Theos-Talk Archives (June 1999 Message tl00026)

> I'm interested in all sides of story concerning Robert Crosbie.  OBTW,
it's
> ULT & its associates who've worked quite hard to keep the complete, real
> story of Crosbie's life---well hidden.

No you aren't - in fact you have quite explicitly *asked* for *critical*
material. You haven't asked for any evidence other than that backing up a
very specific and already determined point of view. Apparently this is your
version of how to get the "real, complete story" - seeking only evidence
that backs up your own opinion. and what you arrive at will only be that -
your "complete, real" opinion.

>  ...it appears Mr Dallas TenBroeck takes every occasion
> he can to question Mrs Tingley's character.  What are Dallas T.'s motives?
> & the ULT's motives for their character defamation of theosophists?
> Question my motives all you want but why this selective treatment?  Next
> time Mr TenBroeck questions Mrs Tingley's character on theos-l, why don't
> you pen 10,000 word essay on him, his motives, etc etc etc?

Dallas posts long and detailed posts, but hardly takes "every occaision" -
in fact, he rarely mentions people at all. Close to 95% of what he writes is
quotes and his own view of Theosophical philosophy. Which is why 95% of the
people that respond to his posts talk about ideas. Close to 95% of what
*you* write are critiques of the motives and character of individuals. Which
is why when people respond to *you* most of the time the topic is about
*your* motives and character. This actually surprises you? You actually
think it "selective"? You are receiving back precisely the attitudes you are
expressing.

> >A graduate school
> >dissertation certainly doesn't require a website to be launched with
random
> >articles and your own half-completed "research".
>
> No, website isn't required but------you act like it's terrible sin that I
> have such a site.  Maybe you find nothing of interest at my site.  Okay.
> But others have written thanking me for info they knew nothing about
before
> they read it on my website.

I'm sure all 5 or 6 of them are quite pleased. Never said it was a "sin" to
have a website. I brought it up because *you* attempted to explain your
whole continuing campaign as being research for a "dissertation". I was
pointing out that this does *not* explain a great deal of your activities -
including a website. I'm seeking the "real and complete truth" behind what
you are doing.

> >You are, of
> >course, quite free to keep posting here all you want.
>
> Thanks for your permission.  I'm quite glad you're allowing me to do this.
> BTW, do you own this list?

Certainly not. Nor do you. My statement was, of course, in response to your
dramatic "your insults won't deter me from my studies". I replied that not
only was no one trying to "deter" you from your "studies", but that you were
welcome to keep doing your "studying" on a TS list. You seem quite incensed
that when you freely post the volumes you've been posting, that people would
actually *question* your motives and character in exactly the same way you
question those of the founders. Wanted to remind you that while you are
quite free to continue doing so, others are *also* quite free to respond to
*you* anyway they want. Even if you don't like it.

> >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.
>
> Oh----your motives are always good & fine while mine are highly
questionable
> and negative?  You're such a paragon of virtues, Mr JRC.

Your words, not mine. Never said I was a paragon of virtue. What I *did* do,
in response to a snide remark about "JRC", was fully and instantly explain
my background and my motives. And I notice, despite your 10,000 word
response to my post, that what you *didn't* respond to was the clear and
specific request for *your* affiliations, background, and motives.

> How do you know if I'm interested or not in theosophical *ideas*?  FYI,
I'm
> much interested in theos ideas.

I did not say you *weren't*. I said "you seem to have no interest in
Theosophical *ideas*". This is because in all of your posts you've never
*once* broached any topic dealing with the actual *philosophy*.

>But my study is on Judge, his bio, history,
> controversy surrounding him, ULT mythology on Judge, etc etc. Discussion
of
> theosophical ideas won't help much in this historical study--analysis.

Even the way you frame the statement, "ULT mythology on Judge" quite clearly
indicates not a "historical study-analysis", but research intended to try to
support a pre-determined opinion.

> Maybe I'm mistaken but I'm sure you'll let me know.  Limit to 10,000 words
> or less, Mr JRC.

