Theos-Talk Archives (December 2002 Message tt00154)

In a message dated 12/01/02 7:09:50 PM, netemara888@yahoo.com writes:

>This post is a perfect example LHM of what I was talking about. I am 
>really NOT sure where your response lies. Is it the last sentence or 
>two? That might be a suggestion for you only because new people come 
>and go. We are all not rocket scientists, although I am close. I have 
>not been reading here for two years, but should it take me two years 
>to catch on to where one post leaves off and another one begins? :)
>
>LOL
>
>Netemara
>
>BTW if that IS your response at the end then we do think alike on 
>matters theosophical and I will bury the ax out of sight.

It isn't such a "perfect example." Not by a long shot.

Now I know what your problem is. You don't know how to read Internet style 
dialogues where the logical progression of multiple quotes (>, >>, >>>) tell 
you who said what to whom, and who they are quoting. No wonder, you thought, 
in one of your previous off the wall personal comments referring to one of my 
letters, that I was castigating Daniel -- when what I had written was 
directed to Brian/Bridgitte -- who stood opposed to Daniel in their dialogue 
about theosophical history. So, you didn't even have clue as to what it was 
all about when you jumped in, right?

Now, you are making the same mistake. The below quote was clipped from one my 
letters in response to a statement made by Steve to Paul. You left off my 
response to this (Steve's) statement which explained why I didn't agree to 
prejudiciously condemn or judge a Society (or a religious group) for the 
actions, beliefs, or ideas of a few of their members. 

So, I take it you agree with Steve's opinionated position -- which I 
disagreed with (although you mistakenly attribute his statement to me)... 
And, therefore, you and I don't "think alike on matters theosophical." That 
is, if you think this matter is "theosophical" -- which it isn't... Since, 
it's about opinions and prejudices related to personalities connected with 
the Theosophical Society -- not theosophy itself -- which stands self 
sufficiently and entirely on its own. (Incidentally, I don't give a hoot 
about organizations of any kind, or their histories -- so I do agree that 
this whole subject should be "put aside," when discussing theosophical 
principles or ideas.)

Therefore, I do expect you to read ALL the previous posts on a particular 
thread -- before you enter into it half cocked and shooting off your mouth 
about things you only partially understand. 

Are you new to Internet mailing lists? If so, maybe you should learn the 
protocols of proper Internet dialogues (check out some of the scientific 
forums) and read the instructions posted on the Internet about "netiquette" 
and how newcomers to an ongoing discussion group ought to act -- before they 
butt in and stick their foot in their mouth. (Especially with personal 
judgments, remarks about, or even defenses of people you don't know -- who 
could very well defend themselves.) 

If you can put aside your personal prejudices and wiseacre attitude, study 
and talk about theosophy as a "synthesis of science, religion and 
philosophy," we might then begin to bury our axes, and learn something from 
each other... Even though we may have disagreements outside the purview of 
theosophical discussion -- which might consider science, religion or 
philosophy -- but not personalities, organizations, or politics.

LHM 

>--- In theos-talk@y..., leonmaurer@a... wrote:
>> 
>> In a message dated 11/30/02 11:53:12 AM, stevestubbs@y... writes:
>> 
>> >As for Leadbeater, being a pathological liar and an impostor who 
>> >misrepresented himself as a mahatma "on the threshold of divinity" 
>> >when in fact he was a homosexual pedophile strikes me as more than 
>> >just a mere foible. You ought to sit on juries for a living. You 
>> >are a defense attorney's dream. I saw a Theosophical documentary 
>> >one time in which they said he "clairvoyantly" saw Krishnamurti as a 
>> >new world teacher or some garbage like that. What he saw was a kid 
>> >he wanted to abuse. That is the real reason Krishnamurti left the 
>> >Theosophical Society in disgust. Then because of the abuse 
>> >Krishnamurti ended up a lifelong pervert just like Leadbeater, 
>> >Jinarajadasa, Babula, and Damodar, who thought women were disgusting 
>> >and told his wife to take a hike. Even the person who used the 
>> >initials "K.H." is said to have been so repelled by women he refused 
>> >to speak to his own sister. There were Leadbeaters everywhere. I 
>> >guess I am just not politically correct, since I find all this rather 
>> >distasteful. The only thing Leadbeater was on the threshold of was 
>> >discovery and jail. Divine he was not.
>> >
>> >In response to your question whether the Theosophical Society should 
>> >be condemned for this, the answer is YES! Now that they have been 
>> >condemned, let me suggest we just put the whole matter aside.
>> >
>