Theos-Talk Archives (July 2003 Message tt00159)

And now, besides all your straw man arguments, you are getting ad hominem as 
well as non sequitur. As for my "theories of physics" (which are not that at 
all, since my theories go way beyond conventional physics, and I'm not even an 
accredited physicist :-) how do you know "nobody is paying attention to 
them"? How about all the real theosophists around the world who see it as a direct 
intellectual proof of Blavatsky's (and all occultist's) metaphysical 
theories? Or, how about all the computer graphics scientists who are using parts of 
my theories in their present algorithms? Would you also like to see the more 
than 100 letters I've gotten from accredited scientists (string theorists, 
holographic paradigmers, quantum fielders and the like) from all over the world 
who have been seriously discussing this theory with me during the past ten 
years? Or maybe you would like to see the record of over five thousand hits my web 
site has gotten since it went up? Or, perhaps you'd like to search the web 
and see how many scientific web sites mention the ABC theory or its parallels in 
superstring/M-brane theory. Go ask Michio Kaku about that, since my theory 
was out there long before he published his seminal theories of hyperspace)? 
The only negative responses I ever got to the more than 200 letters I've written 
about the ABC theory on several consciousness study forums is from one closed 
minded quantum physics genius who thinks consciousness is a quantum effect, 
and said I was "barking up a tree," another cognitive scientists who claimed 
the theory was unscientific because it couldn't be falsified using the 
scientific method, and another psychophysicist who said I was plagiarizing his theory 
along with the physics ikons, Penrose and Hameroff. Of course all the present 
Neurophysicists who think that consciousness is an epiphenomena of the brain's 
complex neurology, also disagree with me... Although, they don't dare say so 
publicly, since I've already torn all their theories to shreds on those 
forums, and even undressed some of them in front of their peers (for which I got 
about 20 private "bravos" from scientists who disagree with them :-). So, if the 
following is an example of your means of argument, I wonder who between us is 
the "intellectually bankrupt" one? You're beginning to sound like a joke -- 
even without answering my question, "Are you joking?" But, perhaps that's the 
result of your not being able to see the forest for the trees.

Leonardo Mason (a.k.a. Leon Maurer)

In a message dated 07/13/03 6:27:46 PM, bartl@sprynet.com writes:

>leonmaurer@aol.com wrote:
> >> Blavatsky said that you can't be a Communist and Theosophist at the
> >> same time; I'm not so sure of that, but it certainly seems that
> >> way.
> >
> > How so? Please quote where and in what context she said that? Are
> > you just a knee jerk McCarthy-Nixon-Reagan style "anti communists" or
> > do you know the difference between true "communism" or "communalism"
> > and Russian/Chinese/Korean style "Bolshevism"?
>
> I'm going to have to go to the library and find it; it was in one of 
>her letters.
>
> > Since when did I call anyone a Nazi? All I implied was that
>
> If you were NOT calling Bush a Nazi, then you are using innuendo to get
>
>people to draw incorrect conclusions, which makes your arguments 
>intellectually bankrupt, and you not worth arguing with. If this is the
>
>sort of methodology you used to put together your theories of physics,
>
>then no wonder nobody is paying attention to them.
>
> Bart Lidofsky
>