Theos-Talk Archives (December 2001 Message tt00329)

Hi, Bill:

Very well said, Bill. Yes, Daniel's posts do make
excellent lesson material. I enjoyed your commentary
on them.

Steve

--- Bill Meredith <bilmer@surfsouth.com> wrote:
> Steve, may I do this one?
> 
> ----------
> > From: danielhcaldwell <danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com>
> > To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Theos-World Steve changes his tactics??
> > Date: Sunday, December 16, 2001 3:45 PM
> > 
> > Steve,
> > 
> > It is quite interesting to see how you have dealt
> with my comments. 
> > To adequately answer all of your negative &
> unfounded statements 
> > would take more time than I have at present. 
> 
> 
> Here we see one of Daniel's typical ploys. He
> contends that Steve's
> statements are negative and unfounded, but doesn't
> have time to adequately
> answer them now. The unaware reader buys into his
> conclusion (Steve's
> statements are negative and unfounded) and assumes
> that if Daniel had time
> he would really give Steve what for.
> 
> > I was planning to have at least four more parts to
> my commentary. 
> > And I think you might have been surprised with at
> least one of my 
> > comments. 
> 
> Another interesting tactic of Daniel's. He teases
> the readership with what
> he was planning to write and often alludes to an
> upcoming surprise. The
> unaware reader might think that Daniel is clearly on
> top of the situation
> here and in due course is going to give Steve what
> for.
> 
> > It seems fairly apparent to me that you do not
> want to THINK THROUGH
> > the various issues but instead prefer to jump to a
> conclusion which 
> > may or may not be merited by the evidence. And
> apparently you cannot 
> > tolerate anyone else who might question your
> conclusion and who wants 
> > to explore the subject in more depth than you
> might want to.
> 
> And now we are to the CAPTILIZED WORDS. Daniel uses
> CAPTILIZED WORDS to
> draw the readers attention to what he perceives as
> the central issue and in
> so doing completely ignores the fact that Steve has
> presented a well
> THOUGHT THROUGH analysis of the Ootan Liatto
> incident. Steve has never
> said he could not tolerate "anyone else" to my
> knowledge. In fact I
> believe Steve made it clear that he did not think
> that Daniel ducked and
> feigned and ignored facts on purpose. We are all
> prone to it. Rather than
> a critical self-examination which might have done
> Daniel good, Daniel
> immediately goes on the offensive and in so doing
> PROVES STEVE RIGHT. 
> (sorrry for the caps -- couldn't resist.) 
> 
> > Also you apparently do not want to COMPARE various
> similar events, 
> > etc. in order to be in a possibly better position
> to judge what the 
> > experience under consideration might really be all
> about.
> 
> Daniel has stated that he has had personal
> experiences of events similar to
> the Ootan Liatto event. I have asked him to convert
> these experiences to
> text and make them available so that we may COMPARE
> various similar events.
> Steve has not said that he does not want to compare
> various similar
> events. Steve has simply stated his thoughts on
> this (the Ootan Liatto
> event). 
> 
> > Unfortunately, you youself have jumped to other
> conclusions which 
> > seem questionable. This is seen in your comments
> on 
> > Wachtmeister, the pencil incident and even in the
> Hartmann account.
> 
> Again Daniel uses language designed to lull the
> unaware reader into that
> warm and fuzzy sense that all is right in the world
> of theosophy because
> Daniel is on the job. If Steve has jumped to
> questionable conclusions, let
> Daniel be specific in pointing out to Steve exactly
> where the jump in logic
> occurred instead of a broad charge of conclusion
> jumping over several
> events that may or may not be related.
> 
> > I am not expecting anyone to accept what I have
> written. But I do 
> > hope that a few interested readers - who see the
> necesity of thinking 
> > through these various issues - will do just that.
> 
> Will do just what? "accept what I have written", or
> "think... through
> these various issues." It seems that Daniel will
> accept that someone has
> thought through these various issues sufficiently if
> and only if Daniel's
> conclusions are reached. This is comforting to the
> unaware reader, who
> might conclude that no one has thought more about
> the Ootan Liatto event
> than has Daniel.
> 
> 
> > My comments were not made to evade or ignore the
> evidence. My points 
> > were not made to bring up irrelevant material. My
> comments simply 
> > illustrate some of the thinking and questions I
> deal with and ask 
> > myself as I try to sort through and grapple with
> the issues and 
> > evidence in this incident. 
> 
> This is so beautiful. Here Daniel asserts that he
> did not intend to evade
> or ignore evidence or introduce irrelevant material,
> but instead illustrate
> some of his thought processes as he sorts through
> and grapples with the
> issues and evidence of the Ootan Liatto incident. 
> This is exactly what
> Steve said Daniel was doing at the beginning of
> Steve's post below.
> 
> 
> Steve, How did I do? I hope Daniel doesn't take it
> personally that his
> posts make such fine lesson material. I know that
> very often when I am not
> careful I can be caught writing like Daniel. I try
> to watch myself. I'll
> wager that you even slip up on occasion yourself?
> 
> Bill
> > Daniel
> > http://hpb.cc
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > Thank you, Daniel, for publishing a short
> seminar on
> > > how to argue disingenuously. You have performed
> a
> > > real service for list members. Bear in mind I
> am
> > > assuming this is entirely unconscious on your
> part and
> > > not ecidence of any sort of conscious
> dishonesty. 
> > > Nonetheless, everyone needs to know how to read
> > > critically and evaluate arguments and evidence
> > > critically. My comments below for the benefit
> of
> > > readers who would like to easily spot this sort
> of
> > > thing in the future.
> > > 
> > > Daniel: "Brigitte, I am going to go over
> Olcott's
> > > February 1876 account and make a number of
> comments. 
> > > I hope that you in turn will make some replies."
> > > 
> > > Notice this doesn't say anything because there
> is
> > > nothing to reply to. I already replied to this
> > > account, and Brigitte indicated that she agreed,
> as
> > > did numerous other people. That fact is
> completely
> > > ignored here. See how this works, list members?
> > > 
> > > Daniel: "Brigitte, are you willing to accept
> that 
=== message truncated ===


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for all of
your unique holiday gifts! Buy at http://shopping.yahoo.com
or bid at http://auctions.yahoo.com