Theos-Talk Archives (June 1999 Message tl00028)

The essence of it:

>>But you can't have it both ways - you can't both
> >delibrately refuse to answer, and then *criticize me* for coming to my
own
> >conclusion *because* of your refusal.
>
> JRC---as you've written, you may come to any conclusion.  Feel free to
> assign whatever motives you want to me.

I do feel free ... and as I said, feel free at any moment to actually stop
concealing the truth about yourself, so no one *has* to speculate. Cute
little rhetorical tricks are not going to distract attention from the fact
that despite *continued*, *repeated* and *direct* questions, you are *still*
not going to tell anyone what university (if any) you are doing this
so-called "dissertation" for, whether you now belong, or have ever belonged,
to a theosophical organization, and why, on top of the "study" you claim to
be doing is clearly a repeated attempt to spread one very distinct point of
view of Judge and the ULT.

Lacking that, I *will* continue to engage in the same sort "expose" of you
that you seem to feel Judge and the ULT deserve. Myself, Doss, Dallas,
pretty much anyone on this list would have no problem clearly stating their
background, affiliations, universities, or anything else. And anyone, any
modern scholar, with nothing to hide, and who wished their work to be
*credible*, not only would have no problem simply stating the answers to
these questions, but would in fact do so before even being asked - in fact
its the information that most magazines openly *publish* in the "About the
author" paragraph that ends most scholarly articles - it is *so* accepted as
being relevant in modern arts and letters.

Keep making your case against Judge if you wish - and I'll keep pointing out
your continued refusal to supply even the simplest information - that
increasing stands as evidence that you are doing something other than, or in
addition to, what you claim, and may be concealing what most would interpret
as a questionable motive for doing so. -JRC