text:
Talk:Glass harmonica

Franklin's Armonica
There is currently a citation (#16) to a dead link. Normally, I'd just swap it out for the Wayback machine reference that seems to correspond to the referenced revision, but it seems someone claimed they were successfully able to access it earlier this year - which doesn't seem correct based on my usage of the wayback machine. Since this seems a bit unclear, I'll just leave this here and hope someone else can make sense of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.122.83.50 (talk) 14:30, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Mozart
In contradiction to the statement "Mozart was enthralled by its sound, so even he composed several pieces for it.",cool! In my memory is the idea that mozart hated the instrument and only wrote for it because he was commissioned to do so. I will try to check this out. If someone knows for sure please comment here or edit the article.

enhandle

 * It seems that Mozart was acquainted with Mesmer and met him several times, starting in 1773, for what that's worth. —Wahoofive | Talk 02:42, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I understand (from BBC Radio 4) that the 14 year old Mozart played Mesmer's instrument and then composed 2 works for it. Autodidactyl 17:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio
The 'manufacture' and 'musical properties' sections seem to have been lifted from http://www.finkenbeiner.com/gh.html with some minor rewording. This would appear to be a copyright violation, so I've removed them. --Calair 04:38, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

---

I saw a piece somewhere that the musician insanity issue may have had some basis. Apparently (if I remember correctly), the rims of the bowls often had colored paint on them to distinguish one from the other. Supposedly, later analysis indicated the paint was lead-laden (surprise!) and musicians who frequently wet their fingers in their mouths wound up ingesting toxic levels of lead with extended playing. N.B. -- it could be that the glass itself may have had a high lead content, rather than an applied paint. It would probably be more stable in the glass itself, though, and harder to ingest. In any event, there is some suspicion that lead poisoning was the eventual cause of dementia and/or diminished mental capacity. Any corroboration?

 * I saw Dean Shostak in concert, and he said that one of the unique qualities of glass is that it produces no overtones. He used a strobe light to show us how the glass bowls vibrated.  He lent no real stock to the idea that the armonica really causes insanity, but joked that the pure tones might be what drives people mad.  I haven't found any documentation to back this up, but I would think it must be published somewhere. Mingusboodle (talk) 21:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

 * From what I read, it seems that the vibrating bowls damaged nerves in the fingers somehow. Broolaf2 19:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe that it was only the inside of the bowls that was painted (Ben Franklin used 7 rainbow colours for 7 notes of Octave), the rims were necessarily clean glass. Whilst spending thousands of hours licking and rubbing high lead glass was probably not a good idea, it pales in comparison to the lead in water pipes, storage tanks, food cans, solder, cooking utensils and pencils etc. Autodidactyl 17:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The reports of vibration damage to the nerves are redolent of 'Vibration White Finger' which is one form of Raynaud's phenomenon. Autodidactyl 17:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Gerhard Finkenbeiner: unsolved?
did an article ever exist for Gerhard Finkenbeiner? did anybody read this page about his death? --Crnk Mnky (65.13.21.153) 00:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

 * There's no record of such a page in the appropriate deletion log. --Calair 02:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Wrong name?
In another source I looked at, the performance Franklin attended in London was performed by Edmund Delaval. Broolaf2 19:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

OK then...
Who says that "perhaps the most famous pop culture reference" is that minor dead comedian's quip? Why would it conceivably refer to the musical instrument? Does he have a theme through his comedy of sideways references to unusual and/or obsolete musical instruments?

 * I didn't say it was the most famous reference ever. That is debatable.  But, as you know, that wasn't the reason you gave for deleting the section entirely.  Badagnani 04:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

While I'm at it, what information is available in that wisegeek.com page that is not or should not be in this article? If it's a source, what's it the source to? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

 * I don't know, but it was listed in the References section, not under "External links." And I did not find it unhelpful.  Badagnani 04:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Article name
Why is this article called Glass harmonica when all the references in the article call it armonica? Shouldn't we simply move the article to armonica? --Walter Görlitz 06:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

 * "Glass harmonica" is a generic term referring to any rubbed glass instruments (including those with glasses mounted in wooden boxes). The "Armonica" is one very specific variety of glass harmonica, and Finkenbeiner's instrument isn't exactly an armonica due to many design differences.  Franklin was not the first person to play a rubbed glass instrument.  Thus the recent change putting his invention at the very top of the article should be changed back, as it paints an incorrect picture.  Badagnani 06:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

 * In that case, a clear distinction must be made at the beginning of the article. That "also known as" part is very misleading. I got to this article looking for Franklin's glass armonica (linked from Benjamin Franklin) and it was very strange to see the different name. Maybe the armonica should have its own article. (Antonio.sierra 19:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC))

Harmony
With the danger to be considered just another Greek, I think that harmony is based on a Greek word. Pls refer here: http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/harmony

I think in general that it is better to either make the effort and search 2 seconds for an information instead of just declaring as fact one's opinion or leave the information totally out.

accidentals
the coulours when talking about franklin's armonica says As are reds etc, while 'accidentals' are white. i would not say this is exactly true, as an accidental would be more in refernce to the notes on a page of music being outside the key signiture, as opposed to being in to relation to a note. I am however not familiar with american musical terminology in relation to the british, as such i haven't edited the article. Please would someone who is knowledgeable about american music theory/ wording see if the article is correct.Telekinesis99 17:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You are correct, as an accidental would also include naturals, and the phrase is only referring to sharps and flats. If you know of a better way to phrase it, please change it.Broolaf2 23:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

"Glass harmonica" may refer both to the "armonica" as well as musical glasses
This well known album by Bruno Hoffmann, who played the musical glasses, labels his instrument as "glass harmonica." The Franklin invention is the "armonica," but "glass harmonica" has been used as a generic term referring to both the armonica and musical glasses. Badagnani 03:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

BADAGNANI you are WRONG! Very soon I will be taking out ALL references of glasses filled with water as "Glass harmonica" playing. If you insist on your false interpretation of the word then I will be taking it up with other people. The very nature of the name, "Glass harmonica" means that it is capable of producing musical tones in harmony--- something wine glasses cannot do, because you have to play them one by one. Please cease and desist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.23.218.118 (talk) 01:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Please place new comments at the bottom of the page. Regarding the use of the term "glass harmonica," I've provided evidence below, that the Bruno Hoffmann album uses the term "glass harmonica" for the set of wine goblets in a box. "Armonica" is the Franklin instrument and "glass harmonica" is a generic term that may refer to either the set of glasses or the Franklin instrument. Badagnani 04:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Bruno Hoffmann called his instrument a "Glasharfe" (glassharp) on several of his recordings and I read an text about his instrument, where it was mentioned, that he used the name "glassharp" for a set of musical glasses, which where in a special arrangement on the table. I think, sometimes the musical glasses (I call them "Gläserspiel") are called as a "harmonica" from musicians, who do not have a original armonica. Someone wrote in this discussions, that it is not possible to make harmonies on the musical glasses. This is not completely true and is no single criteria to distinguish both instruments. In the "Adagio für Glasharmonika" KV 617a there are only 2 or three bars which I can not play on my musical glasses. There are other details which differ at both instuments: playing the musical glasses makes a sound like a vibrato at each turn around of the finger at the glass, because the finger changes its position to the glass at each moment. Playing the harmonica makes a more constant sound because the finger is at the same position every moment and the glasses move themselves. I think, the term "Harmonika" has got a new meaning in the 19th century, when the accordion has been invented and was called a harmonica too. Since then it has been neccecary, to call the glass harmonica "glass" harmonica. Martin Hilmer 30.11.2008

Nutcracker
Why is the reference to the Nutcracker's originally calling for glass harmonica being removed? Badagnani (talk) 19:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

 * In Peter Sterki's book [footnote] pg. 97 he says that the Nutcracker's first draft was for glass armonica. However, I'm Peter Sterki, and since my book was published, I and others have done more research, including consulting with the Tchaikowski Society in Moscow, and the first draft of the Nutcracker did NOT call for glass armonica after all. Future of editions of my book will have that assertion removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.217.173.204 (talk) 20:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, the question is, how did that information get into the book in the first place? That is, was there some kernel of information that was correct, such as that Tchaikovsky *thought of* using this instrument at first? Badagnani (talk) 20:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

