Theos-Talk Archives (February 1998 Message tt00371)

To prevent altering of msgs, technology is in the works to add digital
signature, much like the check sum used in validating some of the
compressed computer files. So in the near future this would be universally
implemented in all e-mail msgs.

In addition to all the points you mentioned, there is another fundamental
problem that elected TSA BOD have. Some time ago, I inquired if any of them
have access to Internet/e-mail and it appears that apart Olcott no one else
has e-mail access or they don't want to disclose if anyone has. This seems
to show none of them seem to recognize the importance of e-mail as a modern
medium of communication and its potential. If they don't recognize it, one
cannot expect them make use of the tool they don't understand.

Let us see what is happening in the world. Some time ago when I visited a
state school, I found that each room in the dorm is provided with a local
area network connection and Internet access and e-mail account. The coming
generation who are growing up in this environment and their use of Internet
and e-mail is going to be as normal as using telephone for personal and
business purposes.

When we do get an International and National Leader who had grown up in
this environment, they will have both personal appreciation and be able to
visualize the effective use of e-mail to further the best interests of TS
and Theosophy. The question is very simple. At least I don't see any "real"
leader either at the International or National level. So it is going to
take several decades before the present computer generation person is at
the leadership. In view of the gradual slide in the membership around the
world, will the TS survive that long a time? It may be too late.

Even in a small business like mine we make an intensive use of e-mail and
it has been found a very useful and effective tool. Why do I use it? It is
very efficient and cost effective means of communication with entities I
have to deal with and it my personal funds I spend and so I am always
looking for improving my efficiency and increase cost effectivness. If this
be the case, I sure it can do the same thing in a larger scale for larger
organization.

My 0.02

mkr
================================

At 09:43 AM 2/23/98 -0800, you wrote:
>Dear Bart,
>
>I see your point.  One can indeed fabricate a statement that was never
made in an
>email exchange.  However, the original (correct) message had already been
posted to x
>number of subscribers and is archived by the moderator.  For instance, in
this case,
>I can always go back to Eldon (the theos-talk moderator) and ask him to
repost my
>original message--thus exposing your quote to be a fabrication thus
damaging your
>credibility instead of mine.  If I were to find that Eldon is for some
bizarre reason
>part of your conspiracy, I can always request the readers who archive
their own
>copies (some do) to repost the true quote.  Anything you post on email
continues to
>exist somewhere, even after you had erased your own copy.  So even in this
extreme
>example, there is always a way to bring out the truth in this media.  So I
think the
>real reason why Wheaton does not want a representative spokesperson on
email is
>because they will not be able to control the questions and criticisms they
may
>receive on this media.  If they receive a question or criticism intended
to be
>published in the AT/Quest magazine,  they have the option of: publishing
it as it
>is,  ignoring it, or publishing it in an edited or altered form.  On the
Internet
>they don't have the advantage of these choices.  If they were to unfairly
edit or
>alter a question or statement for reply, the questioner is likely to call
them on it,
>and he/she will have the original post in the archives for proof.  In
other words,
>Wheaton will have to deal with everyone on a level playing field if they
were to
>choose to enter this media through a neutral site like theos-talk.  At
present, all
>of their media of communication (AT/Quest, Messenger, letters to members,
ts-l, nl-l)
>are completely under their control.  Why would they want to have it any
other way?
>
>jhe
>
>Bart Lidofsky wrote:
>
>> Jerry Hejka-Ekins wrote:
>>
>> > So to return to my original point, since the internet is an equal playing
>> > field, there is no danger of  a Wheaton representative's contributions
being
>> > twisted (as you suggested) because they will always have a recourse.
>>
>>     Except that John Mead does not let his feelings blind him to the
facts. Let's
>> say that I quoted:
>>
>> Jerry Hejka-Ekins wrote:
>> > and just last week, I despoiled a young goat
>>
>>     How do you prove that you never said such a thing, or if someone
uses the
>> above, how do you prove that it was designed as an absurd example and not a
>> genuine admission?
>>
>>     Bart Lidofsky
>>
>> P.S. The despoiling young goats reference comes from writer Marion Zimmer
>> Bradley, who created it for a story where she wanted to create a
ridiculous but
>> vicious regional slur ("You're a despoiler of young goats!" "No, YOU'RE a
>> despoiler of young goats!" The punch line was that the villain of the piece
>> actually WAS a despoiler of young goats. I have since used it when I
wanted to
>> give an example of an accusation which is so ridiculous that nobody in
their
>> right mind would take it seriously.