Theos-Talk Archives (November 1996 Message tl00109)

----------
> From: John Straughn <JTarn@envirolink.org>

> 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.

I fail to find the meaning behind the possibility that the author may
have smoked Salems or ate bacon for breakfast.  Non-smokingism
and vegetarianism are no longer a strict requirement in joining TS.
If they were, I would have not joined.

I have sometimes had the same problem that Alan has, in that I
would like to hear posters explain things, if possible, in their own
words.  If we, as Theosophists, can only quote someone else,
what do we know on our own?  Or are we aping some higher
authority figure and checking our brains at the door?

For those referring to the Bailey books, I will be happy to
type out passages if I am given the title and page numbers.
I have collected many volumes and realize that many on
the list do not own any.

> 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 only thing Alan is guilty of, IMHO, is being brutally honest.  Are you
saving his posts for a cyberspace court trial?  Will that be before or
after we try CWL for his misdeeds?  Or question HPB on the contents
of her smoking mixture?

-Ann E. Bermingham