Prem Rawat (Prem Pal Singh Rawat) whose devotees call him Maharaji (meaning Ultimate Ruler) first came to attention in the West as Guru Maharaj Ji - the self-proclaimed Perfect Master and Lord of the Universe ridiculed in the media as a fat, squeaky-voiced God boy. He had inherited his titles and position as the Satguru, The True Revealer of Light and Spiritual Master of the Divine Light Mission, India (Divya Sandesh Parishad) when his father died in 1966. His father, Hans Rawat, was a successful Indian guru, self titled HRH (His Royal Highness) Yogiraj Param Sant Satgurudev Shri Hans Ji Maharaj. As a child the youngest Rawat son was informally called Sant Ji, more formally Balyogeshwar ("Born King of the Yogis") and even more formally Param Sant Satgurudev Shri Sant Ji Maharaj. In the West Rawat dropped these more verbose titles in the early 1980's and instructed his followers to call him Maharaji. He has also changed the names of his organisations many times: Divine Light Mission (DLM), World Welfare Association (WWA), World Peace Corps (WPC) and Divine United Organisation (DUO) became Elan Vital in the early 1980's and in 2001 The Prem Rawat Foundation (TPRF) was created and from 2010 his major orgs are Words Of Peace Global (WOPG) registered in Holland, Words of Peace International (WOPI) in the USA, HDSK (Human Development through Self Knowledge) in Great Britain and Raj Vidya Kender (Royal Knowledge Society) in India. He no longer claims to be an Incarnation of God but an internationally famous humanitarian leader and teacher of peace. He's neither.

I didn't answer Mr Lovejoy's November 11 attack, because rather than magnify it into a public brawl I wanted to pursue it with him privately - which we did by email for about a fortnight.

I should first point out, to those who asked, that I have written for David's paper only occasionally, as a favour, and generally gratis. My employers are the metropolitan dailies. So David's defamation won't affect my livelihood.

I had no objection to David's criticising me for what I said about M and EV. Dealing with these criticisms is something of a no-brainer, IMO, and we're all familiar with the arguments each way - and for those reasons I don't want to go into them all again here. (Tho I thank those who defended me at the time!)

However the personal attacks on me were unfair - to say nothing of untrue - and I wanted David to apologise for them.

I pointed out to David that his blistering opinion of my poor political acumen came just after his newspaper (and others nationwide) ran stories on my winning a national journalism award, for a year-long series of political articles; that he could have determined whether I was "on the verge of a nervous breakdown" by talking to me; that my 'boastfulness' about political/FBI connections was (as David well knew) to forestall any CAC defamation, and that I'm not an habitual boaster; and that his dragging my family affairs into the public gaze was unethical.

IMO David didn't honestly address these problems in his reply. I pointed this out. David discussed the matter with his 30-year friend Glen Whittaker. Glen then intervened on David's behalf, and immediately raised the possibility of an apology for the personal attacks. However Glen said it could not be made on the forum, because that would dignify the forum in a way it didn't merit. Glen suggested that once David had apologised to me, I could convey this news to the forum. I pointed out that the forum was considered good enough for the original attack - and therefore it was good enough for the apology. But to no avail.

Glen was always extremely civil. We pursued the apology idea (and several other ideas) for a while, then stalemated on the forum issue.

Then came a final email from David - IMO even more bellicose than his original - which reversed course: the apology was now off the agenda. At this point I judged the discussion a lost cause.

Having an unblemished 28-year friendship terminated over the Internet - without any prior personal contact - is one of the more surreal experiences of my Knowledge-exiting saga.

Prem Rawat's "Knowledge" has three parts: regularly listening to his speeches, doing voluntary work for organisations serving him or donating money and daily meditation correctly practicing the four techniques he recommends. The techniques are so simple it's hard to see how they could be practiced incorrectly. First technique ("Divine Light") involves sticking your thumb and middle finger on your eyeballs (NB: with eyes closed) and your index finger between your eyebrows. Second technique: ("Heavenly Music") poking your thumbs into your ears and listening. Third technique: ("Holy Name") thinking about your breathing (NB: continue to breathe). Fourth technique: ("Nectar") curling your tongue backwards and tasting. Rawat's father taught slightly different techniques but either way it's difficult to see how these could produce the benefits claimed for them especially as Rawat claims His Knowledge is the only method of attaining real happiness and love in this life.