Theos-Talk Archives (January 2002 Message tt00489)

So you only posted mails to attack Paul and me, and now that you are 
asked to show if you have something to offer regards what you are so 
big in attacking, you are using a cop out.

The suspicion by some that your former arguments are just a con seem 
justified.

Brigitte

--- In theos-talk@y..., "redrosarian" <redrosarian@y...> wrote:
> --- In theos-talk@y..., "bri_mue" <bri_mue@y...> wrote:
> > Certainly I have given my opinions plenty of times as you noticed,
> > so now lets hear/see what you have to say to these subjects next,
> > so we can discuss them.
> 
> In due time. There will be plenty of opportunities in the future 
as 
> I see threads of interest to discuss.
> 
> MNS
Brigitte: "why not discuss the issues, instead of ad hoc 
condemnations or/and attacks ?"

MNS: "I agree. Why don't we do that?"

Brigitte: Oke, so what are your historical comments to the issues 
raised so far, insights regarding Blavatsky's biography that has so 
many un answerred questions, how her teachings fit together, its 
sources, background, and so on.

Certainly I have given my opinions plenty of times as you noticed, so 
now lets hear/see what you have to say to these subjects next, so we 
can discuss them.

MNS, I do not consider "one side only", I try to study a large 
variety of sides. 

But so what is then your own take on the historical aspects at hand 
that you so much attacked ?
Why don't you (and I would wish for many others on this list) do much 
better then me, where is your own research "without reffering to any 
research of others" ? 


Brigitte