Theos-Talk Archives (January 1997 Message tl00328)

=================this is a re-post with a new note at the end ==========

At 04:26 PM 1/11/97 -0500, you wrote:
<>MKR:
<>
<>>JRC at various times has
<>>expressed very clearly and succinctly ideas and suggestions that some on
<>>theos-l agreed. In such a situation, there are two choices. One is to lurk
<>>and be silent. Another is post a message of support, which only confirms
<>>that he is not alone in his views on a particular topic. It can be seen any
<>>way one wants. Either as an additional corroboration or cheering depending
<>>on how one views it.
<>
<>If it were only a brilliant expression of ideas, no one would object, even
<>if they did not agree. In a discussion group, if you don't like what someone
<>is saying, and you were to walk up to them, grab them by their shirt and
<>pull them out of their chair, call them a puny little illogical fool with
<>vile motives and give an icy laugh in their face, and some in the group
<>started to clap and cheer, what would you think? There's something quite
<>wrong, apart from how brilliantly either argument was going on. 
<>
<>In my previous posting, I was pointing out the adverse side effects of
<>such an approach, since JRC may not be fully aware of how this appears.
<>If you seen no harm in it, and understand why personal attacks would be
<>valuable, perhaps you can explain it so that I can understand.
<>
<>-- Eldon


<>      As everyone here probably is aware, I have never and will never
<> support any personal attacks by anyone here or anywhere nor would any 
<> one see me doing it. If there are two people who indulge in personal 
<> attacks, then it is purely upto them to resolve them, and hopefully 
<> will be resolved.

<>      There is also another issue that I have seen in life. That is, 
<> I would rather have someone personally openly attack me up front so 
<> that I can know the attacker, understand the attack and try to deal 
<> with it. But when the attack is made on your back or when you back is 
<> turned, when you do not even know the attacker or see the attacker,
<> it is worse.

<>        I hope my position is very clear on the above.
<>

<>MKR 


PS:

When I look at the main subject of the post, all this bandwidth use and
discussions are simply a very direct result of the non-availability of
verifiable documented factual information surrounding the Boston Lodge. We
can trust everybody and anybody high or low, important or unimportant. But
as a Russian Proverb says:

              "Trust but Verify". 

In money and property matters, this is the most satisfactory way to get the
air cleared of any inaccurate information that may be floating around. Until
such time more light is shone on the issue and everybody sees the whole
picture and understand why a certain action was taken or why a certain
action was not taken, the issue is not easily going to go away. With more
subscribers getting on theos-l, more of them would be wondering what is the
real story.

Any supporters and cheerers are welcome to join me on the above point of view!!!

This is my 2 cents worth. Your mileage and direction may vary.


MKR