Theos-Talk Archives (February 1998 Message tl00200)

At 05:12 AM 2/21/1998 -0500, you wrote:
>
>>    The most insidious kind of lie is the one which is 10% innocent truth;
>>when one attacks the lie, the attacker can stick by the true part, implying
>>that if part of the lie is correct, then the rest must be as well. And if
>>the victim ignores the lie, then the victim is tacitly admitting to it.
>    Yes! For instance, "The bylaw changes are really only housekeeping
>changes".

Almost a year before the bylaws changes were published, just before the
previous annual meeting, I sent a note to Wheaton asking if there was any
plan to change any bylaws. I got an immediate defensive response. Also at
that time I was also not aware that a committee was working on the bylaws
changes. I was also questioned my letter seem to raise the question of
trust of Wheaton. When the bylaws change was published, I was indeed
surprised. I immediately wanted to talk to the chairperson of the committee
who was also a member of BOD and when I called Wheaton asked for her
telephone number (which is not a previleged or private info) I was told all
they can do was to relay my msg and the person had to call me back. I
immediately scoured my TS correspondence files and was able to find a
listing of all the officers with their addresses and telephone numbers and
I did immediately call the chairperson and talked to her.

>
>
>>You ask why I think I find myself on the defensive so often. I'll tell you:
>>because people like you make it so unpleasant for anybody who dares to
>>disagree with your own personal view that the theosophical discussion is
>not
>>worth the agita, and they drop out, so that all that is left are people who
>>don't agree with you, people who don't care, and people who delude
>>themselves into thinking that there is something worthwhile here, myself
>>being the last group.
>    Or perhaps because you defend a group of people as being good and kind
>and well-intentioned, on a list containing a number of people who have very
>personal experience of considerably different behaviour.
>    I do, however, like the smooth adoption of the victim role - Wheaton
>uses it most effectively as well. It is "unpleasent" on this list for anyone
>that dares disagree with one's personal view? *Who* has all the power here?
>It may be unpleasent for *you* on *this list* ... but try "disagreeing" with
>Wheaton's view of Theosophy ... you don't even get the *unpleasentness* of a
>response ... you simply get locked out of all Theosophical publications and
>offices ... and then when you complain here ... in one of the few places you
>*can't* get locked out of - you're accused of being intolerant of ideas you
>don't agree with.
>    Good argument - around 10% true I'd say. -JRC

A clear cut example was the case of Carl Stillman. He was a long time
member and had been on the Board of Directors and other committees several
times. When he died, there was a small paragraph about his passing in the
AT. On the contrary when his wife died, there was big write up even though
she did not hold any national office, elected or otherwise to the best of
my knowledge. Everyone wondered why. Marginalizing was simply because Carl
did disagree with Wheaton policies and acted on it. I think the issue was
that surrounded Bing Escudero.

mkr