 * I don't know what he was thinking. But fact is, that Tchaikovsky had already used the celesta in an orchestral piece 'The Voevoda' (1890-91), and his letters show that it was always his intention to use it in the ballet 'The Nutcracker', which he was then just beginning to write. The autograph scores and first editions of both the suite and the complete ballet show the solo part for celesta, with a note that this may be played by piano if the celesta is unavailable. Tchaikovsky never employed the armonica in The Nutrcacker, or any other of his works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.227.140.223 (talk) 04:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Wait, are you Peter Sterki too? It is not clear who is speaking. This doesn't explain how the glass harmonica reference made it into the first edition of the book. Badagnani (talk) 05:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

 * The main goal of my book was to make clear, that there are a lot of wrong stories about the instrument. (Unfortunately it is written in german) Some pieces for armonica still are lost, others are mentioned in historical articles or dictionaries. From the Tschaikovsky-Society I could learn, that there is no evidence for the Nutcracker. If you don't believe me please contact forum-AT tchaikovsky-research.net. Peter Sterki -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.227.140.223 (talk • contribs)

So what was the origin of that story? Or is the origin unknown? Badagnani (talk) 07:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

 * The origin must be in some older article I read during my research. After 7 years I can't remember where exactly. Anyway. Does it matter? - The information is wrong. (Even in Bruno Hoffmanns Book you will find misinformations about the armonica.) Peter Sterki —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.227.140.223 (talk) 11:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's important because now that this Wikipedia article is out there (and has been reproduced in its old, incorrect form), it should be important now to add a sentence in the article mentioning that this belief is a fallacy (with citation about your research at the Tchaikowsky institute). Badagnani (talk) 11:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

As you requested, I went back through my notes and found the reference you are asking for. "P.I. Caikovskij, Glasharmonika-Part in der ursprünglichen Orchestrierung des Feenballetts Der Nussknacker, 1892, St. Petersburg": Reckert, Sascha: Glasharmonika. In: Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart. Hrsg. von L. Finscher. Kassel 1994ff. Bd. 3, Sp. 1413.

- This misinformation is also in my book, pg. 97. (Sterki, P.: Klingende Gläser. Bern 2000) Peter Sterki

Reversion of my edits
Badagnani, reverting ALL 24 careful edits from an experienced editor because you didn't like one of those edits is unreasonable. I don't have time to detail my reasons for all 24 edits so I will mention just a few:-

You have reverted my "glass harmonica" back to "Glass harmonica" (but musical instrument names are NOT capitalised.) Elsewhere you have reverted my “glass harmonica” to “glassharmonica” (but the instrument name IS 2 words.) You have reverted my "1980s" to "1980’s" (which is just silly, dates are not possessive!). You have reverted my “there is no scientific theory” to “there is no known scientific theory” where “known” is superfluous because it adds no extra meaning to the phrase. Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 09:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

 * I was unsure how to evaluate the large edit as I'd noticed things were removed, but without explanation. Some of your edits were indeed good. Badagnani (talk) 08:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Life is too short for me to explain a major editing session on the article's Talk Page, particularly since I am (as you are) highly experienced in editing so the vast majority of my edits are good ones. However, thanks for your understanding. It would be best if I take the article off my watch list asnd leave you to edit it as you wish. Regards - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 08:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Bloch and his glass harmonica
why not change the name of the article to "Thomas Bloch and his glass harmonica" if the first thing we see on the page is Thomas Bloch? IIIIIIIII (talk) 20:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

"Notable" players
I'm going to pare down this list a bit. Many of the names are unreferenced, and the people themselves don't have articles. It seems to me that if they are indeed notable, someone will write an article about them, and then they can be on the list. They should at least have a citation that demonstrates some iota of notability. Cadwaladr (talk) 18:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Glass xylophone
Saint-Saens' Carnival of the Animals usually substitutes a celesta (a percussive instrument) but sometimes a glass harmonica is used; however the article suggests that Saint-Saens intended a percussive instrument with the same name, but gives no further details. The learned discussion above sheds no light on this. --Straw Cat (talk) 13:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Citation for quote in "purported dangers"
I'm not sure whether or not a citation through Google Books is allowable or not, but I found the quote requiring a citation in the Purported Dangers section of the article: http://books.google.com/books?ei=Tm9US-bHDI-cMrOwgYIN&cd=1&id=jf7WAAAAMAAJ&dq=The+armonica+excessively+stimulates+the+nerves&q=excessively+stimulates#search_anchor

The full text of the book is not available, but you can clearly see that the quote is correct, if perhaps missing a [...] or something between the sentences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StuartGilbert (talk • contribs) 14:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Handel
Who added that Handel composed for the glass harmonica? He died before it was invented. We have to watch for this sort of thing, as allowing such wrong material to be added undermines the credibility of Wikipedia. 173.89.236.187 (talk) 02:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Depends a bit on what you mean be "invention". The article has a version in existence by the 1740s, and Handel lived until 1759. He cannot have composed for Benjamin Franklin's glass harmonica, no, but it is feasible that he may have written for this earlier instrument. I have never heard that he did, but further investigation is called for. Thanks for calling attention to this.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:18, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Checked, found nothing, deleted Handel. Thanks again.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Glass harmonica. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051101011735/http://sln.fi.edu:80/franklin/musician/virtualarmonica.html to http://sln.fi.edu/franklin/musician/virtualarmonica.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:51, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Glass harmonica. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061124165512/http://www.sonyclassical.com/music/89047/home.html to http://www.sonyclassical.com/music/89047/home.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070405115543/http://www.thebakken.org/exhibits/mesmer/glass-armonica.htm to http://www.thebakken.org/exhibits/mesmer/glass-armonica.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Glass harmonica. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080119055214/http://www.glassarmonica.com/armonica/history/musicalglasses/mgvarious.php to http://www.glassarmonica.com/armonica/history/musicalglasses/mgvarious.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081206142907/http://www.historycarper.com/resources/twobf3/letter3.htm to http://www.historycarper.com/resources/twobf3/letter3.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714144109/http://audio.richgoyette.com/node/40 to http://audio.richgoyette.com/node/40
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://sln.fi.edu/franklin/musician/virtualarmonica.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070208100923/http://www.janerikmikalsen.com/page8/page8.html to http://www.janerikmikalsen.com/page8/page8.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:16, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

"... seem to be German"
Is it just me, or is there something a bit odd about the phrase "... all the commonly cited examples of this rumor seem to be German, if not confined to Vienna."? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Glass harmonica


text:
Floodlight (disambiguation)

A floodlight is an artificial light providing even illumination across a wide area.

Floodlight may also refer to:
 * High-intensity discharge lamp, the class of lamp itself
 * Stage lighting instrument, the types associated with stage productions
 * Floodlights (film), British television film
 * Floodlights (band), Australian rock band

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Floodlight (disambiguation)


text:
User:Bharatnatyam~enwiki

Bharatnatyam is the best of all the three worlds!

title: User:Bharatnatyam~enwiki


text:
Talk:Newlyweds: Nick and Jessica

Trivia section
Trivia sections on Wikipedia are considered very bad form. All imformation within this section should be dispersed to apropriate places within the article. --The_stuart 18:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

 * The opening of Newlyweds shows footage of the couple's wedding and plays Lachey's song "This I Swear".
 * The 2nd season premiere, which featured footage from Donald Trump's now defunct casino in Atlantic City was taped at the same time as the 1st season finale of The Apprentice in which both Nick and Jessica make a cameo with Jessica's father Joe Simpson.
 * MTV aired a bonus episode entitled, "Happy Birthday Jessica, Love Nick" in between seasons two and three.

...and people watch this pap?

I know it's hard to believe, but it looks like they do..

-- well, how do you know its pap unless you have watched it yourself......... i'm not a fan of either of them, but i watch it just to see what dumb/stupid thing jessica will say/do next and i think thats the way alot of people think of it ,

Seasons
Did the show run for 3 or 4 seasons? It ran for 40 episodes, and I was thinking each season was 10 episodes each. I know the first and last seasons were. But on MTV's Newlyweds page, it groups what I considered seasons 2 & 3 into one 20-episode season 2 (on the episode guide). So in that case it ran for 3 seasons, but one season was twice as long as the others. Everyking 06:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

 * It ran for three seasons. If I remember correctly, season two was in two parts.  I believe MTV took a break halfway through season two. --Jenn 07:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Newlyweds.gif
Image:Newlyweds.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Originally intended for Lisa Marie Presley and Michael Jackson? Project shelved until 2002?
There is no citation for either of these 'facts'. Can someone, specifically the person who edited this, explain?

