Theos-Talk Archives (November 1996 Message tl00091)

In message <199611040752.CAA24451@envirolink.org>, John Straughn
<JTarn@envirolink.org> writes
>Dr. A.M.Bain writes:
>>Doss -
>>
>>Your reference to the book by Baborka would not be regarded as
>>conclusive evidence by serious scholars or TS history buffs if, as I
>>suspect, it was or still is published by the TS itself, which "edits"
>>the work of TS greats to expunge inconvenient writings of theirs.
>>
>>I guess I am asking *you* for your view of the facts, and *your*
>>assessment of the evidence, not Barborka's.
>>
>>Alan
>
>In other words, MKR, unless it was written or approved of by A.M.Bain, it is
>false material.
>
Dear John,

You seem to choose to be insulting - why?  I have written nothing about
this subject, and my knowledge of the controversy is mostyl from
hearsay.  I joined theos-l to discuss theosophicallly interesting topics
with others, many of whom will have studied things I have not.  I happen
to live above a TS Lodge library, and so I can consult works on its
shelves very easily.  I also have a medium library of my own.  However,
if I wanted to know what the books say, I would not be asking the
question *here*.

I am STILL trying to discover what subscribers to THIS LIST have to say
in their own words.  Suppose I am a "newbie" to theosophy - I might well
*expect* that theosophists of long standing would be able to answer my
questions without referring me to a book *and nothing else.*  Now if you
or someone else outlines the basic position describing (say) both or
various sides of a question, followed by your current opinion deriving
from your own work, and *then* direct me towards the longer literary
works which have led you to these opinions, then whoever does this will
have my gratitude and respect.

As it is, you choose to insult me.  Please apologise.

Alan
---------
THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age:
http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/
E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk