Theos-Talk Archives (March 2002 Message tt00495)

Your tendency to take statements of anyone who disagrees with you out of 
context, misquote them (or not quote them at all) -- and thereby, apparently, 
intentionally distort everything you report on or respond to -- is already 
beyond reason. 

Talk about "fairness in communicating"... Since when does a joking reference 
to the word "nuts" and other questions regarding your purposes and 
credibility have anything to do with calling someone "crazy" or "psychotic"? 
That's just downright 
misinterpretation (that could be called "fabrication" if done intentionally). 


Everyone else seems to get the jokes, and not take offense. Why can't you? 

Is it the language barrier that makes you misunderstand idiomatic English or 
tongue-in-cheek satire, sarcasm or irony -- when you are being questioned as 
to your credibility or purposes? Or, could it be because, perhaps, you have 
a paranoiac belief that you are being persecuted by those who point out your 
fallacious, non sequitur and associative argumentative techniques -- that we 
are all expected to believe "proves" your prejudicial and opinionated points 
of view? 

In any case, such tricky adverse tactics makes most of your supposedly 
confirmatory arguments and references regarding your opinions about the 
falsity of theosophy, also beyond belief... And still makes us wonder; "what 
ax you are you really grinding, or whose cause are you really promoting" -- 
since, fostering a disbelief in karma and reincarnation (which cannot be 
refuted scientifically or objectively with any more validity than it can be 
confirmed metaphysically or subjectively) -- and, thereby, negating their 
ethical and moral imperatives, plays right into the hands of the destructive 
powers of materialism, selfishness and greed that are now taking control of 
the world's economy and fostering the deterioration of its ecology, as well 
as the oppression of its ordinary people?

As for the rest of your complaints about "fair ways of communicating" and 
"improper explaining" in response to your previous mailings -- I have no idea 
what you are talking about -- since you refuse to quote or respond to my 
statements directly in context. Therefore, all I can assume is that such 
complaints could very well be "paranoia" or a "persecution complex" -- which 
wouldn't necessarily take a psychiatrist or MD to diagnose (when an amateur 
psychologist or perceptive theosophist would be sufficient. :-)

LHM

In a message dated 03/29/02 5:57:50 AM, bri_mue@yahoo.com writes:
put 
>I don't think you are in a position to claim about other people on
>this list that they are crazy, this is not a fair way of comunicating.
>Leon=
>
>Maurer said the same thing about another list member (Mauri) a few 
>days ago.
>
>Psychotic is the term for a diseased state, that even a
>psychiater(MD), which you are not, would need to diagnose someone 
>personally in their office for an extended period of time to make such
>claim as you misuse in this case.
>
>I do not think this is a fair way of comunicating, besides the point
>about Descartes was not properly explained by you in reference to 
>what I wrote in my previous mails.
>
>And on top to then simple vindicate another person without further 
>explanation, is a rather below the belt polemic style, so lets end it
>right here. 
> =
> Bri.