Theos-Talk Archives (March 2006 Message tt00878)

	OK. My premise is that there is no evidence that Bowen took any classes 
from Blavatsky, or even met Blavatsky, and that the Bowen notes cannot 
therefore be taken as genuine. This can be disproven very easily, by 
presentation of records to the contrary. If no such records exist, then 
we cannot assume that they are genuine, although we also cannot assume 
that they are not. On the other hand, if there are records of 
Blavatsky's students (and there are), and Bowen's name is absent (and it 
is), then that creates a high probability that the notes are in fact 
made up.

	This, of course, does not mean that they aren't useful.

	Bart

krsanna wrote:

> You have not yet stated any logic, nor even presented any data.  
> Some confirmation of WHAT you are discussing would be helpful.  In 
> order to continue any discussion, please do three things:
>
> 1.  State your premise
> 2.  Present any data you have
> 3.  Explain what your logic is
>
> Thanks,
> Krsanna
>
>
>
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky <bartl@...> wrote:
>
> > krsanna wrote:
> >
> > > I don't want to argue about proving a negative with you.  It is 
> > > silly stuff.
> > 	In other words, like many leftists, you deny the validity of 
> logic.
>
> > 	Bart
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>