(urth) Mirror Image Freedom

[Lee Berman]

>Gerry Quinn- If A presents a theory and B stamps it 'REJECTED' without explanation, we must 
>certainly take into account or views of B if we are paying heed to the rejection.  But if B lays 
>out a strong and logical case for rejection, B's character and motives of less import.  Indeed, we may 
>suspect that A's protests in this regard may reflect more on A than on B.
 
This is simplistic and biased. You clearly see yourself in the role of B. Only A is seen as capable of
ego-related bias, never B. You just won't recognize that what seems "strong and logical" to you is not 
seen that way by every other person.
 
>I will continue to express my views regarding theories you or others may present here, just as I hope 
>others will express their views regarding mine. In all cases I would expect such views and theories to 
>be supported or challenged by evidence (principally textual) rather than by special pleading and innuendo.
 
Your "God and Christ are in the Sun Series" theory is a good example. To you, that theory is based on strong
textual evidence. Yet I can see your mental edits, resulting in the deletion of texual mentions of so many
other gods, many by name.  You don't want them so aren't there. But Christ is wanted, so you include him in 
the story based on flimsy evidence which is as good an example of "pleading and inuendo" as there can be.
 
Normally I would not use such patronising language to express doubt regarding someone else's valued, long-
considered personal interpretations. I only use it here to illustrate what it is like to be criticized by
Gerry Quinn.
 
 
I would never suggest you stop expressing your views. Nor do I expect you to change the unctuous tone
that creeps into your posts. You are who you are. The best I can hope is that you become aware of it. I'll
leave it at that.