On changing headers, toxicity, etc.
Nov 11, 2004 09:09 AM
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jjhe@c...>
> Hello Paul,
> I glad you are enjoying the dialogue, though I don't know what you
mean when you say that I'm quoting "toxic material." Please
The explanation is in my post about actual malice and libelous
accusations. You wrote
> Regarding changing the subject title: I agree that my posts are not
> relevant to Cayce. Actually, the post that I originally answered
> already had this title, and even then, had nothing to do with
Cayce. If someone wants to change the subject title, that is fine
with me. I would prefer to leave that task up to whomever posted
that title in the first place.
That isn't possible. I used that title in the first place and have
no control over anyone who subsequently takes the thread in
directions that no longer have anything to do with the original
subject. When that's done intentionally, it's called thread
hijacking. There was no intention here for anyone to make a series
of posts headed "Cayce's relevance..." which had nothing to do with
Cayce. It *just happened* because you and Dallas got into a back and
forth that went far afield from the original subject. And I don't
mind that it is "my" header that is now being used--the problem is
that a misheaded post is like a miscatalogued book sitting in the
archives-- no one will know the actual subject without opening and
reading it. It is up to each individual to put appropriate headers
on posts; I can't go in and change headers on other people's posts
simply because it's a header I originated (which was descriptive of
the content at the outset.)
> I don't think there is anything so diabolical as secrets that they
are trying to hide. I think the situation is simply that the Adyar
TS has an official history, so to speak. I don't mean a canonized
book or anything like that. I mean that there are certain "facts" of
> Theosophical history which are important for the leaders to stand
> behind. To not do so risks compromising the credibility of the
> organization. So, they prefer to have their party-line version of
> history stand as the only true one, and keep historical documents
away from those who might desire "to stir up the past" by posing
alternative interpretations of the actual events.
We can all be grateful to John Coats for breaking the mold in the
instance of The Elder Brother! Won't see another such instance I
> kpauljohnson wrote:
> >Dear Jerry,
> >I've enjoyed reading what you have to say despite the fact that it
> >causes repeated exposure to toxic material you quote. I would ask
> >you and everyone who keeps piling on the "Cayce's relevance"
> >to change the header. None of the last dozen or so posts have
> >anything whatsoever to do with Cayce, and it is a disservice to
> >anyone who might look through the archives to use uninformative
> >misleading headers. You wrote, quoting Dallas:
> >>>I see a parallel here, like the Hodgson Report did. But unless
> >someone will go to India and do the necessary proving and leg-
> >the nonsense will prevail here in the "West." -- and I cannot
> >to see any attempt to smirch the Great Personages to whom
> >and my Honor is due. I am too old and unwell to do it myself, but
> >know it can be done.
> >>I would say that at this point, it cannot be done.
> >I would ask you here not to implicitly accept DTB's false premise
> >your response. You have previously made clear to him that my work
> >was in no way an attempt to besmirch anyone. So has Daniel. Even
> >John Algeo acknowledges that my approach is basically friendly to
> >and Theosophy. (As have a large number of reviewers and
> >To have Dallas publicly repeat a libelous false accusation FOR
> >THAN TEN YEARS despite having it repeatedly corrected by those in
> >position to know-- including most of all myself repeatedly-- is
> >galling. PLEASE don't encourage this nasty-- and possibly
> >behavior by letting the false accusation pass unchallenged.
> >for challenging it the first time.) I simultaneously appeal to
> >not to allow anyone to be libeled here.
> >Now to the main point:
> > And here is why:
> >> You are already aware that a mutual friend, who (for the sake of
> >>privacy) I will not name, did go to India and tried to do that
> >work, only to be blocked from doing so. This was not an exception,
> >but the general rule. Nethercot, the author of a two volume
> >biography of Besant visited Adyar in the course of his research
> >was not permitted to see any records at all. Paul Johnson, during
> >the course of his research, went to Adyar in order to access
> >diaries, and has reported on this discussion board that he was
> >access to them. The truth is that those who control critical
> >and evidence, are unwilling to allow access to anyone making an
> >inquiry who might come to conclusions that could challenge or in
> >way modify the party-line version of history that has been
> >in the Theosophical theology.
> >Years ago Daniel boasted here that a friend of his was going to
> >to refute my books, and that was the last I heard of the matter.
> >you release this tidbit, and while I have no desire to know who my
> >secret antagonist was, the anecdote is intriguing to me since I
> >motivated his/her fruitless trip to India. So I would ask you to
> >comment on the story's implications.
> >Do you mean to suggest that Radha et al are in possession of facts
> >about the Masters' identities that they want to conceal from ANY
> >inquirer? That even in the case of a book they wanted to condemn
> >dismiss, they would not allow information refuting it to be
> >discovered or made public? Or, rather, are you suggesting that
> >don't know what secrets are in the archives, don't want to know,
> >don't want anyone else to know? Of course I have wondered all
> >what information that supports any of my hypotheses has been
> >concealed or even (horror of horrors) destroyed. Certainly the
> >history of the TS in the Punjab and Kashmir could be much better
> >known with archives access that just through published material.
> >All speculation, of course, but fascinating.
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application