User talk:John Brauns/Archive 1

This might help

Hello John,

It has been a few months since I voluntarily ceased my involvement in discussion re the PR article. My presence seemed to generate considerable ill feeling from members of the so called "Maharaji Information Group." I am writing now after reading this page in the hope that I can help you to see some points that you seem to have overlooked.

First, the notion that PR "allowed and encouraged his followers to believe he was God" on the basis of the statement, "Why do more than 6 million people around the world claim he is the greatest incarnation of God that ever trod the face of this planet?" (from Who is GMJ?)

Calling someone God is totally different and has a totally different meaning from calling someone an "incarnation of God." We are all incarnations of God. According to the bible, for example, "God created man after his own image." Clearly, however, the bible is not saying that the created man is God. Am I making sense? Do you need any further clarification on this point?

PR has clearly stated many times that he is not God. Here's one quote. With a bit of digging I can find many others for you.

"When I was very young, about 11 or 12 years old, people used to say that I was controversial. And I'd think about it - how controversial can an 11 year old child be? Some people used to say, "He is God." I used to tell people, "I am not God." I used to tell people clearly, and I tell them now as well: My work is to take you to that place within you. That, I can do." Maharaji April 12th, 1998

Rennie Davis & Co referred to PR as an incarnation of God, not God. In my experience, God is the power that allows breath to come in and out of my body. I have seen, heard and felt that power within me on a daily basis for the last 30 years, and at times have sat with tears running down my face, blown away by the sheer beauty of it. That has happened as a consequence of practicing the Knowledge that PR teaches. Anyone who confuses that power with an incarnation of that power (which we all are) is confused about the issue. Jossi is not lying. He appears to understand something that you don't.

I was going to write more, but will leave it at that for now. Hope that helps. --Gstaker 12:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey, good to hear from you. I'll let anyone interested make up their own mind what "the Greatest Incarnation of God that ever trod the face of this planet" means, but while you are here, could I ask you to remove from your website your description of me as "A Menace to Society" and the other untrue statements about me there, or do you only respond to such requests if you are sued? --John Brauns 23:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John, I deleted that "menace to society" heading some time ago, so I am quite surprised by your request. If you are unable to view the new page, use your browser controls to empty your computer's cache. While profiles of prominent detractors have been retained, One-reality.net now places far less significance on those pages. Check it out if you wish.

I have been careful to remove anything from the site that might have been defamatory. If you are in doubt about that, I suggest you consult a lawyer who specializes in defamation, i.e. someone who actually knows what he or she is talking about. Regarding untrue statements, on 2 occasions if I remember correctly, I found that some statement or other on my site was incorrect. Of course, I removed them. If you have a look at one-reality's FAQ pages you will find numerous examples of untruths on EPO. How about cleaning up your own web site?

Now that you have mentioned law suits, does this ring a bell? "Very interesting times. The most exciting part of all this is the very real possibility of having a REAL question and answer session with Prem Rawat in court." John Brauns 05/04/2003
John, I would be grateful if you would explain truthfully how this was supposed to have occurred. --Gstaker 01:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's very simple Geoffrey - I wrote that when Elan Vital were claiming copyright on material on EPO. Had EV taken the matter the federal court, Prem Rawat would have been deposed to give evidence to support my view that publishing that material was in the public interest. Instead Elan Vital declined to pursue their claim and all the material was reinstated on ex-premie.org. I'll respond to your other points when I have more time. --John Brauns 07:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. But, public interest?!? And PR was going to give evidence to support your view? That was good for a bit or a chuckle, but please try harder. I enjoy a good laugh. BTW, are any members of the Maharaji Information Group (can't be more than about 15 members in total) still claiming that they are not part of a group? Maybe the MIG is just a 2 or 3 man thing: you, Kahn and Jimbo. :-) Care to comment? --Gstaker 13:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Had Rawat been deposed to give evidence, he could have been asked about his behaviour in the 70s that encouraged impressionable young people to devote their lives to him at the expense of their relationships with their families, their education and their careers. I'm sure that a judge listening to the evidence would conclude that publishing that material was in the public interest. The very fact that neither Rawat, Elan Vital, nor the Prem Rawat Foundation publish that material themselves, and that Elan Vital declined to test their claim in court, shows that they have something to hide. Regarding the 'Maharaji Information Group', I have already explained that I front two websites on behalf of former premies who would prefer to be anonymous to avoid the kind of attacks your website illustrates. I note that you yourself hid behind anonymity until the legal action forced you to reveal yourself.

