Theos-Talk Archives (January 1997 Message tl00524)

On Thu, 16 Jan 97, Murray Stentiford wrote:

>Yes, I was quite surprised when you said you wouldn't read JRC any more >as I consider you one of the more tenacious people on this list.

As long as I see profit to an exchange, I will stick with it.  But once it
is sufficiently clear to me that what I say will be deliberately twisted to
fit a prejudiced agenda, I see no point.  Disagreement is fine, as long as
it is sincere.  But how anyone could miss JRC's blatant dishonesty is
beyond me.


>You seem to be missing the broader picture of what JRC was doing, and >why.

If such a broader picture exists, I have definitely missed it.  


>You particularly seem to be trapped for the time being in the interpretation
>of what JRC has done as "personal vendetta" and "invective". But it is not
>necessarily so, and in my opinion, most certainly wasn't so.

I am also trapped into the interpretation of seeing what JRC is doing on
this list to be precisely the very thing he condemns the TS for - trying to
suppress ideas with which he disagrees.  I have never seen such a gaping
blind spot to one's own hypocrisy before.   


>Your stated reason for dipping out doesn't wash very well, either, IMO. You
>haven't given yourself many choices if that's the only interpretation you
>can make; that JRC has lied through his teeth in bringing in the Bailey >factor.

What alternative do you see?  If I said that the TS sued the Boston Lodge
because it was located on Cape Cod, and, to justify my claim of causation,
I said that there was a lawsuit, and that Boston was on Cape Cod, what
would you think of me?


>The earliest thing I recall JRC saying that started the Bailey component of
>your interchange was
>
>>the current danger is that HQ will spend another half-million
>>dollars of the Society's resources *suing* another one of its own Lodges
>>for studying ... Hitler? no, *Alice Bailey*.
>
>You seem to have missed the fact that JRC didn't say it was a fact. He said
>what he considered the *current danger* to be. Not a very substantial bone
>to grab and run off with it, it would seem. You should have argued the
>likelihood of the proposed danger.

What evidence is there that there is such a danger, if it has never
happened, yet?  But this is only what started it.  You might have missed
the later exchange when I asked specifically if this was referring to the
Boston Lodge.  He said it was.  I asked for the basis of his contention of
there being a connection between the lawsuit and their studying of Alice
Bailey.  After repeating many times how stupid I was for merely making
assertions without having "formal proofs" to back them up, and saying how
he does not make statements without having evidence to back them up, his
only response was that there was a lawsuit and that they studied Alice
Bailey.  For him to make a statement such as this, he was at least
consistent in one way.  He must REALLY think I'm stupid.     


Murray quoted JRC:

>>My own particular way of dealing with such situations - the way of the Tao
>>- is to not only reflect the energy as completely as possible, but to
>>actually magnify it to levels where it becomes so absurd that even the
>>originator of it loses the urge to generate it.

I had not read this ridiculous statement before.  He equates an admitted
attempt at intimidation with "the way of the Tao"!  I might as well equate
how I would respond to him if he ever got in my face physically the same
way he has tried to bully me off this list with "the way of the Tao."


>So JRC has clearly stated what he was trying to do. 

In this case, I believe him.


>I don't blame you for not liking it, but if you can stand back a bit and learn >from it, it could be a good thing.

I am happy to learn from people who will point out how I am wrong.  I fail
to see the relevance of that to JRC, who is unable to do that.


>In the more than 2 years I have been on this list, I have observed JRC to
>write with a very wide range of styles, reaching peaks of expressiveness >and beauty that I have rarely seen elsewhere. You are missing a hell of a >lot if you choose to stay stuck in the perceptions of invective and vendetta.

I most definitely will "choose to stay stuck in the perception" that JRC
couldn't tell the truth his way out of a paper bag.  If I have to wade
through that much bullshit to get to all of his "beauty," I'll pass.  


>We've mentioned projection before, but could it be that this response has >more roots in yourself than anywhere else?

Could be.  If anyone sees this, and wants to approach me civilly, I will
be all ears. 


>Finally, I mentioned technique above. I am always interested to see how
>people deal with each other in discussion, and I watch the group processes
>with as much interest as the actual subjects themselves. 

I found the relationship between Adolf Hitler and Jews to be interesting.  


>Hang in there, Tom.

No amount of dishonesty and attempts at intimidation from someone as easy
to see through as JRC will stop me from doing that.


>If you and JRC ever got into a more constructive mutual writing
>relationship, I'd REALLY love to see it.

What are the chances that he will consider living up to his vaunted
"open-mindedness" any time soon?