Theos-Talk Archives (January 2002 Message tt00161)

Dear Daniel,
Look at your comments below. You offer that your statement [about Paul's
work] may be "nasty" but it is factual. In other words the factual nature
of the statement excuses its nastiness. You then tell Jerry, that his
points [about Dallas' work] may be "nasty", but you assume that Jerry
believes they are factual and accurate. Note you do not say that Jerry's
statements ARE factual and accurate albeit nasty even though you reference
them to justify your supposition that facts should be presented whether
they are nasty or not. The designation 'ARE FACTUAL' you use to describe
what you write. What others write can only be 'BELIEVED FACTUAL'
especially if their conclusions clash with yours. Are you aware of the
bias and supposition inherent in your statements? 

Bill

----------
> From: Blavatsky Archives <blavatskyarchives@yahoo.com>
> To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Theos-World Jerry on KH & M & Johnson & Cranston
> Date: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 2:33 PM
> 
> Jerry,
> 
> Thanks for your post BELOW.
> 
> My statement may be "nasty" but it is factual. See
> the examples I give in my essay to illustrate this
> point. Some of your points to Dallas may appear
> "nasty" too but I assume you believe your statements
> are ALSO factual and accurate.
> 
> I admire Cranston? I'm glad you know what I really
> think and feel on various subjects!! You amaze me! 
> :)
> 
snip