Probably you heard of the collpased constructed roof of the Adyar Theatre within the TS Adyar Headquarter in Chennai, India. Of course a sad matter, even if no one was hurt, but so far no "Theme of the quarter" and If I understood it correct, an investigation was started about occurrence. But what it let became such an issue is the way, how we latterly "discuss" controversy occurrences. Retrospectively it is as follows:
First we could read at theos-talk yahoo-group about this accident, f.e. here, here, here and an open letter here.
Later we received a message from Tim Boyd, International President of the TS Adyar via the e-mail-list of Theosophy Forward, as follows:
- In the early morning hours of May 17 the newly constructed roof of the Adyar Theatre collapsed. During the night it had been raining with strong winds. The good news is that no one was injured. Currently the area is fenced off awaiting a thorough investigation of the causes of the collapse by a team of specialists. - Tim Boyd, International President of the TS Adyar:
Message as it was published on the official website of the TS Adyar. As editor of Theosophy Forward I posted the following on our Facebook page:
The collapse of the new roof of the Adyar Theatre is a big disappointment, a blow in the face and an enormous set-back. Obscure individuals elsewhere, are exploiting the news reporting triumphantly about this incident. They should know that we will not give in and never give up doing our work. Let's come together and support the folks at Adyar! [...] Jan Nicolaas Kind - Brazil
About the accident was also talked on other sites, f.e. in the videblog of Mr. Boyd (see below), but let us be focused on what happend then. End of June Jan Nicholas Kind published it's quarterly editorial on his website.
There, we have to read from "creepy little dwarfs" and "trolls" that have "created an imaginary darkish world where they are the prosecutor, judge and executioner" and furthermore "Frustrated, unfulfilled, small-minded as they must be they won’t stop angrily throwing mud around, because that is the only thing they know how to do. In their ignorant troll-heads the whole world revolves entirely around them and through the facilities the internet offers they found their shady way of letting the world know that they exist." (Maybe it refered to this this post (Message 3), but I don't know, because it comes not clear).
And please understand me correct: I've no opinion about it (expect the fact, that the effort for Theosophy of Jan Nicholas Kind usualy is enormous), but was affected me, is the brutalisation of handling or association (not for the first time).
Indeed, who does not understand in some way such a reaction, if we remember some posts, f.e. from Dave's Theosophy News Board. To focus only on bad things in a malicious way don't help. But beside that, is that a theosophical behaviour or way of discuss things, even if this "trolls" in a "sarcastic tenor" "exploited the sad news, by reporting triumphantly about this incident" and "diminish and belittle the hard work undertaken by the current International President of the TS-Adyar and his team"?
Would not be the "faintest understanding of what brotherhood is all about" prevent us for such personal defamation below the belt. And if not that, where do we end, if we all give back as what us were given? On the other hand, is provocation and sarcasm adequate in or for a reasonable dispute?
No. Our discussions should allways be based on facts, not (bad) emotions or speculations and that in a kindly way. F.e. there is the statement, that it "had been raining with strong winds on May 17", and also that "the rain was moderate with very little wind" and so only facts can help, f.e. this site to figure out the truth (of course there is the possibility, that in a specific location "strong winds" (is very relative) could took place, even if the weather-forcast said something else, so we should all be carefully if we think we own the truth).
However, I wish we would show particular in such controversy issues more theosophical behaiviour. A good style of discussion, f.e., displayed lately some people, that reply an critical article about G. de Purucker with a fact-based reply and not with emotions and that is in every case more sucesfull then malicious insults, derision, unproved assumptions or hate.