Theos-Talk Archives (November 2002 Message tt00420)

Brian/Brigitte can write to Wes as follows:

"I am very glad to discuss ideas if brought 'seriously' but not just 
in polemic unserious way as you do, which show no evidence of true 
scolarship."

And then later in the same post, Brian/Brigitte (no doubt, as a "true 
scholar") can make the following claim:

". . . theos talk . . . [is] evidently a true meeting ground for 
crazed out crack pots who believe in 'free energy solar engines' and 
so on. Exceptions are Steve Stubbs and a very, very, few others."

Please remember as you read B/B's words about "very, very, few 
others" that there are currently 170 subscribers to Theos-Talk.

As Rochus Boerner writes:

". . . the true skeptic refrains from ad hominem attacks and name 
calling while the pseudoskeptic elevates them to an art form." 

One might hope that a "true scholar" would also refrain from such ad 
hominem slurs, too! The "crazed out crack pots" remark by B/B may 
indeed be a new art form.

And one wonders why Steve Stubbs gets a free pass from 
Brian/Brigitte. He also holds what appears to be "crazed out crack 
pot" ideas. 

If I mistake not, Steve Stubbs believes:

(1) HPB was not a charlatan, was not a pathological liar.

(2) Olcott was a trustworthy witness to numerous encounters he had 
with the Mahatmas. Steve believes in the existence of M and KH based 
(at least in part) on Olcott's testimony.

(3) Some of the Mahatma letters were probably phenomenally produced.

(4) HPB had access to real esoteric documents not accesssible to the 
scholarly world.

etc. etc.

Yet if the majority of us on Theos-Talk might hold similar if not 
identical views, are we "crazed out crack pots"? 

B/B, what would we do for entertainment, if we didn't have you? :)

Daniel