--p4 (talk) 04:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)p4poetic

title: Talk:Newlyweds: Nick and Jessica


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/"iPod versus"

"iPod versus" was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete

"iPod versus"
This is not an encyclopedia article, nor does it have the makings of one. Rather, it looks like a debate forum. In fact, the originator of the article, User:Pomegranate states, "Started this article cos I'm bored of the year-old debate on a iRiver fansite. I also hope that it will be useful to people looking to buy an iPod." Please, these are not good reasons! Wikipedia is not Consumer Reports or a fansite. --C S 03:01, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment. Make sure to also read the talk page for additional perspective, just in case you're one of those people who doesn't always diligently do so for every nominated article. *guiltily raises hand* JRM 03:04, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)
 * Merge with iPod and delete. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 05:27, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Merge and delete is not an acceptable option under the GFDL (unless you do something about preserving the history) but there's nothing to merge anyway. Andrewa 10:10, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Can only be NPOV if listing the technical specification of the machine. No point. --Gtabary 13:14, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a consumer review site.   — Asbestos | Talk 14:04, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete ... as the talk page shows, wikipedia is working well here: an inappropriate page was started by a relative newcomer, who has discussed its merits and agreed that a different page would be better, and who hopefully will now become a regular wikipedian. All hail collaborative editing (sans rants) - DavidWBrooks 15:09, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete Just looking at the title, this page is ripe for deletion. Dumb title, absolutely not encyclopedic material.  Maybe at best, material from this to bemigrated to just iPod. --SpaceMonkey 16:42, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Moved this vote from Talk:"iPod versus". JRM 19:02, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)
 * Delete: DCEdwards1966 21:09, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete wiki's not a review site or blog Wyss 00:11, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that this article is worthless. There is a controversy/debate over the iPod and its generic rivals, information which seems fine to collect here (just as we have for creationism vs. evolution).  This title is not the best, of course. Very Verily  19:08, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. I second Asbestos' sentiments. Wiki is not a consumer review site. --MPerel 00:08, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, the iPod never was lete in the first place. Pedant 00:14, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)
 * Keep. Useful information, no bias. Surely the point of an encyclopeadia? Dan100; 10:45, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete this has no place on the Wikipedia. A personal website maybe. --Computerjoe 16:29, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is an Encyclopedia, not an opinion place. [[User:Hydnjo|Hydnjo\talk]] 01:49, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


text:
User:Classical Indian dancer

Hi! I am a classical Indian dancer Amrita.

title: User:Classical Indian dancer


text:
Talk:Hate group/Archive 3

Article is now in RfC
This article is already in RfC. Let's wait and see what other editors have to say. Removing text from the article does not help, as editors will need to see the nature of the dispute. Richard, John: please refrain from adding or removing text for now. Thanks. --Zappaz 02:08, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Modemac, I would appreciate if you wait until we hear from other editors before unilateraly removing text. The article is in RfC --Zappaz 02:19, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Another revert and this article will break the Three_revert_rule and will need to go to dispute resolution. Please keep cool and wait to see what other editors have to say before deleting text. Thanks. --Zappaz 02:59, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Modemac for the NPOV attempt. I have made a small edit re:Inovigne. Hope it sticks. --Zappaz 20:53, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would like to add my voice to the continuing comments about this article. First of all, let me introduce myself. I used to be a follower of Guru Maharaj Ji, who calls himself Prem Rawat these days. Followers of Guru Maharaj Ji were called premies, which makes me an ex-premie. I read the article on Prem Rawat and although I didn't agree with it's perspective, I don't really care that much about it one way or the other. But now I come to this article where I see that simply because I choose not to follow Guru Maharaj Ji anymore I am being considered part of a suspected hate group. How can this be possible? You can't just call people who stop practicing a religion a hate group.

As far as I know, there is no organised group of ex-premies. There is a website, ex-premie.org, which as far as I can tell is run by one or two people. There is also a forum on which all kinds of people post on. These people present a widely varying cross-section of society and have very differing views. I also post there on occasion. I want to state very clearly that I don't have anything against premies and would never do anything to prevent them from practicing their religion. I enjoy posting on the forum and appreciate ex-premie.org only because it helps me to understand more about a part of my past which I was troubled about and wanted to investigate further. What does this have to do in any way with hate groups?

I think I know what a hate group is. I have friends who ended up in the hospital at the hands of Nazi skinheads and very nearly was attacked myself on two occasions. By including ex-premies in this article, not only are you falsely demonizing anyone who decides not to follow Rawat, but you are making a joke out of a very serious topic.

I hope my words will bring some sensibility to the writers of this article. -- Drapadi

 * Drapadi, please note that this article does not state that the ex-premies are a hate group. What is stated is that the target of their criticism (the organizations that support PR and followers) label them as a hate group. It seems that other NRMs have felt the same level of intense criticism and have also labeled their critics a hate group. --Zappaz 22:47, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I did note that. But I think you must be aware that the association still sticks in the mind of the reader. It's like if I say, "I can't believe that Tommy said that Mary is a slut!" I didn't say that Mary is a slut, but everyone knows that she is now. That is what you are doing. Most readers will even forget where they originally read that even, but will retain this association of ex-premies with hate groups.

Another problem I have with this is that you don't name a specific organisation. You can't just label all ex-members of something a hate group. There must be at least 50,000 ex-premies in the world. The majority of them probably don't even know of the existence of the ex-premie forum or this controversy. Now they are alleged to belong to a hate group according to your article. Just because an organisation like EV says something illogical in defense doesn't give it credibility. How can everyone who ever left their movement belong to a hate group?

You also have two sentences which make this claim, but no rebuttal from these so-called ex-premies. How is that a NPOV? Don't you have to present both sides? It isn't even possible to have a rebuttal, because there is no organisation of ex-premies. This is a fantasy of DLM. They have created a fantasy villain to demonize. Where have we seen that before? By repeating it here you only give it credibility. Is that what you want to do?

I am an ex-premie. I don't believe in their religion anymore, but I would defend their right to practice their beliefs as much as any other religion, as long as it isn't a hate group. By repeating the EV allegation uncritically in your article, you are aiding and abetting them in demonizing me for something I absolutely don't deserve. All of our time would be much better served in doing something to fight against real hate groups than persisting in this. I'll say something else. EV isn't a hate group, but they certainly seem to hate their ex-members. -- Drapadi

 * Zappaz, by mentioning Elan Vital's false allegation out of context, in an article that should be about genuine, universally recognised, hate groups, some readers will assume (without investigating further) that there is some truth to the allegation. There is of course no truth to the allegation, although the behaviour of some supporters of Prem Rawat on Wikipedia is increasingly leading to the conclsuion that they really are a hate group. Prem Rawat's supporters have made their allegation in the Prem Rawat Criticism article where the context is fully explained, and there it should stay. --John Brauns 23:18, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Interesting that you are finally calling for contextualization :)
 * Please note that the context is given. Read Modemac's addition (2nd paragraph). That is IMO a well developed context for the rest of the section. --Zappaz 23:24, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Zappaz, the paragraph is fine (assuming you mean the second paragraph in the "Hate groups and new religious movements" section), but you must weigh mentioning Elan Vital's false allegation as an example, against the hurt this causes former followers of Rawat. I and others consider Elan Vital's claim to be libellous, and I have been advised that I have good grounds for legal action against Elan Vital in the US, UK, and Australia. This article should be about genuine, universally recognised, hate groups. Why are you not focussing your attention on them? --John Brauns 00:01, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Drapadi, I think that there is a misunderstanding here. The article does not refers generically to ex-students or ex-followers of PR, but to a group of people that call themselves the "ex-premies". I understand from my research and from conversations that took place during the editing of the articles related to Prem Rawat, that many, if not most of ex-students do not share the feelings and the vitriolic criticism of the "ex-premies". I was myself taken aback by the ferocity of some the comments made in these pages, some very obscene and definitively hateful. You may want to read Criticism_of_Prem_Rawat in which the "ex-premies" are discussed.
 * I am done for today! ... Nothing like baking some good bread to uplift the spirit! --Zappaz 01:03, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Zappaz, I agree that the majority of former followers do not care so much. This was the case in my NRM too. Only people who believed in it too deeply, and had donated too much money, time, and were deeply devoted and had mentally surrendered to the guru, which he encouraged, and had unwavering faith in the guru generally have problems on leaving. They had invested too much of their life in him and their faith in him gave meaning to their life. It should be noted that they feel they have no choice but leaving because of the overwhelming evidence that something is very seriously wrong. Moreover current followers of Rawat deny important facts about the past, which is extremely insulting. And when former followers explain the reasons why they get disillusioned then they are branded as a "hate group". Can you imagine how unfair and how low that is? Can you imagine that they get angry with a person who defends this guru? I am aware I generalize a lot and that this comment may be a bit inappropriate for this talk page but I want people to understand the position of former followers of abusive NRMs like myself and the ex-premies. Andries 05:56, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz, I'm afraid that the misunderstanding is with you. Ex-premie means ex-follower of Guru Maharaj Ji. It is like using the terms ex-Catholic or ex-Jew. This is one of the main problems with your article. You can't blame the whole group of ex-followers based on the alleged actions of some individuals. You need to identify a specific organisation that promotes these actions.

