|
|
|
Thanks for posting this. I had found the pictures on "Windows Live Local" after the Google ones were blurred. I hadn't been successful in saving them yet, so this is much appreciated. I, too, feel these may go the way of Google Earth and become too blurry to see anything. Not even the White House is that obscured! Could it be that his royal lardship is paranoid? Or, possibly embarrassed and prefers the premies not see where he really lives? Doubt that! It would be nice if one could credit him with that degree of sensitivity, but I doubt it's there.
|
|
|
|
I think it might be! I had a toy garage like that when I was a kid. 3 storeys, with a lift at the side for getting the cars up and down, worked by strings. Made of hardboard. You think this is the one they modeled it from? Wow!
Modified by 13 at Tue, Mar 21, 2006, 18:05:05
|
|
|
|
Something like that. It was supposed to be a 16 car garage, so he could bring his cars from the warehouse and have them all (or most of them) under one roof. It's a really good picture. You can see the recording studio, the private theater, the "service quarters", and even the little roads around the place so that M could move around in his golf cart and not have to walk. Hope you've noticed the heart shape of the inner garden. It shows, you know, the heart... And the trees around the house. Marolyn wanted them there so the place wouldn't look so big from below, but hmm. Were we stupid or just really stupid? All the best, Helen
|
|
|
|
Hi Helen: I haven't seen your by-line around these parts and since your comments suggest you are familiar with his compound I wonder if you have any interesting anecdotes or gossipy bits to lay on us? In any case, howdy! 
|
|
|
|
Hi Dr. Wow, I've written to the forum a few times (but I read it a lot, too much actually, still on detox). I mentioned the barbecue oven with its 10000 dollar sensor(s) - it's in the heart-shaped inner garden, opposite the pizza oven. I also wrote about M and Marolyn's remarriage in the eighties that no one seems to have heard about. But it is true!Helen
|
|
|
|
Hi again: I guess I must have missed your posts. I remember reading about his barbie down in Oz - I heard that it was heart-shaped and had hydraulics so he wouldn't actually have to strain himself by bending over. But I didn't hear about the barbie in the heart-shaped courtyard - across from the pizza oven you say? Any idea if it was a heart-shaped pizza oven? A $10,000 sensor on the barbie? Er, most people would just flip the burger/breast of pheasant before it burns wouldn't they? And Rawat has his own resident fart-catchers for that very purpose so isn't that redundant? I guess it's just one of those Malibu status symbol thingies that the unwashed commoners can't appreciate.
|
|
|
|
I have "sensors" that cost much less than that....... and these sensors (ground based) measure things all over the UNIVERSE!What in the heck is going on in ANY bar-b that costs $10K to "sense?" Temperature to the nearest millionth of a degree F or C?
|
|
|
|
I don't see one. Is it indoors perhaps? Who plays tennis?
|
|
|
|
Hello Premie-Spouse, Of course there is a swimming-pool. Olympic size and outdoor. Not too many people play tennis, but once in a while, Tim Galway (he lives next door) comes over to give M a lesson. Best, Helen
|
|
|
|
It's by the tennis court but is obscured in the pic on Drek's forum. He has about 10 pics from different angles on his site. Really good stuff.
John.
Related link: All Drek's Malibu pictures
Modified by JHB at Wed, Mar 22, 2006, 12:09:43
|
|
|
|
Look, any lurking premies [students]:Here's where tens of millions of dollars in non-profit donations has been going, not to mention the tens of thousands of hours of premie slave labor construction. No wonder Elan Vital listed "0" in assets. The rugu is sucking up all the devotee contributions for his palaces, planes, boats, helicopters, luxury car collection, hi-tech toys, + providing for his family, extended family, and mistress to live in the ultra-luxurious style they've grown accustomed to. This is obscene! It makes disgraced tele evangelists Jim and Tammy Baker look like amateurs, by comparison.
|
|
|
|
'It makes disgraced tele evangelists Jim and Tammy Baker look like amateurs, by comparison.'
I always knew my guru was the best. Unfortunately, what he is best at is self-indulgence. How obscene, to be taking all those gifts and monthly payments and spending it on such a bloody palace. It makes me feel inclined to mount one of those pictures on a sandwich board and walk up and down the queues outside an 'event' ( they still have the queues don't they? ).
|
|
|
|
It would need to be a large sandwich board, though. But after 35 years of preaching outside India, it isn't only this one house that has been acquired. There are Knowledge centres in most countries around the world (No there aren't - Ed.) OK - there are halls owned by Elan Vital where people can come and hear about Knowledge, aren't there? (Sorry - wrong again - Ed.) OK, there's Amaroo and that swamp in Argentina at least, isn't there? (Yes, but the seamp is a swamp, and most of the money spent on Amaroo was on the private facilities for Rawat's private use, such as his three houses/apartments. - Ed.) But after all this time there must be something else other than Malibu, Amaroo and the swamp? (Yes, there are houses and apartments for Rawat's private use in England, India, Australia, South America, Mauritius, and probably others; as well as the Gulfstream plane, two helicopters, and many luxury cars. - Ed.) And does all this help spread Knowledge? (No, not really. - Ed.)
To the left of the house, overlooking the canyon, is the Master bedroom:-
Modified by JHB at Wed, Mar 22, 2006, 13:45:00
|
|
|
|
In the interest of fairness, as I've posted a picture of Rawat's house from the air, I should also post one of mine. It may not be as big as Rawat's, but I've got more trees. Anyone want to do service tidying up the land this spring, or mowing the lawn in summer?
JHB's residence:-
Modified by JHB at Wed, Mar 22, 2006, 13:09:40
|
|
|
|
So who paid for your house John? It's not the size that counts, it's how it is paid for.
PS I'll come and mow the lawn if you have one of those ride-on things or a tractor.
|
|
|
|
So who paid for your house John? It's not the size that counts, it's how it is paid for.It was amazing really - all I had to do is sit on a stage and talk rubbish, and occasionally get dressed up in funny indian red and orange pyjamas and a big golden crown, and all these people gave me money - wait, no, that was that other guy..... Now what was it? Ah, yes, I remember working and paying a mortgage on my house in England. Yeah, that could be it. PS I'll come and mow the lawn if you have one of those ride-on things or a tractor. It's a deal - I do indeed have one of those ride-on thingies! Firsst cut should be about mid-May. John.
Modified by JHB at Wed, Mar 22, 2006, 13:18:58
|
|
|
|
Which appears quite soulless to me. Thanks for the pic with the pool, it actually give one a better sense of the sheer scale of the place. I am not sure I have ever seen anything so ostentatious.
|
|
|
|
You could land a plane there!
Actually, the pilot of the plane I was in flying in takes off on a tarmac airstrip, but lands on the adjacent grass to save wear on the tyres (that's tires for you Americans!).
John.
|
|
|
|
Anyone could land there, it is way to open. What you need to do is have a large sign saying "PVT", just like Mr Rawat has done. Then no one will be under any misapprehension that the property is "PRIVATE", which means "KEEP OUT, STAY AWAY, PISS OFF, IT IS MINE, MINE. MY PRECIOUS!".
T
|
|
|
|
has rawat tried the crown on the kid yet? I say yes. Has rawat told him how grandpa was the god, dad IS the god, and he WILL be the god? the teacher, the perfect master, whatever. How much is taxes on the joint a year? I bet that can be found out. The view tax must be high. THe garage is 6 cars isnt it? And with room to spare it looks. My freind, chris standerwick, cant leave. He would go from a palace to nothing. THere is no retirement when you leave rawat. Nothing Nothing, nothing. SO, permanent slave, that is chris's fate. You know, a butler for the queen has it easy. They dont drive thier employees like mules. That is just true. Rawat DOES drive people like mules. REmember how only in about 2003 the staff, at one of those crazy rawat seminars, finally managed to tell that they never were even allowed to go to the doctor. It is rawat himself admitting that. He said, "now, a staff can book a doctors visit, get someone to cover for them." amazing. Looks heavenly, opulent, but it is hell, as usual, for the nongods.
|
|
|
|
Hi Helen! In response to your question--very very stupid! I actually contributed to the building of that place, or remodeling of, or however it was put--"you know, he should be comfortable", said Dave Smith, or someone much like him! They didn't show us pictures or the plan though, right enough! ~Shelagh
|
|
|
|
Hope you've noticed the heart shape of the inner garden. It shows, you know, the heart...
Yeah, I did notice that.
