, and been involved with, many fund raising activities for the cult, but never in my wildest dreams would I think of that one. Fancy trying to raise funds by suing former followers for defamation. Incredible. This gstalker guy sure seems to have blown a gasket of some kind, what with all the smoke, steam and fumes he is giving off on Wikipedia. His Wikipedia contributions surely must be against Wikipedia guidelines? I'm sure that Jossi will soon enough take him to one side and put him straight, again. Anyway gstalker is the same guy that made false and misleading statements, including statements attributing criminal conduct concerning a former follower. Statements that he had to formally retract, under court supervision, as being false. Now he is trying to coerce EV and PR to take spurious legal actions against unnamed former followers. The mind boggles! Really, what sort of reality do some premies live in? Having said all that, I'm sure that gstalker is a really nice guy, fun to be with, a bundle of laughs. However I have never met him, so all I can only judge him by are his words on Wikipedia and elsewhere. T
Modified by T at Sat, Nov 25, 2006, 13:05:33
|
|
|
|
Having said all that, I'm sure that gstalker is a really nice guy, fun to be with, a bundle of laughs. However I have never met him, so all I can only judge him by are his words on Wikipedia and elsewhere. I agree.  I think it would be fun to talke with Gstaker while he's trying to assert (as Jossi is now trying to do "over there" ) that information about Rawat in the Washington Post was printed in its tabloid, gossip column section. Can anyone spell "suspend disbelief?" But hey, if the LOTU's reputation is at stake then all of the major news establishments in the United States are subject to question as tabloids, including the Chicago Tribune, Washington Times, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe, The LA Times, Miami Herald, the Associated Press, United Press International, and Reuters. Here's a more complete list of all of America's tabloids: http://www.world-newspapers.com/usa.html They're all a bunch of lousy gossips with no journalistic ability to report on the Lord of the Universe, Prem Rawat, doncha know that T?
Modified by Cynthia at Sat, Nov 25, 2006, 13:16:56
|
|
|
|
Now I see that Jossi (a long time premie currently in the employ of Elan Vital) and also an official administrator of Wikipedia has felt compelled to give an official warning to gstalker (another long time premie) against making legal threats. I wonder where it will all end? Jossi having to vote for gstalker losing all wikipedia privileges? T
|
|
|
|
>I wonder where it will all end? Jossi having to vote for gstalker losing all wikipedia privileges? I bet South Park would do the definitive job on this, if only the Rawat cult was sufficiently interesting to make it worth the effort...
|
|
|
|
T, I can't imagine that Prem Rawat is very pleased with Staker's legal threats on his behalf. This gets better and better. Much more fun to watch than be in the thick of it. I wonder where it will all end? It'll never end. Jossi will be old, gray, and wrinkled and still be editing those articles. Now that Jossi is a bona fide employee of the cult, I have to wonder why they continue with that article. Maybe it's just another mistake that Prem Rawat did not make. Who's the retired bricklayer? Since when is calling someone a bricklayer a pejorative? LOL!
Modified by Cynthia at Sun, Nov 26, 2006, 09:31:00
|
|
|
|
Over on your own talk page at Wikipedia, Jossi suggests that your prior involvement in Rawat-related litigation raises a conflict of interest vis-a-vis your editting the article. Setting aside Jossi's obvious hypocrisy given that he's now actually a paid-staffer in the cult, you might want to point out that both he and Staker were involved in Marianne's suit. Indeed they both hired the same lawyer! I completely admire your ability to stay calm with Jossi and wish you the very best in getting the truth out.
|
|
|
|
Staker does have a sort of a point. While he obviously needs some lessons in what are scandal sheets and what are reputable and respected newspapers there is a kernel of concern in his complaints. While there were many intelligent, in-depth reports about the DLM phenomenon, especially around Millenium '73, it was the case that often the only reports of Rawat in newspapers were derisory comments in gossip pages and pages where amusing, trivial stories were printed for cheap laughs.
This reflects Rawat's importance and the intelligent and educated, sophisticated society perceptions of him and does not damage the newspaper's reputation. And this is a case where the tabloid opinions about Rawat match those of the respected broadsheets so it doesn't really matter if you're quoting the New York Times or People magazine, the story is basically the same while only the style varies.
I haven't had a chance to check but maybe you could do some research and discover whether the National Enquirer or it's competitors ever wrote about Rawat. Things like "Guru Maharaj ji is a Space Alien" or "Teenage Guru is 40 Year Old Fat Midget" or anything similar. It could be interesting but then these magazines do tend to concentrate on famous people don't they so there'll probably never be a headline like "Hamburger Bun with the Image of Maharaji found in Peoria Bakery On Sale on eBay".
I'm reminded of a premie satsang back in the mid 70's. He was talking about how he'd sent a letter to an old friend giving him satsang (this might even have been the late 70's) and had enclosed a photo of the guru. He received a reply thanking him for the letter but asking why on earth he'd put in the photo of a fat Maori singer?
