Theos-Talk Archives (June 1996 Message tl00112)

First a snippet out of a conversation between Chuck and Alexis:

Alexis>You know that Martin will in all likelihood take every word you
 just said totally seriously.

Martin comments: no, not really. I know Chuck a little bit better
than that (at least I think I do :))

Alexis> He's Dutch (I think) [yes] and they are as entirely literal as
any German or Slav.

Martin comments: a totally sweeping generalization (to imitate
your style :)). Actually my country is oriented very much towards
the USA. The folks here are as different from each other as in any
country. The main flaw here is the imitation of American soap opera's.
We shouldn't do that. The Americans have invented that and nobody
can do that kind of stuff better than ye yankies :)


Now to the serious stuff

Alexis>I submit that you haven't been on this list long enough to make a
creditable evaluation of the overall thrust of my messages


Martin comments: I'm not evaluating the overall thrust of your messages,
I'm trying to sense what's happening on this list.


Alexis> I submit that to
judge all my messages by jocular messages between Chuck Cosiman and myself
is entirely unfair and irresponsible.

Martin comments: of course and nobody (I hope) is doing that.


Alexis>I submit that to judge me at all doesn't lie within your purview or
authority.


Martin comments: I'm not judging you at all - this seems to be a hangup
of you. If you read my posts more carefully, you will see that I'm concerned
what's going on on this list. And I'm not putting all the fault on your
shoulders-see my posting Re: Donna; Re: Chuck & Alexis.


ALexis>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.


Martin comments: actually you're wrong in your perception. My greatest
drive is a search for truth in these matters. Why do you think I' m discussing
your point of view with you at length? Think about that!


 Alexis>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.

Martin comments> well, when I have the opportunity I will check out
the archives of John Mead.


Alexis> But I also submit that the actual content
of my messages on this board are of really little interest to you.


Martin comments: well, well. I submit that projecting *your ideas *
about the motives of others into these others is one of your flaws
(as it probably is with all of us) :)



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

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


Martin comments: I wrote that sentence because I suspect that factual
information on Leadbeater is not appreciated by many on this forum
(and that this information triggers many angry responses).


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

Alexis> 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.


Martin comments> That's quite possible (would have to check that).


Alexis> 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.


Martin comments: I regard Liesel as a very friendly lady and a 'cyber-friend'
but I know she won't tolerate strong disapprovals of Charles Leadbeater.
It is understandable: loyalty to one's teacher is a strong thing , yet
not always wise if carried to the extreme. I mean, you can be loyal to
someone and yet disapprove of some of his/her actions.
That distinction is something many people find very hard to swallow.
In other words: you can condemn some act of a person,
but, by doing so, you don't condemn the whole of the person, the whole
of his/her character. I take it that you condemned many of his acts and
views, but not the person Leadbeater?



Alexis>
 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.


Martin comments> There are some postings of her that attack you.
Personally, I see these as born out of anger (though I would have to confirm
that vision by retracing the history of this conflict.)


Alexis>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.


Martin comments: I have nuanced and elaborated my vision on this in this
post and the other (RE: Donna; Re: Chuck & Alexis). So you see I'm a little bit
more unbiased than you may think.


Alexis> But I will
tell you that this campaign to make me the "demon" of this list is
slanderous, libelous, and totally undeserved.


Martin comments: I'm feeling annoyed about this, and wish there would
be some 'truce' to begin with, and an attempt at reaching a better
mutual understanding.


Alexis> 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.

Martin comments: well, not really. I'm beginning to see more sides, facets,
to this conflict. But, probably for 'historical' reasons (what happened
during your stay on this list to you, by you (?)) , you seem to make a lot
of 'noise' (I mean, you very strongly defend yourself against accusations
made against you) and a lot of people feel disturbed by that.
I'm not saying you're 'guilty', your temper causes you a lot of trouble,
that's for sure. You acknowledged that yourself (see a quoted response
of yours above re Russian temper).

Alexis>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".

Martin comments: I agree with you here

Alexis>On the other hand I have been bashed for that illusionary action
far more times than I find acceptable.

Martin comments> There has been a strong reaction, yes, from many sides.
Whether this is to be classified as 'bashing' is a matter of further
discussion.



>Anyway, I'm glad you withdraw your remark about Liesel as Alan rightly
>requested.
>
Alexis>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?

Martin comments: Someone will sure forward that to her. And maybe she's not
really filtering you, but only refusing to get into discussion/debate
with you.

>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.


Alexis> 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.


Martin comments> Well, you may be right here. It *is* something we have
to look at more closely. I wonder what others are thinking about this.
Alan? others?


Alexis> I also think it's presumptuous of you to
imply that people who are young are either ignorant or unintelligent.


Martin comments: that was not really my intention to imply.
My thoughts concerned the straightforwardness of your postings.
That might appeal more to youngsters, who have no history of being affiliated
with one of the TSs.


>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
>

Alexis>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.


Martin comments: ok. Just thought you might be a little bit sensitive
to severe criticism or scrutiny of your opinions. Apparently you aren't.

Alexis>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.

Martin comments: hot tempered you will remain, I guess :)


Alexis>I have three hundred students all over this planet, most of them
 mature and well-educated people, when you insult me, you insult them.

Martin comments: no way, I try to approach each individual as a unique
being.



>And whence this sulky posting of yours if it concerns only 'jocular vein'?
>There is evidently a contradiction between tone and content here..

Alexis>This is entirely your personal perception Martin, and I think
"sulky" is a word one uses to children and I am probably your senior.

Martin comments: chagrin was the word I was meaning.I changed that to
sulky after looking into a dictionary (but apparently I picked the wrong
word).

Martin (prev)> So, I *do* know about it, actually
>more than I would like to. I will say one thing however, and it is this:
>even if you're right about Leadbeater (Jerry H-E has in the past mentioned
>some documentary evidence regarding the 'Leadbeater  case'), even then
>it is far wiser to take someone's [substitute: Liesel] feelings into account
>and not try to put [push] your idea's through someone's throat.

Alexis> They're not "ideas" Martin they are facts!

Martin comments: facts may be harder to swallow for some persons


> Don't you think you might actually accomplish more
>if you would be a little more considerate at times?

Alexis>If you'd been on the list at that time, you'd know that I started out by
being very considerate indeed. I dropped the subject entirely and didn't
even refer to it. It was only when CWL unavoidably came up in a context
divorced from his pederasty and I disagreed with him on some philosophical
matters, that Liesel "went off like a rocket". How about Liesel being
considerate of my feelings? Eh?

Martin comments: of course, I would expect consideration from Liesel as well.


>Can't you show a little more of that [respect] to her?

Alexis> It's far too late for that Martin, I will, if I can, have no further
contact with her at all. I don't really like dealing with people who call
you names when you disagree with them.


Martin comments: Like I said before: understandable, and I see no way
to do something about it. It is between you and Liesel. And, only when
the majority of this list would start having a good look at the roots of
this conflict, then, maybe, something would change in their attitude towards
you.

>
>Friendly,
>
>Martin Euser
>
I am nobody's enemy Martin.

alexis>
>

Martin