Theos-Talk Archives (January 2003 Message tt00687)

BAG wrote to Jerry S.:

"These are some of my qualifications for speaking on Bhakti Yoga in 
this forum.....and yet you continue to be arrogantly dismissive of 
what I say, and argumentative just for the sake of looking like an 
expert in front of your deluded followers."

". . . Since it is apparently the Theosophical Society tradition to 
completely reject any kind of actual real-world expert testimony in 
favor of an unqualified Theosophist's opinion, I don't expect 
anything of value to come out of posting anything else in this forum, 
which is dominated by people like you, who cannot learn because you 
already think you know it all. I am now unsubscribing from this list."

Although BAG brought up some good points in his posting at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/10808
the type of language he used in the above quotes show that he is 
using an "ad hominem" argument which is certainly not needed. This 
type of argument only distracts from the basic points of his main 
contentions.

I guess Jerry also is as "deluded" as his followers? OBTW, what 
followers?

It appears that BAG believes Jerry and his "followers" are deluded 
but one might with the same type of argument ask if BAG himself 
suffers from certain "delusions" of his own? 

BAG certainly believes that he knows the TRUTH, he knows what 
is "genuine," he knows what is "authentic." He shows no doubts in 
these matters. He says that he speaks as an expert and therefore it 
would appear that he expects all of us on this forum ["which is 
dominated by people like you (Jerry)"]to accept what he says. 

It is too bad that BAG adopts this "negative" attitude towards 
members of this forum. I believe he has brought up many good 
points in his various postings that theosophical students should 
seriously consider. But this "ad hominem" argument only clouds and 
distracts from the real issues under discussion.

I am somewhat surprised that there has not been more serious 
discussion on this forum of some of BAG's more serious arguments.

Daniel