Re: Reach Approach & the Brahma Kumaris
Posted: 02 Mar 2012
My response is particularly directed at ex-l (but also to those who are interested in a balanced perspective).
Your response to my entry is proof, should I have needed it, of the very things that I documented in my own post. Your approach is very politician-like because you insist on ignoring what people say and then quote from their comments out of context to try and make your point in the hope that your audience is not bright enough to see what you’re doing! I doubt this remark will be presented as a quote in your future entries.
As I said in my posting, this is clearly now just a witch-hunt. Any credibility your points have is rapidly crumbling, which I think is a shame because if your points are valid then this is not the way to get them heard. Your 2 questions about my BK knowledge/status and whether I’m in business with Easton, “making money together out of all of this” are proof of your arrogant, obsessive position. It’s now very clear for all to see that this is a personal vendetta because from what I have been observing, as more people have come forward to Reach’s and Easton’s defence, other individuals in this forum such as Mr. Green and Starchild have clearly begun to respond in more reasonable tones, as if they are giving value to the experience and points of view of Easton personally and The Reach Approach generally. You on the other hand almost out of what seems like fear that the tone of the debate may be changing, have now re-hashed all the same things again whilst you’re busy hiding behind the premise that you’re protecting the fallen and the innocent.
This is now not possible to take seriously when in the face of people’s experiences you keep diminishing what they have to say. You clearly don’t want those who’ve been hurt by the BKs to not be heard and yet you yourself are not listening to others. Proof of this is that your first response to Paula seemed as if you may be listening as your response to her was the most measured of your responses so far (which offered hope of a change in direction). But it’s clear for everyone to see that when she came back again, trying to create an atmosphere of peace and love you again selectively quoted what she was saying because you were not hearing the message you wanted to hear.
I’m not answering your questions because you’ve asked me - because the question I ask of you is ‘who are you?’ What gives you the right whilst hiding yourself away to act in such punitive and destructive ways – demanding answers from others? I’m answering these questions for those who are actually listening ... I am an academic, running a large training organization. I’m not making money in the way that you imply. I operate within the professional codes that I’m governed by. I have no relationship to the BKs; in fact I’m agnostic (not that I think that’s anybody’s business – one’s faith is a matter for the individual and their conscience).
Easton’s religious/spiritual background as it happens is a matter we have discussed but in the way that one might discuss what was in the news that morning or ‘how are the children’ ... he certainly never tried to engage me in anything. And even though you’ve described him as a guru he certainly never used all this influence and manipulation you’ve bestowed upon him with me, my team or the very vulnerable people we work with – who’d be a brilliant target audience ... because after 15 years this would undoubtedly have come to my attention many times and I would have acted accordingly. Once again, I’m sure you’ll not be quoting any of this unless you can find a way to misrepresent it. Your patterns and methods are completely transparent because like a magician you create a smoke-screen to distract everyone by telling us what your motivations are and then in your very next statement you betray those intentions.
As an educator, having worked in several colleges and universities you quickly learn that the best way to get any message across is to create an atmosphere of respect. In such an atmosphere there is mutual growth and understanding. You have done the complete opposite, which is why it now seems to me that it is really only you beating this drum in the way that you are beating it. I think those of us who have come and defended Reach’s reputation should now not bother making any further points because those who are listening will have heard what has been said and as you are now this lone voice blowing in the wind I think we should all ignore you. I think it’s quite telling that you’ve posted on this forum over 6,000 times, which tells me this is your full-time job ... because how on earth could you fit anything else in?
So I say again ‘who are you?’ Why should anybody here be answering your questions when you insist on remaining hidden?
You made reference in your last posting directed at Easton that he attacked an ex-client in a public forum and I have read back through the postings since his initial entry and could not find what you are talking about. The only thing I could find is ...
“As for those examples given where individuals have had weird experiences of someone trying to persuade them to look at a point of light and become a vegetarian I simply cannot comment, this is not something I have ever done or would ever do. Although I am the Director of Reach and proud to be so, I cannot control every conversation and interaction someone has with another, but given, as I have said, nearly all our practitioners have no knowledge of or interest in Raja Yoga, these accounts make no sense to me and if I were to find anyone engaging in such practices, their association to the organisation would be terminated; we are not interested in brain washing. “
... so I have no idea why you keep making reference to this. And the one person you make reference to complaining, once again from what I can see, didn’t have anything to do with Easton. That doesn’t mean their complaint shouldn’t be taken seriously but your repeated use of it to make a point again discredits your position because you’re not even using the example with sensitivity and compassion. You’re hurling it like a stone. No wonder Easton is refusing to enter into a dialogue here. This is a monologue, driven by you. I think Paula, Deniese Wilson, Bright Spark, Smiley50 etc. have all tried to be heard but no matter what they’ve said you’ve found a way to diminish or rubbish it.
My final message is for the reasonable members of this forum ... If you have a legitimate grievance and given some of the things I’ve read you do, then this is not the way to get your message heard. You’ll be alienating the very people who’d naturally have sympathy for you. The Reach Approach is clearly not a ‘con’ despite ex-l’s protestations. No matter what anyone else says, s/he’s going to continue pursuing his/her personal vendetta ... I hope the reasonable amongst you will fight the battles you need to fight in the arenas you need to fight them. But please do that with an attitude of peace and diplomacy so that you are actually heard. And I sincerely hope you win your battle. Let justice be done. (ex-l: If you are going to quote me, this paragraph is the most important thing I’ve said).
