Andries,

I don't see what quote you're talking about either.  But may I discuss with you something you said to Zappaz:

As I have argued before (with Jim Heller) I generally think that writing an article by providing quotes is a very bad way of writing an article. So I opposed the quotes that Heller provided too. I wrote to Jim Heller that Adolf Hitler could be "proven" to be a Christian by providing quotes from his speeches and his book "Mein Kampf".

I don't agree with you at all.  In fact, if you really think of it, what you're saying doesn't make sense.  An article about anyone that was even slightly autobiographical can only be enriched by quotes that illustrate how the person thinks and talks.  All the more so if words are the particular stock in trade of the person as is the case with Rawat.  In other words, it's not as if he's a sports great who just happens to say this or that from time to time.  Words are what Rawat's all about.  He was / is a "man with a message".  All his life he's implored people to listen to him.  What he says is what it's all about, no doubt about it.

Nonetheless, it's true that it's possible to misconstrue Rawat's words, like Hitler's, to give a false impression.  So what?  All that means is that you should be careful not to do that. 

In Rawat's case, the false impression is the one that Zappaz is trying to assert, namely that one quote or another proves that Rawat wasn't talking about himself when he talks about "Guru Maharaj Ji".  Anyone with a lick of common sense can see through that argument.  The fact is, sometimes he was specifically talking about his father, obviously, and sometimes about himself and, often of either or both, it didn't matter.  Zappaz and the premies are the ones who would take one isolated quote's of Rawat's out of context and eschew any proper consideration of Rawat's particular idiom.  Clearly, they can't justify their game in that regard as you'll recall Zappaz has refused to actually discuss the issue thoroughly to resolution.  That's because he can't and he knows it.  What's wrong, don't you remember how he dissembled and squirmed away when I challenged him to do that?  And there you are commending his sincerity!  Gag me with a spoon or what!

Anyway, bottom line -- just because some might try to distort part of the evidence doesn't mean that it's better to ignore that area altogether.