Theos-Talk Archives (June 1998 Message tt00602)

Dr. A.M.Bain wrote:
>

> Caldwell/Graye <blafoun@azstarnet.com> writes
> >Dr. Bain,
> >
> >Concerning Dallas' quoted statement, you write:
> >
> >>As your post stands, it reads like the doctrine of a
> >> sect or church, inviolate, certain and adbsolute truth . . .
> >
> >Are you, by chance, reading *a little too much* into
> >Dallas' words????
>
> Mr. Caldwell,
>
> I am expressing an opinion, and sharing it with Dallas and the list.
>
> You will notice that Dal replies to my posts with great courtesy, which I
> endeavoe to do when addressing his own posts.  I cannot say that your
> posts appear courteous - the opposite in fact.  I am a theosophist, but
> not a dogmatist, which is why you will find a link to *your* website
> from mine.  I observe that the reverse does not apply.
>
> Are you, by any chance, making a mountain out of a molehill?
>
> Dr. Bain
>
> (Knows to everyone else as "Alan" in the spirit of brotherhood within
> theosophy.)
> ---------

Daniel Caldwell replies:

Dear Dr. Bain,

It was you (not me) who wrote the following concerning Dallas' post:

> >>As your post stands, it reads like the doctrine of a
> >> sect or church, inviolate, certain and adbsolute truth . . .

Pretty strong statement???  I was simply questioning the validity
of that statement or "opinion". Also I briefly commented on the issue of
citing and referring to statements by Blavatsky.

And why bring up the issue of whether my posts are "courteous" or
not? I was simply frank and direct in my comments.  I meant no insult
Please reread my post.  I didn't call you names or say anything
negative about you as a person.  But if you want to take what
I said as the opposite of "courteous". . . then don't let me stand
in your way!

It is interesting to see that you bring up *side issues*
instead of commenting directly upon the major points of my previous
post.

And unfortunately you have used this same "tactic" in other posts.

OBTW, do you still stand by your initial statement about Madame
Blavatsky:

>> We have only her word for this, together with the Mahatma letters.  It is
>> all words.  I  - or anyone else - can make similar claims, but no one has
>> yet been seen to be able to back them up with real evidence.

You make strong stataments like this but when asked to explain and
amplify, you either do not deal directly with the issue or you refuse
to discuss the issue.  Why not be direct and discuss the main issues
frankly, honestly and seriously?  You may actually have good points to
make,
but no one can read your mind.

No doubt, you will consider this post as ____________ and ____________.