Theos-Talk Archives (March 2009 Message tt00152)

Hello Daniel

You write, "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."

Agreed, however the most disturbing aspect to this is that Anand 
is himself completely unaware of his own contradictions and incoherence. 

My greatest concern is that a newby might venture onto t/talk, 
assume Anand is educated, and accept his assertions.

Thank you for your efforts in counteracting some of his more 
bizarre delusions.

Kind regards
Nigel
 


--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "danielhcaldwell" <danielhcaldwell@...> wrote:
>
> 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
>