Theos-Talk Archives (May 2006 Message tt00681)

Carlos,

Concerning what you have written about me at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/33548

you are entitled to whatever opinion you may have!

But I would suggest that you really don't have any
good idea one way or the other about my "perception  
of Esoteric Phiosophy..."

All in all, I think your latest posting is but an
AD HOMINEM distraction.  Why can't we simply discuss
a subject be it historical or metaphysical without straying
off into analyzing the motives, etc. of the poster??  I thought
Eldon Tucker wanted us to stay away from such ad hominem remarks.

In most of our recent discussions, we have been discussing
historical issues. Therefore I have dealt with the
historical evidence, etc.  If you choose to ignore the
written historical evidence concerning specific historical
issues, that is your choice.  

If I was discussing the actual teachings of Esoteric
Philosophy, then my approach might be different.

One more point:

I may have absolutely no perception whatsoever of the Esoteric
Philosophy.  Zero perception. But my supposed zero perception
has nothing to do with the issue addressed in the following
post:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/33538

Carlos, from your latest posting under discussion here it would 
appear that you have strayed even farther from
discussing the following topic:

"CW Vol. 14 heavily dependent on Besant's 3rd Volume"
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/33538

Does this mean that you now accept what I wrote in
this posting concerning Vol. 14 being heavily dependent
on Besant's 3rd volume???

Daniel
http://hpb.cc