I don't know if the allegations listed above are true. It wouldn't surprise me if at least some of them were. There has always been a fanatical faction of premies. I'm sure you are aware of the pie throwing incident, which involved high-ranking premies. That is an extreme example of a commonplace mentality. I could imagine that a few premies have taken their fanaticism with them when they became ex. But if so, these people are acting as individuals. What I can say definitely is that this kind of fanatical action has been taken against ex-premies. I have a friend, an ex-premie, whose bosses were contacted through anonymous letters to try and get him fired. I could use this to claim that EV is also a hate group. But I am not so low. I think that this was done by a fanatical premie acting on his own. At least I hope so. But you see, fanaticism is on both sides. I also think that the one-reality.net website qualifies as a hate site.

What your are saying is like calling all anti-abortionists terrorists because one fanatic decides to blow up an abortion clinic. -- Drapadi

 * It is amazing yo see the duplicity here. On one hand Andries feels comfortable to talk about "abusive NRMs" and Drapadi to talk about "fanatics" and then they cry foul when someone is of the opinion that the ex-premies are a hate group. ≈ jossi ≈ 18:40, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

 * Jossi, there is no duplicity. Elan Vital and the Sai Baba group are recognised as cults that practice thought reform by all the leading experts in the field. Drapadi talked about fanatics on both sides, although from my perspective, having been on the receiving end of abuse by supporters of Rawat for the last few years, it appears there are more fanatics among current followers. Having said that, I repeat that in my belief the vast majority of current followers are good people who could not behave in this way. Regarding the 'hate group' allegation, no one, except a small minority of current followers of Rawat, shares that view. --John Brauns 19:30, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

experts in the field, Yeah right... Read: anti-cultist bigots. You receiving abuse?, yeah right... So maybe is just one or two people in your little group of 15 to 20 people? Maybe it is just Jim Heller?
 * Rawat's like an old, old, old stripper, perhaps in her 80's, with a small, loyal following of degenerate losers who are willing to keep showing up, paying their two bucks and masturbating at her "timeless" fan show. If you squint hard enough ... well, it sure helps if your eyesights failing to begin with." - Jim Heller, September 29, 2004

 * I hate premies -- and why not? Look at them. 'Hate' is such a funny word these days. Some PC policy wonks decided that after centuries of meaning simply a strong dislike or aversion to something or someone, 'hate' should now be reserved for crimes of racial bias or other such prejudice. Well fuck that. 'Hate' works perfectly fine the old way and that's how I'm using it. -- Jim Heller

 * Quite often in April and September Ivory's Rock Conference centre is overrun by feral animals which need to be driven out! These are the Brown Rat from  India and the smelly white mole from the USA. Both of these beasts  befoul the area, gather all resources they can get their claws  on and distress the locals.

Let me go vomit. --Seth

 * Seth, I have a collection of quotes from followers of Prem Rawat far worse than these. Does that prove that followers of Prem Rawat are a hate group? --John Brauns 00:18, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * The big difference is that the site you allude to, which existed briefly, was run by a handful of renegade premies somewhere in the South Pacific and in no way represented the views of the premies and especially of Maharaji and the organizations that support his work.

 * Maharaji and the organizations that support his work have always indicated to not engage the ex-premies.

 * The overwhelming majority of premies was violently opposed to this very small site when it was run, again, by very few people.

 * By contrast, the ex-premie.org and forums are THE official sites of the ex-premie movement, and represents itself as such ("The ex-premie movement") with the media and authorities with which it regularly files complaints against Maharaji. Whatever is posted and archived there represents the views of the ex-premie leaders. Some of the most hateful postings come from the ex-premie leaders themselves. Hence the hateful postings on ex-premie.org can legitimately be considered the official expression of the ex-premie movement. I want to compile a list of these expressions but I worry about my stomach. -- Seth

 * Seth, which site are you refering to, and how do you know the "overwhelming majority of premies was violently opposed to this very small site when it was run, again, by very few people"? Was it widely advertised? Was a survey carried out of current followers? If so, how was it done as Elan Vital has no membership? Also, how do you know that "Maharaji and the organizations that support his work have always indicated to not engage the ex-premies"? Was an official announcement made? If so, when? And if this is true, why not? Are they afraid of honest debate? Many of the quotes I'm refering to were made by premies on the ex-premie forums, which, within limits, allow expression of a wide range of views, unlike any pro-Maharaji site. Oh, and there is no official ex-premie site, as there is no "official" ex-premie organisation. --John Brauns 07:52, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Not official? So what is this on your website WHOIS record? R25954080-NSI Ex-Premie Organization POB 3024 2075 W. Stadium Blvd. Ann Arbor MI, 48106-3024 US +1.72053373

Will be interesting tou read your excuses. - Seth

 * Seth, the registration for ex-premie.org has now been changed to that of ex-premie2.org, ex-premie3.org, and ex-premie4.org. The MI details were because the domain name was still held by the original webmaster, Scott Perry, who has now relinquished control over the name. There is no ex-premie organisation. --John Brauns 01:47, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Seth, I'll answer your question if you answer the questions I asked above. --John Brauns 19:44, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * ''Maharaji and the organizations that support his work have always indicated to not engage the ex-premies.

'' Seth!The information you have about this, does not seem reliable. The articles Prem Rawat and Criticism of Prem Rawat for example were made by intense collaboration of Premies ,Ex-Premies and Others, whith Photo-material provided by Elan Vital, having at least one contributor with constant contact to the Organization.Thomas h 11:11, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Verbal violence by former members of NRMs, please provide references
Jossi, in the section Hate_group I changed verbal violence into verbally abusive. Please provide references if you want to revert it. Andries

 * Splitting hairs, uh Andries? What is the differece, if I may ask, between verbally abusive and verbally violent? IMO these are one and the same.--Zappaz 23:04, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Abusive is calling somebody a a son of a bitch, which is different from saying, somebody should give you a beating, at least according to Dr. Ehud Sprinzak to whom Jossi wikilinked the term verbal violence. Verbal violence is according to Sprinzak, "the use of extreme language against an individual or a group that either implies a direct threat that physical force will be used against them, or is seen as an indirect call for others to use it."  Calling a cult leader a son of a bitch is not verbal violence according to Sprinzaks's definition. And if you consider this hair splitting then why do you bother to comment? Andries 05:54, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

These discussions here are very strange: You don't know who you are dealing with. These are violent (and I am not meaning verbally only) people with a sustained agenda of harassment and hate. And to see that some editors here approve of them. my god! I had no choice but to compile that list. It felt sickening and disgusting reading all that stuff, but had to be done. I you don't want to lose your appetite, don't read it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hate_group/ex-premies -Seth

I forgot to mention that the examples at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hate_group/ex-premies are just a small sample. There is plenty more from were that comes from. The ex-premies, and by that I mean the 20 or so people that pride themselves in being called ex-premies, demonstrate their obsession by posting more than 30,000 messages in their forum just in a few years. These days they have moderators that quickly delete these expressions of hate as soon as posted. That does not mean that they have given up on that hate, its just that now their hate is cloaked and even more dangerous than before. This is a common tactic of hate-groups: wanting to be seen (quote) "[as keeping] the high ground through quality, honesty, decency and value, which infalliby moves the readers" (endquote). Hate-mongers trying to look like "Mr. Nice Guy" is pretty disgusting and outright dangerous. -Seth

 * Actually, Seth, very few "hate groups", in the sense that the term originated and in the sense where it is easy to determine membership in such a group, bother trying to spin their public reputation as "[keeping] the high ground through quality, honesty, decency and value, which infalliby moves the readers". I mean, can you imagine the Aryan Nations spending a lot of time saying "Well, yes, we are advocating violent overthrow so that we can form a white-only government, but let's take care to portray ourselves as supporting quality, honesty, decency and value while we do it"?

