Theos-Talk Archives (June 1999 Message tl00024)

> It's quite amazing how you two waste so many words
> about me & my site without addressing the content
> on the site.

Not as amazing as the enormous number of words you are wasting in your
little "smear early Theosophists" campaign. Most of the content on your site
is barely worth addressing. Every one-sided fanatic wants their work to be
taken seriously. None of your content merits it.

> "Put together, for a laugh, some "critical articles" - full of
> a mixture of truth and falsehoods, but written in the tone of the
profoundly
> learned."
> JRC---is this what theosophists do for pastime & fun?
> You crack me up.

"Theosophists" - despite what your opinion may be - actually don't act as a
herd in a single fashion. But since the TS's inception it has attracted
ridiculous attacks from people who use it for their own ends. As you are.
Trying to fight against this is just tiresome, and worthless, as the critics
are certainly not open to any ideas other than their own. But they *are* fun
to play with. You apparently consider the TS and its founders to be worthy
of trashing ... on a TS list. (Tell me, is this what graduate students do
for fun? Make "Dictionaries of ULTese"? No wonder modern education is
getting such a bad rap). You are certainly free to. *I* consider your
"research" to be a joke, and will have as much fun with it as I want. Hope
that continues to crack you up.

> If you two are concerned about negative, onesided
> presentation on my site, write up other side &
> publish it on Tripod.  I'm waiting.

"The other side"? Of what? Theosophy is simply a single, small, current
interation of esoteric traditions that have been around for millenia. They
need no defense, certainly not against the likes of you. Your intense focus
on the minutiae of the personal lives and correspondence of the founders
makes it clear you've utterly missed the point of Theosophy, and probably
couldn't understand in anyway. What will you do when you're done, go after
Plato? You could write one of your scathing, well researched critiques of
the Buddha - I hear there are some doubts about *his* personal life too. But
don't be too surprised if the world's billion Buddhists don't exactly stand
in awe of your intellect, and feel they need to make a case for "the other
side".  Theosophy is still around today, not because any one *person* wrote
this or that private memo, but because the founders introduced a set of
*ideas*, ideas that every one of them considered far larger and more
important than their own small personalities (something I fear you'd have a
very difficult time understanding), and these ideas were considered by at
least a small group of people to be quite compelling, interesting, and
worthy of their attention.

> As I've explained far too many times---I'm working on
> dissertation about WQ Judge with section on ULT.

The reason for suspicions are several. Many of us on this list have
completed dissertations, and a few now grade them. But if I ever started
even a freshman level paper, let alone a major piece of graduate research,
by going onto a field's online discussion list, specifically and explicitly
seeking *only* one side of a story, and while I was at it continually
attempting to convince the members of the list that the people they had
studied for years were highly questionable characters - well, unless you are
a student at Oral Roberts University whose professor has told them to trash
Theosophy, this certainly doesn't even remotely resemble university level
research methodology. And the word "dissertation" is quite vauge - perhaps
you don't mean a university dissertation, but only want to imply that. You
could be simply writing your own "dissertation" - in which case the
unanswered questions still hold - what is your motive? A graduate school
dissertation certainly doesn't require a website to be launched with random
articles and your own half-completed "research". You can "explain it" as
many times as you want - if what you are *doing* is not at all explained by
what you claim your motives are, then people will rightly suspect you of
ulterior motives.

> Insult me all you want you will not deter me from
> my study.

Who wants to deter you from your study? Go for it bucko. I might say the
same thing: Insult the early Theosophists all you want, it won't deter
anyone on this list from *their* studies. Keep posting all you want to - in
fact I've even encouraged people on the list to go look at your site. But
don't be all too surprised if members of an online Theosophical discussion
list don't immediately say "Oh good, David Green has finally exposed the
truth, we can all just stop studying Theosophy and get on with our lives",
but rather think, quietly to themselves, "sigh, yet another in a century
long series of idiots deciding to use criticisms of Theosophy to further
their own petty ends". No one here has tried to "deter" you from anything.
If you want to make a public fool of yourself, go right ahead. But perhaps
you'd be happier speaking on a Christian fundamentalist list instead - you'd
be worshipped as a hero instead of being considered an idiot. You are, of
course, quite free to keep posting here all you want. But you can also
expect a few people here to continue to examine *your* personality and
motives with as much vigor as *you* put into looking at those of the TS
Founders.

> & JRC----exactly who in the hell are you?  JRC.  Yea,
> that tells me alot.

Everyone that's been on this list for more than a few months knows me, my
affiliations, and my motives quite well. You've never asked. Since you did,
my name is John Crocker. I graduated from the University of Montana. I've
been involved in Theosophy, off and on, for 15 years. I've periodically been
a member of the Wheaton Theosophical Society, but am not currently. I've
never been involved with the ULT, but have friends that are. I could care
less about the personal lives of the founders, but find the philosophical
ideas in some of their writings to be stimulating, and as worthy of
consideration as any other school of philosophy is. I've been, in the past,
at times very critical of official Theosophical organizations, but always
with the motive of addressing what I considered problems, towards the end of
improving them, and aiding in the expansion and distribution of Theosophical
thought. I am specifically critical of your posts because your motives are
highly questionable and negative, you seem to have no interest in
Theosophical *ideas*, but merely wish to publically denigrate the founders,
and you actually have the guts to use a discussion list, run by and for
Theosophists, to do so.

That is who and what I am, and why I am writing these posts. If any part of
it isn't clear, or you believe it doesn't explain my motives, I'll be happy
to supply further information. Now, what about you? Are you, or have you
ever been a member of a Theosophical organization? For whom are you writing
this "dissertation"? What, if any, university? Why are you also engaging in
websites and posts that clearly are not part of a university graduate
research program? Why are you, in this "dissertation" so clearly only
seeking evidence supporting one side? Explain yourself and your motives. And
just saying "I'm writing a dissertation" doesn't explain anything.

> Thanks MKR & JRC for your comments. This is as good
> as Comedy Channel.

And thank *you* for being the current comedian onstage. Many of your lot
have come and gone on this list over the years. But we haven't had one for
several months now. -JRC