Together with the triangular shape & the lack of pitched roofs, it makes the place look like the skull of a small rodent which has been flattened by a steamroller. That's all of a piece with the man's total lack of taste.
Would we have felt less stupid if he'd built something which gladdened the eye, & to which future generations of tourists came to gawp, when the memory of how it came to be was long forgotten?
Difficult to know.
Just as well he buys his suits from Armani though, cos if he designed them himself Christ knows what he'd look like.
|
|
|
|
One of my favourite places is Swamis Beach in Encinitas. Where else can we contrast the beauty of the ocean and landscape, the anger and agression of the surfers enjoying those waves and the temple compound on the clifftop which seems to have been designed by a Hollywood Art Director or Designer who worked on exotic B movies.
Yogananda may have been even fatter than Rawat but at least the mansion wasn't his private home.
|
|
|
|
It looks from the air like any old bongo ex-premie could come strolling into the compound from the surrounding hills with a phone-camera, hidden tape recorder and a bad attitude and cause considerable embarrassment. Or has he fenced off the whole mountain?
|
|
|
|
I think
EPO reports that the road to the hill has a security gate which doesn't just cover Rawat's house, but other houses around, some of which I understand are owned by premies, such as Tim Galwey. He owns much of the surrounding land as well so the idea of a security fence around the hill is not only feasible, but likely. He is paranoid about his security so I think the chances of a bongo premie or ex-premie getting to the house are pretty slim.
john.
Modified by JHB at Fri, Mar 24, 2006, 14:52:37
|
|
|
|
[Ask Julie] how this can be justified Surely this 'family residence' is just the fruits of Mr Rawat's career as a successful investor and has nothing to do with the Knowledge which is given free to all those who seek it (cont' page 94)
|
|
|
|
Surely he also made a fortune on his world-time aviation watch that he shares a patent on. Just because we have seen no signs of this watch being actually sold, or that he's never talked about his investment techniques, or that there is no evidence that he's been a successful investor in publicly traded companies, gosh, who are we to ask for evidence or an argument for plausibility that this is true? Oh, wait a minute, he never claimed that he made lots of money on the watch, aviation equipment, or by trading in public stocks, did he? Silly me for thinking he's implying that! No, he invested in his followers. He gave them the opportunity for devotion, oops I mean "gratitude", and they in return gave him big chucks of their paychecks, companies, and inheritances, as well as free labor! What a nice return on investment! Successful investor indeed.
|
|
|
|
Maharaji used to talk to me about technological things. I can remember him
talking to me for hours about a magnetic car he designed that worked with magnet
power. It was all above my head. He was always incredibly eager to learn new
technology. His ability to completely consume and munch up information and learn
from other people was just beyond me. He knew everything about cameras—from
Nikon to Leica lenses. He loved to find out about any new technological thing, I
suppose from when he was a kid and used to take his toys apart. With me, it was
cameras we talked about a lot. But seriously I'm not sure what is more ridiculous, the stupidity of someone who relates this breathless story without pondering on the embarassment of this 14 year old Lord of the Universe "inventing" a magnetic powered car 35 years ago without wondering why this brilliant invention has never been seen or the credulity of the web site to post this nonsense or Rawat assuming he bothers to read the site for letting the embarassing claims remain on-line.
|
|
|
|
Hi 13. I assume you are referring to eDrek as a "bongo ex" as a term of endearment, because that's certainly what he deserves for all the information compiled on his website. Marianne
|
|
|
|
'I assume you are referring to eDrek as a "bongo ex" as a term of
endearment, because that's certainly what he deserves for all the
information compiled on his website.'
Of course! Oh dear, does bongo still carry that meaning of lunatic? I meant bongo in the nicest possible way - I just looked it up to check it's original meaning:
A large, forest-dwelling antelope (Boocercus eurycerus) of central Africa, having a reddish-brown coat with white stripes and spirally twisted horns.
One of a pair of connected tuned drums that are played by beating with the hands.
