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


May 13, 2006 02:22 PM
by Vincent

Yes, I agree.

I still haven't figured out what this 500-post debate is about.  
(Yes, I actually did a quick count.  The debate is about 500 posts or 
so long.)  I thought perhaps to read the 500 posts so that I could 
get a solid handle on the debate, but then I feared that I might 
become wisked away by a whirlwind into some distant oblivion.  So I 

--- In, "Eldon B Tucker" <eldon@...> wrote:
> [Read this carefully if you are actively participating in the 
> list or are considering doing so.]
> The past few months have been a wild time at theos-talk, but now it 
> time for things to return to the type of discussion for which
> theos-talk was intended.
> The purpose of the list is to allow people of all backgrounds to 
> their interests as seekers and as students of the theosophical
> philosophy. The list is independent. It is not subject to the
> particular agenda and politics of any theosophical organization.
> The list does not have any special people that are entitled to write
> on behalf of Theosophy, correcting others and telling them they are
> wrong when they disagree. People can think differently and do not 
> to adhere to the outlook of anyone's favorite theosophical 
> It is a place for learning and sharing ideas. With people from all 
> different theosophical traditions welcome, there will be differing
> views on things. Disagreement is fine, although we can learn new
> things from one another. 
> The hope is that people will come to respect others of different
> backgrounds, form a growing brotherhood, broaden their thinking,
> clarify their ideas, and learn from the experience.
> The first important rule of behavior is being respectful of others.
> Remember that you are talking to people. It is not any different 
> if you had a theosophical meeting in your living room and you are
> conversing face to face with them. Watch how you express yourself.
> Stop and listen to how you are putting your ideas into words.
> We should tolerate differing views. We are all entitled to write and
> have our own views. We should not find ourselves attacked when we
> disagree with someone else's favorite author.
> Ad hominem attacks are unacceptable. This is when we reply in a
> discussion with an attack on the other person or the person's 
> This is a discussion list, not a fighting club. Everyone, try to 
> to the points under discussion without name calling or saying others
> are acting with bad motives.
> What does this mean? You do not tell everyone what someone else's
> agenda is, nor call someone else a liar or slanderer, nor judge and
> tell everyone if he or she is a Theosophist or not, nor speak for 
> or her about what his or her motives may be. Stick to positions and
> premises rather than attack personalities.
> If you are unclear about what someone said, ask them. Each person is
> entitled to speak for himself or herself about what is meant. You 
> not entitled to tell them and everyone else what they actually mean.
> An additional rule of good behavior is that you do not hound someone
> about things they have not been discussing and do not want to talk
> about. If, say, Paul Johnson were to be on the list again and write
> about an interesting book he had read, he would be within his rights
> as a theosophical seeker to want to talk about it without being 
> to task by sharp critics of books he wrote many years earlier.
> This is not a historical research list nor is it a mouthpiece for 
> United Lodge of Theosophists, the Theosophical Society [Adyar], the
> Theosophical Society [Pasadena], nor any other particular group.
> Long-running fights between groups should not be bitterly fought out
> here between hard-line supporters.
> Right now, there are some active threads of discussion that are
> getting tiresome. They are getting nowhere and have had the effect 
> driving people away. In the past week, three people have 
> including one that lasted less than a day, someone that initially
> indicated great interest in learning about Theosophy and that was
> likely gravely disappointed in what she read.
> One thread is about there being two editorial styles of gathering 
> offering historic information on Blavatsky. We have repeatedly read 
> the merits of each approach and been exposed to far too much name-
> A second thread is about there being plots to subvert Theosophy and
> the suggestion that some participants on the list might be somehow
> involved.
> We are here on the list to learn about Theosophy and consider a 
> spectrum of emerging ideas that might broaden our thinking on life. 
> are not here to squabble over styles of historic books nor are we 
> to play a game of "Who is the real Dugpa?"
> It is time that we move on, so I am stating that as of Monday 
> the two threads be closed. That gives everyone about a day to write
> any final thoughts on the subject. I am also stating that the ad
> hominem attacks must stop. Granted, someone might lose his or her
> temper and have a one-time outburst, and then express sorrow about 
> mistake. But a persistent pattern of lashing out at people must not
> continue.
> This is an unmoderated list and I would like it to remain that way.
> But if any individual cannot behave, he or she might face personal
> moderation (or expulsion in extreme cases). Each person has the 
> to express himself or herself, but not to deny others their equal
> rights of expression.

[Back to Top]

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