Theos-Talk Archives (March 2002 Message tt00516)

Daniel,
I see again that you simply will not address the remainder of my post which
I resent a second time to you. If you could just answer my post by
copying it in its entirety and going through addressing each section and
comment individually, I would be most grateful. A big OK after each section
would suffice if you agree with what I have written I think.

Once again I will demonstrate below:

----- Original Message -----
From: "danielhcaldwell" <danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2002 5:37 PM
Subject: Theos-World Re: What does Bill Meredith think about Olcott's
Experiences with the Masters?


> Bill,
>
> In your latest posting to me, you write:
>
> "That's it? You ask for my opinion and when I give it you ignore the
> ramifications of it completely? My post was a complete thought that
> needs to be addressed as a whole or is better not addressed at all."
>
> Bill, I wanted in the original answer to your post to pursue the
> heart of the matter with you which is about Olcott's encounters but
> you seemed to preclude that by writing:
>
> "Now, Daniel, I have done my best to explain. I do hope that it
> suffices. Researching the accounts of various historical events for
> evidence that 'adepts' exist is a poor methodology which I am not
> inclined to pursue further. I do not need Olcott's testimony or your
> charts to validate my belief in extraordinary men and women capable
> of extraordinary accomplishments."
>
> Therefore it seemed that little if anything would be gained by trying
> to pursue with you your hypothesis #6 which you had offered.
So why did you respond to my answer at all? And why surgically remove only
two statements to respond to? I apparently did not explain myself well
enough. I do not wish to be asked repeated if what I have already said is
what I meant as you have done others on this list. I have taken time and
care to be precise in my explanation and I welcome your comments so long as
you do not ignore what I said or pretend that I did not say it as you do
others on this list.

> Finally you write:
>
> "Daniel, it is small wonder that few will engage in dialogue with
> you. You seek to confront Brigitte at every turn. There is much
> each of you could learn from the other. Only an arrogant claim upon
> the truth prevents it. Brigitte is the obsessive to your compulsive.
> Without either one of you the rest of us would be getting only one
> side of the story. Together you balance and ultimately cancel each
> other leaving us with our own self-devised methods. Thank you both."
>
> First of all, I think I have been learning things from Brigitte's
> postings.


Name at least two significant things that you think you have learned from
Brigitte's postings.


> Furthermore, Bill, I didn't get the impression in your last two
> postings to me that you really wanted to engage in dialogue with me
> about the hypotheses concerning Olcott's encounters. So I didn't
> pursue it.
Again why did you respond to my post at all then? To make your points while
ducking mine is amusing.
Why then do you persist in pursuing "dialogue" with Brigitte when she has
made it abundantly clear that she is not going to answer you any further?
My reluctance to engage in dialogue with you is based on my observation of
how you treat others. I also do not seek dialogue with Brigitte.

> But best luck to you in your own "self-devised methods", whatever you
> may mean by that. And thank you, too.

Blavatsky used the term. Look it up. I mean what she meant.
Here again is my complete post which you have once again chopped for your
benefit:
________
My comments are imbedded throughout.


----- Original Message -----
From: "danielhcaldwell" <danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 10:06 PM
Subject: Theos-World Re: What does Bill Meredith think about Olcott's
Experiences with the Masters?


> Bill,
>
> Thanks for your comments at:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/6388


No thank you.


> Bill, AT LEAST you gave your estimation of Olcott's "claims".
> Thanks. But I can't say the same for that other person who considers
> herself a "neutral" scholar.


Why put the neutral in quotes? Does Brigitte consider herself a neutral
scholar or a "neutral" scholar?

> Concerning that same "neutral" scholar, you write:
>
> "Perhaps in refusing to respond directly to your incessant
> interogatories, she is being more honest and forthright than all the
> rest of us put together."
>
> Well, Bill, I guess that is your opinion and you're entitled to it
> but I don't think there is any proof - conclusive or otherwise - for
> that extraordinary belief!!! :) But if you want to believe that, go
> for it.