I'll go for the antelope if I have to, but I meant to suggest someone who doesn't obey the rules and is a little unpredictable. I'll try to choose my words more carefully from now on.
|
|
|
|
to get these pictures to an appraiser or realtor of some sort in that area who could give an estimate of the value/cost of the place. It would have to be somewhat of a guess about the inside, but some people have posted here about what they have seen of the interior. Maybe Helen, (and, welcome Helen!), could add to that. Anybody know someone who is well acquainted with property values in that area? I seem to remember reading numbers like $25,000,000 value for the Malibu Palace. Is that right? Also, it would be great to know the approximate square feet of this place. Anybody have that number?
|
|
|
|
Hi Premie Spouse, The 25 million dollar figure is correct, but seems a bit conservative to me. I also also heard this estimate more than 10 years ago from the main contractor, but it was before the recording studio had been built, for example (Italian marble floor for optimal piano sound, state-of-the art equipment in the basement...). And the Rawats also bought all the land surrounding the house - yes, they own the whole little mountain on which it is perched. I don't think that's included in the figure. All the best, Helen
|
|
|
|
In the late nineties Prem showed us some pics of his Palace interior. Does anyone else remember ? He has never kept it a secret so whoever suggested parading the pics outside a programme to shock the premies (higher up this thread) is totally out of touch with the premie mindset of the last 15 years.As long as Prem is their Lord,the palace is just a natural extension. It didn't enter my head ever to question his lordship's divine right to such opulence. Looking at Baba's pics.,I see that,from the air the palace does have a hint of the "Taj Mahal" about it and is about the same size.I should know because, when I visited Prem's Ashram in New Delhi for a festival,I took the opportunity of a daytrip to Aggra and saw the original. Every now and then we hear about catastrophic weather in Malibu.....but Prem's Palace seems to be perched on the top of the hill,untouched by rampaging fires or torrential mudslides.Must be "grace"  Lastly, in my daily tabloid newspaper,they ran an article a couple of weeks ago called something like "10 ways to Launder Your Money".I was amused to see that one of the reknowned ways was to buy an expensive Yacht with dirty money,keep it for a comparitively short time , then sell it.
Modified by Lexy at Wed, Mar 22, 2006, 15:32:30
|
|
|
|
'whoever suggested parading the pics outside a
programme to shock the premies (higher up this thread) is totally out
of touch with the premie mindset of the last 15 years'
You're right! That means I am out of touch. Hooray, I've made it! How nice to be wrong - ahh.
|
|
|
|
I've been dwelling on this one, surprised at how really out of synch I am with premies these days.
It occurred to me that I have in the past polished his gold taps, sunk my feet into his thick deep pile carpets, at two of his houses ( I won't call them residences - that smacks of kings and bishops and so on ). His wealth didn't bother me then, blinkered fool that I was. At least I don't have those particular blinkers any more!
|
|
|
|
Hi Lexy and all, Thanks for your post. I had read that premies were to some extent aware of his opulent life style and that they often had no problems with it. I think this is different for most outsiders, incl. me. Rawat refers and compared himself to Krishna who advocated in the Bhagavad Gita a life of austerity and asceticism. Rawat accepts the fruits of the guru-disciple role, such as the devotion and donation of his followers and yes, he is free not to accept the duties associated with this role, but then he can also expect to be criticized for not doing his duty. Most Christians will also disapprove of his behavior. To his credit, I have to say of course, that he did not make his opulent life style a secret, as you already wrote. Andries
|
|
|
|
... or at least he tries to. Certainly I had no idea just how opulent his house was, or that he had the yacht (that's since been sold). I am pretty sure the premies close to Rawat are discussing the damage publication of these images is doing to Rawat as we speak, and that lawyers' letters are being sent to Microsoft.
John.
|
|
|
|
I remember being 'invited' to a 'service meeting' by some people in Elan Vital to hear about a 'project'. The project was the construction of this mega-million goliath of a new Malibu marble mansion/cult compound for his personal use. The exuse given? His old mansion had leaks. Seriously, that was the excuse. I was pressured to give lots of money. I didn't give a cent, instead I became more of a 'fringe' premie. It really turned me off, but I was still to messed up to break free.
They showed a video of Rawat driving a tractor with a self-satified grin. He was supposedly 'helping out' with the work. Oh wow, how magnanimous of him to put in a token amount of effort in building his own mansion for a photo shot. What unmitigated gall. What a con man.
This was not the only time DLM/Elan Vital officials pressured me to give lots of money personally to Rawat. They even gave me his P.O. Box and told me how to write out the check. 5% of my paycheck was suggested. Being brainwashed, I did. This was close to the time I was in the ashram.
