Theos-Talk Archives (March 2009 Message tt00133)

I would suggest that A. P. Sinnett's assessment of Richard
Hodgson's "method" of handling the evidence about H.P. Blavatsky and
the Masters ALSO APPLIES TO Anand Gholap's own "modus operandi" in
approaching and dealing with the same subject:

". . .he merely staggers about among the facts, ignoring one [fact]
while he is framing a hypothesis [A], incompatible with it, to
explain another [fact], and then attempting to get over the first
fact by suggesting alternative hypothesis [B] incompatible with the
second [fact]. The multiplication of theories on this principle ad
nauseam is not legitimate argument. . . ."

Quoted from:
A.P. Sinnett, The "Occult World Phenomena" And The Society For
Psychical Research, 1886, pp. 32-33.)

Unfortunately for Anand's case, he doesn't even have many facts at
his fingertips.  He simply gives mere assertions usually unsupported
with any evidence or coherent reasoning.

Daniel
http://hpb.cc