To respond to your earlier points, replacing the description of myself as a 'menace to society' with 'Owner and web master of Hate Group web sites' is not an improvement. Could you please remove that description. There are also many substantively factually incorrect statements about me on your website. If I list them will you remove them? Whether they technically come under the definition of 'defamation' could only be tested in a court of law, but truth should be your criteria, not whether you would survive legal action. I note that you have rewritten much of the rest of your website, but nowhere in your claims of factual inaccuracy by former premies do you mention which web pages from which website are inaccurate. If you could refer to the specific pages, I will review them. --John Brauns 23:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John, honestly, I did get a laugh out of that, and I'm not trying to score points. That bleeding heart twaddle about "impressionable young people devoting their lives at the expense of their relationships with their families, their education and their careers" - that IS funny. It always surprises me that you and your friends take sweeping statements like that seriously. Moreover, to imagine that a court would draw your conclusions from whatever so called 'evidence' you have is a huge leap of faith. My guess is that EV never intended to spend money on testing the claim in court. I think it suited them to have copyright material pulled off your site for a while at that time. I've noticed recently that people apparently associated with EV are releasing some of that old material, and I expect that trend to continue. So much for your argument that "they have something to hide."

You ask for references below - I could send you a collection of all the thank you emails I have received as webmaster of ex-premie.org.
I also have a collection of thank you emails I have received as webmaster of one-reality.net. --Gstaker 14:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly many do not share you sense of humour. EV had no problem spending a fortune on very expensive lawyers and private detectives to harrass Macgregor,
"Claimants were appropriately protecting themselves against the activities of an antagonistic group as would any other business people in the circumstances." John Macgregor In fact IRCC recouped quite a lot of their expenses. Macgregor lost the case. --Gstaker 14:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
so I'm sure it wasn't the finance that stopped them pursuing their copyright claim but the knowledge that they would lose, and that the case would be embarrassing. Where is this old material you mention that is now published? --John Brauns 23:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. At that time there was quite an increase in interest in PR's work and a resulting increase in web traffic. Old material is often presented on X web sites out of context and in a manner deliberately designed to make it look odd. Hence, temporary removal from EPO. Its overdue, but they have been releasing some of that old material for use in biographical web sites where it can be presented in context. e.g. http://www.ourstory.com/thread.html?t=227030 --Gstaker 14:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see differing opinions over the issue above as a problem necessarily, but it seems you can't get even the most basic facts correct about me. You are wrong to claim that I "hid behind anonymity until the legal action forced" me to reveal myself. That was never the case. I voluntarily chose to take legal action which I knew would result in loss of anonymity. I took the best legal advice available, and on that basis I instructed my lawyers to file an anti SLAPP lawsuit (see www.casp.net). Living thousands of miles away in an Asian country with a vastly different legal system, I did not have to take that course of action. For all practical purposes, I was untouchable. However, I chose to make a stand, and I'm glad I did. Look at the publicly available court record before you make any further false statements about me or the case. And, I suggest you ask an independent lawyer to explain it to you. Reading the nonsense about me on the X forum (98% of it was as silly as your statement above) I could only shake my head in disbelief, realizing that it was indicative of the level of twisted malicious hearsay (from very few sources) dressed up as fact that you publish about Prem Rawat.

Look at it this way: someone devotes his life to making personal inner peace available worldwide to anyone who is interested, travels extensively and works full time to that end, gives people a practical way to attain personal peace free of charge, sets up a charitable organization to bring food, medical assistance and disaster relief to some of the world's most needy people, raises money and donates many thousands of $$$ for that purpose, and you don't have a good word to say about him. You even complained about TPRF raising money to assist tsunami survivors. Can you look at this objectively enough, even for a few seconds, to realize how mean spirited it makes you look?