Seriously, hasn't a lot of this been ILLEGAL?
|
|
|
|
He certainly tried to make his opulent life-style a secret. He tried to pretend on public TV in Australia that his residences weren't owned by himself but only made available for his use. They were certainly never made available for anybody else's use.
He has only put the best possible face on it because of the ex-premie org making some of his wealth public. He still tries to pretend he made his money through being a good businessman when virtually all of it came from donations some of which was invested.
|
|
|
|
I mean, really, that's just gross. I wonder how much energy Rawat consumes in cooling that house that looks more like a theme park than a house. Double-decker garages to keep his fleet of luxury cars. etc., etc., How much water does Rawat consume keeping all those aceres of lawns green in Malibu, where it doesn't rain for 9 months out of the year? Then there's Rawat polluting the atmosphere and consuming resources flying around in his PRIVATE JET so he can tell people that peace is within and sick, compulsive, megalomaniacal consumerism will not make you fulfilled or happy. Yes, the guy is truly sick.
|
|
|
|
But you gatta admire the premies - despite Rawat being an Uber Consumerist - it doesn't put even a dent in the premies propogating at Eco Fairs and Green Gatherings. Watch out for a proof on Wikipedia that the GS5 is in fact a super environmentally friendly way to bring peace to the world ! Nik
|
|
|
|
Drek on his forum informs us that the Residence is actually powered by a bank of bicycles connected to generators operated by premies doing service, so the whole complex not only is energy self sufficient, but supplies surplus electricity to the California grid. Unfortunately, a similar arrangement for the plane is not possible because the extra fuel required for each cyclist could not be generated quickly enough.
John.
|
|
|
|
Many of his followers (not the rich ones, the ordinary premies), are shopping at food cooperatives, recycling their trash and using compost as fertilizer in their gardens. But it's just A-OKAY for the Lord to do damage to the eartj in the most obscene way, thousands of times more than any of the rest of us, because he is the Lord incarnate! So, Mr. Rawat, how much are you responsible for the melting of the polar ice caps?
Modified by Joe at Sun, Mar 26, 2006, 19:25:22
|
|
|
|
Krishna stories......... Rawat can put the caps back!Global warming is just lila..... repeat that to yourself like a mantra 5 or 6 thousand times..... ahhhhh, there you go! See?
|
|
|
|
now this is how the ex-Lord does service! , , , (to whom, you ask?)
. . . . . . . . . Freddie Mercury eat your heart out!
.
Modified by cq at Thu, Mar 23, 2006, 16:12:45
|
|
|
|
I want to break free
I want to break free
I want to break free from your lies
You’re so self satisfied I don’t need you
I’ve got to break free
God knows God knows I want to break free
|
|
|
|
Hi ChrisAunt Bea has a post above where he says he feels uncomfortable with posters making fun of Maharaji's body (calling him fat and ugly etc). I agree with him, and I am also uncomfortable with seeing altered images of Maharaji like you have done (this is your second recently, isn't it?) There is no right or wrong about this, it is just personal temperament I guess. You can say that laughing at altered images which make him even fatter and uglier etc is a helathy reaction to our attempt to glorify his body as the Lord, and of course that is true. But for me, Maharaji fails because he is not, in fact, the Lord, the Satguru - it is as simple as that - and now his followers are trying to deny he ever claimed to be that and we were naive and it was all our fault. For me, it has nothing to do with him being fat or anything, and I think it weakens our point to focus on that. I am not sure why I find it distasteful, but I do. Just my two cents. -- Mike
www.MikeFinch.com
|
|
|
|
Hi Mike, For me, it has nothing to do with him being fat or anything, and I think it weakens our point to focus on that. I am not sure why I find it distasteful, but I do. I've grappled with this issue back and forth over the years and I keep going back and forth, pro and con. Here are the things I still think about it: 1) Prem Rawat can't help what he looks like, he inherited his genes, like everybody else. Why, I've always stuggled with up and down weight myself. I don't like these descriptions, they hurt me too. 2) Prem Rawat hasn't taken care of himself over the years and he has used his position of power and his acceptance of money from his followers to be over-the-top self-indulgent, addictive, and secretive about his personal habits, while portraying himself as perfect. This is a specific case of calling a spade a spade. 