|
|
|
That's exactly the problem these guys face. And a few questions arise about this premie dilemna: 1) What makes premies take one tack and not the other? Are premies ever conscious of the choice? 2) Can or do premies ever mix up their defensive strategies? Like, could a premie put on an a/c face for one conversation but a b/c for another? 3) Which defensive strategy, a/c or b/c, is most effective for keeping someone in the cult? And others .... Great post, Nigel. 
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately, I don't do psychology any more unless I'm paid by the hour, or you're getting the drinks in. So we'll put this on the slate until that day arrives, ok? (1) What makes premies take one tack and not the other? Are premies ever conscious of the choice? I don't know. (2) Can or do premies ever mix up their defensive strategies? Like, could a premie put on an a/c face for one conversation but a b/c for another? I don't know. (3) Which defensive strategy, a/c or b/c, is most effective for keeping someone in the cult? I don't know. Have you tried Katie Darling? - she might be cheaper.
Modified by Nigel at Wed, Mar 08, 2006, 18:28:49
|
|
|
|
(Thanks for compliment, BTW) I may have been over-simplistic in categorising premies into discrete types, and it is probably more as you suggest, that different strategies come into play in different situations (though I stand by my three-way mutual-incompatibility rule). Also, you can't give the three factors equal weighting, devotion being the most important and probably definitive in sustaining cult allegiance. The dishonesty and rationalisations are more likely by-products arising through our need to function in the regular world. I bet there have been many scientific-type premies (Mike F, maybe?) who, at work, will be scrupulously honest and rational, but having clocked-off, flip the switch into guru lala-land without noticing any inconsistency in their behaviour once it has become habitual. Or something like that...
Modified by Nigel at Fri, Mar 10, 2006, 12:52:17
|
|
|
|
This is loosely related to your beer mat calculus. The Wiki "talk-pages" on contested Wiki entries are fascinating studies in sociology, psychology and in this instance religious studies. I was just reading a 2004-2005 era Wiki talk-page from Zappaz (a premie) who was trying to solicit some help from someone called Gary D regarding heated discussion Zappaz was having with Andries and others on what constitutes "hate group" activities and in regard to the Prem Rawat "talk-page". Gary D, who mysteriously is both a mystical Christian-type and pro-Rawat, offers Zappaz the following advice: "But it's absolutely true that what you do here reflects on your spiritual path and on PR. In the long run, how you do everything you do is probably more important even than what you do. The big Christian motto going around these last few years was, "what would Jesus do?" I put that on you now as, if he were here writing on the talk page and article page, what would Maharaji do? That should be your standard. Here's a little prayer from A Course in Miracles that puts a fine point on it; it may or may not fit the circumstances exactly, but it expresses the sentiment and attitude I am advocating:
- I am here only to be truly helpful.
- I am here to represent Him Who sent me.
- I do not have to worry about what to say or what to do, because He Who sent me will direct me.
- I am content to be wherever He wishes, knowing He goes there with me.
- I will be healed as I let Him teach me to heal.
-
- This is an awfully long way for me to go 'round just to tell you that I'm not going to do anything for you. But there's something far more powerful on the horizon: You're going to do it for yourself! Be the one. You have the power; I know you can and will do it. I'll be watching. Make me proud. Make Maharaji proud. Make God proud. (italics and bolding mine) Get in there and spread the peace and the edits around."
- --Gary D 20:01, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
Modified by Dr.wow at Wed, Mar 08, 2006, 15:23:14
|
|
|
|
when it was originally posted. At the time I was trying to get involved in the discussion, but I think that was really one of the last straws for me. I realized I was dealing with a bunch of lunatics, and it wasn't just the premies huddled around the prem rawat article. You almost have to wonder if that post wasn't sarcastic, but sadly it was earnest. If I remember correctly, this Gary D. guy was a senior editor who was there to help out because the article had gotten pretty bogged down. Scary.
