Theos-Talk Archives (March 2006 Message tt00434)

HI Paul,

I'm sorry to see that you are considering permanently unsubbing. You 
provide a very interesting, very well-expressed, and often quite 
informative aspect of our common human reality. 

Nothing stays the same except change. Negative forces, clothed in 
human form, do their separative work and move on. If we are strongly 
attacked, we may take it as evidence that we are doing something 
right. But it's lonely being the one who is trying sincerely and is 
therefor constantly the target of the slings and arrows of those who 
wish to destroy. 

Fortunately there are more or those who try and continue to try to do 
the right thing than it may appear. If these were not in the 
majority, however silent and even meek,  I doubt humanity would still 
survive.

Don't give up. Don't desert the field. Retire for a time if you need 
to, but take a lesson from all this. Perhaps it has to do with 
personal involvement, or reactiveness. It is said to be a mark of our 
progress when we can endure irritating people with equanimity.

Whatever you do, I wish you joy and peace of mind and heart,

Adelasie

On 10 Mar 2006 at 10:35, kpauljohnson wrote:

> Dear Erica,
> 
> Thank you for your comments.  Here I am at work at 5 AM, having 
> awakened at 2 worrying about theos-talk.  There is a kind of psychic
> vampirism involved in a situation where one listmember's personal
> attacks on another result in a dozen or more posts in a single day
> with the target's name in the header in insulting context.  On several
> occasions Daniel would post five to ten hostile posts in a single day
> about me whenever anyone showed "too much" sympathetic interest in my
> books.  That was harassment pure and simple, and there were always
> enablers who refused to admit there was anything improper about such
> behavior.  (Of which I was by no means the only target.) Now he is
> "gone" (?), and one constantly enraged partisan cyberstalker has taken
> the place of another.  Carlos seems to be trying to outdo Daniel in
> his destructive obsession with one "K. Paul Johnson" who is imaginary,
> a creation of his own fantasy.  Anything I have told him about the
> falsity of his accusations only increases their frequency and
> intensity.  Perhaps Pedro is right that the list should be shut down
> entirely for a while.  But unless there is moderation or rules, the
> same dynamic would reappear whenever theos- talk was reopened.  Some
> people *feed* on causing annoyance to others. 
> 
> I use the word cyberstalker with care, because before erupting into
> multiple personal attacks online yesterday, Carlos had subjected me to
> an escalating series of personal insults and attacks in private email.
>  Every attempt to show patience, to provide explanations, to defuse
> the escalating antagonism, only stirred him to greater sectarian fury.
>  That's EXACTLY what I experienced with Daniel.  I told Carlos night
> before last that I intended to come back here just for a day to
> announce that my "hiatus" from the list would be permanent and not
> temporary. I presume that explains the recent flurry of hostile
> posts-- a last chance to get in some public licks knowing I would read
> them. An unmoderated list provides an open invitation for dogmatic,
> aggressive, relentless attackers of anyone who doesn't follow the
> party line favored by the self- appointed "thought police."  How long
> were we free from one before another took over that role?  You wrote: 
> 
> snip
> >    
> >   The e-mail below is very provocative, I could say cruel! Please 
> try to focus on ideas and not on personal attacks! At the end of your
> post you claim you wish a sincere debate, here in Greece we avoid
> debates and try to have dialogues. For in debates every kind of
> argument, specially those centred in the personality is allowed, while
> a dialogue is centred on ideas. >    Precisely.  In private email
> Carlos "challenged" me to a "debate" on the Masters, while proudly
> refusing to even consider reading any of my books on the subject.  I
> told him I was not available for debate, which is a win/lose
> proposition, but only for friendly discussion.  Clearly the last thing
> he is interested in with me or anyone he considers tainted with lack
> of loyalty to HPB.
> 
> I don't have time or energy to answer every lie-- but will at least
> enumerate them:
> 
> LIE NUMBER ONE:
> > Paul Johnson has been trying to explain HPB as a semifraudulent 
> woman and to describe the Masters as non-Adepts. 
> 
> LIE NUMBER TWO:
> To his mind, there are no metaphysical or spiritual mysteries to be
> solved. > LIE NUMBER THREE: > It is always a question of who's who. He
> invented the "People's magazine" Theosophy, as if the facts of
> Adepthood were a fiction -- false facts used perhaps to cover frauds
> and a "market for tricks", as he suggests in his 1987 text on HPB's
> 'Veiled Years'. > LIE NUMBER FOUR:
> 
> > He does not perceive that also Jesus, as described in the New 
> Testament, had his "veiled years".
> > 
> snip
> 
> HUMONGOUS LIE-- NUMBER FIVE:
> > 
> > Well, Paul Johnson did come to the theosophical movement with this 
> kind of theory, putting himself much above HPB,
> 
> LIE NUMBER SIX:
>  purporting to unveil the "Masters", 
> > etc., and he had a John Algeo to receive him, and other pseudo-
> theosophical leaders to open room to his ideas.
> > 
> 
> LIE NUMBER SEVEN:
> > And, just because Paul cannot "see" or experiment Theosophy, 
> 
> LIE NUMBER EIGHT:
> he has to saythat it is "perhaps a fraud", "perhaps semi-fraud". 
> 
> I might go on.  But the bottom line here is quite perplexing.  
> Feeling sorry for Carlos because he had come here after being 
> attacked behind his back repeatedly by Daniel, I warned him privately
> that he was dealing with someone with a apparently longstanding
> interest in promoting antagonism here between different approaches to
> Theosophy or Theosophical organizations.  My intention was to try to
> stifle the emerging flamewar between him and Daniel.  Instead, my
> intervention only poured gasoline on the flames, after I was induced
> to make public my evidence about Green and Hobbes.  Evidently Carlos
> hates Adyar as much as/more than Daniel hates ULT, and their hatred of
> me is running neck and neck.  Now someone else is promoting an
> atmosphere of constant antagonism here.  My experiment in intervention
> results in the conclusion that the new bully is the same as the old.
> 
> Bill has shown himself to be quite the true prophet, seeing well in
> advance that Carlos would promote me to public enemy number one here
> as soon as Daniel was out of the picture. 
> 
> If you or anyone can see any alternative to my unsubscribing 
> permanently, I'd appreciate knowing it.  The situation looks as 
> hopeless now as it did when Daniel was on one of his crusading 
> rampages.
> 
> Paul 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>