Theos-Talk Archives (October 2003 Message tt00070)

In a message dated 10/06/03 9:46:37 PM, danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com writes:

>Leon writes:
>
>"This whole discussion does nothing but obscure the 
>teachings of fundamental theosophy, still sounds 
>like a vendetta against ULT and WQJ by certain 
>disgruntled 'organizationalists' -- and is a waste 
>of all serious theosophical student's time and energy. 
>(Although we might learn something we didn't know before 
>in Peter's excellent articles on the etymology of the 
>esoteric terms used by mystics and occultists.)"
>
>Leon, you do have a way with words! :)

Thanks for the complement (sic). ;-)
>
>Please be more specific, WHO are the 
>disgruntled "organizationalists"?? Do you refer to me? To Tony?
>To Peter?

No offense intended. If the shoe fits, wear it. If not, forget it. :-)

>And please explain what you mean by "organizationalists"? I can't 
>wait to read your definition and explanations.

It's self explanatory. You're the researcher. Just look up the definitions 
of all words ending in -ist. :-)

>Daniel
>
>http://hpb.cc
>
LM