Theos-Talk Archives (November 1996 Message tl00106)

Dr. A.M.Bain writes:
>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

I am very sorry that you were insulted by my comment, however, I cannot say
that I apologize for making the statement.  Keep this in mind.  When a student
approaches his master and asks him a question, does the master say, "Well,
here, let me give you a short summary of it."  No.  That is because short
summaries don't cut it.  When you give summaries you leave things out and that
leaves room for misinterpretation.  I stated the above because every time
someone on this list brings up an author or a book in which they think widom
is contained, you insult either the author or the publisher ...perhaps you
should think about apologizing too?  But that is off of the subject.

You say we should give you the summary and THEN direct you to the literary
works.  Why should we waste the time of giving you a summary that could be
misconstrued, when there is a high probability that the author of the
literature we direct you to will have been a smoker, or ate meat.  It's much
more intelligent, I think, to tell you what the book is and let you go from
there.

And if you wish to bring up insults, I have saved quite a few posts in which
you have been guilty of the same.  However, I once again apologize that you
were insulted by what appears to me to be a fact.
---
The Triaist