 * You say that "wanting to be seen" as keeping the moral high ground is a common tactic of hate groups, but you never state how one should be able to distinguish between those wonderful groups like wonderful new religious movements who try to keep the moral high ground through quality, honesty, decency and value because that's the right thing to do, and those who only want to be seen as possessing all those qualities. Instead, it's far more likely that if you already believe the group is good and wonderful, you'll view any such statements as proof of their goodness; if you already believe the group is a hate group, you'll interpret those statements as the wolf trying to put on sheep's clothing.  I find it telling that while you're claiming to expose the dishonesty of the "ex-premies" by quoting from them, the 'wanting to be seen' part is not a quote from them but your invention. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:03, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You are wrong about your first statement. Hate groups today try to bee seen as owning the moral high ground. That is their new strategy. Ask anyone that studies these and they will tell you. Read for example: http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/issues/online_hate/deconst_online_hate.cfm

I do not understad why you defend these people after reading their own words. What kind of proof you need of their ill intentions? Blood? Have you wondered what makes you side with these very ugly people? Surely it makes me wonder why. -Seth

 * So, suggesting that it might not be easy to distinguish between vicious hatemongers and groups being painted by their enemies as vicious hatemongers, is automatically the same thing as "defending hatemongers"?

 * I can tell you what makes me "side" with these "very ugly people" -- if by "side" you mean "give their point of view a fair examination", which you seem to. It's people like you.  You know nothing about me except that I pointed out it may be hard to distinguish between true and false allegations of being a hate group -- and from that you not only leapt to the conclusion that I "side" with "hatemongers", but personally insulted me by insinuating that something wrong or defective about me explains why I would do so.  So that is why I "side with hatemongers" -- which is your terminology for "examining the evidence with an open mind."  The more rabid vituperation you spew, the more sure I am that you have certainly not done so. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:21, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, of course if you defend a witch you must be a witch yourself. How do you tell if someone is a witch? Why you tie a rock to her and throw her in the water. If she floats she is a witch. If she sinks and drowns she isn't. But yes you are right Seth. Anyone and everyone who has been blessed with the gift of Knowledge from the living Perfect Master and avatar of God and then decides to leave him him cannot help but lose every inch of humanity in them and become totally under the influence of the dreadful evil of maya. The empire of evil is growing Seth, you must stop them and save the blessed ones before it is too late. -- Drapadi

 * You certainly have a sharp pen, Mr. Antaeus Feldspar. Nevertheless, you fail to address the question: have you or have you not read the what these ex-premies write, talk and obsess about? And if you have, how it happens that you still have doubts about these people being hatemongers? Anyone: give me a proof to the contrary. Give me a proof that can counteract their own words and actions. Then if you want, we can have a debate about making distinctions between between "obvious" and "not so obvious" cases of hate-mongering.

 * As for Drapadi's words, I have no clue what he is talking about. Sorry. Please note that I am not making a case for Knowledge or for Maharaji. Neither need my help. I am just putting the lightspot on the hatemongering conducted by this small group of ex-followers called "ex-premies", As per their own words and actions.  I have not said any of that, they have.</B>

 * I am compiling another list of hate and verbal violence by the ex-premie group, including plans for an Antrax scare at events, poisoing the drinking water at a resort in Australia, a post by John Brauns (the ex-premie writing in this page about not being a hate person) organising hate-group activities, and more, just in case that there are people like Antaeus that need more evidence.
 * -Seth

Here it is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hate_group/Ex-PremiesPart2

See, here's the problem, Seth. In order for those "quotes" to convince me that the ex-premies really are a horrible group of violent hatemongers, I have to be able to trust the collator of those quotes: you. I have to trust that you haven't taken things out of context; I have to trust that you haven't gotten so convinced that you're on the side of the truth that you don't have to tell the truth (I've known some police officers who engaged in 'testilying because they "knew" that the people they were lying about were bad people, and they didn't feel that the defendants deserved to keep their liberty just because they, the police, couldn't find any actual proof'' of their guilt.)

Now, when I ask a simple question -- how are you distinguishing between good groups which are concerned with honesty, decency and fairness, and "hate groups" which are only pretending to be concerned with those things? -- what is your answer? Your answer is "have you wondered what makes you side with these very ugly people? Surely it makes me wonder why." Right then and there, you've leapt from a tiny piece of evidence -- that I question your assertions and how you came by them -- to the conclusion that I not only "side with" the ex-premies, but that you can start speculating on what is wrong with me that causes me to "side with" them.

That tells me a lot about how much trust I can place in your own words. (-- Antaeus Feldspar 01:59, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC))

 * I don't want to take the time to check on all of Seth's quotes, but the last one about Jim Heller embezzling interested me, because it has been repeatedly used by premies to defame Jim Heller and by association all ex-premies. The allegation is even included on the official Elan Vital website, despite the fact that Jim Heller has said many times since then that it was a joke. So I checked in the forum archives on ex-premie.org. I found the post and some others after it which clearly show that Mr. Heller was joking. This is a clear case of quote mining on the part of Seth. I've included the additional quotes after the original one on the page created by Seth. I also reinserted the original post as Seth's version had some typos --Drapadi

 * I did check some of Seth's quotes, and apart from Jim's 'hatred' post, which was only an extract taken out of context, the others I checked weren't in the archives. I surmise this is because if they were made, the ex-premie community at the time rejected the sentiments, and the posts were deleted. I am amused by ther post from me, allegedly "organising hate group activities". I had been contacted by some ex-premies in Miami who wanted to get in touch with other ex-premies. I know premies monitor the forums hence my joke about Prem Rawat's paranoia. Any premie would believe that Prem Rawat is incapable of feeling paranoia, because of this perfect 'Knowledge' that Prem Rawat is a 'Master' of, so how could his paranoia be increased? Of course, if Prem Rawat really was paranoid, then there is no reason for anyone to follow his teachings. --John Brauns 20:26, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Defining "hate group"
Now, so that this will actually be about the subject of the article -- which is Hate group, not the ex-premies -- I'd like to ask the question more generally: what objective criteria distinguish a legitimate (if disliked) protest group from a hate group? How does one eliminate "false positives", so that "hate group" does not become merely a label that parties with agendas slap on their enemies to discredit them (the way, for instance, that some people are accused of using the word "cult"?) -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:59, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Antaeus: I would try to respond as best as possible. Webster's dictionary defines "To Hate" as: <I>"To have a great aversion to, with a strong desire that evil should befall the person toward whom the feeling is directed; to dislike intensely; to detest; as, to hate one's enemies; to hate hypocrisy."</I>

 * <B>My view is that the intensity of the opposition of the ex-premies sets them apart from a legitimate protest group and characterizes them as a hate group. </B>

 * The <B>level of intensity</B> together with <B>the desire for evil</B> befalling the person is the objective/acknowledged criteria for diagnosing hate groups,

 * I have identified six dimensions under which these two criteria manifests, often in a combined manner:
 * <B>Compulsion/obsession</B> in the oppositional behavior (some of the leaders of the site have already posted more than 5,000 postings each on the net and some post up to 10 times a day 7 days a week, year after year)

 * Is taking part in discussions that interest a person obessional, or is counting how many posts someone else makes?--John Brauns 15:22, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * <B>Extreme violence</B>: professing death threats, enticing people to assassinate, poison, kidnap, harm, maim Maharaji or his students...

 * No plausible threats of violence have been made by ex-premies, and certainly no actual acts of violence have occurred to my knowledge. Certainly not by any of the regular posters on the ex-premie forums.--John Brauns 15:22, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * <B>Breaking the law</B>, in terms of the threats professed (see above) and of the actions (John Macgregor, one of the ex-premie leaders, is a fugitive of justice with an arrest warrant), including by people who otherwise are law abiding citizens.

 * John Macgregor has contributed several articles for ex-premie.org out of over 750 English language pages, and has had a couple of articles on Rawat published in the Australian press. He also leaked a few trivial documents about Ivory's Rock Conference Centre. These few actions do not make him a 'leader' of ex-premies, and it is absurd to suggest they do! --John Brauns 15:22, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * <B>Extending their hate to unknown, uninvolved, innocent individuals</B> not engaged in any activity against the ex-premies, solely on the basis of the fact that they follow a certain teaching (in this case, we have ex-premies contacting the employers of premies they don't know just because these people are students of Maharaji) As you saw, Jim Heller writes that he hates premies. not premies that oppose him, premies period.