TPRF accounts show that only a small percentage of their income is used for charitable works, so criticising my suggestion that people donate to charities that are dedicated to disaster relief seems a lot odd.--John Brauns 23:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC) Around 30% of contributions go to "Humanitarian funding" however, I regard all of TPRF's work as being humanitarian in nature. --Gstaker 14:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We could continue ad infinitum - claim vs counter claim - and achieve nothing. The forums, the shit fight over the wiki article - time and life are limited: I don't feel like wasting any more of mine on this embroglio. I will do this much for you: If you remove Macgregor's articles from your web site as he requested, I will amend the one-reality article about you accordingly. Also, I will contact the person who tried to contact you re removal of their contributions to your web site. If we can resolve that one, I will make further appropriate amendments.
John, you must have some redeeming qualities that your appalling ex-premie record does not make apparent. Is there anyone who would give you a character reference, an old friend or work colleague perhaps? If so, I will include (within reason) such material in the article. That seems fair to me, and its a quantum leap ahead of anything that you and your hate-mongering friends would grant Prem Rawat.

Macgregor never to my knowledge retracted a single statement from his articles on ex-premie.org. Also, to my knowledge, he never wrote to the Australian newspapers retracting his published articles, or pointing out any inaccuracies.
"Based on no factual evidence, I arranged to publish in two Australian print media publications articles that Rawat and / or the volunteer entities were cult-like or involved in illegal or immoral activities. These implications are absolutely false and unfounded." John Macgregor --Gstaker 14:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He was harrassed for months by EV's lawyers and detectives, and that harrassment also extended to his family and friends, so it's sad but not surprising that he caved in under the pressure. I decided not to remove his articles as I reasoned that such removal would encourage Elan Vital to apply similar pressure to other contributors to ex-premie.org, and I felt it my duty to protect them. I maintain the site because I think it's important that the information and testimonies are available to current and prospective followers of Rawat so they can make an informed choice, and so that relatives and friends of followers of Rawat can better understand their involvement. I have no wish to have a character reference on your site, but thanks for the offer. --John Brauns 23:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
John, stop hiding behind baseless supposition. Your excuses have no foundation. Macgregor has refuted his own articles and asked you to remove them from your web site. When will you act honorably and grant him his request? --Gstaker 14:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To the best of my knowledge and understanding, references to you on my web site are factually accurate, and opinion is clearly stated as such. --Gstaker 15:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One factual error is that I only wrote one email to any body in Malaysia, and that was to a newspaper in 2003. My email was factual in content, and simply invited the newspaper to investigate Rawat. I did not mention converting muslims. I wrote no other emails to Malaysia then or since.
I will look into the Malaysia thing and get back to you. However, I have a copy of a second letter (email?) sent by you to Malaysia (early this year I think), published by you on the X forum. The contents were risible nonsense. --Gstaker 14:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another factual error is that my request for someone with a Smartcard was NOT an invitation to fraud. I wanted to know what the registration cost for the Malysia event was and asked my respondent to use his LEGAL access to find out. So, please remove these two allegations against me if you have any respect for the truth.
Professional legal opinion is that you post was an invitation to commit fraud. Sorry John. You lose on that one. --Gstaker 14:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As promised above, if you will give me the page address for any page on ex-premie.org that is inaccurate, I promise to review it. --John Brauns 23:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AN OFFER. John. In an effort to reach a reasonable compromise I make the following offer: If you remove John Macgregor's writings - all of them - from EPO as he has requested - as a gesture of good will, I will remove my article about you from one-reality. Macca's articles are a drop in the EPO bucket. Their removal would hardly be noticed. Same applies to one-reality: removal of the Brauns article would be inconsequential. How about it? Take the honorable course of action: grant Macca his request. Look John, if you do that I would even consider deleting my article about Jimbo. --Gstaker 14:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]