Theos-Talk Archives (September 2008 Message tt00345)

That's why he said the only Quantitative - which means, measuring by
numbers - to judge. 

I do think it's a fairly good sign that the Indian section is growing. 

It's not the Indian section proposing this, I notice.

Katinka. 
--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Morten Nymann Olesen"
<global-theosophy@...> wrote:
>
> MKR wrote:
> "Membership is the only objective quantitative means we have to
judge!!!"
> 
> If I may?
> There are of course other means to judge life and TS by. Am I right?
> 
> We will also know people on their fruits.
> For instance how they communicate.
> 
> 
> 
> M. Sufilight
> 
> 
>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: MKR 
>   To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
>   Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2008 3:48 PM
>   Subject: Re: Theos-World reaction from the Dutch Section and John
Algeo to the uproar about the proposal
> 
> 
>   The comment about Indian Section not having their administration
in order,
>   is ridiculous. The lodges are vibrant and thriving and membership
has been
>   growing. Anyone who wants first hand knowledge, should visit
lodges in India
>   and see for themselves.
> 
>   Membership is the only objective quantitative means we have to
judge!!!
>   Imagine what it would be if the admin is outstanding. Membership
will go
>   thru the roof. Also Indian section has enough smart people to take
care of
>   itself. All these arguments are just specious to mislead gullible.
First
>   something quick and urgent needs to be done to bolster the membership
>   outside India. If not, at this rate, with the access Internet
provides for
>   information, TS will become terminal and disappear when money runs out
>   outside India.
> 
>   MKR
> 
>   On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 5:05 AM, Katinka Hesselink <
>   mail@...> wrote:
> 
>   > Hi all,
>   >
>   > The Dutch section has sent a letter to all lodges and put on their
>   > website which I take as a way of saying: this is our official
>   > position. I know about this letter because it was my duty to put it
>   > online.
>   >
>   > Since the Dutch section supports John Algeo's position, and the
letter
>   > includes a Dutch translation of a letter by John about this -
this is
>   > as far as I know the closest we've gotten to an explanation of the
>   > proposal by those who wrote / support it.
>   >
>   > I'm not going to translate the English back into Dutch. I hope
John or
>   > Betty will issue some sort of statement in English himself.
>   >
>   > The reasoning is as follows and includes details about the
election of
>   > the president that I wasn't aware of. My comments between square
brackets.
>   >
>   > The election had a 50% rate of response in the West. So 50% of those
>   > who had a right to vote actually did. [when it's a government with
>   > that kind of numbers, there's usually an attempt to get more
people to
>   > vote in future. but the conclusion of the Dutch section is to take
>   > away our voting rights.]
>   > The Indian voters however DID come out and vote. They also know
Radha
>   > Burnier better. So she won.
>   >
>   > John Algeo writes:
>   > The Indian section has a majority of the members (would love to know
>   > the precise numbers), so in practice they decide who gets to be
>   > president. This is not democratic. [what he means is: it's not fair,
>   > it IS obviously democratic]. Since the Indian section doesn't have
>   > their administration in order and members of that section have
>   > complained about this, it's best to just let the general council
>   > decide who the president should be. Those who would elect the
>   > president were themselves elected, so this is democratic.
>   >
>   > A note by the Dutch general secretary:
>   >
>   > The general council consists of:
>   > - all the general secretaries of the sections
>   > - 7 to 10 added members [ she doesn't mention how those get
elected ]
>   > - to be a section there have to be 7 lodges and 150 members.
>   > - at the moment the council has 37 members.
>   > -------
>   >
>   > John's last point sounds like they are fixing one hole with another.
>   > Because the Indian section isn't run properly its members should not
>   > get a say in who becomes the president of the TS.
>   >
>   > It's clear that the general council is a weird body. It represents
>   > each section equally, whether it has the minimum of 150 members, or
>   > over 10 thousand. It has added members which, as far as I can tell,
>   > get appointed by the president, for life.
>   >
>   > As many have noticed: the Western sections just aren't very
>   > successful. Most of them are shrinking. This is certainly true
for the
>   > Dutch and American section - two of the ones supporting this
proposal.
>   >
>   > Not exactly the kind of resume that helps inspire confidence.
>   >
>   > Sorry this is such a rambling post. The message asking me to publish
>   > that letter on the Dutch TS website accused me of acting too quickly
>   > and not thinking things through. I just sent an angry letter to the
>   > Dutch board explaining my position in more detail. I'm actually
>   > starting to look forward to canceling my membership. Not a good
sign.
>   > I do still hope this gets resolved.
>   >
>   > Katinka Hesselink
>   >
>   > 
>   >
> 
>   [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
> 
> 
>    
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>