Theos-Talk Archives (November 1996 Message tl00175)

At 09:24 AM 11/7/96 -0500, you wrote:
>In message <961106190516_223348448@emout10.mail.aol.com>, RIhle@aol.com
>writes
>>The only problem I can see in my sharing this psychogenetic perspective is
>>that I may have inadvertently put Alan in a bind:  in order to match your
>>apotheosis, I wonder if he now has to quickly say he is no longer the
>>"person" who needed the apology. . . .
>>
>>In any case, MK Ramadoss, you are my kind of theosophist!  (But so is Brother
>>Alan, of course.)
>
>.. which is important!  Thanks :-)
>
>On a more serious note, we do, from time to time, seem to attract
>subscribers to the list who feel it in order to give what is clearly
>intentional offence.  I have protested in the past when this has
>happened, and I will continue to do so if this appears to happen.
>
>Doss is a real gentleman, and visibly an honorable man.  We do not agree
>on everything, but we are not required to - that's theosophy, too!
>


        Alan, you too are a real gentleman and a visibly an honorable person
than me.

        When someone comes along with the intention of giving intentional
offense, while the offender may get his/her ego bloated, IMHO it all looks
very dumb and stupid and mostly I treat them gently  with the hope that they
will over time realize their own stupidity. Also most of these intentional
offense givers give up when no one engages them seriously or give them a
dose of their own medicine. Since we need more newbees to keep this list and
Theosophy alive and flourish, I usually try to be a lot more tolerant with
them (newbees) compared to battle seasoned veterans.


MKRamadoss