Theos-Talk Archives (September 1995 Message tl00820)

Rich writes:

>Daniel Caldwell has a slightly different opinion of "source"
>Theosophy than I do, Eldon and JRC have different views on
>psychic exploration, etc. etc.
>That's why it's called DISCUSSION and not "ditto."
>
>If we are all content to let "Daniel Who Irritates the Lions" to
>discuss whatever he likes, then it seems equally fair to allow
>historical discussions to continue unimpededly.

 What Rich is saying here, is what I understood this board to
be about in the first place. If we are to be truly democratic
and represent and discuss a variety of views then we can't be
pushing people off of this board because they have a different or
unpopular opinion, or one makes others angry.

 Personally, I don't mind if we have a separate board for
historical discussions. I understand that such discussions are
boring for most participants. If one doesn't already have a good
historical background in the first place, these interchanges
would be difficult if not nearly impossible to follow.
Furthermore, my own observations concerning the nature of the
discussions on this board is that most participants are not
historically minded anyway. For instance, past comments
concerning my own and other historical contributions have made it
clear that many on this board make absolutely no distinction
between historical discussion and gossip. For those who take
this positions, there is nothing to say except--if you don't like
it, delete it. Yet, theos-l is becoming like a crowded room with
a different conversation going on at every table. New people
coming in might find that navigating through the conversations
before finding something they resonate with to be a difficult
task. For this reason, I see some justification of having a
separate room for historical discussion to be a fair thing to do.
But is the motivation to avoid congestion or is it censorship?

 Ever since these divisions were made, only theos-l gets any
significant use. Theos-news comes in at a very distant second
and I don't remember the last time I've seen anything come over
theos-buds. If we are to break theos-l into categories, then
let's be consistent about it. ALL historical discussions should
go to theos-roots: that would include Alan's posts on Christian
Origins; Dan's, Paul's and my posts on source theosophy; any
discussions concerning Blavatsky's, Judge's, Crosbie's,
Purucker's, Leadbeater's, Besant's, etc.'s historical role in the
Theosophical Society; etc. I think this would make theos-roots a
very busy place. Further, ALL discussions on fundamentals should
go to theos-buds. That would include Eldon's monologues on
theosophical teachings; Eldon's and Jerry S.'s discussions on
globes and principles, Brenda's S.D. posts, etc. I think theos-
buds would be a busy place too. Finally, ALL announcements of
new journals and books, upcoming conventions and gatherings, and
reports concerning the same would go to theos-news. Now that
leaves theos-l with a lot of room for Daniel (unless you want to
set up a theos-christ for discussions on theosophy and
christianity); many of Art Patterson's general discussions; and
occasional inquiries from such people as our new correspondent
from Kiev.

 What I'm saying is if we are going to have these
departments, then let us use them in the spirit they were
created. If Rich should go to theos-roots, then everyone else
should also go to their respective departments also. Let's all
go where we belong or all stay here on theos-l. Any halfway
measures is hypocrisy and censorship.

Jerry Hejka-Ekins
Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu