Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl00764)

At 09:32 PM 5/12/96 -0400, you wrote:
>
>NO I dont. Take note of the number of resignations from this list for
>a start! When a list is small and the traffic light it doesnt matter
>too much to most users if the noise ratio is high. But this list is
>now large and if its purpose is to provide a public forum for the
>discussion of theosophy and if we want people to lurk, participate and
>stay then we need to consider what is discussed.

But who decides what is theosophy and what isn't?
>
>Practically speaking this is very much like the death many members of
>this list talk about happening to lodges - ironic isnt it?
>
>> half a second to delete a "one liner", or if you find one person does only
>> "one liners' you can filter them.There are a number of people on this board
>
>When it can be half of the messages at around 90 a day that's 45
>messages - which takes more than a second to:
>a open
>b read
>c delete
>What a waste! Ironically so many things wrong with TS organizations
>is that they dont get around to doing practical things and here we
>are wasting each others time on this stuff.

So you have somewhere between 45 and say 90 seconds of phone time...what a
tragic waste of time! It seems to me if you know that a particular person
has a penchant for "one liners" you can delete without reading which takes
even less time.
>
>> Basically, I fear that what you're actually thinking about is censorship of
>> content and that is a basic American "NO-NO". Who has the right to decide
>
>Firstly this isnt America - its the internet with its own philosphy
>called netiquette.

That statement is indicative of an attitude I can neither fathom or accept.
If "netiquette" is seen as taking precedence over Democratic Norms and
Freedom of Speech than "netiquette" has to go. It's just that simple.
Internet or not this is still America, and it best stay that way.
>
>This is a list to discuss Theosophy, and as I understand it the
>members of the list have the right to decide what is OK.

But what you seem to be saying is that YOU, that is you personally, want to
make that decision, and that too is unacceptable. The members of this list,
while you were away took a vote on having a "monitor" and "rules of content"
and decisively voted it down. Ask Alan he took the poll.
>
>If a lodge spent half is time talking about things other than
>Theosophy members could do one of three things:

With the three objects as theosophy's basic parameter, there is almost
nothing that isn't appropriate for theosophical analysis.
>
>1 leave the lodge
>2 put up with it
>3 encourage a return to the focus/ point of the group/lodge
>
>I have chosen to take option 3 and I am sure others agree, sadly many
>have taken option1 :-(
>
>AND WE ARE ALL POORER FOR THE LOSS.
>
>> what is "on-topic" and what is "off-topic". I know I don't, and I certainly
>> won't cede the right to anyone else. I strongly doubt if anyone on this
>
>Great, you "wont cede the right", what about the rights of the group,
>the purpose of us gathering together?

The purpose of this list is for the people subscribing to it to have
whatever discussions, relevant to their understanding of theosophy, that
they choose. We don't all have to discuss the same subject. J.H-E and Kim
are having a highly technical discussion of the differences between CWL and
HPB. Wonderful, that's what the list is for, and those who are interested
read them. Jerry S. JRC, Chuck, Myself, and several others are discussing
several "theosophical tracks" third object activities being one of them.
Someone else seems to think that psych ism is a result of psychoses. But all
of this is fine within the theosophical parameter. As to "group rights",
well the Soviet Union was based on so-called "Group Rights" and it was one
of the most grindingly oppressive and murderously repressive societies on
the planet. I will always support individual rights as I believe group
rights oppress the human spirit.


>
>I believe that both ....doss and myself are coming from a
>consideration and compassionate point of view and I hope our comments
>are taken as such.
>
>BFN
>OOROO
>Michelle
>
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>michelle@zip.com.au
>Get On-Line Internet Training and Database Services
>http://www.arch.unsw.edu.au/netcourse/

Well Doss has already assured me that he was mostly joking. But I have this
to say to you your comments seem mostly "control oriented" and I question
the compassionate nature of control.

alexis
>
>