Re: Re The Secret Scroll

[Jean Stokes <sinead@milamba.com>]

Dear Tim
With all due respect, you sound like my son - who as a devoted scientist 
argues in similar ways. I didn't suggest not to point out the flaw in  the 
reasoning - but rather to be less blunt. If some one is dead, you can't 
teach him anything.

While an Email may not be lethal, if it is as blunt as that comment, you 
won't get him to listen, and you will make others wonder why you were 
so.  They may end up not listening at all.

My father, grandfather and brother were and are Masons so I do know that 
the craft is not explained to outsiders. In fact when Dad died, there was 
great discussion as to whether or not to pass on his regalia or to bury him 
in it.  I think we gave it to a fellow member of the craft.

I guess what I am saying is that this list can get into fine old "tizzies" 
in  discussion. Maybe I am asking that defence should be assertive and not 
aggressive. And I do apologize if I have offended you by this comment. 
You'll have to blame my profession.

Regards,
Sinead.
   12:47 PM 25/08/00 +0100, you wrote:
>Dear Jean,
>
>With all due respect for your view on the propriety of verbalising
>disagreement - in regard to Andrew's so-called interpreation of the Kirkwall
>Scroll, we are not in disagreement - he is just plain wrong and grievously
>so. As a historian I have an overiding obligation to establish truth and,
>where appropriate, distinguish between verifiable fact, respected scholarly
>opinion, reasonable speculation and outright error. To let nonsense such as
>Andrew's latest theory pass without comment is to give it the 'assent of
>silence' which would be both dishonorable and dishonest as well as
>perpetuating a lie.
>
>The only reason that the true meaning of the Kirkwall Scroll is not
>disclosed to the generalpublic by its guardians is that it refers to
>teaching and rituals within the Craft to which all Masons have sworn a vow
>of silence. This attitude, of course, leaves the field open to speculation
>by outsiders which, in this case, could perpetuate nonsense, bring the
>entire effort to interpret history into disrepute and bring discredit on the
>Sinclairs in general. Should I then remain silent under these circumstances?
>I think not.
>
>Best wishes
>
>Tim Wallace-Murphy
>
>[ This is the Sinclair family discussion list, sinclair@mids.org
>[ To get off or on the list, see http://www.mids.org/sinclair/list.html

[ This is the Sinclair family discussion list, sinclair@mids.org
[ To get off or on the list, see http://www.mids.org/sinclair/list.html