Theos-Talk Archives (March 2002 Message tt00514)

Bill,

In your latest posting to me, you write:

"That's it? You ask for my opinion and when I give it you ignore the 
ramifications of it completely? My post was a complete thought that 
needs to be addressed as a whole or is better not addressed at all."

Bill, I wanted in the original answer to your post to pursue the 
heart of the matter with you which is about Olcott's encounters but 
you seemed to preclude that by writing:

"Now, Daniel, I have done my best to explain. I do hope that it 
suffices. Researching the accounts of various historical events for 
evidence that 'adepts' exist is a poor methodology which I am not 
inclined to pursue further. I do not need Olcott's testimony or your 
charts to validate my belief in extraordinary men and women capable 
of extraordinary accomplishments."

Therefore it seemed that little if anything would be gained by trying 
to pursue with you your hypothesis #6 which you had offered. 

Finally you write:

"Daniel, it is small wonder that few will engage in dialogue with 
you. You seek to confront Brigitte at every turn. There is much 
each of you could learn from the other. Only an arrogant claim upon 
the truth prevents it. Brigitte is the obsessive to your compulsive. 
Without either one of you the rest of us would be getting only one 
side of the story. Together you balance and ultimately cancel each 
other leaving us with our own self-devised methods. Thank you both."

First of all, I think I have been learning things from Brigitte's 
postings.

Furthermore, Bill, I didn't get the impression in your last two 
postings to me that you really wanted to engage in dialogue with me 
about the hypotheses concerning Olcott's encounters. So I didn't 
pursue it. 

But best luck to you in your own "self-devised methods", whatever you 
may mean by that. And thank you, too.

Daniel