 * If this has happened I condemn it, and I know other prominent ex-premies agree with me. No evidence for this allegation has been produced. I do know of one ex-premie who lost her job as a result of letters from premies. Regarding Jim's post on hatred, I looked up the original post in the forum archives, and it is clear his strong dislike was directed at those premies who post on the forums and deny our past.--John Brauns 15:22, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * <B>Longevity of the oppositional behavior</B>: some of these people have left Maharaji twenty or thirty years ago and only followed his teachings for a few weeks or months, still they call themselves ex-premies and engage actively in such behaviors.

 * Most currently posting ex-premies left Maharaji within the last six years. Many formerly active ex-premies have moved on, including two of the orginal founders of ex-premie.org, all the previous webmasters, and the majority of posters on the forums. --John Brauns 15:22, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * <B>Lack of a supporting rationale</B>: as said, some of the most active ex-premies from their own admission, followed Maharaji's teachings only for a few weeks or months decades ago and still hate him. When asked they they hate Rawat, in some cases, they say they don't know, they just hate him.

 * The only regular posting ex-premie who followed Maharaji for such a short time is Gerry who was a premie for a few months. For the record, here are the number of years some of the more prominent ex-premies believed in Maharaji:- Anth Ginn (25), Jim (7), Cynthia (22), Jean-Michel (25), John Macgregor (28), Marianne (4), Mike Finch (31), Joe (10), myself (25). No ex-premie I know says they hate Rawat, and we have very good reasons for wanting to warn others about him. Read ex-premie.org if you are unclear about our rationale. --John Brauns 15:22, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * oh my oh my! Here we have people that were in this for 20 or more years! Muts be a good reaason to stay for so long on something likes this! what makes their testimonoies reliable now? is leaving a "cult" an automatic generation of crediblility actvivity? I would argue the opossite. And it is mots disingenuous to see them trying top build crdibility here. They have absolutelky none.--Phat grrl 19:46, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Phat grrl, to learn more about the phenomenon of apostasy in NRMs you may want to read "The Role of Anecdotal Atrocities in the Social Construction of Evil," by Bromley, Shupe & Ventimiglia. An excerpt follows. --Zappaz 18:56, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * One of the most common reasons skewing occurs when apostates tell their stories is that they must somehow explain to their listeners how they—presumably intelligent, discerning people—could have joined such a "despicable" group in the first place. For many apostates, saying that maybe the group wasn't that despicable after all is not an option (even if it is the truth), given their anger towards the group. (Consider how much easier it is for an ex-partner, divorcing in anger, to blame the partner and paint horrific pictures of them, rather than acknowledging that maybe they both were well-meaning but just couldn't get it to work out.) And certainly saying that they themselves were stupid and easily duped is not an option. That leaves only one way out: to paint the group as so diabolical, so monstrous, that even intelligent, discerning people (like the apostate, of course) are easily and helplessly "sucked in" and "manipulated". Others may ask, if the group is as transparently evil as he now contends, why did he espouse its cause in the first place? In the process of trying to explain his own seduction and to confirm the worst fears about the group, the apostate is likely to paint a caricature of the group that is shaped more by his current role as apostate than by his actual experience in the group.

 * I have a hard time imagining how a legitimate protest group could rate in such manner along the six above dimensions and still be called a legitimate protest group.
 * -Seth

 * Seth, your six 'dimensions' are so inaccurate as I have explained, that maybe you can now imagine ex-premies as a legitimate protest group. --John Brauns 15:22, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't have a specific authoritative definition to back this up, but judging from the places and manner in which the term "hate group" has normally been used, I would argue that a defining characteristic of a hate group is that it hates its target based on the target's "status characteristics" rather than the target's behavior, or in other words, based on what the target people are rather than what the target people do. By "status characteristics," I refer to things about the targets that can't or can't easily be changed: race, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, etc. I would thus exclude from the conventional definition of "hate group" those groups that attack a target due to something that the target actually did or was perceived to do, either generally or toward the attacking group specifically; by contrast, a hate group hates those that "never did nothin' to them." --Gary D 08:21, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

 * That is an interesting proposition, Gary. But from my studies I gather than hate in the context of religion or belief requires a generalization on the part of the hater to include everyone that follows that religion, regardless if they did, or "never did nothin' to them", and aything related to that religion, including their leaders, beliefs, and practices. In the case of apostasy, the hateful and vehement animosity against the former object of the apostate's devotion is a well researched subject. As if to call such apostates a hate group or not, that will depend IMO on the activities of these apostates. The concern that I have after studying this subject is that one of the first steps toward hate crime and violence (that will be the undeniable proof of a hate group being such) is verbal violence. Thanks to the Internet and the pervasiveness of USENET, forums, and chatrooms, there are more venues open for the expression of verbal violence than even before, with the additional incentive of anonymity. That combination is an extraordinarily potent cocktail that if left un-cheked and un-challenged has the potential to help foster a new era of anti tolerance and bigotry of proportions never seen before. --Zappaz 00:37, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree that a hate group would hate all and everything about a religion as a blanket package, and without reference to any particular behavior by any member of that religion. My reference to "never did nothin' to them" was in fact to emphasize that the hate of a hate group is not precipitated by any behavior of or offense by the target. And while a hate group member might say, "I hate those Mennonites, they're just a bunch of litterers," the hater is not so much concerned about littering as using a justification for hating Mennonites. --Gary D 03:32, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

A note to Seth
Hello Seth, Gerry Lyng has responded to one of your postings at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hate_group/ex-premies , i guess he wants to talk to you, he seems pretty angry and your anonymity here might be the only reason for not being sued. If you and the cult are really serious with your allegations, i wonder why nobody has taken legal action against Jim Heller ,who is openly posting with his real identity on forum8, although you declared him as one of the "leaders" of the so called Ex-Premie group. Thomas h 08:14, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Nation of Islam is an NRM so it should be mentioned in the NRM section
The Nation of Islam should be mentioned there. I admit that the way I had inserted was a bit clumsy. Andries 07:34, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:Hate group/Archive 3


text:
Luigi Chinetti

Luigi Chinetti (July 17, 1901 – August 17, 1994) was an Italian-born racecar driver, who emigrated to the United States during World War II. He drove in 12 consecutive 24 Hours of Le Mans races, taking three outright wins there and taking two more at the Spa 24 Hours race. Chinetti owned the North American Racing Team, which successfully ran privateer Ferraris in sports car and Formula One races. For many years he was the exclusive American importer of Ferrari automobiles to the United States.

Biography
Chinetti was born in Jerago con Orago, a little north of Milan. The son of a gunsmith, he apprenticed in his father's workshop where he earned a lathe operator's certificate at age 12 and qualified as a mechanic at age 14. In 1917, at age 16, he went to work for Alfa Romeo as a mechanic, where he met another young hire named Enzo Ferrari. The rise to power of Benito Mussolini's National Fascist Party in his native country prompted a move to Paris where he worked for Alfa Romeo as a salesman.

He also began to race sports cars as a driver, earning a reputation in endurance events, the 24 Hours of Le Mans in particular. Driving cars from Alfa Romeo, Talbot, and Ferrari, Chinetti competed in every Le Mans race held between 1932 and 1953. He entered a car in the 1954 race, but as sponsor rather than driver.

Following the outbreak of World War II in Europe, Chinetti went to the United States of America. He traveled as part of the Lucy O'Reilly Schell Écurie Bleue team, that also included driver René Dreyfus, for an appearance at the 1940 Indianapolis 500. Chinetti remained in New York, getting approval to work at Pratt and Whitney and then supporting the Allied war effort at J. S. Inskip, working on Rolls-Royce engines in the same shop as Italian master mechanic Alfred Momo. Chinetti applied for American citizenship in 1947, and took the oath of allegiance on 6 March 1950. His naturalization was sponsored by Zora Arkus-Duntov.

When the war ended, Chinetti returned to Europe in late 1949. He first went to Paris, only to find that his property had been lost in the war. From there he carried on to Modena for a meeting with Enzo Ferrari, whose car factory had been converted to making machine tools for wartime production. The two men met on Christmas Eve in Ferrari's office. Some accounts of this evening describe a highly dramatic meeting between an uncertain and somewhat despondent Ferrari considering abandoning the making of sports cars, and a confident and enthusiastic Chinetti countering that Ferrari must stop making machine tools and resume building racing cars; that the race cars would be paid for by building road cars that Chinetti would sell in America; and placing an order then and there for 25 cars. Other sources point out that in June of that year, Ferrari had already begun building a new racing car; the 125. This new car would use an engine designed by Gioacchino Colombo in August 1945 and first fired on a test bench in September 1946, and that one month after that Ferrari issued a brochure outlining the types of cars he planned to build. It is also pointed out that, while Chinetti had been selling cars such as pre-war Alfas and Talbots to American customers from as early as 1946, he would not have then been in a position to commit to an order of the rumored magnitude. In either case, it seems that Chinetti left the meeting with an agreement to be Ferrari's agent in France and the United States.

As both an individual team owner and through N.A.R.T., Chinetti not only left a legacy of fielding some of the best drivers of the era, but of cultivating some of the highest quality up-and-coming talent, the two groups including names such as Stirling Moss, Mario Andretti, Phil Hill, Pedro and Ricardo Rodríguez, Graham Hill, and Jean-Pierre Jarier. One driver that Chinetti tried to promote was journalist Denise McCluggage. The three-time Le Mans winner submitted McCluggage's name as one of his drivers for Le Mans, but the application was denied. Chinetti was able to sponsor Yvonne Simon in the 1950 24 Hours of Le Mans partnered with Michel Kasse, and fielded the all-female team of Simon and Betty Haig at the 1951 24 Hours of Le Mans.

Chinetti Sr. sold his business in 1977. He remained in Greenwich, Connecticut after his retirement and died on 17 August 1994 at the age of ninety-three.

Ferrari
Enzo Ferrari appointed Chinetti as his Ferrari factory agent in the United States. Chinetti opened the first—and for a while the only—Ferrari dealership in the country. Later his territory became all areas east of the Mississippi River. Chinetti's reputation continued to draw clients from across the country throughout his career. In addition to handling Ferrari, Chinetti Motors was also U.S. agent for Automobili OSCA of Bologna until 1967. The original showroom of his Greenwich, Connecticut business has been demolished but the business with new location remains open, owned by Miller Motorcars, a Ferrari-Maserati dealership.

The first Ferrari sold by Chinetti to the US was a Tipo 166 MM Touring Barchetta, chassis 0002 M, sold to Tommy Lee in Los Angeles in the first three months of 1949. The second car sold, and the first sold through the dealership, was a Ferrari Tipo 166 Spyder Corsa, chassis 016-I, to Briggs Cunningham. Cunningham drove it to second place at Watkins Glen in 1949. That car ultimately ended up in Cunningham's motorcar museum. The third car was Tipo 166 MM Barchetta 0010 M sold to Kimberly-Clark tissue-paper fortune heir Jim Kimberly. Kimberly and the Ferrari appeared at some eastern events, but on 1 April 1951 with Marshall Lewis behind the wheel it would be the first Ferrari to race and win west of the Mississippi. In 1952 Chinetti sold 1951 Ferrari 212 Export Barchetta 0078E to Phil Hill near the beginning of the future World Champion's career. Chinetti would later hire Hill as a driver, and later still recommend him to Ferrari, who at first put him in sports-racing cars and later added Hill to their Formula One (F1) team. Most of Chinetti's other sales were kept secret to protect the privacy of his wealthy clients.

N.A.R.T.
Chinetti founded the privateer North American Racing Team (N.A.R.T.) with financial support from George Arents and Jan de Vroom. Chinetti's reputation and existing relationship with Ferrari guaranteed a supply of former works cars and support for many years. The team ran very successful endurance racing programs both at Sebring and Le Mans right into the 1970s.

Ferrari's F1 158s raced in N.A.R.T. blue and white for two races at the end of the 1964 season. When the FIA refused to homologate the Ferrari 250 LM for international sports car racing, Enzo Ferrari returned his competition license and vowed to never race in Ferrari Red again. With the championship on the line, Ferrari's cars appeared in N.A.R.T. colors for the 1964 United States Grand Prix at Watkins Glen, and again at the 1964 Mexican Grand Prix. By the start of the 1965 season the dispute was resolved, and the cars were painted red once again.

In addition to the racing cars, the team commissioned limited-run special variants of Ferrari road cars. One such project was the 275 GTS/4 NART Spyder. Left without a convertible model after production of the 250 GT California ended in 1962, Chinetti obtained factory permission to have coachbuilder Scaglietti convert a series of 4-cam 275GTB/4 coupés into open-top cars. Of a planned run of 25, only 10 are believed to have been built.

In the mid-1970s Chinetti commissioned Giovanni Michelotti to begin a series of Ferrari Daytonas with heavily customized bodywork that would be called the Ferrari 365 GTB/4 Daytona NART Spider. The first was shown at the 1974 Turin Auto Show. The second conversion was chassis number 15965, and was built up as a racing car in anticipation of an appearance at the 1975 24 Hours of Le Mans, although the car was withdrawn before the race. In 1975 Chinetti ordered three more Michelotti conversions built to road car specifications. One of these three, chassis 14299, was completed in 1977 and then specially customized by Chinetti as a gift for his wife.

Personal life
Chinetti married on 18 April 1942. He and wife Marion had one son; Luigi "Coco" Chinetti Junior.

On 27 July 1963 Luigi Jr. married Mamie Spears Reynolds (1942–2014), daughter of U.S. Senator Robert Rice Reynolds and his fifth wife, Evalyn Washington "Evie" McLean, who had died at age 24. McLean was the only daughter of Edward Beale McLean, publisher of The Washington Post, and his wife, socialite and mining heiress Evalyn Walsh McLean. Reynolds was the first woman to qualify for the Daytona 500. Luigi Jr. and Reynolds divorced after two years.

Racing career
Driving an Alfa Romeo race car entered by his co-driver Raymond Sommer, Chinetti won at his very first 24 hours of Le Mans race in. The following year, with Louis Chiron as co-driver, he won the Spa 24 Hours endurance race in Belgium. He teamed up with Philippe Étancelin in to win his second 24 hours of Le Mans.

At the 1949 24 Hours of Le Mans race he drove the first Ferrari ever to win the event, and became the second three-time winner of the race. The Ferrari 166M in which Chinetti won was turned over to Baron Selsdon of Scotland (Peter Mitchell-Thomson) for twenty minutes during the race, making Thomson the official co-driver although Chinetti had driven twenty-three of the hours of the race. Following the race, Thomson purchased that automobile through Chinetti.

Chinetti made three appearances at the Spa 24 Hours, taking outright wins in 1933 in an Alfa Romeo 8C 2300 partnered with Phillipe Varent, and again in 1949 in a Ferrari Tipo 166 MM driving for Ferrari with Jean Lucas.

He also posted wins at the Paris 12 Hours; once in 1948 in a Ferrari Tipo 166 SC, and again in 1950 in a Tipo 166 MM teamed with Jean Lucas.

In 1951, he was the riding mechanic in the Ferrari 212 that won the grueling Carrera Panamericana race, a 2100 mi, five-day competition across Mexico. Chinetti appeared in the Carrera Panamericana three more times in subsequent years, with the highest finish being a third place in 1952.

Complete 24 Hours of Le Mans results

 * Note *: equivalent class for supercharging, with x1.4 modifier to engine capacity.

title: Luigi Chinetti


text:
Cutler

A cutler is a maker of cutlery.

