Theos-Talk Archives (December 2002 Message tt00157)

I was trying to have a civil dialogue/exchange with you. But if you 
are going to continue to act like your ass is stuck in your face, 
then I have nothing more to say to you period. I don't need or want 
your advice.

Netemara
******************



-- In theos-talk@y..., leonmaurer@a... wrote:
> 
> In a message dated 12/01/02 7:09:50 PM, netemara888@y... 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.
> >> >
> >