But reading those newspaper articles is probably very hurtful to a 30 year student of Rawat's. It might even be traumatic because as the Keys site says, this Knowledge won't help you with problems in your life. I am going to suggest that GStaker receive counselling. Do you think there are counsellors who specialise in this type of trauma? Can you recommend anyone?
|
|
|
|
I have a cutting from the National Enquirer from the early 0s which gives a short garbled summary of Rawat's 70s career and says he retired. If only one could trust the NE.....
|
|
|
|
Modified by turey at Sun, Nov 26, 2006, 08:44:18
|
|
|
|
I guess it depends on what people will think or say; where he is.
If addressing those who might find the idea offensive, then: no he isn't.
If addressing those who might be able to handle the idea, even give on that basis, then he is.
He is in a way letting us (people) decide. Seeing this: (people) let's decide, once and for all; he is not.
Modified by Saph at Wed, Dec 06, 2006, 01:40:23
|
|
|
|
I don't recall seeing anything akin to "Teenage Guru is a Space Alien" as the truth was already crazy enough -- young, fat, teenage Lord of the Universe ....
|
|
|
|
Yes, well done Tom.
The very thought of going anywhere near Wikipedia, fills me with the kind of dread that our ancestors had, when they thought they could hear Cerberus howling at the gates of the underworld.
Just goes to show that bricklayers are made of sterner stuff.
|
|
|
|
After all that you posted above, Jim, including Staker's rant about lawsuits on Rawat's behalf, and that he believes the Washington Post is a tabloid, Jossi got Will Beback to review the matter. This is the latest on the Rawat talk page, but below that, I've posted Beback's and Jayjg's warning to Tom. Absolutely amazing! On the Prem Rawat talk page: Both editors here have acknowledged prior involvements with and interest in the subject. Let's take that as a given and avoid making any further personal remarks. Antagonistic off-wiki remarks aren't helpful either. I don't think this article is unreasonably long (4600 words excluding footnotes). Note that it's part of a set, Category:Prem Rawat, that also includes Criticism of Prem Rawat. That article was created to avoid unbalancing this article with verifiable criticisms. Otherwise the usual Wikipedia policies and guidelines apply, as mentioned above. If COI editors find consensus on the talk page for new or altered material then there shouldn't be a problem. If TG (or anyone else) has specific proposals for changing the intro then let's see what common ground we can find. -Will Beback · † · 01:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC) Thank you, Will for your intervention. TGubler has raised 20 points of concern about the article and the proposal on the table is that we take one at the time, and try to to resolve them to everyone's satisfaction. Once these points have been addressed we can easily undertake revising the lead to the article, that we all have agreed needs tightening as per WP:LEAD. There is no doubt that it will not be an easy task, but I am confident that with a lot of patience, and if editors engage in constructive discussions and avoid making negative statements on or off wiki about other editors or about the subject of the article, enough good will can be created that we can take contributions in good faith and end up with a better article we can all feel proud about. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC) Well that is good that we got that out of the way. I will commence the edits shortly once I finish ensuring the sources I use are available for any editors to verify quickly and easily on-line. However I would also like to point out that as well as adding and changing various points there does appear to me to be much positive poorly sourced statements about Prem Rawat in this article and possibly some editors have not realised this because their own original research into Prem Rawat's "Knowledge" has given them unWiki-ish opinions of his life. Tgubler 21:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I do not see that you have understood the advise given to you about your conflict of interest. See your User talk page and the comments made here by Will: You need to make your contributions to the talk page and seek consensus and not edit the article directly. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC) I disagree. I do not think that TGubler has a conflict of interest and he is free to edit this article. Andries 11:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
And an extra reminder not to make any type of assessments or comments on other editors motives or understanding. You will be ill advised to continue making these type of statements, given your situation and the advise given to you by neutral administrators. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Jossi and Will for your input and advice. It seems that my honest and plainly stated expression of concern has created a degree of controversy. I did not come here with the intention of disrupting proceedings. Frankly, given the current state of PR articles after 2 years of editing, I do not share your faith in Wikipedia's processes, however, I will endeavor to follow to the rules, such as they are. Hopefully, something acceptable will emerge. --Gstaker 06:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I see VictorO has inserted "to people living in ashrams". Whilst I agree that the previous quote was wrong, what is our policy regarding incorrect but well sourced material?:Momento 02:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
On Tgubler's talk page (talk about a pile-on!): As said in talk page, I welcome your research, but note my previous warning: As a person with a very specific conflict of interest, you are advised to you refrain from editing the article directly and instead discuss your edits in talk. I have no intention to disclose your situation, but if you chose not to discuss your edits, I will have no choice than to make a disclosure and ask other administrators to look into it. Thank you for your consideration. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Tgubler, your legal proceedings with Prem Rawat would indeed seem to put you in a conflict of interest regarding Prem Rawat. I would recommend you be extremely careful to follow Wikipedia's policy regarding living persons, and ideally restrict your contributions to the Talk: page of the Prem Rawat article. Jayjg (talk) 22:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Tgubler, here are some unasked-for words of advice. Please note that on Wikipedia we make a point of treating each other with civility. While I understand that you have disagreements with Prem Rawat and his followers it is best if you don't refer to them disrespectfully. Our job, as Wikipedia editors, is to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. It isn't our job to prove how good or bad something is. If we stick to our job and follow the basic policies things usually turn out fine. -Will Beback · † · 02:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Modified by Cynthia at Tue, Nov 28, 2006, 07:07:50