3) I worry too much about being too "PC" about calling him fat. 4) He is fat and puffy. Look at him. He did it to himself. I can't believe that once I could never say one negative thing about his appearance, even though in the back of my mind I thought negative things about certain aspects of his personal appearance. 5) A person is the sum of his actions, not his appearance. 6) It's not appropriate to alter photographic images of Maharaji because it's not nice or necessary, and is beside the point of being an ex-premie, telling the truth about what Maharaji's done and continues to do. 7) Is it beside the point? Some people vent their anger and are better able to express their emotional state about being conned by Rawat, by making these images. The reaction to viewing the images will vary. Exes are called a hate group anyway, so it doesn't matter. 8) When ex-premies call rawat fat and ugly, they mean all fat and ugly people are bad. 9) Ex-premies are focusing specifically upon Rawat in this case, not all fat people. This is part of the growth process of removing thought restrictions concerning the "perfect master." 10) I find them distasteful. 11) I don't find them distasteful. Obviously, I don't know what's right on this matter and have many mixed feelings and thoughts. When I saw Chris's image, I laughed a lot, then said, oh sh*t, another one. Uh.Oh. Where the rubber meets the road, I wonder if it's better to err on the side of free expression. But, I really, really, don't know and can't decide, either. Cynthia
Modified by Cynthia at Fri, Mar 24, 2006, 07:20:04
|
|
|
|
I remember when I left I took a lot of my photos of Rawat and burned them and also drew faces on them. There was some need in me to see that I myself would not burst into flames ? But I think as you move away from that first part of leaving the cult it may stop being really appropriate to make fun of him that way. Its probably also a step in moving in healing proccess to decide that even as despicable as Rawat is some things are just sort of "ugly" criticisms.
|
|
|
|
8) When ex-premies call rawat fat and ugly, they mean all fat and ugly people are bad. When ex-premies call Rawat fat and ugly they are saying he is fat and ugly. Trying to extrapolate that into comments on his "badness", let alone anybody elses is carrying things way too far.
|
|
|
|
I know it's bad logic. I was putting down some ideas that were running through my head, not actual things I believe, I guess I was trying to see things from the outside in, when reading this forum from the perspective of a premie. Maybe I've been reading Wikipedia to much. I loved your "Emperors New Clothes" post above but I also see the other side of the argument, too. When ex-premies call Rawat fat and ugly they are saying he is fat and ugly. Trying to extrapolate that into comments on his "badness", let alone anybody elses is carrying things way too far. I believe that may be how nefarious premies use things that are written here, and use them against people.
|
|
|
|
I don't much like altered images and I remember that they really shocked me when I was first posting here, but at the same time ,even then,I could see that they were also cathartic. I also suspect that artistic types, who respond to the visual rather than words,find them a useful means of expression/communication. We were programmed to worship the form of the master and to think of him as god-like and perfect ; cutting straight through these ridiculous but deeply ingrained notions by using altered images is a kind of shock treatment; a bit like lancing a boil ! For me to be able say anything bad about Rawat's physical form ( I admitted that some of his photos were "hideous", in a previous post) is a giant step forward. I laughed at Chris' altered image because -lets face it- it is funnier than most, and it does have the added echo of all the housework (from sweeping the Palace of Peace foyer to dusting the divine rez.) many of us endlessly did in the "service" of the lord.
Modified by Lexy at Fri, Mar 24, 2006, 21:12:40
|
|
|
|
"I laughed at Chris' altered image because -lets face it- it is funnier than most, and it does have the added echo of all the housework (from sweeping the Palace of Peace foyer to dusting the divine rez.) many of us endlessly did in the "service" of the lord".Thanks Lexy. That's what the pic was meant to be all about! For anyone who's cleaned up after his (ex-)Lordship, it was intended to be an image of comic role-reversal that many might enjoy. Shadenfreud? Karmic retribution? Or a bit of both? Who's to say? All I'll say for now is that those (like Mike, apparently) who express their disapproval of such a depiction, are as entitled to have their say about their feelings as the likes of me are to express mine.
