Theos-Talk Archives (January 2004 Message tt00077)

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Morten Nymann Olesen" <global-
theosophy@a...> wrote:
> 
> Firstly. I do not think you understood my latest email.
> You didn't even answer on the last part of it.

I had to go get a haircut and grab some lunch and was late, so cut 
off my response in the middle. Someone else's lunch hour depended on 
my returning from mine on time since we are short staffed today.

> And the questions I put, you didn't answer on either as far as I 
read you.
> 
The most memorable question struck me as not a question at all but an 
irrelevant accusation, so I ignored it. I have noted that some theos-
talkers rarely can stay at the level of an objective discussion 
without immediately getting into personal disparagement directed at 
those with a different POV. Defending oneself in such contexts feeds 
the beast. Answering a certain kind of question amounts to defending 
oneself personally, and I don't think personal issues are germane.

> What kind of evidence ? What "strong evidence" are you talking 
about ?
> 
Evidence that Shah misrepresented himself, provided by James Moore in 
his Religion Today article. What I saw in the wikipedia bullet 
points all seemed to reflect Moore's article.

> The fact that I didn't mention the false claims at a place like 
Theos-Talk - aught not - result in a heated exchange on how to 
create scientific and scholary evidence on what is false. Do you not 
agree ?

As for heated exchanges, there can be vigorous airing of differing 
views without personal attacks. That kind of "heat" does no harm and 
some good. But when differing views lead immediately to personal 
attacks, that kind of "heat" is harmful IMO. 

> tendency that is always alive and well. To refute such
> people "working in this industry" (by pointing out inconsistencies 
in their arguments, or questioning sources) only gives them more
> material to manipulate for their purposes.
> Do you disagree ?
> 
Don't agree or disagree because I don't follow you. Surely you don't 
think any of those anti-Shah writers are lurking on theos-talk? If 
you're suggesting that I'm asking for evidence refuting the Shah 
debunkers as part of some "industry" and intend to manipulate any 
such evidence for "their purposes" please say so outright. 
Insinuation is confusing. 

But FYI and in spite of my wish not to get into personal defense, my 
sole scholarly "purpose" these days has to do with the history of 
northeastern North Carolina especially relations among Native 
American, African, and European peoples there. I collect and examine 
related historical evidence all the time, have been doing so for 
three years and expect the project to last many more. Which inspires 
a lot of thought about history, how it is distorted and 
misunderstood, and how to read evidence.

snip
> Do you disagree on this ?
> 
What preceded that was a question, so I cannot agree or disagree.

> * Not that I know that much or care to
> about "Wikopedia"-- being registered in the state of Florida (for
> purposes of donations), is in my view roughly about the opposite of
> what some would call the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval.
> What are the readers view ? And your view Paul ?
> 
I would not evaluate a publication in terms of the state in which it 
is published, and would discourage others from doing so. 

Cheers,

Paul

PS-- will go back to your unanswered questions and comment