Theos-Talk Archives (December 2002 Message tt00153)

In a message dated 12/01/02 7:02:22 PM, netemara888@yahoo.com writes:

>--- In theos-talk@y..., leonmaurer@a... wrote:
>> Are you now implying that what ticked you off was that I was castigating 
>> Daniel? You must be Joking. Daniel has been the only one here who 
>> consistently was questioning the credibility and truthfulness of the one 
that 
>> I pointed out was viciously attacking theosophy, HPB and the Masters. 
>> In fact, Daniel and I have never had any disagreements, and I admire the 
>> work, he has done and is doing for theosophy. 
>> 
>> Maybe you should reread the letter that triggered your crude remarks and 
>> comment about my being "vicious" -- as well as read the dialogues that 
>> Daniel and I had with Brian/Bridgitte over the past couple of years -- 
>> that got him/her banned from this site twice.
>> 
>> As for your posts, I have no complaint with them and even enjoy reading 
>> them when they make theosophical sense. However, I don't appreciate 
>> your "being in our face" with crude remarks based on loose cannon 
>>judgments about why and who I might be "pointing a finger" at. In any 
>>event, I don't think this "pointing of a finger" at your thoughtless 
remarks 
>>is too far out of line with reality. :-)
>> 
>> LHM
>> 
>
>*************
>Okay LHM so you're a know-it-all Theosophist...Maybe it was Bart's 
>posts. Hell, if I am going to reread all those posts again :( 

Don't expect you to. But, I do expect you to understand what you read before 
you quote and correspond with me. Besides, if you know anything, you should 
know that there cannot be such thing as a "know-it-all Theosophist." 
Theorizing is one thing, knowing is another. Even HPB, who knows more about 
theosophy than either you or I, and called it a theory, knew that. :-)

>You think you're responses are perfect but sometimes I had a problem 
>discerning what you wrote from the other author. I read a bunch of 
>your posts and while they are erudite sounding--it was problemic 
>figuring out who was answering what. So that is in my defense. As for 
>you---->>know-it-alls need no defending, they are self-sufficient :\ 

When did you hear me "think" that anything I write is "perfect?" Now, you're 
projecting -- and, making prejudicial statements based on ill considered 
opinions -- again. So, that's no defense... But, I accept your apologetic 
admission that you did something to defend. Besides, "self sufficiency" is 
something greatly to be desired, and I take that as a compliment. </:^)> 

>Netemara
>
>So it seems YOU owe me an apology for having to go on a truth hunt 
>through your awful posts---just kidding. They weren't bad, not bad at 
>all.

Thanks. I apologize for poking you into doing your "truth hunt" homework, 
and studying both sides of an issue before blowing off half cocked. 
(Especially, when there's more than 100 other people reading your 
correspondence. :-) In such cases, it pays to stick to the facts, and 
indicate when we are making an opinion, posing a theory, or speculating. 
However, it ain't easy to try and explain the unexplainable, and I'm glad you 
found my "awful posts" understandable.

LHM