Theos-Talk Archives (September 2004 Message tt00549)

Hello David & All,
As Nigel has very well articulated there are techniques that are used
"consciously or unconsciously" in order to cloud, distract, or
misrepresent another persons position.

I have never suggested that HPB and the Mahatmas teachings are
"infallible"!
This both myself, Daniel and Dallas have clearly pointed out over and
over again.
And yet the "slur" is still put forward that this is what is being said.

The issues discussed and put forward are very important and I would
like to think they would be taken seriously.

I don't mind intense discussion as long as it is with both sides
genuinely trying to empathise and work towards consensus of some kind.
Storm - norm - perform, I believe is the jargon.

I would like to think we can work through these important issues on
this group and at least try and find a way to work towards genuine
resolution of some kind.

Lets face it these issues have gone on for years and years.
They need to be squared up to at some point.

On the level and on the square.

Is it only possible to ignore or misrepresent these serious issues
being discussed.
I support Anand's and Pedro's right to there perspective on CWL and
AB, however what about those rights of others who would challenge them?
Is this not a profoundly important and valid question?
Must our perspectives be censored ,ignored and misrepresented and then
feel we have no voice in the society publications at all?

I still wait for a response !

Perry




--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "W.Dallas TenBroeck"
<dalval14@e...> wrote:
> Sept 19 2004
> 
> Thanks David:
> 
> Now --- What ?
> 
> Dallas
> ============================================
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: david-B
> Sent: Sunday, September 19, 2004 3:38 PM
> To: 
> Subject: Creating authority under "original teaching"
> 
> It is interesting to note, that Dallas is the only one who attempted an
> answer the subject of this email. That the cons to the email
outnumber the
> pros by about ten to one, and that there were slurs by Perry in a recent
> email. It clearly touched a nerve. This is what dialogue is about.
> David B.
> -------------- Original message -------------- 
> 
> > 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 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Yahoo! Groups Links 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links