Add up all the words - indeed, even whole articles - you've posted to this
list over the last few weeks "Mr. DG", then add up the number of mine. (And
you don't even need to include the 100,000 words you've actually bothered to
publish on a website). Uncertain exactly how *you* get the standing to try
to limit *anyone's* posts. BTW, do you own this list?

> Oh dear me, I have the guts to intrude on this discussion list, "run by
and
> for theosophists."  Another sin of mine?

Again this "sin" concept. Quite ... Christian of you.

> Do you know whether I'm a
> theosophist or not?  How do you determine that?  Are you the Mahatma to
> determine whether I'm a true theosophist or not?

Ah ... now that's a *very* good question. Ordinarily one would determine it
by, oh, say, *asking* the person whether they were or weren't, by maybe even
asking what TS organization they belonged to if they were. Naturally *very*
relevant questions, especially as if you are a former member of the ULT, or
a member of another organized group, it clearly makes your posts appear in a
wholly different light. However, you have steadfastly *refused* to answer
these questions, asked a number of times and quite specifically. Without
this information, I might then draw my own conclusion from the *evidence*
... which up to now is that you very much resemble a number of other
critics, mostly Christian fundamentalists, that have come onto this list -
usually for a few months - and behaved almost identically. I'll be most
happy to change that opinion the moment you actually decide to *answer* the
most basic of questions. But you can't have it both ways - you can't both
delibrately refuse to answer, and then *criticize me* for coming to my own
conclusion *because* of your refusal.

>OBTW, where does it say
> that this list is "run by and for theosophists"----only?  Non-theosophists
> go away?

It doesn't say "only" anywhere. Of course, you hardly seem to care what this
list is about. On the off chance that you *do* ... it was started, and is
run by a Theosophist, who generously manages it, and permits it to be hosted
on a server where he used to work - he may even pay for it at this point. He
does it to facilitate international discussion of Theosophy. While a number
of Theosophical discussion lists are moderated, he has determined that
everyone would be welcomed here - theosophists and non-theosophists - to
post anything they wanted. This of course means that now and then people
will join with motives that are quite different than the reasons for which
the list was started, and seek to use it as a platform for their own ideas,
or a medium for their own agendas. A good number of the list membership has
been here for a couple of years - some even consider it an online Lodge of
sorts. We have fought with one another, argued, helped one another with
questions and helped newcomers find books and literature. Members of all the
main TS organizations are here.

You will notice you've never been told to "go away" (interesting how in the
same post you managed to both criticize me for *welcoming* you to post
anything, and then imply I've also told you to "go away"). You've never been
told to "limit" the size of your exhaustive posts. What I *am* saying is
that if you *want* to come on this list with what appears to be the
relatively single-minded intention of digging up whatever dirt you can on
Judge, and publishing it as widely as you can, and refuse to answer
questions about your affiliations or motives, don't then act surprised and
self-righteous when but a couple of people intensely question and critique
*you* - on other lists you'd be swimming in flames, and on still others you
simply would have been kicked off. Maybe you'd like to walk into the Vatican
and start criticizing a Cardinal. Or walk into an Islamic temple and
question the character of Mohammed. You'd get the identical response you'll
get logging into theos-l and endlessly digging up dirt to publish on the
Judge.

So in case this is actually news to you, theos-l is a discussion list that
was started by, and continues to be run by, a long time Theosophist, as a
service. Its purpose, naturally, is to discuss Theosophy. Virtually all of
its members are now, or have been, members or students of one of the
Theosophical organizations. If you are *not*, you have not, and will not be
told to "go away". You *will* find, however, that if you choose to try to
"study" one of the early Theosophists with the clear and sole intention of
criticism, on a list composed almost entirely of Theosophists, that (gosh!
how surprising!) one or two people may actually think they have the right to
(gasp) *respond*.

> JRC, you're very broadminded & tolerant in your practice of universal
> human-hood.

Ah - this is a classic. One of the most common traits of our fundamentalist
visitors. They'll blast away for a few months, someone will finally return
to them the *exact* attitude they've been using, and they'll stand back and
say "ha! see! you aren't practicing brotherhood".

>I'm going back to Comedy Channel.

And we thank you for your latest performance.