Theos-Talk Archives (July 2009 Message tt00337)

It is not so important what the motives of the person were, who leaked the document. There was a proposal to disenfranchise members and members needed to know it. Motives of the person releasing documents on internet are less important. His motives don't change above important facts. And timely opposition by members prevented the disaster.  
Best
Anand Gholap

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "robertapimenta26" <robertapimenta26@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Mr.Ramadoss,
> 
> Now we get to the core of things. You say, and from your perspective you are right, that unveiling certain information, if it is for a good cause, is not unethical and permitted.  It happens all the time, and yes, that is good. But is this what really happened?
> 
> No, Mr. Ramadoss, this is what didn't happen. 
> 
> The person who leaked the proposal certainly didn't act in good faith, but wanted to create more confusion, suggesting that there was an  'ultra' secret conspiracy going on, while that was clearly not the case. There is no evidence of that anywhere. In the legal sense: there was only speech of a proposal subject to vote.  The way this leaked proposal was exploited, and later presented on this very site, was unethical and only served one particular party. This bad proposal became a tool in the hands of those who wanted to make the case that the Algeo supporters had a secret agenda, that Algeo & Co wanted to take your voting right away. That Mr. Ramadoss is the unethical part of it. Please do me favor and check all the archives and all the information Mr. Rozman has on his site and check and re-check.
> 
> So to the letter of the law it was an offence, and ethically speaking it was an offence as well, and many, including yourself fell into the trap. It was a brilliant move, I must admit, more than one year after the event we are still talking about it, when can we finally put it to rest Mr. Ramadoss?
> 
> Roberta
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, MKR <mkr777@> wrote:
> >
> > There is nothing unethical or illegal or criminal, IMHO. (I have been
> > looking into this issue for years after I got burnt years ago by another
> > member of TS on this issue!!!)
> > 
> > In the US, everyday, news media discover newsworthy information that
> > organizations and even government wants to keep confidential or even secret
> > and is distributed to the public by the news media. If that were not the
> > case, news media cannot function and citizens' interests protected.
> > .
> > Here is a very serious policy issue going to the very core of the democratic
> > rights of the members world-wide. But for the timely discovery and
> > dissemination, I do not know what would be the situation in TS today. One
> > can use their imagination very easily.
> > .
> > Considering the players involved and timing of the move, if I had run into
> > the same information I would have done the same to protect the TS. Since no
> > money is involved and no trade secrets are involved, it may be criminal in
> > an autocratic state like China or North Korea, but not in a democracy like
> > USA or India.
> > .
> > Also but for theos-talk maillist, it would have been kept secret until we
> > woke up one day and shocked to learn we have lost our democratic rights for
> > ever.
> > .
> > Even in the case of Dr. Agarwal's death, but for theos-talk, we all would
> > continue to be in the dark.
> > .
> > I once again wish to remind the readers here, when did you see any of the
> > leaders connecting with members and interacting with members on Internet. In
> > the last more than 15 years, we have seen only two leaders - *Einar
> > Adalsteinsson  *(deceased General Secretary of Iceland) and Warwick Keys (NZ
> > General Secretary). Has anyone asked why? Too busy or too scared to face
> > members?
> > 
> > Messenger aka MKR
> > 
> > visit theosophy.net
> > 
> > 
> > On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 9:50 AM, robertapimenta26 <
> > robertapimenta26@> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > > Someone, who was not on the list of adressees, illegally intercepted the
> > > document and used it, not by giving it to people Mr. Anand, but by
> > > deliberately leaking it, thus causing obvious confusion and anger. This
> > > person had great interest in the commotion that came about, and made very
> > > smartly use of it. Must I remind you all, that such an action, using
> > > confidential documents and or specific information, without permission of
> > > the addressee, is a criminal offence?
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>