Modified by cq at Sat, Mar 25, 2006, 09:48:08
|
|
|
|
those (like Mike, apparently) who express their disapproval of such a depiction...Chris, if you read my post I was not saying 'I disapprove' like a moral diktat. I was saying I find (note that: 'I find') them distasteful. I even wondered in my post why I felt that way, knowing and even agreeing with the reasons for making those altered images. ...are as entitled to have their say about their feelings as the likes of me are to express mine. Exactly - you've got it, except as JHB says to you below - the question is *where* to express your feelings? You are not entitled to express them just anywhere, like you are not entitled to draw or paint just *anywhere* (it's then call graffiti and is considered a public nuisance!). So your freedom to express yourself if of course sacrosanct, but as a practical matter you have to take note of the environment and milieu before you do so - like for instance who owns and administers the space (cyber or physical) in which you express yourself! -- Mike
www.MikeFinch.com
Modified by Mike Finch at Sun, Mar 26, 2006, 04:08:08
|
|
|
|
Sure Mike, I have no problem with the administration of this forum being your and John's territory. In fact I'd like to say that it's been a very successful partnership so far, with the Forum displaying a healthy balance of opinions from posters, with a respect for the boundaries of on/off-topicality too.As for the altered images - well, you did say that you "find them distasteful", and I interpreted that to mean you were expressing disapproval of them. There might be a fine distinction between the two positions, but if so, it's a bit too fine for me! I guess, between the poles of approval and disapproval, there's tolerance. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but I take it that that's where you're coming from? If so I'll respect the fact that you find those images ... disquieting, and I'll make sure that any future post I may make which includes altered images clearly states so in the header. Hope that's acceptable with you and John. Cheers,
Chris
Modified by cq at Sun, Mar 26, 2006, 06:17:59
|
|
|
|
Many premies (like me) literally worship(ped) pictures of prem rawat and consider(ed) them holy/divine. Seeing altered images certainly helped me break that spell and mostly made me laugh. Anyway in the general run of things anyone who puts himself in the lime light is making themselves public fodder, maybe it is the price of fame. The charactures by yourself and kerde have been most excellent. Remember the peace-bomb satsang when he said '..give up your social respectabilty. Maybe he could learn a thing or two from his own words. cheers Jethro
Modified by Jethro at Sun, Mar 26, 2006, 10:51:10
|
|
|
|
....and I'll make sure that any future post I may make which includes altered images clearly states so in the header.Hope that's acceptable with you and John. What's this supposed to mean, Chris? That you post an altered image, say so in the header, and I'm not supposed to open the post? I have a legal responsibility for what is posted here, so not reading your posts isn't an option. The cleaning image is probably one of your best images, as it actually included some wit, but please don't try to stretch the boundaries of my patience and tolerance as you did with the moderators of F8. I was annoyed with you below because you unnecessarily posted three images (two the same) to make your point about political cartoons, taking up disk space that I pay for. John.
|
|
|
|
I come up with a suggestion that would prevent Mike's sensibilities being hurt, the idea being that he wouldn't have to see the altered images, and that you could fulfill the administrator duties in these instances. What's so silly about that?Incidentally, the reason the Gillray pic got posted twice was because initially it didn't show up when I linked to it as a picture URL, so I included it as img src. Then, I tried to go back and delete the picture URL, but that's not an option that the edit function on this board allows. But at least I tried. Let me know how much it's cost you, OK? I guess if it's significant enough to mention, it must be a significant sum, no? Regards,
Chris
|
|
|
|
Chris,
Just try to post here without annoying me, OK?
John.
|
|
|
|
I don't really like them, except when they're funny (eg. the mop and bucket pic.) It's a bit like good taste in humour generally: if a gag is funny, it is because it has hit on some undeniable truth and makes you laugh in spite of yourself. Having said that, I think the forum would be better off without them. And maybe it would be a useful forum rule (which saves on cost too) if links to images on other sites are allowed, but not on the forum itself. I think Chris maybe has a point about the guidelines needing to be more specific in grey areas like this. I don't think anyone here's looking for conflict for its own sake. Drek's 'bouncing-boob' images of M a few years back got an immediate chuckle from most exes, still unused to portrayals of M's 'perfect form' being so mercilessly ridiculed. But I know they also put off casual browsers looking for good solid info on maharaji. From past exchanges with newbie exes, the greatest value of both EPO and the exes' forums has been for wavering premies looking in and sampling the waters of freedom from culthood, prior to making the break. But doctored images of M will probably only confirm (in their eyes) the EV line that ex-premies are just some petty 'hate group' of marginal, twisted losers. The facts about the cult are ammunition enough, and - let's face it - M is ugly enough already to require no extra treatment. 
