Theos-Talk Archives (February 2002 Message tt00575)

You never have specified any factual mistakes in my mail.
And instead have only jugled with below the belt ('hip shots' as Bill 
Meredith refers to) polemics. Take as an example just the recent 
postings on Keely from last week, what are all the factual historical 
errors in there that you can point out if what you write is anywhere 
true ?

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/5482

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/5531

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/5570

Or if the above is to difficult for you (although you nevertheless 
made judgements about all my postings in an unfair way) then why 
don't you take then at least the easier subject (or both) and bring 
some evidence of original documents that where that time not yet 
published, to show up in Blavatsky's writings, that can be verified 
today. 
As far as is known only published sources have constantly show up in 
a verifiable way in Blavatsky's writings.
There are many tausends of unpublished original documents as is easy 
to find out, of Hinduism, Buddhism , and Tibetan Buddhism in 
specific, plus many many others out of the general region, that have 
been translated the last 100 years, that where not published that 
time, where are they in Blavatsky's work, or why only published books 
show up there, except for some "glue" as Blavatsky expressed in the 
SD herself.


Suspecting in advance you won't properly go into any of these or just 
find an excuse, will just confirm the suspicion of many other people 
on this list to that you are just a game player.
Why don't you find something better to do ?

I hope you at least read the SD on the above subjects.

Bri.


--- In theos-talk@y..., alwilli <alwilli@i...> wrote:
> Hello Bill,
> Sunday, February 17, 2002, you wrote:
> 
> > Hi Alan. It's hard to resist firing off a 'hip shot' of our own 
isn't it?
> > I wonder why that is? Also I am intrigued by the concept of 
a 'point
> > proven.' How could anyone 'prove' anything? Where does the 
search for
> > 'proof' lead? Any ideas?
> 
> I intended it to be understood that Muehlegger, while presenting a
> voluminous amount of hastily quoted material in her prodigious 
amount of
> posts as evidence of one or other of her musings about what actually
> happenened in early Thesophical history, eg that HPB was a hash-
head among
> others, has failed to show, even on balance of probability, that 
their is
> anyh merit at all in her theoretical fantasies.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Best regards,
> Alan
> mailto:alwilli@i...