|
|
|
|
Gary D. was an adherent of the channeled scripture "A Course in Miracles". (The article on that subject has been extensively edited by ex-premie Scott Perry quite recently.) I do not think that Zappaz was a premie. He described himself as a "non-secular humanist" and he seemed sincerely convinced that the criticism of Rawat was quite marginal and only voiced by a small minority. Andries
Modified by Andries at Thu, Mar 09, 2006, 05:24:52
|
|
|
|
Based upon my Wiki reading I am confident that Zappaz is a premie. In the Rawatian scheme of things being a premie and calling oneself a secular humanist is not necessarily mutually exclusive or oxymoronic. Indeed, it dovetails nicely with the humanitarian leader image that Rawat was popularizing at the time. Rawat claims to not offer a religion or philosophy afterall and premies might easily claim that they are rejecting supernatural and authoritarian beliefs because what they have is an *experience* not a belief. Most premies today will not have a problem stating that they support scientific enquiry and reason since Rawat and "Knowledge" are inscrutable.
Secular Humanism is a way of thinking and living that aims to bring out the best in people so that all people can have the best in life. Secular humanists reject supernatural and authoritarian beliefs. They affirm that we must take responsibility for our own lives and the communities and world in which we live. Secular humanism emphasizes reason and scientific inquiry, individual freedom and responsibility, human values and compassion, and the need for tolerance and cooperation
Modified by Dr.wow at Thu, Mar 09, 2006, 08:16:06
|
|
|
|
There is perhaps too much talk about Wiki on this forum these days, but I can't just let your post about Zappaz stand like that. He may or may not have been a premie, but that he was sincere about anything is ridiculous.
These is obvious if you just take a look at his contribution history. In his first post or so he claimed to be a newbie, however in the matter of weeks he was acting like the very experienced and knowledged Wikipedian that he clearly was. Yet his contributions under the alias Zappaz started with Prem Rawat and didn't stray very far from the topic. Then all of a sudden he has disappeared as mysteriously as he arrived.
Put two and two together Andries! Most of us are convinced that he was paid by someone to make those Prem Rawat articles what they are today. Probably "they" stopped paying him at some point, because "they" thought Josie boy was all growed up and ready to take on the continuing defense of the articles, now that Zappaz had given them their general gestalt.
One thing about Zappaz. He was a scoundrel, but he was very clever and knew exactly what he was doing. Josie is handicapped by his cultified brain and will never be able to get out of his diapers.
Josie, as I'm sure you are reading here, I guess you think you are just so sanctified doing that divine service, but if you had to test your skills, from rhetorical finesse to digital artistry and programming craftsmanship, in the real world you'd be a joke. But in the pink padded room you've created for yourself with the help of your Prem Rawat fairy, you're a star.
Did I take my bitch pills today or what? Dissology.
Modified by aunt bea at Thu, Mar 09, 2006, 09:05:24
|
|
|
|
The reason why Zappaz edited the Prem Rawat article because he was greatly concerned about what he saw as defamation, exclusion, discrimination and unfair treatment of emerging religions by apostates, the media, the anti-cult movement, and some sociologists and religious scholars. Most of his edits in Wikipedia were related to this subject. Some of his edits about this subject were very unfair and intellectually dishonest. For example he wrote in the article cult that some folllowers were allegedly harmed by a cult. You can have your doubts about the claim of a certain ex-folllower who said that he was harmed by a cult, but of course, it excessively skeptical and insulting to doubt all the claims of all ex-followers who say that they were harmed by cults. Andries
|
|
|
|
Andries,
It is clear that when Zappaz started editing the Rawat articles he was an experienced editor, but a search on Wikipedia for any articles edited by Zappaz before the start of his work for Rawat shows no edits. I have no doubt he was an experienced editor who registered under a new name to edit the Rawat articles, and subsequently edited other articles to fabricate interest outside Rawat. Rawat is so inconsequential it is inconceivable that someone would choose Rawat as their first subject on Wikipedia unless they were a premie or had been employed by premies. I am reasonably certain Zappaz falls into the latter category.
