|
|
|
Is there is scan of the page from the Divine Times?
If a scan is provided, what will Jossi et at then claim? They are playing a nasty legalistic game here.
Why would the 'Special
Millenium '73 Edition' of the Divine Times,
page 2 not be a reliable source regarding Maharaji?
Consider the definition of Primary source
A primary source is any piece of information that was created at the time being studied, by the people being studied.
The Divine Times fits the bill.
Can the same rules Jossi is playing with be used to contest his content?
What exactly is Jossi claiming to be opinion?
"Geaves has written a couple of articles about Prem Rawat, his guru, for
various scholarly journals without publically disclosing in those
pieces that he is a follower of Rawat (a/k/a Maharaji)."
Citations for this fact: Geaves articles.
"Critics of
Geaves allege that these works are dissembling, revisionist propaganda
and far too biased and inaccurate for proper scholarship."
Yes indeed, critics do allege that. Why should this be censored while Elan Vital's allegations are left on the (Criticism of the) Criticism of Prem Rawat page?
"For instance,
in a 2006 article, Geaves commented ... Maharaji
did not appear to have any knowledge of his American followers'
expectations. He spoke as he usually does at such gatherings with no
hint of messianic promises.""
Geaves claims are at best inaccurate, biased opinions (induced by Rawat's revisionism), and at worst outright lies. The letter shows this, and I suspect that transcripts of what Maharaji actually said at Millenium (which I'm assuming exist) also show this. I'd bet someone has a Millenium issue of some DLM publication (I might even have one). Since Geaves included 'as he usually does', any evidence of Rawat's hints of messianic promises shows Geaves' claims to be false.
We have a right to present such evidence.
Modified by G at Thu, Apr 13, 2006, 19:48:41
|
|
|
|
G, These are the issues as I see it for including that bit about Geaves' revisionist apologetics for his Master and guru: Notability First, is Geaves notable enough to warrant a page at all? The point's moot; he's already got one. Plus, as I pointed out, even Jossi Fresco calls Geaves notable. He became even more so when he thrust himself into the public eye with his ridiculous remarks about the July 7th bombers but notoriety is just another form of notability so, yes, Geaves is notable. The second concern re notability is whether or not Geaves' writings on Rawat are notable enough for comment. Again, the premies' position is that he is most definitely. In fact, they tout him as an authority as he does himself. Both as an academic and, let's not forget, as an in-house historian of sorts (i.e. the "Passages" video). So, yes, Geaves is not just notable but he's specifically notable as an authority on Rawat. Appropriate Level of Detail The other reason Andries deleted my text was that, in his view, Geaves' discussion about Rawat's knowledge of or responsibility for the outrageous hype before Millenium was too detailed, or perhaps, trivial, for entry in something as grand as Wikipedia. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. Millenium was the high-water mark of Rawat's public posturing as the Lord. It was all downhill from there and though we cult members dutifully eschewed doubt as best we could and clung to our dreams and beliefs, Rawat started dissembling in a way he hadn't before the debacle of the Most Holy and Significant Event in the History of Mankind. The hype was critical to what this cult was all about and Rawat's involvement in that hype can never be explained away. Accordingly, this is a very, very central and telling aspect of both Rawat's story and Geaves' misrepresentation of same. Authenticity Both Geaves' article and Rawat's letter are proven beyond dispute. If only I knew how to do those little Wiki footnote things. Original Research There could arguably be an objection that contrasting Geaves' words with Rawat's constitutes "original research" which is verbotten on Wikipedia. Two plus two only equals four if someone else says so. If that's the case, perhaps we need a separate website somewhere that actually says that two plus two equals four. Hm ....
|
|
|
|
>Two plus two only equals four if someone else says so. If that's the case, perhaps we need a separate website somewhere that actually says that two plus two equals four. Hm .... < Well I did suggest (only half facetiously) a while back that the only way to deal with the Wikipedia farce was to create a 'Prem Rawat Sucks Wikipedia' site. Frankly I think it is just way too unhealthy for any ex to spend time dealing with Wikpedia cultistic newspeak - of course Jossi is at home there, it's the same kind mind screw as Rawatism. But trying to get a truthful article out of the Wikipedians is as futile as giving multicultural training to Nazis - it's simply not what they are about. N
|
|
|
|
And now he's getting the bit between his teeth I almost feel sorry for Jossi 
Good on you Jim, you're something else really, and if I ever need a lawyer I hope I'd get one in the same league, and this isn't brownnosing.
|
|
|
|
"...trying to get a truthful article out of the Wikipedians is as futile as giving multicultural training to Nazis -...."PERFECT!
|
|
|
|
- Hi Heah,
- Thanks for your reply. First, I wrongly assumed that Jossi had started the deletions. He just joined in and was the one who reported me for reverting. I didn't know that there was an edit log that tracked all activity but someone showed me afterwards. I still maintain, however, that these deletions were indeed acts of vandalism. They weren't corroborative edits, that's for sure. They were, as I said, wholesale, repeated deletions of original text. You speculate that the problem might have been my lack of citations but, in this case, I can assure you that's not the problem. Jossi's fully aware of the fact that both Geaves' comments and Rawat's own contradictory words (in his letter inviting his followers to the Millenium festival) are proven and accurate. Here's a link to the Geaves' article:
- [1]
- Footnote 5 is the one where Geaves' relieves Rawat of any knowledge or responsibility for the Millenium hype.
