Denis:
>Peter, what a good idea that you waited  for me being on the list before
>posting the lies of Mr Comby.=20

I agree, but it was pure coincidence. I had only just received Bruno's
permission to post it 24 hours before I actually did.

>Those of you who are interested by the personality of Mr Comby can ask
>Peter to put on the list those messages which, on behalf of my
>ill-intentions vis a vis Comby, he deemed not objective .

Denis, you are a somewhat contradictory person: You seem to me a man of
great integrity yet at the same time so blinded by your need to settle old
personal scores with Bruno that you do loose some credibility. I put in a
lot of effort through private exchanges with both you and Bruno attempting
to separate these personal issues from the "facts" but was unsuccessful. In
these efforts Bruno came off the most credible and mature of the two you,
so I decided that since we could not get to the bottom of the issues to
continue to keep the matters off the list. There is only so much I can do
about things that took place far away in a foreign country.=20

>I would not have written  this message had not Peter naively considered
>the lies of Comby  as an expression of his "frankness". I have tried to
>put up the case in a way that is as "unemotional",  as "detached",  i.e. as
>"american", as is possible for me to do , taking into account how dear
>these ideas are to my mind, and how sad I'm to realize that these ideas
>hopefully hold much more positive prospects  than the self declared
>european leaders  of this movement.

This thing about Americans having a more detached style I think is nonsense.
If some of the Europeans on the list had stood up and confirmed this, I
might have been open to the idea but to me it is obvious that you are
carrying around a lot of emotional baggage regarding these issues, and I
applaud you for your efforts to put them aside.

>Comby never raised a finger against Burger, except sliding confidences to
>selected people, like me and others, whose faithfulness he was eager to
>secure. The least he should  have done, given his personal involvement in
>the movement, and his future projects, was to leave. But the guy was in
>clover. Living the life of Riley.  He left only when he was summoned  to.
>Much after the incident and everything else.

Maybe the following that Bruno wrote to me in private shows why. I am
posting this with Bruno's permission:

Bruno:
>GC's version of why he hit her so violently for 1/2 an hour was that Nicole
>was a "poison" for the circulation of good meta energies in the MTR group
>(because she did not agree to all his stupidities - relational problems in
> the meta group were often blamed on her negative attitude, or anybody's
who wouldn't agree 100%, though she wasn't sharing the meta practise in
MTR) and that hitting her was an unconscious (beneficial in his opinion)
reaction on his part (la "pulsion delinquante" he describes in his book
"les enfants du crime"
>- a justification of crime and delinquancy I found erroneous and so
>un-interesting I didn't even read it) and that the only way to open
>her mind (supposedly closed because anti-meta), put a halt to her
>"anti-meta" attitudes, and enable at last a free circulation of love
>energies in MTR... For sure she never opposed GC and meta again (at
>least directly, but in private with me she was more revolted and more
>anti-meta than ever) after being bashed. For me GC's explanation on
>that evening were pure self-justification and revolting, but many
>members of the group believed his version.

Burger seems to have been a very charismatic character who obviously had a
strong influence on everybody around him. And if Bruno was under his spell
as well maybe you need to forgive him for that. If Bruno actually knew
everything that Burger was up to as you imply, I agree that does put Bruno
in a very poor light. But I do not believe he did and you seem a little
ambiguous on the subject yourself. First you say:

Denis:
>Of course Bruno was never there when "IT" really  happened, so he was
lacking, as he kept saying to me "tangible  proofs" but he also told me that " he
 knew enough to put Burger in jail"  and give him serious trouble with the fiscal
>authorities.

I read here that he only had suspicions about the sexual abuse but that he
had enough information about his fiscal adventures to put him in jail. This
fits in well with what Bruno says. Then you say:

>I remember having asked him to justify his own indolence in respect of the
>whole matter, as he gradually introduced me seven years ago to the reality
>described in the recent article of l'Express,

You are not clear and it seems to me that you are contradicting yourself
from above where you quote him for lacking "tangible proofs". So when he
"introduced you to the reality seven years ago", I think he was sharing his
suspicions but that he did not actually know from observation or from
talking to witnesses that the sexual abuse of children was taking place.

>And this is why his image in France is so low, he cannot even grab it on
>the ground.

Please invite some of these people to join raw-food. I find it difficult to
understand that 20.000 people have experimented with instinctive nutrition
over the years and that only a handful have found their way to this list.

>Bye to everybody. See you in a few months time ...

That was a short but very lively and informative visit. Be sure to drop by
soon again.

Best, Peter
[log in to unmask]