Theos-Talk Archives (May 1998 Message tl00126)

At 03:36 PM 5/2/1998 -0400, Bart Lidofsky you wrote:

MKR:
>> 1. Why have we not heard from any of the prominent theosophists who command
>> respect and trust of a large number of members?
>
BART:
>	Probably just because they command respect and trust. I long ago noted
>that Dora Kunz, for example, is very free with her strong opinions. If,
>however, you ask her for her opinion, and tell her that a decision you
>are making depends on it, she becomes far more moderate. Also, I would
>not be surprised if they, like myself, support most, but not all, the
>ACT points, and feel that they cannot, and therefore should not, answer
>either way until they have more information (on things such as the 1996
>elections, the staff situation at Olcott, etc.). 

>Also, note that some of
>the personalities involved in ACT have past histories of strained
>relationships with the TSA management, and it is possible that the
>>>>>>>>>>> clip<<<<<<<<<<

MKR

This is news to me. 

Can you provide details on the strained relationships you mention? 

If this is true, then everyone here can view the contents of ACT Newsletter
with this background info and use their intelligence to make up their own
mind.

If not, it would not be a fair representation of the motives of those who
have taken the time and trouble to get the ACT going in the interests of
TS/TSA.  Also it will cloud and bias the judgement of members and
prospective members who read ACT Newsletter.

As we all believe "There is no Religion Higher than Truth", we should be
even handed  to all.

BART:

>The theosophists who command respect and trust do so with good
>reason, one of which is that they do NOT speak (or type) without
>thinking things through, first.

MKR

>From what I have seen, level of respect and trust is built over a long
period of time. But they can be destroyed by a few instances by ones
actions. I think there is more to it than *thinking* *before* *acting* --
by word (written, spoken or typed) or deed. 

BART

>I believe that the National Secretary is an elected post, as well, but

MKR

I believe the National Secretary is an appointed post. And also he is a
full time employee who can be terminated at the pleasure of the National
President.

BART

>A possibility
>which I HOPE is not true is that they are thinking that if they ignore
>it, it will go away.

MKR

Who knows. I also wish it is not the case.

MKR
>> 3. Why John Algeo is not directly dealing with the issues raised and defend
>> or explain anything instead of pointing the support from paid employees
>> over whose job security he has unilateral power (and few other members)?
>
BART
>	The only reason I can think of (and I have NOT asked him directly) is
>that he doesn't want the issues to become personal, and that he believes
>that anything he says will be twisted against him. 
>
MKR

There are many policy matters that ACT has raised. Most leaders address
them head on  and resolve them quickly.

MKRamadoss