Modified by nigel at Mon, Mar 27, 2006, 13:18:16
|
|
|
|
Make that threepennyworth.
Someone said that a picture is worth a thousand words, but I never believed it. Not where countering propaganda is concerned anyway.
Satire only works for those who've already seen through the bullshit.
|
|
|
|
Fine example you're setting, John. Quit with the chippy attitude, why don't you?
Modified by cq at Mon, Mar 27, 2006, 13:41:35
|
|
|
|
Kick back, take a deep breath and relax for a moment. Don't make the same mistake I did and have a fit over what amounts to basically nothing...... I came very close, I think, to losing some folks as friends that way..... too close.Not belittling any argument here...... I just don't want you to wake up in the morning wishing you hadn't said something that you said. Very easy to do in the heat of the moment.... I know that you know that, but it sounded like you might be getting wound up and thought you might need to hear it from a neutral party (e.g. someone who hasn't weighed-in on the merits of either side of the argument). I hope you take this in the manner intended. Lighthearted, mostly
|
|
|
|
"Kick back" - meaning what? (the "take a deep breath and relax" bit I have no problem with, though JHB might benefit from your advice too).I prefer to challenge your supposition that you're the "neutral party" in this exchange between JHB and myself. That OK with you? I hope you take this in the manner intended, too. Seriously.
Modified by cq at Thu, Mar 30, 2006, 13:09:11
|
|
|
|
First, "kick back" means the same thing as "lay back." That is probably a language thing. Like "kick back on the counch" (sit on the couch with your feet on a stool, relaxing)...... you know, something like that. Wow, harder to explain than I thought it would be..... sorry I am neutral, really. I see what appears to be a simple misunderstanding (no matter who it is) that is getting a little heated. You were the last to post, that I noticed, so I said it to you...... that's all. I know John will read it, too. Whether there are altered images or not, doesn't mean a thing to me. Yes, I thought some of them were funny...... but it isn't that big a deal one way or the other (to me). That would be my point, cq. I wasn't sure that this was getting blown out of proportion, so I thought I would inject myself to maybe.... just maybe.... cool things down a degree or two. What I was alluding to is that I got really hot at something that was really stupid, truth be told. It was stupid because it was not really a big deal. I said some things to Jim and to John that were pretty crass and pretty insulting. I ended up regretting it later. Both the event that precipitated it and my response to that event were stupid! See what I mean? That is what I was trying to say by saying take a deep breath, etc. Make sure this is a fight worth having. Is it? THat isn't up to me to say, it's your call. I just wasn't sure you wanted to go there...... use me as an example. I came very close to losing some friends over something really stupid.... And yeah, there is no doubt in my mind that John (and Mike, too, probably) is reading this and thinking about it. Both of you folks are pretty smart. I think you'll get what I'm trying to say. Again, not taking sides...... ok?
Modified by NAR at Thu, Mar 30, 2006, 18:02:52
|
|
|
|
After the above, if you want me to bow out and take my nose elsewhere, just say so. It won't hurt my feelings at all.
|
|
|
|
Well, I'm dealing with the fact that John's insulted me by calling my suggestion "stupid", but without stating why he thinks it so.No biggie, but I'd like to know why. Until such time as John responds, that's the status quo. If you've got a dispute you don't think is resolved yet, well - that's for you to work out with the interested parties. But why tag it on to mine?
|
|
|
|
Re: Altered images of Maharaji - there's a long history of political comment based on this kind of thingI'm not sure that my altered image portrayed Rawat as any fatter or "uglier" (your description) than is the reality. What have we to compare it to? Surely the validity of comment made by cartoonists down the centuries - despite their distortions of physical reality - are valid, aren't they? Especially when made about public figures like the Maha. Or is it simply that the likes of Hogarth, Gillray and (lately) Steve Bell are just not your cup of tea Mike? 
Modified by cq at Sat, Mar 25, 2006, 09:15:57
|
|
|
|
Chris,
As you probably know, I also oppose most altered images, but you are free to post as many altered images as you like on the internet. If you want I can recommend hosting companies and domain name registrars to get you started.
I hope you get the message.
John.
|
|
|
|
Are you saying you don't want anyone to post altered images here? If so, and you do decide to change the guidelines - hey, put it in the guidelines, OK? I'm not psychic! Chris.
|
|
|
