Theos-Talk Archives (January 2005 Message tt00070)

I'll have to agree with Paul on this one. Most of which comes over 
these discussion boards are IMO not worth the time it takes to read 
them. On the other hand, there are some fine and informative web sites 
out there. I think it would greatly help the quality of these bulletin 
board discussions if we all evolved some kind of code of etiquette which 
most everyone would agree. 

--jhe



kpauljohnson wrote:

>--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, MKR<ramadoss@g...> wrote:
> 
>
>>Let us look at it this way. Internet is the only medium where 
>> 
>>
>anyone can 
> 
>
>>publish almost anything without any intermediary and also without 
>> 
>>
>almost 
> 
>
>>any cost. Publishing is also instantaneous with world-wide 
>> 
>>
>distribution. 
> 
>
>>Have we not seen many many instances of items being put on 
>> 
>>
>Internet sites 
> 
>
>>which traditional print medium for one reason or another would not 
>> 
>>
>want to 
> 
>
>>publish. Many organizations which had controlled the flow of info 
>> 
>>
>do not 
> 
>
>>yet know how to deal with Internet medium where info and opinions 
>> 
>>
>not 
> 
>
>>palatable to the organization can and do get disseminated world-
>> 
>>
>wide.
> 
>
>>So let us use this medium to its best advantage.
>>
>>My 0.02.
>>
>>mkr
>>
>> 
>>
>Dear Doss,
>
>Over the years I have shared your hopes for the impact of the 
>Internet, not just on the Theosophical movement but on other 
>spiritual movements I've studied as well as on political 
>consciousness. But at this point those hopes seem vain. Sometimes 
>I go back to the theos-l archives of the mid-90s, and am always 
>surprised at how civil and constructive the discourse there was 
>compared to the current scene in Theosophical cyberspace. Most of 
>the folks whose posts I most enjoyed have long since disappeared and 
>dogmatic/argumentative discourse is now the rule rather than the 
>exception. This is not nearly as bad as the Baha'i situation where 
>a great many constructive and intriguing discussions occurred in the 
>mid-90s in cyberspace, whereas now flamefests and dogmatic 
>aggression are near-ubiquitous. With ARE as well, things started 
>out in cyberspace looking very hopeful, but the aggressive 
>dogmatists indulging in personal attacks pretty much stifled the 
>good possibilities.
>
>Neither Theosophists, Baha'is, nor ARE members are one iota more 
>likely to encounter genuine intellectual openness and honesty in 
>their organizations today than they were prior to the advent of the 
>Internet. In fact, the reverse trend has occurred-- more rigidity, 
>dogmatism, aggression, denial. Whether this is a temporary or 
>longterm result of the Internet is anyone's guess.
>
>I'm disillusioned also with the results of Internet activism on the 
>political scene. Progressive/liberal Americans have had vastly 
>greater information sources and organizational opportunities in the 
>last four years than ever before, and one would think that a certain 
>skepticism about government propaganda would have taken root in the 
>general population. But the last election shows a conservative 
>retrenchment that is closely associated with attitudes indifferent 
>or hostile to reason and evidence. E.g. evolution deniers and End 
>Times believers.
>
>In none of these cases has the Internet "come to the rescue" as had 
>been hoped.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Paul
>
>
>
>
>
> 
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
>
>
> 
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]