John.
|
|
|
|
I admit that Zappaz' first edits and a big fraction of all his edits were on the Prem Rawat related article. What was clear about Zappaz character in all his edits in Wikipedia is that he did a lot of reading and research before doing anything and that he was quite intelligent. Another option is that he read and studies the guidelines and policies well before editing the Rawat related articles. All this may explain why he seemed to be an experienced editor, but was not so. Rawat is not inconsequential for an American who thinks that emerging religions are defamed by apostates on the internet and the media and considers Rawat a typical example of this. Please note that I have seen a lot of edits by Zapaz and have had many clashes with Zappaz, not only on the Prem Rawat related set of articles. Andries (amended)
Modified by Andries at Sat, Mar 11, 2006, 07:02:34
|
|
|
|
Andries, Following the Wiki rules doesn't make Zappas a good editor, it makes him a good operator, like Jossi. They both use the Wiki rules to control the article(s) and the result is bias. A vanity article for Rawat. It may not technically be a "vanity" piece by Wiki rules, but people in the real world don't think in NPOV, Andries. That's what's so flawed about Wikipedia. Rawat is not inconsequential for an American who thinks that emerging religions are defamed by apostates on the internet and the media and considers Rawat a typical example of this. That's cult apologism. Zappaz is biased towards Rawat, plain and simple.
Modified by Cynthia at Sat, Mar 11, 2006, 07:22:22
|
|
|
|
It will be clear that I considered Zappaz edits as propaganda. And he had the same perception of my edits. This is the case for many, many disputes in Wikipedia: it is always the other side who engages in propaganda. In almost all cases both factions are sincere. Hanlon's law says that one should never attribute to malice what can adequately explained by stupity. Zappaz was a proud self-addmited cult apologist. Andries (amended)
Modified by Andries at Sat, Mar 11, 2006, 07:28:38
|
|
|
|
Zappaz, Jossi and others have labelled critics of Rawat as being part of a hate group. This strategy of linking apostasy with hate was prominently employed by Scientology and has been promoted by so-called academics-cum-cult apologists such as Melton - who likely was paid to do so. It is a strategy which is particularly distasteful because it has the effect of attempting to stifle legitmate free speech by way of false labelling and in the case of Scientology - litigation. BTW, thanks for all your time and effort in butting heads with these people - you have patience and intellectual integrity beyond most.
Modified by Dr.wow at Sat, Mar 11, 2006, 10:32:11
|
|
|
|
I think that Zappaz really believed that anti-cultists were close to being a hate group due to their methods and their language. My writings have been (at forum 8) been the subject of strong criticism. I think that one of the reasons is that I often try to write down the beliefs and opinions of others (e.g. Daniella, Zappaz, and apologists) dispassionately, without giving my own assessment of their ideas immediately. I try not to make a caricature of their ideas: I do not want to follow in the footsteps of Melton and Bromley when they write about apostates. To say that anti-cultists are a hate group can be seen easily as completely wrong when one takes into account that the motives of anti-cultists, regardless whether their ideas are misguided or not, involve a sincere interest in the welfare and (mental) health of individuals. Neo nazis are not particularly interested in the welfare of Jews. Andries
Modified by Andries at Sat, Mar 11, 2006, 10:32:27
|
|
|
|
Oops. Well that is disturbing. At least secular humanists are committed to the use of the rational methods of inquiry, logic, and evidence in developing knowledge and testing claims to "truth". Non-secular humanists being married to their religious viewpoints are well known for their attacks on reason and science. Which would make the belief of being on a mission from God even more to the point.
Modified by Dr.wow at Thu, Mar 09, 2006, 09:58:47
|
|
|
|
Yes - it's the Ponzo Illusion!
x x
x x
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
x x
x x
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
x x
x x
Draw the horizontal line at the top – that’s you and your own ideas. Then add another horizontal line of exactly the same length underneath – that’s the guru and his ideas. So far, so good – the guru’s ideas are no bigger (no better) than yours (and they are underneath yours). But – the guru has a trick up his sleeve. He wants to narrow you down; he wants to eliminate any ideas that might make you suspicious of him. He wants to get you to focus on him. So he plays on your natural desire to focus, to refine your ideas – he draws two slightly-angled vertical lines that converge downwards towards an unseen point (note ‘unseen’). These lines are his satsang. They are going nowhere – they are merely on a collision course in an unforeseen future. But, he wants you to think that these lines are gonna lead you somewhere. And these lines are the guru’s trump card… Because, now, when you look at your ideas versus the guru’s, you ‘see’ his ideas as bigger (better) than yours. You will then ignore your own ideas and follow his instead. Then you’re hooked – line and sinker.
