Theos-Talk Archives (September 2004 Message tt00020)

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Erica Letzerich <eletzerich@y...>
wrote:
> 
> And your hasty generalization it's typical of an inductive 
> fallacy. 
> 
> Erica
> 
Dear Erica,

This just demonstrated that the induction was not fallacious:

"I would not say dear Perry shame on you for the Theosophical
Society, I would say shame on you for every fellow that is a member
of the T.S. and is more concerned in promoting intrigues and endless
discussions about which are the original teachings or not, or about
Leadbeater's case."

the induction in question being:

> (IMO Erica's deflection of questions about CWL to questions about
the spiritual qualities of the questioners is typical.) 
> 
Since neither Perry, Dr. Tillett, Steve (AFAIK) nor I are members of
the Adyar TS, the shaming would seem to be limited to our esteemed
colleague Daniel. (Unless any other TS member has spoken up here
against CWL.) My point is that it's quite unfair to condemn a mixed
group of non-Theosophists and several kinds of Theosophists for not
behaving as you think a group of Adyar TS members ought to. If we
accepted Adyar norms of "spiritual" behavior (e.g. evade unpleasant
historical truths at every opportunity) perhaps we'd be members. 
Being told that their interest in historical truth is a sign of
spiritual inferiority has driven quite a few members away from the TS
and silenced others who remain in the fold. (Some of whom are
probably members of this list unwilling to put up with the personal
condemnation INEVITABLY directed at them should they weigh in on such
discussions.)

Cheers,

Paul