Theos-Talk Archives (February 2002 Message tt00533)

Bill,

Thanks for your comments and observations in message at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/5549

In the next few weeks as time permits I want to reply in some detail 
on several points you bring up.

The points I will address are as follows:

(1) "You are the one who has gone to extraordinary lengths to produce 
a matrix comparing the positions of Brigitte, Paul, and Steve. Why 
do you not add an additional column and include Daniel's position in 
your matrix at each question point?"

(2) "I must ask Daniel why he continues to pursue this line 
concerning the existence of 'real' adepts (whatever 'real' means as 
opposed to just plain real."

(3)" . . . my questions about probability vs. possibility, criticisms 
of Paul Johnson and not Sylvia Cranston . . . ."

(4) "Daniel has not 'come clean' on the reasoning behind his 8 year 
dogging of Paul Johnson."

(5)"Daniel has not 'come clean' on his personal experiences with the 
paranormal which certainly might bias his conclusions."

(6) " Now, one could argue, and it has been argued, that the personal 
biases and background are unimportant in the presentation of 
theosophy. . . . Personally, I find resonance with this approach and 
do not need to know Daniel's or Brigitte's bias and background to 
taste the essence of their understanding."

(7)Bill, to answer (4) I will need to first clarify what happened 
PRIOR to those eight years.

Daniel H. Caldwell
BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES
http://blavatskyarchives.com/introduction.htm