Theos-Talk Archives (September 2006 Message tt00386)

Bruce,

I was simply wondering what Jake actually meant by
that one sentence.  Maybe it was just
off the top of his head and didn't mean much at
all.  I don't know.

But I was wondering when I first read it 
if he was trying to say something like:

"Dan, the majority of Theosophical students [maybe
who Jake highly regards??? ] have 
considered it genuine and that should be taken into
account."

I was not taking a "condescending attitude" toward him
but it was simply what I was thinking myself in the
privacy of my own thoughts and wondering EXACTLY what
the statement meant. 

If he meant nothing by it other than the most literal
meaning, then fine.  But I didn't know and still don't
know.

Daniel



--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "robert_b_macd" 
<robert.b.macdonald@...> wrote:
>
> Daniel, in the spirit of your own letter to Jake, I was wondering 
what
> you are trying to get at here?  You ask:
> > What are you saying here Jake?  That we should
> > be convinced or I should be convinced or we should
> > at least take into consideration that "the overwhelming 
> > majority think it was a bona fide KH letter" and that
> > that should somehow sway our view?
> > 
> > I'm sure there are other things you could have meant!
> > 
> > But when I first read this, I was going to write back
> > and say:  Well, so we should now let the fact that
> > "the overwhelming majority think" this or that [on whatever
> > subject!] somehow sway us?
> > 
> > Truth is determined by what the "majority" thinks??
> 
> The immediate thought that went through my mind when I read this is
> why are you taking this condescending attitude towards Jake?  
Perhaps
> it is not condescension but rather something else.  Perhaps this is
> not a thinly veiled attempt to put Jake onto a defensive position 
so
> that his position becomes further entrenched and thereby generates
> further conflict so that one side can be played off against 
another.
> 
> In any event I am sure that there are other things that you could 
have
> meant by this question!
> 
> In the spirit of truth and honesty, could you let us know, Daniel,
> what you  hope to come out of such a question?  As no one can 
believe
> the simplistic interpretation that you attributed to Jake, you must
> believe something else and the fact that you bring it up at all
> indicates that there is some significance to this interpretation 
and
> that it would be instructive to us all.  Please enlighten us, or at
> least give us a hint.  I await your answer with great anticipation.
> 
> Sincerely,
> Bruce 
> 
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "danielhcaldwell"
> <danielhcaldwell@> wrote:
> >
> > Since Bruce has weighted in on the
> > 1900 letter, I want to bring back to 
> > the forum some comments of Jake which
> > he made a week or so ago on this forum:
> > 
> > ==========================================
> > Yes, Dan, I guess you did mention
> > some people who HAD seen the full 1900
> > letter, and kept their opinion [that
> > the letter was a forgery] regardless.
> > At the end of the letter in the Eclectic
> > you refer to is the quote from Editor
> > Small below - So I guess even the ULT's
> > Official Position (I know.. they don't
> > have any!) is a tentative assertion
> > that the letter is Bona Fide....
> > It seems the overwhelming majority think
> > it was a bona fide KH letter regardless.
> > ========================================
> > 
> > I was going to ask Jake back when I first
> > read this a question but never got around to it.
> > With Bruce weighting in on the matter now,
> > I will ask Jake to clarify what he was "getting at"
> > when he wrote:
> > 
> > "It seems the overwhelming majority think
> > it was a bona fide KH letter regardless."
> > 
> > What are you saying here Jake?  That we should
> > be convinced or I should be convinced or we should
> > at least take into consideration that "the overwhelming 
> > majority think it was a bona fide KH letter" and that
> > that should somehow sway our view?
> > 
> > I'm sure there are other things you could have meant!
> > 
> > But when I first read this, I was going to write back
> > and say:  Well, so we should now let the fact that
> > "the overwhelming majority think" this or that [on whatever
> > subject!] somehow sway us?
> > 
> > Truth is determined by what the "majority" thinks??
> > 
> > Jake, I'm not saying you meant any of this.  I'm just
> > saying this was a little bit of my own mental dialogue
> > with myself.
> > 
> > Anyway it will be interesting to see what your response to
> > this will be as well as your view on what Bruce has written
> > about the 1900 letter.
> > 
> > Daniel
> > http://hpb.cc
> >
>