Theos-Talk Archives (June 2000 Message tt00200)

On Wednesday, June 21, Frank Reitemeyer wrote:

> The Anti-Blavatsky-Net censors emails to the study-list which refer to Judge
> and successorship.
> What would have HPB said about that as she wrote about Judge in 1889 that he
> is the ONLY ONE remained true to the cause.
> On this Net also articles are offered under the good name of Judge, but the
> contents are Anti-Judge and they are not included in Dara Eklund's Judge
> collection "Echoes of the Orient" (3 vol. + Index).
> It may be of interest that this policy - to censor and suppress pro-Judge
> emails and at the same time offer faked Judge articles - is all done by
> hidden ULT officials.
> Ironically, the ULT claims to follow Judge. And the ULT says that they have
> no officials, but the hidden officials (they are never named) act actually
> as officials.
> But they are not responsible to anyone as they act in the background and no
> member is allowed to know who is a hidden official as the ULT bylaws state
> that they have such officials. An excerption may be the Net case, as ULT
> official Mr Reed Carson is frankly stated as responsible for the
> Anti-Blavatsky and Anti-Judge policy.
>

Dear Friends,

 Frank, your differences with another discussion list hardly deserve
attention here, except that your accusations are simply untrue, and
continue to sow dissension where it is not needed -- among sincere
friends and students of Theosophy.  Furthermore, those who read your
words are only hearing your version of the matter.  For the sake of
fairness, at least, allow me to share another view:

Everyone who spends any time on this discussion list knows that it is
"unmoderated" -- you and everyone else are free to post what you will,
and I have yet to hear of any post that was rejected.   BlavatskyNet, on
the other hand, hosts two "moderated" discussion lists -- "Study" for
serious students, and "Basic" for newcomers --which it declared as such
from the beginning.  Both are aimed at a specific study of Blavatsky's
works, and neither is a completely open forum, although a wide range of
topics is discussed.  Furthermore, comments that may be perfectly
acceptable in and of themselves are sometimes rejected in order to keep
the discussion focused on a specific topic.   Unmoderated and moderated
formats serve different purposes;  both have their strengths and
weaknesses, but both also have the potential for unique contributions to
the theosophical movement.   Trying to treat a moderated list as if it
were an unmoderated one can only lead to misunderstanding and
frustration, as it apparently has done in your case.

What you say of Mr. Judge is true  -- HPB praised him on several
occasions for his devotion and priceless hard work in the cause of
Theosophy.  However, if you have criticisms of what was or was not
actually written by Judge, and what should or should not be included in
a complete collection of his works, why not bring up the merits and/or
demerits of individual articles for open discussion, rather than your
general, unanswerable smears about "faked Judge articles"?

Your claims of "hidden ULT officials" working behind the scenes at
BlavatskyNet is simply laughable.  Reed Carson is not a "ULT official"
as you state.  BlavatskyNet was founded entirely independent of ULT or
any other Theosophical group, lodge, association or society, and remains
so to this day.  For the record, I am one of the moderators for the
BlavatskyNet Basic discussion list, but have nothing to do with the BN
Study list.

Finally, you are mixing up your complaints about BlavatskyNet and those
about ULT in a completely untrue and unsatisfactory manner.  As a
long-time ULT Associate, I myself have had many differences of opinion
with fellow associates (for a better look at my thoughts in this area,
see my article entitled "Theosophy and Belief,"  in Theosophy World #37,
for July, 1999).  If you have specific suggestions on how ULT might
improve its work, I would be happy to discuss some of the issues you
think are important, but they have nothing to do with BlavatskyNet.
Alternatively, I might suggest you either join a Lodge or form one
yourself.   At any rate, sniping from the sidelines is hardly
constructive and does nothing to correct any imperfections you see.

Please sir, give it a rest. You have been over this before.  'Nuf said,
IMHO.

Best Regards,
Wes Amerman


-- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com

Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.