[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: On expanding a disagreeable situation into a sandlot rhubarb

Feb 10, 2006 10:04 AM
by robert_b_macd

Dear Bill,

I have no problems with what you have to say and take it all with the
good faith in which I know it was intended.  I have no doubt that
Carlos can stand up for himself.  I probably could have taken in good
faith what Bart had to say had he not thrown in at the last that
completely unfounded comment on the Hollocaust.

I am sure that you are not objecting to people joining in debates.  I
suspect that Carlos would have ignored Bart's opinion of him and kept
his focus on the larger debate at hand.  I, on the other hand, found
the topic of philosophical interest and tried to post a well thought
out argument in good faith.  One way of creating a harmonious site is
to assume that others are acting out of principle.  As we cannot guess
at anothers motive this would seem to be the most charitable way to
proceed, certainly more so than trying to judge others.  In this way
we stick to the arguments and don't get caught up in defending motive.
 An argument even if poorly motivated can still be a good argument. 
Motive then becomes a distraction to the issue.  We are not here to
teach people to become better people, we are here as students, and
will take away from each exchange what we need. This is the point that
I was originally trying to make to Bart and if in the process I
overstepped the bounds of propriety, I apologize.

In good faith, Bruce

--- In, Bill Meredith <meredith_bill@...>
> Hello Bruce, 
> Welcome to theos-talk.  I will try, with the best of intentions,  to
> some things that I would want someone else to say to me in a similar 
> situation.  
> robert_b_macd wrote:
> >
> > In the end, this site is the responsibility of everyone.  If we want a
> > civil site, we can't expect the moderator to babysit us, we have to
> > stand up for one another. 
> >   
> Or perhaps, we need to learn to stand on our own two feet and give 
> others time and space to learn to stand on their own as well.
> < When bad behavior is exhibited, we might
> have to hiss a little bit.  Don't be afraid to call someone out for
> bad behavior, the rest of us will back you up.>
> Recognizing bad behavior in others seems easier than recognizing our
> bad behavior.  Who is "the rest of us?" This choice of words and
tone is 
> expected on a children's playground or in a gang-infested
> but seems somehow out of place here.
> The original difference of opinion about whether HPB was being treated 
> as a deity was between Bart and Carlos.  Bart's ML quote was something 
> for Carlos to consider and then dismiss or take to heart.  It was for 
> Carlos that Bart wrote.  Perhaps Carlos wrote to you privately and ask 
> you to "stand up for" him?  For whatever reason, in choosing a side and 
> creating a dispute where none existed before, you did not hasten  a 
> peaceful resolution, but instead  your "bad behavior" made room for 
> expanding a potentially disagreeable situation to include additional 
> issues now solely between you and Bart.  That  you have a gift for
> is undeniable, but perhaps in the future you might  restrain your ego 
> long enough two brothers to reach an acceptable solution between 
> themselves?    Consider this:   two wrongs will  not  make  a right,
> together they  may  make  a catastrophe.
> This whole situation is making for some strange  bedfellows.
>  As for me,  Bart is a friend and it pains me to see him treated this 
> way.  Still,  I know Bart and when he is wrong he will apologize, not 
> because it has been demanded of him, but because it is the right thing 
> to do.  Bruce,  I can't say that I know you that well........yet.
> Now, hopefully no one will  view this post  as an  attack upon you and 
> feel the  overwhelming urge to stand up for you by writing a post 
> attacking me.  That would be  a  further mistake.
> peace,
> bill

[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application