Theos-Talk Archives (June 1999 Message tl00034)

> one of my professors received call at his office complaining about me.
> Probably calls were related to my investigation of Judge & Crosbie.  \At
> suggestion of 2 professors I no longer give out particulars about myself
> especially on internet or through email.  I've had my phone number changed
> unlisted to prevent reoccurrence of this.  I'm beginning to understand
> darker aspect of some cults.
> It's not necessary to know my theosophical affiliations, background, &c.
to
> appreciate what I've written about Crosbie, ULT, etc.  Reader can assess
> accuracy of my material without knowing anything about me.
> I really regret I mentioned I was going to write dissertation on Judge &
> related subjects.  This has served as an excuse for Mr JRC & others to
focus
> on what is totally off the subject.

Oh there is just *so* much delightful stuff here. Hard to even know where to
begin. I especially like the "darker aspects of cults" line. So classic. You
come into groups, act like a complete flaming arrogant jerk about stuff
you've "studied" for all of a couple of years at most, around people who
have spent their lives understanding it, you and your professors get a
couple of phone calls, and suddenly you are understanding the "darker side
of cults". Yep, now *that's* the measured response of an objective graduate
student.

Of course, it certainly does give you an excuse to keep your identity and
affiliations hidden. and of course, another reason for doing so might be,
what? Hhhhmmm, maybe that your purposes and credentials could actually be
*verified* ... as being true or false. Guess what bucko - that is the *NORM*
of modern scholarship.

"It's not necessary to know my theosophical affiliations, background, &c. to
appreciate what I've written about Crosbie, ULT, etc" - what the hell
*universe* are you going to college in anyway? You claim to be a graduate
student, and you *haven't* been trained to *examine the source* of material?
You *haven't* been taught that examining the *MOTIVES* of any writer is not
only valid, but absolutely *essential* to understanding the content? You
actually believe that if, for instance, you were an ex-member of the ULT, or
a *current* member of another TS organization, or going to school at a
"Christian" University, it *wouldn't* matter in the way people *perceived
and evaluated* what you were writing? That people that you expect to give
you a "fair" reading don't have the *full right* to know *who* they are
reading? Don't have the *right* to demand as much information of *you* as
you are demanding of the objects of your "study"? Don't have *every* bit as
legitimate a right to question *your* motives and behaviour as you feel you
have to question those of ULT members?

Do you realize dear boy that what you have finally done is constructed the
perfect argument *against what you are doing*? Guess what? Guess what
*Judge*, and *Crosbie*, and a lot of current ULT members would feel about
*your* "studies" - they'd say "stop paying attention to who *I* am, and turn
your attention to my *CONTENT*. Now who has been whining and complaining
about that very thing? Oh, that's right. *YOU*.

YOU, who has appointed himself judge and jury, You, who *simultaneously*
wants to focus in intense depth on the personal histories, affiliations,
motives and sins of the ULT and some of its founders, AND complain bitterly
when people direct towards you the *precisely identical attitude*. You don't
like it very much do you? It makes *you* seem as though *you* are acting
terribly similar to a fanatical member of a "cult" - in fact, causes you to
look almost exactly like the "darker side" of Christian fundamentalism - a
thing that many Theosophists have personal experience with. How does it
*feel*, bucko, to be completely mistaken? To be cast in a role from which
you can't escape, and in which every action to try to defend yourself only
serves to *confirm* that role.

Would you say I had done an "objective study" of David Green?  Well, its
been precisely as objective a "study", carried out in the same fashion, as
David Green has done of Theosophy.

"I really regret I mentioned I was going to write dissertation on Judge &
related subjects.  This has served as an excuse for Mr JRC & others to focus
on what is totally off the subject."

Aahhh ... this is true *if* you believe *you* have complete control over
what the "subject" is. You don't. Mentioning a dissertation didn't serve as
an "excuse" for me. It served as an excuse for *you*. And it didn't work the
way you wanted it to - so now you're complaining and regretful. If you
*hadn't* stated a reason for your actions, you would have been *continually*
asked about them - you tried to come up with a reason that would satisfy
inquery, while still allowing you to remain completely secret -and it didn't
work.

You, sir, had damn well better get used to the fact that the *standards* of
all major scholarship are quite clear about this. If you wanna write
discourses critical of individuals or organizations, people *are* going to
legitimately demand to know who *you* are. What your background is. What
your creditials and affiliations are. And they have a *right* to know. And
if you *don't* want to supply this information, do not *expect* your
*content* to be accorded the same credibility as someone that *does*. It
won't. Not here, not in any avenue of intellectual endeavor in modern arts
and letters.

> But-----I plan to complete my dissertation.  And my website on Theosophy
is
> another forum for posting related material----& more material will be
> published on that site.  Funny ----Mr JRC---it was one of my professors
who
> initially suggested the website.

