Theos-Talk Archives (December 1996 Message tl00601)

On Mon, 23 Dec 1996, Tom Robertson wrote:
>
> >From my experience with moderated newsgroups and from my experience with the
> TS, 10 will get you 100 that if you try to post something negative about the
> TS in their moderated newsgroup, they would post it.
	Well, that certainly would be welcome - but I doubt it. From my
experience with the AT, Quest, and the TPH, exerting control over the
parameters and content of discussion is close to an obsession. Of course,
to those who wish of their own accord to remain within the approved
boundaries, no limitation appears to exist - but those who have tried to
genuinely stretch the boundaries have almost to the person come to
understand how well defined and *enforced* they are.
	I don't think you were here last year when the By-law "revisions"
were being put to a "vote" in the Wheaton TS. Most of the Society simply
read the AT - and the presentation in *that* would have made it appear as
though there was only mild concern about the changes, and that they really
were only to "clean up" things ... that is, that they were merely minor
housekeeping changes. On this list however (which contains members from
all the different Societies ... Adyar/Wheaton, Point Loma & etc., and a
range of opinion from the most conservative to the most radical) there was
a *huge* debate ... and in the view of at least some, at least a couple of
the changes were far more than simply housekeeping, but were a significant
step in the further consolidation of power by a faction that now runs HQ.
	The "debate" that was permitted in the AT was little other than a
token discourse ... were the same debate that took place here been
permitted in the AT, or would a considerably larger number of members been
on this list, the Bylaw revisions may well have gone down in flames, and
even if they passed, it would have been a *helluva* lot closer. In fact,
they even *broke* the Bylaws governing the process by which changes to the
Bylaws must be made - a fact brought clearly to light (by several
different listmembers who are attorneys) on this list ... but certainly
not something publicised in the AT ... and - I'd be willing to bet - not
something that would be permitted to be a thread on a moderated newsgroup.
	Point is, the people who designed and wanted the changes - and who
*benefitted* from them, are the same people that controlled what did and
did not go into the AT ... and the people who will now be moderating the
newsgroup. If they do not permit free and open discussion in the organs
of communication they do control, I certainly would not expect them to
suddenly change their ways in the formation of a new avenue.
								-JRC