Posted: 30 Nov 2007
mr green wrote:EVERYONE there who seems to disagree with the Admin line has been banned!!!!!!!!!!!
Rien ne change plus, n'est-ce pas ... ? to quote ex-l .
Independent thought about the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University for those wishing to leave, and friends and family of followers
http://www.brahmakumaris.info/forum/
http://www.brahmakumaris.info/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1181
mr green wrote:EVERYONE there who seems to disagree with the Admin line has been banned!!!!!!!!!!!
uddhava wrote:Here is an ex-cult site ...
proy wrote:As it happens, I just got a mail from the BKs about a new web site they have set up, so I answered them and all the people they sent the mail to, telling them about this forum and about what is happening on the Aussie forum.
To - Kathryn Hendry, Jayanti Kirpalani, Alka Patel.
Hi Kathryn,
Thank you for your telephone call this morning.
Please note that I decline to speak with you or with Jayanti Kirpalani in private, either on the telephone or in person.
I am not interested in having private discussions or meetings with you.
Any telephone calls you make to me will be recorded. Transcripts of these recordings may be published on the internet.
If you wish to discuss the matters you spoke about this morning further then I will be happy to discuss them with you on the public forum on this web site.
http://brahmakumaris.info/bb
You are all very warmly welcomed to air your views on the forum there. Just click on the link above and register (join) the forum.
As you said that you believe the articles published on this web site are inaccurate, then I am sure you will, in your own interests, be eager to write your version of events as you see it on the public forum, so that all the people concerned are able to read your opinions.
Yours sincerely,
the information I have been reading on this site is incorrect, and she is sure I would not want to be spreading false rumours about the BKWSU
proy wrote:The message Kathryn left for me was that the information I have been reading on this site is incorrect, and she is sure I would not want to be spreading false rumours about the BKWSU. Also Kathryn said that ... Sister Jayanti will welcome a telephone call from me and will be happy to discuss any "problems" I might have.
mr green wrote:there is the art of enjoying your own lot.
ex-l wrote:So what did you do to deserve such high level damage limitation!?!
ex-l wrote:If something is untrue ... why not offer a public statement or engage in a public discussion with those effected by recent actions?
ex-l wrote:I think your response is quite masterful ... do we observe a similar reluctance in the good Sister to engage in open - and documented - discussion again? If something is untrue ... why not offer a public statement or engage in a public discussion with those effected by recent actions? Has the official voice not been somewhat silent during the process of the domain dispute AND since it's result?
button slammer wrote:By this I mean a press release containing details of recent events and other incidents and areas of concern to members, should be created by the forum members and distributed locally/globally to all major news publications/channels.
This is the "settlement" offer that the BKs lawyers offered on October 13, 2007;
a) the BrahmaKumaris.Info domain name be transferred to the BKWSO
b) an agreed alternative domain name not containing their trademarked term, i.e. "Brahmakumaris" be registered and used with the same content as presently found on this disputed site
c) confidentiality be maintained by the parties as to the agreement
if b) were unacceptable, they would be willing to consider the registration and use of a domain name by us containing their trademarked term but clearly not underwritten or authorised by the BKWSO, e.g. "Ihatebrahmakumaris.com" containing the same content.
uddhava wrote:Here is an ex-cult site where the same issue of domain name arises. I don't know whether these guys have been sued.
Prem Rawat aka Maharaji Information Resource.
8. I declare under penalty of perjury that it is my good faith belief that the material displayed on the EPO website claimed by EVI to be in violation of its copyright interests, is misidentified by EVI as constituting any such violation because:
a) some or all of the material identified by EVI is not material in which EVI has an enforceable copyright or has entered the public domain;
b) even if EVI owns a protectible copyright in some or all of the material, the material is misidentified by EVI as a copyright violation because it constitutes "fair use" as defined in 17 U.S.C. 107. Specifically, the material was displayed on the EPO website solely for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research, all within the parameters of the "fair use" limitation in the United States Code.
"material was displayed on the EPO website solely for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research, all within the parameters of the "fair use" limitation in the United States Code."
"4. Neither myself, nor any other contributor to the site, receives, or has ever received, any form of remuneration resulting from inclusion of the listed material;"