Theos-Talk Archives (January 2003 Message tt00498)

Hi Louis and all of you,

Thanks for your email.

To me an "attack" most often has bad intentions behind it.
Whereas a "debate" just as often can have good and honest motives as bad
ones.
But as I said, I am not up to anything negative, I just want peace on this
Planet. Peace between the west and the Midlle East. And that is that.
If my non-violent movement is a verbal attack or just an attack - well then
it is just that persons view, which claims it, - and not mine...
Sometimes people feel, that their egotism are being attacked - and/or they
feel, that their cultural bias towards people and cultures they do not know
anything of - are being attacked.
Other times people just talk a lot, because they want attention...>:-)
But I am not from USA or any english speaking country, and that maybe
explains this view.
>:-)
Else I agree a lot with you.

from
M. Sufilight..with ehmm...some rugrats doing verbal exercises...


----- Original Message -----
From: <teos9@aol.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2003 1:14 PM
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Theos-World: Trust 1


> In a message dated 1/18/2003 10:14:23 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> global-theosophy@adslhome.dk writes:
>
>
> > You say that I am attacking Bailey. That is to me a lie.
> > I am not up to any negative agenda. I just want peace on this Planet !
Is
> > that wrong ?
> > My agenda is to help humanity - including the Middle East - to get
peace.
> > Rethink your statement please, I urge you to do that.
> > The truth is, I believe, that you - feel - attacked your self. And why ?
> > I don't really know, so I ask, so you, I and others might learn.
> > Honestly: I am just debating and putting forward my views (i.e. they are
> > only views - being emailed) on theosophy as such and Bailey, and stating
> > where I think the books are wrong -
> > AND especially where I think - the pro-Bailey groups are wrong.
> > There is no attack. There is a debate !
> > If debating and exchanging of views are viewed as an attack, well when
is
> > debating then possible - at Theos-Talk ?
>
>
> Is there room for one more opinion?:
>
> Interesting response here Mortem. The word "attack" seems to bother you
but
> the word "debate" does not. But what is a "debate" if not, a verbal
attack?
> Especially as the "debate" format is be being used on this list lately. It
is
> the TONE of the verbal exchanges that determine whether a conversation is
an
> "attack," a "debate" (verbal attack) OR, a word you seem to have
overlooked
> here, a "discussion."
>
> It seems to me, that there are those, who HAVE been participating in these
> conversations within the spirit of "open discussion." And then, there are
> others whose verbal posture infer attack or "debate." It is the ongoing
> agenda that emerges in these exchanges, which help the readers identify,
who
> is who. It seems to me, that where the central theme of a message thread,
> revolves around issues of "Wrong" and "Right," there can be no hope of,
civil
> discussion. Only contentious debate seems to be forthcoming. Only when the
> parties can agree to go BEYOND the issues of who is right and who is
wrong,
> will there be any resolution of conflict.
>
> That said I eagerly await the resolution of this "debate."
>
> Best,
>
> Louis
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>