Theos-Talk Archives (September 2004 Message tt00527)

Hi Nigel,
Thank-you for your comments & support. 

I have come to the conclusion that some people have a complete
inability to enter into any kind of serious discussion on these matters.

What you mentioned about `political techniques' is very true.

Anyone who dares challenge CWL or AB in the Adyar society it seems
will be immediately put into the grossly untrue and unjust category of
Blavatsky dogmatist and treated with complete contempt. 

Putting on the appearance of supporting freedom of opinion some people
then can only use what appear to me to be school boy tactics.
Misrepresentation, distraction away from the actual question asked,
mockery.....

This is why I resigned from the Adyar society.

I never expected CWL and ABs titles to come off the recommended titles
list, but simply that students should be able to challenge their
teachings.
I have said this repeatedly and asked why it is not possible to do
this in the Adyar publications.
In other words freedom of thought and expression !
To deny freedom of expression is a form of "violence" as you say.

How can this glaring hypocrisy go on being ignored ?

I could not promote a society that did not practice what it preached.
Playing political games ..... the way of the Jesuit.

My concern has been since discovering all the nonsense that went on
with CWL and AB that the membership has a right to know and should be
informed of these highly important historical points and also the
points of difference in teaching.

To fail and even stand in the way of actively presenting this
information to members for there own free examination is in my opinion
dishonest and dishonourable.

Brotherhood, Hmmm

Regards
Perry




--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "nhcareyta" <nhcareyta@y...> wrote:
> Perry
> For a number of weeks, you and some of your well-meaning colleagues 
> have patiently repeated and re-repeated certain points of view, due 
> to the seeming inability of some contributors to understand your 
> points.
> Finally, you have challenged this apparent inability by suggesting 
> dishonesty. I concur, for such it is.
> The forms of dishonesty you have highlighted are highly prized in 
> political circles, being age old techniques used to avoid the truth 
> of matters.
> Failing to answer questions directly, muddying the waters with 
> unrelated information, diverting the conversation onto other topics 
> and false accusations of an unsubstantiated nature are just some of 
> methods which have clearly been used by some, whether consciously or 
> unconsciously, in a vain attempt to defend the indefensible.
> In essence, these are acts of violence because they summarily dismiss 
> others' points of view and attempt to overpower and dominate the 
> agenda with their own dogma.
> This is disappointing for a discussion group such as this. Hiding 
> behind the respectability of free intellectual discussion to avoid 
> issues and unjustly condemn others is unethical and unacceptable.
> This does not manifest freedom, it is merely the use of disreputable 
> tools of disempowerment to profess blind faith.
> Best wishes to you and others for your quest for truth in debate.
> Nigel