Theos-Talk Archives (February 2008 Message tt00140)

If Pablo takes time to read all the past archives of various theos lists, he
may come out with a different opinion. Archives have a lot of material you
will not find anywhere else. This is due to the fact that the lists are
outside the control of any organization and is totally unmoderated. This is
something that many organizations used to control flow of info to its
adherents and is finding it very hard to come to grip
with. Anyone will also notice that rarely one finds well known leaders
in the hierarchy of organizations participate in any of them, even
though they may lurk to see what is going on.
A paradox in the internet age.

mkr


On 2/15/08, nhcareyta <nhcareyta@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> Dear Pablo
>
> Recently you wrote, "In this circle it is fashionable
> to criticize Besant and Leadbeater for whatever
> they did, and most of the times the statements
> are unsupported."
>
> On two occasions I have asked, "Would you kindly
> define your term "unsupported. And apart from
> the current claim by Cass, would you also be
> so kind as to show where "unsupported statements"
> have been made."
>
> Unless you are in process, it appears you are
> disinclined to reply to my questions.
> Given that you have subsequently responded to
> other contributors to this discussion, I will
> assume certain things.
>
> Your word "unsupported" may mean
> not substantiated, meaning groundless and
> baseless.
> If this is correct then you have failed to
> demonstrate this with any examples.
>
> It must therefore be assumed that you have
> little or no evidence to support your claim.
>
> In light of the above, I ask you to reconsider
> your apparently derogatory words to Cass to
> determine whether they might actually refer to
> yourself, "It's interesting to see how our mind
> plays games. "Consistency" is not its main
> feature..."
>
> I still look forward to examples where unsubstantiated
> statements have been made about Bishop Leadbeater
> and Dr Besant in this forum that we may discuss them
> objectively and without bias.
>
> Regards
> Nigel
>
> 
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]