Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl01138)

>>Alexis writes:
>>
>>. Basically what we are up against is a case of double
>>>standards. And that's all it is, anything that Eldon or Daniel Caldwell, or
>>>others of their group  (and they really should stop pretending they are not
>>>a cabal) is perfectly O.K. and anything that the rest of us say and do,
>>>especially me, isn't o.k.!



>>Daniel writes::
>>
>>Oh, yes.  Eldon and I are part of this cabal, this inner group.  We number
>>in the
>>hundreds and will uproot any and all heresies!


Alexis writes:

>That is neither what I said nor implied and you should be ashamed of such a
>childish reaction. What I said is that you, and Eldon and some other folks
>appear to be arrayed against JRC, and myself, and Chuck cosimano, and Alan,
>and jerry scheuler ON THIS LIST! Eldon is perfectly willing to call us 'THE
>GANG OF FOUR" and I've never spoken on the phone to anyone but Chuck
>Cosimano and that was and is on business. The fact remains that I will not
>believe your protestations of absolute neutrality until I see you even once
>raise the kind of hell with Eldon you continually harass me with.  And until
>you do so I will doubt both your sincerity and your veracity.
>>
>
>If it walks like a duck...and it talks like a duck..then it probably is a
>duck!When your double standard go away, I won't be able to complain about
>it,  will I?


Daniel replies:

You write:"  ....you, and  Eldon and some other folks appear to be arrayed
against
JRC, and myself, and Chuck cosimano, and Alan, and jerry scheuler ON THIS LIST!"

 Why this US versus THEM position?  I won't presume to speak for Eldon or
"some other
folks", but all I can say is that I am not arrayed against any of the above
named individuals.
Now having said that, I may not agree with some of the views and ideas held
by these people.
But that doesn't mean I am personally AGAINST those people.  No doubt, some
of them don't
agree with some of my ideas.  Okay, fine.  But if, for example, Jerry S.
disagrees with a statement
or opinion or belief of mine, should I assume he is arrayed against me?  On
theos-l, can't we have
intellectual disagreements without getting into personality conflicts and
name calling?  I was really
hoping when I subscribed to this list that "we" could have some good
discussions, even heated
discussions, on a variety of subjects without getting personal.  Let us even
have a CLASH of opinions, but
not of personalities.  Does anybody on Theos-l see this vital distinction?

Alexis writes:

The fact remains that I will not
>believe your protestations of absolute neutrality until I see you even once
>raise the kind of hell with Eldon you continually harass me with.  And until
>you do so I will doubt both your sincerity and your veracity.
>>>

Daniel responds:

Alexis,
Well, I never claimed ABSOLUTE NEUTRALITY!  Probably not even simple neutrality.
But on theos-l, as far as I know, I have never questioned "your sincerity
and your veracity" or
anybody's elses!  But I have questioned some of your statements and have
even asked for
citations and references.  :  )  You see I believe a person can be very
sincere, etc. and yet hold
an erroneous opinion, belief, etc. or make a statement which is not true.
Since I'm human, too; I
would include even myself in this category!  Now everyone is entitled to his
or her opinion on a
particular subject, but in the arena of public opinion, (and theos-l I hope
is one such forum), ideas
can be challenged, debated, kicked around, etc. etc.  For example, JRC has a
perfect right to
challenge Eldon's ideas on psychism. And Eldon also in turn has the right to
challenge JRC's statements.
But this is far different than either one of them calling each other names
and insulting each other
personally.  In other words, I would assume that both Eldon and JRC are
sincere and truthful individuals.
Furthermore, I assume that both of them sincerely hold their respective
beliefs and opinions on the
psychic.  But this  personal stuff is really all beside the main issue.  How
valid or reasonable, etc. are the
ideas that they write about?  That's the issue.  Mark out the names Eldon
and JRC and put X and Y.  I don't
really care who holds these ideas.  I am only  interested in the merits,
truthfulness, etc. of these two opposing
views on the psychic.   But I am NOT interested in Ad Hominem comments that
either JRC or Eldon might
be tempted to exchange, for the simple reason, that the issues transcend
both of these two people.

Alexis, you also write:  "  And until
>you do so I will doubt both your sincerity and your veracity."

And my comment to your statement is:  I really don't feel a need to try to
persuade you of my sincerity and my
veracity.  I accept your sincerity and veracity.  And I know of my own
sincerity and veracity.  But if for whatever
reasons you choose to doubt those qualities in me, then doubt them.  I am
not subscribing to Theos-l with the
intention of making friends or enemies.  I am interested in the ideas,
opinions, etc. that are expressed on Theos-l.
If I make a few friends on Theos-l, then that's fine.   We can always use a
few more friends.

But I want to discuss the issues, not trade personal insults with anyone.
If I want to have a good personal
catfight, I have one or two "friends" in town who will be glad to give me a
few scratches and bring the blood.    : )

Daniel