Theos-Talk Archives (December 1996 Message tl00306)

On Fri, 13 Dec 1996, Eldon B. Tucker wrote:
>
> I'm glad that you don't think that the theosophical leadership
> is as bad as my example, an exaggeration, would make it seem.
> But what impression do many people get on this list in reading
> some of the statements that have been made in the past by others?
>
As one of those who probably *has* used words close to those as extreme as
your example ... I *hope* the impression people get is that this list is
not under the control of any Theosophical rulers, whom, at least in the
Wheaton TS, marginalize and silence any dissent that does not suit their
fancy, exert tight control over all organs of TS publication, and have now
so rigged the elections process that virtually no one other than those
they choose has much of a chance of gaining any power in the organization.

If things get sometimes extreme on this list, it is perhaps because it is
one of the few places in which those who wish to control the discourse
have absolutely no ability to do so. But if the TS permitted discussion to
be free and open within its ranks, the need for a pressure relief valve (a
role often played by this list) would not be nearly as necessary. So far
as I go, frankly, when I first came on the list, one of its *most*
attractive features was that people were openly discussing the details of
all manner of things HQ had done, that I was slightly aware of, but that
were thoroughly supressed within the TS. The people on this list, for
instance, probably have a far greater awareness of all sides of the Boston
Lodge fiasco - and the fact that HQ spent several hundred thousand dollars
suing one of its own Lodges - than anyone else in the organization (save
the members of the Lodge itself). All that came from HQ was (IMO) a very
one-sided point of view ... their own ...  and the thought that there
might be another side to the story, let alone the thought that boths sides
might actually be presented in the AT .... were not ideas HQ apparently
wanted anything to do with.

HQ has for some time gotten away with an enormous number of things that
are, IMO, quite corrupt, because they had almost complete control over the
means of discussion among the membership. On this list they do not, but
the intensity of dissent voiced here is not a negative quality of the
list, but rather a symptom of deep dissent within the Society that has no
other outlet - and any thought that anyone should restrain the tone or
content of their dissent on this list makes me very uncomfortable - as its
the only place where dissent can even speak. And that is directly due to
the actions of HQ.

(PS. Good to see you back Eldon ... how's the new list/publication going?)
							Regards, -JRC