Theos-Talk Archives (June 1999 Message tl00027)

JRC----

>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.

Word *critical* has more than one meaning or negative connotation.  Consult 
dictionary----

"exercising or involving careful judgment"
"an effort to see a think clearly and truly in order to judge it fairly"

I've asked for critical (even negative) feedback on my critiques.  And I've 
received some.

JRC----

>
>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.

Several times Mr TenBroeck has replied to comments about Mrs Tingley. This 
has happened on Internet as well as in theosophical magazines.  His comments 
can be viewed as negative & have been so viewed by several Pasadena TS 
members.  What motivates him to so respond?  That was my only point since 
you are so big into motivations.

JRC---

>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 wonder if you've read what I've written on my website.  I'm not the one 
claiming to be in contact with Masters or to be special messenger of Masters 
or to continue the Second Section.  Mr Crosbie apparantly made these claims. 
  One of my points was if ULT writers can harshly criticize Besant, 
Leadbeater, Olcott, Tingley etc. etc., why shouldn't Crosbie's claims also 
be critiqued.  Again my criticisms have been mild in comparison with what is 
found in the ULT histories.  I've not accused Mrs Tingley of forgery but ULT 
writers have. etc etc.  It appears ULT people can dish out harsh criticism 
but can't take it when it is directed at the claims of their own founder.

>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.

RE motives---what might I tell you that would convince you they were pure 
and upstanding? IF you want to perceive my motives as negative, nothing I 
can tell you will convince you otherwise.  Who knows what your motives are 
behind all this writing of yours?  I'm sure they're probably good but that 
doesn't certify that what you write is wrong or right.  Maybe even Robert 
Crosbie's motives were the best of the best, that doesn't guarantee that his 
claims were also true or false.  He may have been as deluded as ULT writers 
make Besant, Leadbeater, Tingley etc out to be.  If you are extremely 
concerned with motivations, concern yourself with the ULT which still sells 
a theosophical history which is full of much harsher criticisms than you 
will find in my essays.  Mr Dallas T advertises this book quite often on the 
Internet discussion groups.

JRC-------

>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.

No, you're quite wrong.  Had no opinion until I did alot of study & as a 
result arrived at this opinion.  It was not *pre* determined.  My opinion 
may be wrong but it was not predetermined.

JRC-----

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

Years ago I was nominal Christian but now, if anything, I'm theosophically 
inclined.  But please disregard my assertion & suspect that I'm some 
Christian fundamentalist out to destroy ........................

JRC----

>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.

JRC---as you've written, you may come to any conclusion.  Feel free to 
assign whatever motives you want to me.

JRC------

?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.

What dirt have I posted on Judge? Specify the dirt that is on my website?  
Or are you referring to fact that Judge believed he was in contact with dead 
Mrs Blavatsky?  Why is this considered---dirt?

OBTW, are you subconsciously referring to the "dirt" that Besant & Olcott 
published about Judge?  Or was the "dirt" really the truth?  How can you 
tell the difference between dirt & truth?

Are you comparing theos-l to Vatican or Islamic temple?  I hoped  
theosophists at least on theos-l were somewhat more broadminded, liberal & 
progressive-----  & could listen to negative views on theosophical subjects 
without knee jerk emotional reactions typical of religionists whether 
Christian fundamentalist, etc etc..

DG

_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com