- And here's a link to the letter Rawat himself wrote which clearly puts the lie to Geaves' revisionism:
- [2]
- The Wiki rule about vandalism states that most is dealt with by fast reversions. However, it doesn't say that persistent efforts in this regard may nonetheless violate the three-reversion rule and trigger blocking! It does seem a little Kafak-esque, don't you think?
- Finally, on the more general complaint I have about Jossi Fresco, I do invite you to take some time, if you would, and review his editing of the Rawat articles. He is a paid web guy for a person who is most certainly a cult leader, a man who still has many, many followers who believe that he is God in human form. Jossi is adept at using Wikipedia to ensure that the articles never truly capture the story of the man. The fact that he's a Wikipedia administrator is worrying, in my opinion. --Jim Heller 18:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
|
|
|
|
I posted a plea to Wiki admins to look into Jossi Fresco's spurious editing of the Rawat articles, he complained to some other Wiki admin and I've been blocked again for personal attacks. This was my offending text: JOSSI FRESCO IS A HYPOCRITE -- SOMEONE SAVE THIS ARTICLE!!!!!!If there's a single Wiki admin out there with a bit of backbone willing to stand up to one of your fellow Wiki admins, who just happens to be a follower of a man many still worhship as God in human form, who just happens to be editing all articles about that man as anyone might expect, won't you please do something here?! If Wikipedia does not yet have a rule for barring individuals from working on articles where they're persistently demonstrated lack of good faith, it should. We all know that this is one of the serious weaknesses of Wikipedia. That doesn't mean you should be resigned to the status quo. Jossi Fresco's involvement re Rawat should read as the textbook example of what went wrong and -- with a little luck -- what was eventually done to fix it. When cult leaders or other infamous characters, especially wealthy ones who can afford the service, send their paid webmasters to stand guard over their articles, it's a problem. Jossi Fresco here is a problem. If this were Brittanica they'd lock the door. A little humility please, Wiki admins. Brittanica's been around a lot, lot longer than this site and they might have done something right over the last hundred years or so.--Jim Heller 17:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Modified by Jim at Sat, Apr 15, 2006, 13:47:51
|
|
|
|
Are Wikipedia and Amazon controlled by the same people? It would appear so. Obviously some premies have no life except the one they are willing to spend chasing after all critics of the "Master" and trying to silence them.
To all ex-premies: My most heartfelt congratulations on getting out of the cult. It must feel something like dodging a bullet. Or perhaps like being let out of prison, into the sun after, having been kept in confinement for years.
|
|
|
|
I've tried voting against the gushing praise of the book and my vote doesn't show up, in fact I saw a vote of mine reversed. I tried complaining to them about this and also pointed out that the book is an advertisement for his cult, but with no luck. They didn't even acknowledge what I was saying. Maybe they are afraid of a lawsuit from Rawat's lawyers.
I like the 'Cult Leader's reading list and gift ideas' list, it's funny. One thing that could be added: 'Do Ya Think I'm Sexy?' by Rod Stewart. For those that fortunately weren't there, there was a 'Holi' festival (Indian Hindu stuff) where Rawat was half-naked and wearing flowers and squirted us with colored water while this song (and others) played. I'm not making this us. There was a big article in a major newspaper about it with big pictures of Rawat in said garb. I felt very embarrassed. Does anyone know the magazine and what issue it was?
Modified by G at Sat, Apr 15, 2006, 15:15:55
|
|
|
|
Several people posted reviews in which "Clarity" was not described in glowing, cult-like terms and nearly all were removed. Many reviewers requested an explanation and, as far as I am aware, no clear, logical explanation was given.
That Amazon mess gave me much to think about. I found it distressing that a company I had held in high regard should prove itself to be one I never again want to do business with. Though I am sure it was not the cult's intention, its actions in that situation pretty much "clarified" that what rawat leads is, in fact, a cult. Only a true cult would wait for each and every negative review to appear and immediately "report" it so that it would be removed by Amazon. Those are not that actions of normally functioning people. Premies seemed to be lurking here, too, because no sooner would a negative review be commented on by a forum poster, than it would vanish.
It rather boggles the mind to consider how many flunkies with no life EV has haunting every place where any negative word about his Lardship is likely to appear. How much time is spent on this? How many people does it take, EV, to silence all critiscism? We know they would silence all thought if they could, per Rawat's directive. It is an absolutely disgusting thing.
|
|
|
|
G, Are you referring to the front page Miami Herald article with the headline: "Let Us Spray"? This was in a Sunday edition in the early 1980's. Kabir
|
|
|
|
That might be it, I wonder if it is available on microfiche.
|
|
|
|
It's probably in Miami Herald archives, but they only have up to 1982 online. And you do have to pay a fee. As a matter of principle, I'm not willing to pay anything for material on Rawat, post-cult.  Here's the description of another Miami Herald I found doing a search: http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_action=list&p_topdoc=1&d_sources=location | 4. | Miami Herald, The (FL) - July 10, 1989
GROWN-UP GURU RETURNS WITH UP-TO-DATE MESSAGE | | | | . Maharaj Ji, the pudgy child guru who in the 1970s preached world peace from a Miami Beach mansion and sprayed an Orange Bowl full of followers with colored water, was back in Miami on Sunday with a very 1980s message for about 6,000 followers at the Miami Arena. . "You've got to say no to drugs, absolutely no to drugs," he said. "But to the creator you've got to say yes. Yes to what You have given me, yes to what You will give...
Purchase Complete Article, of 626 words |
Related link: Newsbank
Modified by Cynthia at Mon, Apr 17, 2006, 07:56:39
|
|
|
