Theos-Talk Archives (December 2002 Message tt00183)

In a message dated 12/02/02 8:42:14 AM, netemara888@yahoo.com writes:

>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
>******************

Really? Sorry about that. I was just trying to straighten out some 
misunderstandings due to your attributing one of my letters to someone else 
and also misreading who I was talking about in another. So, which uncivil 
remark in my letter didn't you like? 

It's too bad you seem to be so eager to keep on repeating your previous 
rudeness and misjudgments and can't accept well meant advice. But, you're 
free to take it or leave it. However, if you had started straight talking to 
me with a "civil" tongue in the first place, you wouldn't have gotten all 
your crude remarks and prejudicial statements thrown back into your face. I 
have a rule of not butting into other people's dialogues with ad homonym 
remarks. But, when anyone comes into mine that way, they have to expect to 
get a hard and direct response -- that won't let up until the error is 
admitted, apologized for, and corrected. 

You've now shown yourself to possibly be a "perfect" example of someone who 
uses any means to avoid the truth if it doesn't agree with his own 
preconceptions or misinterpretations (which could be subject to correction if 
one's mind is open). In such a case, what would be the point of having any 
sort of "dialogue/exchange" with such a person? So, thanks for agreeing not 
to say anything more to me. I can't wait not to hear it -- [since I have 
enough trouble hearing the real Voice of the Silence. ;-] 

LHM

>-- 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.