Theos-Talk Archives (December 2002 Message tt00443)

Hi.
----- Original Message -----
From: <dalval14@earthlink.net>
To: "AA-Theos-talk" <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 11:07 AM
Subject: RE Theos-World General statment and opinion from Dallas


To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Cc: AA-Eldon
Subject: RE: Theos-World General statement and opinion from
Dallas

Wry: Hi. It looks like you are talking about me and trying to get me kicked
off this list. The definition for the word you have used, "opprobrium", is
"public disgrace or ill fame that follows from something grossly wrong or
immoral." This is ridiculous as I have not done anything that is grossly or
even subtly wrong or immoral on here, but just spoken the truth, as I see
it. I suggested that people should not be leaving a lot of trivial material
on here, and honestly and truthfully replied to her Terrie's messages, point
by point, with specific ideas and information, not broad generalizations.
Did it ever occur to you that this pain that is coming up in the form of
mechganical reactions is the same pain that can come up ion the form of a
nuclear war, and that just ganging up on someone and kicking them off a list
won't take care of the situation, but will only make it worse?

<<Finally, it makes our "exchange group" a "laughing stock" for
those who have not even touched the shores of our island of
knowledge, nor touched the smallest of the waves of the Universe
of WISDOM. How can those who claim unity be so virulently
contentious?

<<I would also say that no personal attacks ought to be
countenanced. No one ought to be publicly derided or put down.
If the tone is to be that of learning together, then good. But
then, we can ask questions. In my opinion, no one ought to seek
to dominate others by the use of opprobrium.

A review of some recent exchanges indicates were a participant
"lives," and such ought to be first reproved and then, sadly,
eliminated from public contributions on these lists. I recognize
this may appear to be censorship, and yet it also demands the use
of some firm principles, such as you have already expressed. Let
them find some other more congenial list in which to operate,
why choose ours ?>>

Wry: Maybe I am supposed to be here. This group was in disorder long before
I came here. I studied the archives for a long time before I came on. Though
your message in response to my message on Theosophy Study List seemed to
bring me out here, I was planning to come here long before.


<<I wonder if others on the list would care to join me in this
review of opinion. I may be wrong in expressing it in this way.
Perhaps others have better ways.


Freedom is freedom. Agreed. But to my mind it is no license to
disrupt, antagonize or deride.>>

Wry: I am not disrupting anything. Actually, a super-conductor works better
when its dirty (Scientific American), as the dirt acts as roughage to
disperse the magnatic votexes made by messages such as yours, of a bland and
dull quality, which in my opinion, tend to create a sort of mesmerizing
field, which is not SELF CLEANSING as a spiritual field should and can be,
but rather a medium where fantasy-brotherhood fed by a false self-image
tries to be king, and out of which medium, all varieties of contention,
acrimony and political agruing are naturally generated and flourish.

>>To unite is to understand. To disparage is to refuse another, or
others, the right to unite.>>

Wry: You do not know, but you think you do. This is a kind of
authoritarianism that is often disguised the the false mask of brotherhood
and to me, this is a matter of genuine sorrow. What you have said above is
sloganism. To unite to attack someone is not brotherhood. I have never seen
that much brotherhood on theosophy lists, and I have researched the
archives. This is sad, but to be expected, in as much as there is not that
much brotherhood anywhere. But to pretend that there is and act like you are
a representative of said brotherhood maybe is something you should rethink,
before you do so any further.

As for myself, personally, talking about brotherhood, I am able to do
something that may actually lead to real brotherhood, and the doing of such
will always be controversial and unconventional, and so be it, as that is a
law that is above me, and I am not able to change this. There will always be
money-lenders to be kicked out of the temple before the teaching of Jesus or
Buddha or whatever you want to refer to it as can occur. If you do not like
this, I don't either, but I did not make this rule and am unable to change
it. I hope we can work together to make this list a better environment. If
not, I will see you on theos-l@vnet.net., where I will go if I am removed
from this list, but bear in mind, my work will not be the same, as this is
the list I have chosen as appropriate for me to be on, as in this way, I can
be of the greatest benefit to the most people. Sincerely, Wry


Best wishes,

Dallas

=========================



-----Original Message-----
From: Bill M
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 10:33 AM
To:
Subject: Re: The movie COMA

< Let's face it, this is the age of "compassionate
conservatism," in which we invade oil producing countries to
seize the oil wells for private enrichment and in which the
Supreme Court elects presidents.>

Apparently, This must also be the age in which one is allowed to
throw out the grain of truth traditionally found in good comedy.

Which countries have we invaded?

Which oil wells have we seized?

Which private individuals have been enriched by these invasions
and
seizures?

Which presidents have been elected by the Supreme Court?





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/