Ah, now this is *really* interesting. Several things about your alledged
motives have never made sense - and the more you speak, the more you appear
to be simply lying. You say your *professors* and you got phone calls, and
your *professors* suggested that you hide your identity, unlist your phone
number, etc., etc. This sounds *way* more like you are making up these
"professors", and putting your own words in their mouths. I know *my*
professors, were both they and a graduate student to get harassing phone
calls due to activities in an area of study -*especially* if it was
suspected that these calls came *from* objects of that study - *certainly*
would not simply defend the student, advise him to hide his identity and
unlist his phone number ... that is far more what the emotional reaction of
a *student* would be.

To a genuine *professor*, it would be a clear sign that the student had made
*serious* errors in their investigation, in fact *so* serious as to
jeaprodize that project. Why? Rule one of virtually *any* credible research,
be it in the hard sciences or social sciences, is that the *researcher*
attempts to *minimize* his/her presence. Takes extraordinary pains to lessen
the effect of the study itself on the objects studied. In the same way as a
biologist trying to study cultures will wear a mask, and rubber gloves, so
as not to introduce foregin objects from his own breath and skin, so too
(and even more so) in the social sciences, the study of organizations and
people, the *greatest* flaw in a researcher, the thing to be avoided at all
costs, is to actually cause a group to act *differently* because of your own
presence.

While people calling your "professors" and you might make *you* react
defensively, any legitimate and bona fide professor would instantly take
that as a sign that you had made a *serious* mistake - that you had not only
altered the envirnoment you were studying, thus rendering any results as
illegitimate as a petri dish a biologist had accidently spit in ... but
you've actually managed to provoke serious and strong emotional reactions
from your subjects, and have actually made *yourself* a topic of discussion.
A *student* might say "no fair - you're supposed to be paying attention to
my *content* - but a genuine *professor* would say no - *YOU* screwed up
badly, it is *your* responsibility to observe, record, and analyze, in such
a fashion as to see what *exists*, not what exists as a result of *your*
study. *Study* the group, it is not your *business* to actually not only
takes *sides* in discussions *within* the group, but to actually by your
actions inflame the arguments - doing so makes your research *USELESS*.

Yet, not only would you have us believe that these professors found nothing
wrong with what you are doing, and actually *encouraged* concealment, you
actually would have us believe they went a step further and suggested that
you put up a *website*. That not only didn't they *stop* you from badly
distorting the research environment, they actually told to to *further screw
it up*. To make sure that not only did you *become* an issue, but that you
will *remain* an issue.

No buddy, the more you reveal (as unintentionally as you reveal it), the
more what you are saying simply makes no sense at all. You are *not* acting
like a serious graduate student honestly attempted to *discover* a truth
about something. Your so-called "professors" are certainly not acting
anywhere close to the norm of those guiding modern graduate student
research.

Saying that your "professors" told you to hide your identity, that a
"professor" suggested that you start a website - well, its a great way to
try to lend credibility to actions that make no sense if your motives are
what you say they are, but it doesn't work, in fact it only serves to make
your story even more incredible and unlikely.

And it won't work. It won't attract attention *away* from the fact that you
are *not* credible as a scholar so long as you hide your identity,
affiliations, background, university and other pertinent details. If we have
no idea who *you* are in a way that can be verified, anything you say can
simply be a story - including any mythical professors you'd care to create
in an attempt to bolster your story.

> In future, I'll only respond on these internet forums to responses on the
> Judge controversy & hidden side of ULT.  I don't have time for repartee on
> off-the-subject topics.

*You* want the topic to be under your control. If you want to publish on a
publc list - it is *not*. You certainly don't need to answer anything. I
however, will continue answer every post of yours that attempts to speak ill
of Judge, or Crosbie, or the ULT under the guise of some alledged "study" -
with what *I* consider to be "the topic": That a person is on a Theosophical
diuscussion list that *claims* to be a well-intentioned researcher working
under the guidance of university professors, while at the same time breaking
virtually every rule of modern research, and telling us his professors
approve of it and encourage it. But that it is appearing more and more
unlikely with every post (I can see why you've decided to stop responding -
you just about completely exposed yourself with this one), and appears far
more to be someone with a definate and ulterior motive, who explicitly hides
his entire background, when pushed tries to claim someone else told him to,
and acts *far* more like someone with a definate activist purpose who
desperately wants to avoid discovery - because people definately *would*
analyze what he was saying in an entirely different light.

so then, I'll continue the activities that, using DavidGreenese,  I'll call
"my studies" (even though "study" apparently means continual attempts to
preach a very distinct point of view in and internal TS discussion) so long
as Daved Green continues *his* "study" (which he seems to threaten to change
with remarkable frequency).

Plus, he really *is* fun to play with - for folks like me that have gone
over to the "dark side". -JRC