Theos-Talk Archives (December 2001 Message tt00438)

Steve, you wrote:

> When Bart asked who the hatemongers were, he said
> Daniel H. Caldwell (i.e., you), Brigitte, and FRANK. 
> My name was not mentioned. I am not the one who says
> Hitler won the war and gets around in a flying saucer.
> I'm not the one who says Blavatsky wrote the
> Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion and that it is
> all true. This is another example of Daniel's
> diversionary tactics.

Steve, I am not exactly sure what you are commenting on in the above.
If, by chance, you are referring to what I quoted from
Bart adding in parentheses [Brigitte, Steve & Daniel] then
why is this a diversionary tactic? Please read carefully the 
following.

Paul Johnson had written:

"Brigitte and Steve and Daniel are doing *absolutely nothing* to 
interfere with y'all's ability to talk about *what* you want, *how* 
you want, and *when* you want."

That comment is followed immediately by Bart's reply:

"I don't want to step into their trap. They have piles of shoddy 
logic, falsified history, and plain out and out lies to fall back on, 
and what they want is for people to argue with them so that they can 
pull out their full loads of ammo." 

"They had piles. . . ." Who are THEY? They = Brigitte and Steve and 
Daniel. So ONE of Bart's points was that the three of us (YES
YOU TOO STEVE) have piles of shoddy logic, etc., etc.

Yes I believe Bart said I was a hatemonger. But he did NOT give 
any examples of that. What is his definition of a hatemonger and 
what have I specifically written that would put me in that category? 
He does NOT specify.

Steve you also wrote:

> The Pratt article is a piece of pratt. The issue is
> not whether Paul has correctly identified the
> mahatmas, but whether ther were any mahatmas to
> identify. I say there were and he says there were
> not. That Pratt would use stuff like the Vega
> incident as evidence of anything sets the tone for the
> whole thing. It is a lot of pratt from beginning to
> end. He could defend his premise much better with
> sound logic. Bart is right about this kind of pratt
> constituting a pile of shoddy logic. He is being kind
> by referring to it as logic at all.

Steve, please enlighten us as to the illogic of what David Pratt has 
written. You say Pratt could defend his premise much better with 
sound logic but is your logic on many subjects any better? Maybe 
what you are writing above is also a bunch of pratt, too. 

Steve, you also write:

>Why are you defending Alice Bailey, Daniel?"

Steve, is this statement a GOOD example of your own "logic" 
and "reasoning"? Where did I write anything about Bailey that would 
make you think I was "defending" her? This statement of yours is 
about as screwball as your statements about Damodar being D.K.

If you want to know my view on Alice Bailey, please read Nicholas 
Weeks' article on her at: http://blavatskyarchives.com/baileyal.htm

I agree completely with Nicholas' views.

Daniel
http://hpb.cc