Theos-Talk Archives (January 1997 Message tl00278)

At 10:17 PM 1/10/97 -0500, you wrote:
>On Sat, 11 Jan 97, "Dr. A.M.Bain" <guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <Pine.OSF.3.95.970109195629.17687B-100000@selway.umt.edu>,
>>JRC <jrcecon@selway.umt.edu> writes
>>>the reason I have
>>>credibility is because regardless of what *tone* I speak in in, I do not
>>>make statements without first having evidence to do so. 
>>>                                                       Regards, -JRC
>>
>>APPLAUSE AND APPROBATION!!!
>>
>>Alan
>
>I infer from this that Alan approves of both invective as a means to
>establish universal brotherhood and of the mountain of evidence that JRC
>has presented that the TS sued the Boston Lodge because they could not bear
>the thought of their studying Alice Bailey.  Or was Alan being facetious?
>
>

I have a few comments from the sidelines. Since I don't have my
armor on, I'll have to duck, after saying these few words. 

-- Eldon Tucker

----


What I've noticed over several years is that JRC responds with personal
criticisms to people that hold strong viewpoints that he disagrees with.
Bee Brown once posted the idea that she heard from Joy Mills about how
people visiting theosophical groups were either tourists or pilgrims,
and JRC let her have it. I've faced all sorts of personal charges because
of views I've expressed. And I could look over the archives and find
the names of others. JRC is cheered on by people that agree with him.

A knife will certainly get attention and win respect while it's waved
about, but arguments should really be won by the brilliance and seductive
beauty of the words, by the clearly sensed presence of Truth, rather than
by the ringing silence left after biting, hurting words.

John: I can tell by your writing that you think that you're doing a good
thing, but I think that you're simply unaware of the results of this type
of communication. You're not responding "in kind" to others that are
unbalanced, acting as a clever guru. At least as I see it, you're acting
out of habit, out of reflex, perhaps using techniques you've learned in
your "hard ball real-world state and federal politics". This approach
does allow one the power to manipulate and control a group, but I don't
think that is your intention.

Tom: The message I see in the current conflict with you is that you need
to refine your methods of expressing yourself in writing, so as to not
bring up barriers leading to breaking down of communication (like in the
political discussions). There's room for some give on both sides of the
discussions, including liberal politics, the politically correct, etc.,
and some of us may cringe at the dogmatic assertions being made *on both
sides* of the issues. You can lend some balance from the conservative
side of the discussion, if you express yourself with skill. (And that
skill comes from practice, so don't give up.)