It is not my opinion and you would be wrong to assume it is my belief. It
is simply another possibility that is inconsistent with your stated opinion.

> You also write:
>
> "I do not need Olcott's testimony or your charts to validate my
> belief in extraordinary men and women capable of extraordinary
> accomplishments."
>
> Well, my charts don't count for much

Yes, I agree. (this is the type of selective editing you do regularly)

except to illustrate the 4 step
> process of discovery. As to Olcott's testimony, I am glad that he
> saw fit to give it so that others might possibly gain insight from
> his experiences.

OK

> Mmm, "extraordinary men and women"? But we won't go into that.

OK

>
> But again thanks for your hypothesis 6.
> Daniel H. Caldwell


That's it? You ask for my opinion and when I give it you ignore the
ramifications of it completely? My post was a complete thought that needs
to be addressed as a whole or is better not addressed at all.

Herewith are the parts of my post that you left out. What do you make of
them?
__________
Daniel:
> Below are four encounters Olcott had with the Masters:

Bill:
Daniel, look carefully at how you phrase the above statement of fact as well
as your selection of a subject line. It is the Blavatsky-biased and
Masters-certain Daniel Caldwell who chose those words. A more reasonable
researcher, while trying to maintain a modicum of balance, might have chosen
words similiar to these: "What does Bill Meredith think about Olcott's
claim to have encountered 'masters'? and "Below are four historical events
in which Olcott claims that he had an encounter with a person or persons
whom he (Olcott) at times refers to as 'brother' or 'master'.

Daniel:
> There are at least five possible explanations of his
> encounters with the Masters:

Bill:
Again Daniel, your statement above reveals your bias in presuming that
Olcott had an encounter with the Masters. Otherwise you might have written
"There are at least five possible explanations for each of these four
events."

Daniel:

> 1. Olcott perhaps was simply lying and this whole
> experience never actually happened.
> 2. Olcott was perhaps duped by a confederate hired by
> Blavatsky to personate a Master.
> 3. Olcott was perhaps hypnotized by Blavatsky to see
> this "imaginary" adept.
> 4. Olcott was perhaps under the influence of drugs &
> hallucinated the whole experience.
> 5. Olcott perhaps met a real physical man who was an
> adept.

Bill:
6. Olcott perhaps met a man whom he believed was a 'brother' or 'master' or
'mahatma' or 'adept.'


Daniel:
> Can we assume that Muehlegger agrees with Steve
> Stubbs' explanation concerning Olcott's encounters
> with the Masters?

Bill:
You may assume whatever pleases you.
I have no desire to assume anything about Brigitte.

Daniel:
>What hypothesis do you believe
> best explains Olcott's encounters?

Bill:
Yes, the most that can be achieved here is the adoption of a hypothesis
which one *believes* best in explaining the events. Thank you for
acknowledging that there is no _conclusive proof_ -- only *beliefs*.

Daniel:
> Do you agree or
> disagree with Stubbs' explanation?

Bill:
While number 5 is very possible and I might hope that it is the correct
explanation and it clearly seems to fit in with Steve's personal beliefs, in
my mind number 6 is more likely to be a *better* i.e. _more believable_
explanation of the historical events in question.

Bill:

Now, Daniel, I have done my best to explain. I do hope that it suffices.
Researching the accounts of various historical events for evidence that
'adepts' exist is a poor methodology which I am not inclined to pursue
further.

________

Daniel, it is small wonder that few will engage in dialogue with you. You
seek to confront Brigitte at every turn. There is much each of you could
learn from the other. Only an arrogant claim upon the truth prevents it.
Brigitte is the obsessive to your compulsive. Without either one of you the
rest of us would be getting only one side of the story. Together you
balance and ultimately cancel each other leaving us with our own
self-devised methods. Thank you both.

Bill
_____________
It is apparent that you feel you must have the last word here, so have at
it. I grow weary of recopying my entire post so that everyone can see the
context of the statements that you have pulled out.

Bill