|
|
|
|
Modified by turey at Tue, Nov 28, 2006, 10:07:26
|
|
|
|
Sometimes I think they get the Scientologist, the Moonie, the Baba and premie together and all agree to defend eachother's articles. Reading these agruments that things printed in newspapers like Washington Post are not relevant just infuriates me. I see no point in trying to fight the Wiki war let the buyer beware.... Here is my one stab at Wiki Dear Susan, I apologize for the unusual delay in responding to your concerns. Unfortunately, there is very little we can do to help you resolve this problem. Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia written by its readers; please see the dispute resolution process at [ When editing based on information other editors may not be aware of, it may also help to cite external sources that they can refer to. I'm sorry your experience with Wikipedia has been frustrating, and I hope you are able to resolve this dispute satisfactorily. Yours cordially, Jesse Martin wrote: > Dear Wikipedia, > > > > I have for years followed with frustration the ongoing battle between > Jossi Fresco (he is a current follower of Prem Rawat) and former > followers who wish to try to refute to very deceptive Wikipedia > article Jossi guards like a bulldog. I won't try to edit the article > because I am a former follower, and apparently, the fact that I feel I > am a former cult member makes my opinions moot on Wikipedia. > > > > I can tell you that if a reputable researcher wrote an article on Prem > Rawat the fact he has been accused since the early 1970's of being a > cult leader who financially and spiritually exploits his follower > would be in the first paragraph. When Mr. Rawat dies you can bet, if > newspapers even decide he is important enough to write an article > about the term "cult leader" and financial exploitation of followers > will be in the first few lines. It is simply what this man's life has been about. > > > > I don't trust Wikipedia at all as you have let this guy Jossi wrap > himself around the article, which is used to give Rawat an appearance > of legitimacy on the internet, for so many years. I have taught my > children that Wikipedia is a terrible tool for research as it is so > easily exploited by people with a bias. > > > > Susan > > -- Wikipedia - --- Disclaimer: all mail to this address is answered by volunteers, and responses are not to be considered an official statement of the Wikimedia Foundation. For official correspondence, you may contact the site operators at < http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP%3ADR] for guidance in reaching a consensus.http://en.wikipedia.org
|
|
|
|
So do not surprized that people do not go into detail about individual articles unless there is a legal concern. Andries
|
|
|
|
My problem is with Wikipedia having pseudo legitimacy ( and it does ) with people who have not seen how easily it is exploited. I just can't stand to Rawat have opportunities to gain legitimacy...the nature of Wiki plays into ANY cult leaders hands. It makes me angry but hey it is free speech and let the buyer beware...if people are stupid enough to use Wikipedia as a reference ...nah...no one deserves to join a cult. That is what makes me sad.
Modified by Susan at Tue, Nov 28, 2006, 16:29:37
|
|
|
|
Nelson Mandela has an article on WIKI about the same length as for Prem Rawat and a slightly shorter (but somewhat more impressive) list of honours?! Should there not be some proportionality ? Tim
|
|
|
|
feel free to expand the article on Nelson Mandela. There is a max. limit to an article but the limit is the same for all articles, regardless of notalibility and importance. Andries
|
|
|
|
Hi Tim, Should there not be some proportionality ? One would think there should be, but the only thing notable about Rawt is that he's a cult leader and cult is a dirty word on wikipedia. Plus, Rawat really has no honors to list. He's never gotten one legitimate mainstream societal or cultural or governmental award. He's done nothing, but screw around with people's minds and lives. I only post about Wiki here, because it's damned near impossible to discuss edit options with the premies over there, because they don't think correctly. They want a free advertisement for Rawat, so anything that's slightly critical (and there's a lot of that) is gone over again and again and again until each ex-premie who's an editor ends up throwing their arms in the air, giving up. That's the plan with Jossi. Tire us out! I mean really! There's been about a week of discussion about whether or not the Washington Post is a tabloid newspaper???!!!??? lol Why? Becasue Staker thinks that if a newspaper retracts something, it's automatically not a notable or a realiable source. Tim, we're not dealing with the sharpest tools in the shed over there, even when so-called "neutal" observing editors pipe in. I'm not really kidding. There are 14 or 15 full archives of the Prem Rawat talk page that is filled with arguments, etc. about the article, and I've read each and every one a few times. Oy.
Modified by Cynthia at Tue, Nov 28, 2006, 18:45:31
|
|
|
|
thanks Cynthia, well I do admire Andries and Tom for sticking with it so patiently. ...I suppose it is, as you say, simply a free advertisement and EV value it highly because of the fact that comes out near the top in a Google search on Prem Rawat. I think that Tom (up above) makes some excellent points but I can also understand that neutral editors will simply not have time to see that rules are enforced properly simply because of the sheer weight of numbers of other and probably more pressing articles to attend to. all the best Tim
|
|
|
