Theos-Talk Archives (December 2002 Message tt00074)

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "kpauljohnson <kpauljohnson@y...>" 
<kpauljohnson@y...> wrote:
> Ditto, ditto. Which doesn't mean that we are both unbiased 
observers 
> and those are objective assessments, but rather than the biases in 
> Bailey and Leadbeater are flagrant and don't fit well with our own.

I agree and would add that in the case of Bailey and Leadbeater 
textual and historical criticism seem to offer objective ways of 
evaluating their claims and finding them rawtha questionable. That 
may be true of all of them, though, in which case the "bias" effect 
is one of where one sets the limin at which one dismisses te author. 
Sinnett, for example, is relatively more cfredivle, and therefore 
does not trip over my individual limin, whereas Bailey does and 
Leadbester for sure does. An anti-Theosophist (I don't think we have 
any on this list anymore) may just have a much lower limin.