Theos-Talk Archives (June 1996 Message tl00074)

At 06:47 PM 6/1/96 -0400, you wrote:

>Martin comments:
>
>Freedom of speech is a very good and necessary thing indeed.
>As with all freedom, however, it is imperative that people learn to operate
>within certain self-imposed boundaries, having to do with the rights
>and freedoms of others. Why is it that so many Americans are obsessed
>with their *rights*? Do they still have to learn their *duties*?
>One's duty may be the 'right' of the other, isn't it?

Martin:

You will find, if you make contact with many other American based groups,
that most Americans are positively repelled by the idea of "Duties". Many of
us were altogether too frequently disgusted by the concept of "Dienst" in
the period 1933 -1945. Most American's you will find will absolutely refuse
to learn "their duties". Now as to self-imposed boundaries: Well I have my
own and you have your own, there is absolutely no reason they should be
identical. I submit that you haven't been on this list long enough to make a
creditable evaluation of the overall thrust of my messages. I submit that to
judge all my messages by jocular messages between Chuck Cosiman and myself
is entirely unfair and irresponsible. I submit that to judge me at all
doesn't lie within your purview or authority. I submit that it is my
perception that the greatest motivation behind your judgemental attitude
towards me derives from the entirely unorthodox approach I have to what
Eldon and Daniel call the "Core Doctrines" of Theosophy, and that I believe
is the ONLY thing that drives you. If you would go through my postings since
I joined the board you would find that, with the exception of my "games"
with Chuck Cosimano, the majority of my messages have been thoughtful,
original, and entirely unorthodox. But I also submit that the actual content
of my messages on this board are of really little interest to you.
>

>Indeed. But that's not the issue here (except for the Leadbeater case).

Please explain the sentence above. I don't wish to misunderstand you.

>The issue is, or rather has become: personal attacks on each other.

In the first place, if you had been on this list long enough to follow the
whole situation, you would find that I am not entirely at fault. I have been
accused of things that in my own estimation, I did not do. The problem with
Liesel Deutsch originated when she violently reacted to my total disapproval
of Charles Webster Leadbeater, my mistake was, and I freely admit it, to let
my Russian temper get the best of me and replied in kind. When something I
say is true, and is backed up by vast amounts of printed evidence, I do not
accept being told that I cannot discuss the subject. I have "filtered"
Liesel and you'll find if you read her postings that a great many of them
are entirely gratuitous attacks on me, on my veracity, on my intelligence,
and on my honor. And yet you apparently feel that I, who have only replied
to one particularly scurrilous remark in a fit of anger (and immediately
apologized) am entirely and singly at fault. That is unacceptably unfair.

>Sure you are wise enough to not belief that anything good comes from it.

You are absolutely right that I think nothing good comes of it. But I will
tell you that this campaign to make me the "demon" of this list is
slanderous, libelous, and totally undeserved. You will get no "Mea Culpeas"
out of me. You seem to operate on the premise that to be accused of
something makes one guilty, well that may be true in Roman Law but it is not
true in American Law. I have been accused of "Bashing" Eldon Tucker, but the
accusation is untrue, I disagreed with both his statement and his attitudes,
that is indeed true, but that is not "bashing". On the other hand I have
been bashed for that illusionary action far more times than I find acceptable.

>Why continue or react, as the case may be? (I subscribed but a couple
>of days ago to theos-buds and didn't see much of the previous quarrels
>there)

>Anyway, I'm glad you withdraw your remark about Liesel as Alan rightly
>requested.
>
I'd have apologized far sooner and well before Alan's request but I know
that Liesel has me filtered so how would she see it?



>Again to this 'self-appointed censor' thing. It sounds as a hollow phrase to
>me, because it is used too often by you (and Chuck sometimes). You're not
>dealing
>with kids on this list, but with grown-ups who *do* have some standards of
>behaviour..
>Maybe you will have more success with this style of communicating
>on alt.theosophy (if there are many young people on it), but this style
>is often contra-productive on this board. You *will* have noticed that
>by now, I presume?
>
Martin: Please delete the sarcasm. I find the attempts at censorship on this
board far too one sided, far too personality specific, and infinitely far
too indicative of an entirely hypocritical double standard. There seems to
be one standard for myself and Chuck, and an entirely different standard for
others. This I will never accept. Secondly, I have never assumed I was
dealing with "Kids" on this board. I think your assumption that I have is
presumptuous to say the least. I also think it's presumptuous of you to
imply that people who are young are either ignorant or unintelligent.


>Now, having said this, this doesn't mean I'm not interested in your *ideas*.
>In fact, I'm going to discuss your views on karma and reincarnation thoroughly
>with you, if you can stand severe scrutiny and dissecting of your opinions
>on these things.
>
>Martin Euser
>

You know Martin; my opinions have been subject to scrutiny and dissection
for many years, and by people with strings of Doctorates inches long. Alan
Bain is a person who severly scritinizes and criticizes my opinions
regularly and I have no trouble with it. You apparently are extremely
pleased with yourself, and I have no reason to doubt either your
intelligence or your knowledge. But, I'd thank you to return the compliment.
I have three hundred students all over this planet, most of them mature and
well-educated people, when you insult me, you insult them.

alexis
>
>
>
>
>