Cutler may also refer to:

People

 * Cutler (surname)
 * Cutler J. Cleveland, scientist

United Kingdom

 * Cutlers Ait, island in the River Thames
 * Cutler Heights, district of Bradford, West Yorkshire, England
 * Cutlers Green, hamlet in Essex, England
 * Cutlers Green Halt railway station

United States

 * Cutler, California, a town
 * Cutler-Orosi Joint Unified School District
 * Cutler, Florida, now part of the Village of Palmetto Bay
 * Cutler Bay, Florida, formerly known as Cutler Ridge
 * Cutler, Illinois
 * Cutler, Indiana
 * Cutler Township, Franklin County, Kansas
 * Cutler, Maine, a town
 * Cutler Regional Airport
 * VLF Transmitter Cutler, a transmission site for the US Navy
 * Cutler, Minnesota,  an unincorporated community
 * Cutler, Ohio, an unincorporated community
 * Cutler, Wisconsin, a town
 * Cutler (community), Wisconsin, an unincorporated community
 * Cutler and Porter Block, historic city block in Springfield, Massachusetts
 * Cutler Botanic Garden, in Binghamton, New York
 * Cutler Burial Mound, Charles Deering Estate, Palmetto Bay, Florida
 * Cutler Fossil Site, Charles Deering Estate, Palmetto Bay, Florida
 * Cutler Park, in Needham, Massachusetts
 * Cutler Park (Visalia, California), municipal park
 * The Cutler River (New Hampshire), on Mount Washington
 * Cutler Majestic Theatre, an opera house, Boston, Massachusetts
 * Cutler Memorial Library, an historic library in Farmington, Maine
 * Cutler Reservoir, in Utah
 * Cutler School (New York), college preparatory school
 * Cutler's Park, short-lived Mormon settlement in what is now Nebraska
 * Cutler–Donahoe Bridge, Madison County, Iowa
 * Carl C. Cutler Middle School, Mystic, Connecticut
 * Manasseh Cutler Hall, Ohio University
 * Old Cutler Road, in Miami-Dade County, Florida
 * Thomas R. Cutler Mansion, historic home in Lehi, Utah

Elsewhere

 * Cutler Stack, sea stack in the South Shetland Islands
 * Roden Cutler House, office building in Sydney, Australia
 * Cutlers Beach, Wonthaggi Heathlands, Bass Coast, Victoria

Music

 * The Cutler, an electronica group

Companies

 * Cutler Mail Chute Company, a mail chute manufacturer
 * Cutler and Gross, luxury eyewear brand
 * David Cutler Group, housebuilding company now known as Hudson Palmer Homes

Other

 * Cutler Formation, a rock unit in the southwestern United States
 * MV Lady Cutler, inner harbor ferry in Sydney, Australia
 * Lord Cutler Beckett, an antagonist in the Pirates of the Caribbean film series

title: Cutler


text:
Talk:Yetisports

This article was listed on votes for deletion; see Votes for deletion/Yeti Sports. —No-One Jones (m) 03:03, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There's more history listed here in case anyone wants to bring some of that info into this article. --Interiot 03:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

{{importance}}
I'm removing the importance tag, for these reasons: --Interiot 15:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * a VfD was held, and linked above, and a number of people voted Keep
 * some basic google searches reveal wide popularity: "bloody pengu": 138k, "pingu throw": 90k, "yetisports": 1160k
 * several game releases spun off of it, and are noted on various review sites

High scores
The high scores are surely too specific and anyhow out of date by now. 81.155.44.76 22:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed, removed. --Interiot 00:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Who came up with the highscore of 1840 in "Albatross Overload"? In the original game on yetisports.org the longest distance ever flown in a verifiale way was 1782.

High scores seem to have been put back in, I removed them again with some other general cleanup. Heliomance 14:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the high scores should be removed as unverifiable. Last night I scored 487 on Seal Bounce, for example, and I really doubt that's the highest anyone has ever gone. 68.146.41.17 20:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed the Seal Bounce record. It's completely unverifiable, I personally have done higher, and the more violent variant is set to allow scores north of 1000. 68.146.8.46 18:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Pingu Throw
in pingu throw you try to throw a pingu as high as you can. THIS GAME IS F***IN AWESOME. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MFNz (talk • contribs) 17:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:Yetisports


text:
Teleomorph, anamorph and holomorph

In mycology, the terms teleomorph, anamorph, and holomorph apply to portions of the life cycles of fungi in the phyla Ascomycota and Basidiomycota:

 * Teleomorph: the sexual reproductive stage (morph), typically a fruiting body.
 * Anamorph: an asexual reproductive stage (morph), often mold-like. When a single fungus produces multiple morphologically distinct anamorphs, these are called synanamorphs.
 * Holomorph: the whole fungus, including anamorphs and teleomorph.

Dual naming of fungi
Fungi are classified primarily based on the structures associated with sexual reproduction, which tend to be evolutionarily conserved. However, many fungi reproduce only asexually, and cannot easily be classified based on sexual characteristics; some produce both asexual and sexual states. These species are often members of the Ascomycota, but a few of them belong to the Basidiomycota. Even among fungi that reproduce both sexually and asexually, often only one method of reproduction can be observed at a specific point in time or under specific conditions. Additionally, fungi typically grow in mixed colonies and sporulate amongst each other. These facts have made it very difficult to link the various states of the same fungus.

Fungi that are not known to produce a teleomorph were historically placed into an artificial phylum, the "Deuteromycota," also known as "fungi imperfecti," simply for convenience. Some workers hold that this is an obsolete concept, and that molecular phylogeny allows accurate placement of species which are known from only part of their life cycle. Others retain the term "deuteromycetes," but give it a lowercase "d" and no taxonomic rank.

Historically, Article 59 of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature permitted mycologists to give asexually reproducing fungi (anamorphs) separate names from their sexual states (teleomorphs); but this practice was discontinued as of 1 January 2013.

The dual naming system can be confusing. However, it is essential for workers in plant pathology, mold identification, medical mycology, and food microbiology, fields in which asexually reproducing fungi are commonly encountered.

From dual system to single nomenclature
The separate names for anamorphs of fungi with a pleomorphic life-cycle has been an issue of debate since the phenomenon was recognized in the mid-19th century. This was even before the first international rules for botanical nomenclature were issued in 1867. Special provisions are to be found in the earliest Codes, which were then modified several times, and often substantially. The rules have been updated regularly and become increasingly complex, and by the mid-1970s they were being interpreted in different ways by different mycologists – even ones working on the same genus. Following intensive discussions under the auspices of the International Mycological Association, drastic changes were made at the International Botanical Congress in 1981 to clarify and simplify the procedures – and the new terms anamorph, teleomorph, and holomorph entered general use. An unfortunate effect of the simplification was that many name changes had to be made, including for some well-known and economically important species; at that date, the conservation of species names was not allowed under the Code.

Unforeseen in the 1970s, when the 1981 provisions were crafted, was the impact of molecular systematics. A decade later, it was starting to become obvious that fungi with no known sexual stage could confidently be placed in genera which were typified by species in which the sexual stage was known. This possibility of abandoning the dual nomenclatural system was debated at subsequent International Mycological Congresses and on other occasions, and the need for change was increasingly recognized. At the International Botanical Congress in Vienna in 2005, some minor modifications were made which allowed anamorph-typified names to be epitypified by material showing the sexual stage when it was discovered, and for that anamorph name to continue to be used.

The 1995 edition of the influential Ainsworth and Bisby’s Dictionary of the Fungi sought to replace the term anamorph with mitosporic fungus and teleomorph with meiosporic fungus, based on the idea that the fundamental distinction is whether mitosis or meiosis preceded sporulation. This is a controversial choice because it is not clear that the morphological differences which traditionally define anamorphs and teleomorphs line up completely with sexual practices, or whether those sexual practices are sufficiently well understood in some cases.

The Vienna Congress (2005) established a Special Committee to investigate the issue further, but it was unable to reach a consensus. Matters were becoming increasingly desperate as mycologists using molecular phylogenetic approaches started to ignore the provisions, or interpret them in different ways.

One fungus, one name
The International Botanical Congress in Melbourne in July 2011 made a change in the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants and adopted the principle "one fungus, one name". After 1 January 2013, one fungus can only have one name; the system of permitting separate names to be used for anamorphs then ended. This means that all legitimate names proposed for a species, regardless of what stage they are typified by, can serve as the correct name for that species.

All names now compete on an equal footing for priority. In order not to render illegitimate the names that had been introduced in the past for separate morphs, it was agreed that these should not be treated as superfluous alternative names in the sense of the Code. It was further decided that no anamorph-typified name should be taken up to displace a widely used teleomorph-typified name without the case's having been considered by the General Committee established by the Congress. Recognizing that there were cases in some groups of fungi where there could be many names that might merit formal retention or rejection, a new provision was introduced: Lists of names can be submitted to the General Committee and, after due scrutiny, names accepted on those lists are to be treated as conserved over competing synonyms (and listed as Appendices to the Code). Lichen-forming fungi (but not lichenicolous fungi) had always been excluded from the provisions permitting dual nomenclature.

The problem of choosing one name among many remains to be examined for many large, agriculturally or medically-important genera like Aspergillus and Fusarium. Articles have been published on such specific genera to propose ways to define them under the newer rules.

title: Teleomorph, anamorph and holomorph


text: User talk:68.10.228.105

title: User talk:68.10.228.105


text: User talk:68.44.13.131

title: User talk:68.44.13.131