Theos-Talk Archives (April 1997 Message tl00206)

kymsmith@micron.net wrote, twisting everything I said:

> >       1) That someone whose genetics would make them capable of producing
> >fertile offspring with other humans is less than human.
> 
> Your statement is referring to most humans.  Is this your intention?  Most
> people have genetics (egg or sperm) which makes them capable of producing
> fertile offspring (children) with other humans.  I was unaware that these
> people were dealing with the problem of being thought of as "less than
> human."

I phrased it that way to avoid smart asses from twisting my words,
saying, "what about eunuchs?" or "what about people who die before they
reach puberty"? etc. And there are many who consider some humans less
than others.

> >       2) That there is only one path to the Truth.
> 
> Perhaps, deep down, at the heart of it - there really is just one Path.

	And perhaps the Nazis were right, as well. But I don't call them
Theosophical, either.

> >       3) That anything that is not observable with our senses or detectable
> >with our instrumentation does not exist.
> 
> Are we to declare, then, that it DOES exist?  Would this be theosophical?

	I am talking about those for whom the inability to sense or measure
something is in itself proof of its non-existence.
 
> >       4) That anything that IS observable with our senses or detectable with
> >our instrumentation does not exist.
> 
> Again, does this mean that it DOES exist?  And since each of us have our own
> 'sense data' telling us different things - different colors, what's lovely
> and what isn't, etc - does all of it exist?

	Once again, and it was obvious to everybody but you, I was talking
about those who are using our ability to sense something as PROOF that
it does not exist.

	Bart Lidofsky