Your response to my entry is proof, should I have needed it, of the very things that I documented in my own post. Your approach is very politician-like because you insist on ignoring what people say and then quote from their comments out of context to try and make your point in the hope that your audience is not bright enough to see what you’re doing! I doubt this remark will be presented as a quote in your future entries.
As I said in my posting, this is clearly now just a witch-hunt. Any credibility your points have is rapidly crumbling, which I think is a shame because if your points are valid then this is not the way to get them heard. Your 2 questions about my BK knowledge/status and whether I’m in business with Easton, “making money together out of all of this” are proof of your arrogant, obsessive position. It’s now very clear for all to see that this is a personal vendetta because from what I have been observing, as more people have come forward to Reach’s and Easton’s defence, other individuals in this forum such as Mr. Green and Starchild have clearly begun to respond in more reasonable tones, as if they are giving value to the experience and points of view of Easton personally and The Reach Approach generally. You on the other hand almost out of what seems like fear that the tone of the debate may be changing, have now re-hashed all the same things again whilst you’re busy hiding behind the premise that you’re protecting the fallen and the innocent.
This is now not possible to take seriously when in the face of people’s experiences you keep diminishing what they have to say. You clearly don’t want those who’ve been hurt by the BKs to not be heard and yet you yourself are not listening to others. Proof of this is that your first response to Paula seemed as if you may be listening as your response to her was the most measured of your responses so far (which offered hope of a change in direction). But it’s clear for everyone to see that when she came back again, trying to create an atmosphere of peace and love you again selectively quoted what she was saying because you were not hearing the message you wanted to hear.
I’m not answering your questions because you’ve asked me - because the question I ask of you is ‘who are you?’ What gives you the right whilst hiding yourself away to act in such punitive and destructive ways – demanding answers from others? I’m answering these questions for those who are actually listening ... I am an academic, running a large training organization. I’m not making money in the way that you imply. I operate within the professional codes that I’m governed by. I have no relationship to the BKs; in fact I’m agnostic (not that I think that’s anybody’s business – one’s faith is a matter for the individual and their conscience).
Easton’s religious/spiritual background as it happens is a matter we have discussed but in the way that one might discuss what was in the news that morning or ‘how are the children’ ... he certainly never tried to engage me in anything. And even though you’ve described him as a guru he certainly never used all this influence and manipulation you’ve bestowed upon him with me, my team or the very vulnerable people we work with – who’d be a brilliant target audience ... because after 15 years this would undoubtedly have come to my attention many times and I would have acted accordingly. Once again, I’m sure you’ll not be quoting any of this unless you can find a way to misrepresent it. Your patterns and methods are completely transparent because like a magician you create a smoke-screen to distract everyone by telling us what your motivations are and then in your very next statement you betray those intentions.
As an educator, having worked in several colleges and universities you quickly learn that the best way to get any message across is to create an atmosphere of respect. In such an atmosphere there is mutual growth and understanding. You have done the complete opposite, which is why it now seems to me that it is really only you beating this drum in the way that you are beating it. I think those of us who have come and defended Reach’s reputation should now not bother making any further points because those who are listening will have heard what has been said and as you are now this lone voice blowing in the wind I think we should all ignore you. I think it’s quite telling that you’ve posted on this forum over 6,000 times, which tells me this is your full-time job ... because how on earth could you fit anything else in?
So I say again ‘who are you?’ Why should anybody here be answering your questions when you insist on remaining hidden?
You made reference in your last posting directed at Easton that he attacked an ex-client in a public forum and I have read back through the postings since his initial entry and could not find what you are talking about. The only thing I could find is ...
“As for those examples given where individuals have had weird experiences of someone trying to persuade them to look at a point of light and become a vegetarian I simply cannot comment, this is not something I have ever done or would ever do. Although I am the Director of Reach and proud to be so, I cannot control every conversation and interaction someone has with another, but given, as I have said, nearly all our practitioners have no knowledge of or interest in Raja Yoga, these accounts make no sense to me and if I were to find anyone engaging in such practices, their association to the organisation would be terminated; we are not interested in brain washing. “
... so I have no idea why you keep making reference to this. And the one person you make reference to complaining, once again from what I can see, didn’t have anything to do with Easton. That doesn’t mean their complaint shouldn’t be taken seriously but your repeated use of it to make a point again discredits your position because you’re not even using the example with sensitivity and compassion. You’re hurling it like a stone. No wonder Easton is refusing to enter into a dialogue here. This is a monologue, driven by you. I think Paula, Deniese Wilson, Bright Spark, Smiley50 etc. have all tried to be heard but no matter what they’ve said you’ve found a way to diminish or rubbish it.
My final message is for the reasonable members of this forum ... If you have a legitimate grievance and given some of the things I’ve read you do, then this is not the way to get your message heard. You’ll be alienating the very people who’d naturally have sympathy for you. The Reach Approach is clearly not a ‘con’ despite ex-l’s protestations. No matter what anyone else says, s/he’s going to continue pursuing his/her personal vendetta ... I hope the reasonable amongst you will fight the battles you need to fight in the arenas you need to fight them. But please do that with an attitude of peace and diplomacy so that you are actually heard. And I sincerely hope you win your battle. Let justice be done. (ex-l: If you are going to quote me, this paragraph is the most important thing I’ve said).