Modified by moley at Wed, Mar 08, 2006, 15:11:48
|
|
|
|
Love that post. The thing about Wiki is the NPOV rule/ideal, and all the other rigid rules that Jossi clings and recites verbatim (or by linking), when he needs them (he's memorized them for his Lord) so he easily dismisses anyone who tries to change that article. He's the article guard dog, no question. The perfect example is the three revert rule. He only reverted Jim's edit twice, so Jossi won. It's so childish, but by Wiki rules, Jossi won. He was banking on Jim not knowing or caring about the "revert" rule. Jossi has been doing websites for Maharaji personally, so you gotta know he has a spiritual ego the size of a Mack Truck or bigger. He also probably gets a lot of darshan because of his service, so that serves to 1) keep him devoted and loyal like a guard dog; and 2) it feeds his spiritual ego. Jossi obeys Maharaji. I don't doubt that for one second. Jossi clearly feels superior to all others. I've seen that characteristic in premies around M, and in myself.
|
|
|
|
that's what an amazing post looks like
|
|
|
|
Appreciated, ta. It would also give me some gratification to know that Jossi had read this thread. I just find it incredible the guy has a shred of self-respect left - especially now I've read cq's post below about Jossi's recent blocking record. How does he find the time for his devotions or digital-artwork?
|
|
|
|
Without detracting in anyway from this excellent analysis, I think Jossi's role needs to be looked at in much simpler terms. Jossi has been a key player (maybe the key player) in presenting Rawat on the Internet, and whatever deficiencies one might accuse Jossi of, I think he has a very good understanding of how to maximise search engine ranking. Wikipedia presents a very attractive opportunity to anyone wanting to dominate the search engine listings with 'their message'. Not only does every Wikipedia article get a high (often wholly undeserved) ranking within its relevant 'search string' context but all the sites that derive content from Wikipedia also rank high for the same 'search string'. And additionally, seperate language listings for Wikipedia also come up on the same 'search string' results. The effect is to get a 'wash' of URL's all providing the same message, with no advertising fees and only the effort of securing the content on a single platform (although different languages may involve separate editing.) The reason that the cult has put resources into fighting on the Wikipedia battleground is simply because it is part of their 'web strategy'. The Wikipedia content of course has to be 'favourable' but it's real value is simply that offers a very effective way to achieve a search engine 'wash'. Nik
|
|
|
|
Threads are ordered according to the average time of posting, so that the most active recent thread will be at the top. It's been like this from time immemorial, i.e. since Dec 12th.
John.
|
|
|
|
That's amazing. I just thought they kinda ... you know... they just kinda went one after another.... like ..... shrug?
|
|
|
|
There are thre ordering options for the index page:-
Date of first post in thread
Date of latest post in thread
Average date of posts in thread
All previous forums have used the first option, which is why threads haven't changed order. The second option would be a bit weird as posting on an old thread would bring it to the top. Anyway, I thought I would try the third option, which works quite well, I think.
John.
|
|
|
|
Just thought it was part of my fuzzy grip on reality
|
|
|
|
bring the thread with the latest post up to the top, thought that was standard net fare.
Why is it weird?
It certainly leads to much more dynamic forums in my experience, especially when you get a thread that kicks off
|
|
|
|
Ham,
I agree that on your forum, or the premie forum, having the thread with the latest post on top looks fine, but that's only because the thread only takes one line. With this type of threaded forum, where all the posts in the thread are displayed, if someone posted on an old thread containing, say, 100 posts, all 100 posts on that old thread would jump to the top of the index, pushing down all the recent threads that most people would be interested in.
I'm sure you would agree that displaying 100 old posts at the top of the index for the sake of one new post would look weird, wouldn't you?  Anyway, I don't want this forum to be any more dynamic than it is as I am already having trouble keeping up!
John.
|
|
|
|
They just all use collapsed threads.
I like it because it's so open, ie people who turn up later to a discussion end up getting just as much input, which in general they don't as a thread goes down the pile.
Spammers can be a problem, but hardly here
|
|
|
|
Ham,
I accept that the non-collapsed threaded format has a disadvantage in that new posts in old threads aren't so visible, but with collapsed threads none of the new posts are immediately visible. I could collapse all the threads on this forum but then I would find it a pain opening each one to see the new posts. As it is I simply open the index page and the different colours show me the unread posts. So, given this is the way I like it, putting the threads with the latest post on top in an uncollapsed state would, as I said, look silly.
The premie forum has a facility to see the posts since my previous visit, but it simply displays the collapsed threads that contain new posts. I have to open each and find where the new posts start to read them. It is much easier here.
John
|
|
|
|
Hi Ham, I must admit I've not found that with one of my favourite talkboards - http://talk.guardian.co.uk
Modified by cq at Fri, Mar 10, 2006, 10:40:52
|
|
|
|
Andries,
If I wanted an article constantly monitored to ensure my POV was kept dominant, and I had the resources, the simplest way is to find an experienced Wikipedia editor and pay him to do this. I am sure that has happened with the Rawat articles, and if there, then I suspect it is probably rife throughout Wikipedia. Your naivety and trust is nice, but a little out of place, I think, in that snakepit.
John.
|
|
|
|
Okay, I cannot know, but I think it is unlikely to very unlikely. An analogy. Premies may believe that I am paid by you, Jim, or Mike, which hopefully sounds ridiculous to all posters here. I do agree that editing some particularly controversial articles in Wikipedia is like entering a snakepit. It is certain that no contributor is paid by the Wikimedia foundation. Andries
Modified by Andries at Fri, Mar 10, 2006, 11:52:11
|
|
|
|
Andries - It is very, very likely. Any PR operation with clients who have a significant online presence will have operatives constantly monitoring the net - Wikipedia is just another part of the medium and PR is all about message management - it'll happen on Wikipedia just like it happens anywhere else that doesn't enforce action to prevent it. N
|
|
|
|
Where there is a financial interest in shaping an article, people are sometimes being paid. I know this as a fact.
Your comparison to the suspicion that someone might be paying you is plain silly. First of all, if anyone was paying you they would be crazy to, since you are way too, what's the word? Nice. But more to the point, there is no financial interest for an ex-premie to do so and I doubt any of us care enough anyway.
Rawat does have a very large financial interest. That means that one should be suspicious of that sort of thing happening, as with any article where that might be the case.
Modified by aunt bea at Fri, Mar 10, 2006, 13:16:01
|
|
|
|
Why would a religious organization want to pay anyone when they have followers who do it for free? I admit that when I first saw the first version of the Prem Rawat article, it looked like a copy of Elan Vital's website. My irritation about the style and the contents of the initial version of the article coupled with the opposition from both factions to different versions set the tone for the debates around the article Andries (amended)
Modified by Andries at Fri, Mar 10, 2006, 13:21:44
|
|
|
|
>Why would a religious organization want to pay anyone when they have followers who do it for free?< What religious organisation ? Rawat's non profit Corporations have been operated as a business conglomerate for over 25 years - mere 'followers' are not trusted to do anything. There are 'employees' and a few, mostly wealthy individuals who donate their time for free that control the whole operation. The role of Rawat's followers is to provide cash and applaud the master - nothing else. N
|
|
|
|
There are some rank and file premies editing the Rawat article. Andries
|
|
|
|
So it's not unreasonable to suppose he was being paid.John.
|
|
|
|
>There are some rank and file premies editing the Rawat article.< Define 'rank and file'. And how do you know who they are ? Yes, I don't doubt that Jossi as recruited some meat puppets to legitimise what he's doing with Wikipedia - but when do ever see 'gods little helpers' arguing with Jossi ? They're writing up the party line, that's all. N
|
|
|
|
Nigel:
I really enjoyed this post, but would like to make a formatting request. Not using the facility to embed links can really screw up the formatting of a page, and I hate using the bottom scroll bar to mave back and forth for every line of text. This one wasn't too bad, but if the link had been much longer it could have been a real headache. (With the WYSIWYG buttons you don't even need to know any html to embed links.)
|
|
|
