Theos-Talk Archives (September 1998 Message tt00284)

Tony Maddock wrote:

> Daniel wrote:
>  AM I MISSING SOMETHING HERE??
>
> YES YOU ARE.
>
> Is the tone of demanding questioning to Dallas, really asked in the true
> spirit of Brotherhood?  Well, many of us may be guilty of that.
>
> Daniel wrote to Dallas:
> Maybe I have belabored the point, but these questions are worth asking
> especially in light of what you have written many times previously on
> the importance of facsimiles, etc. of HPB's writings.
>
> Not maybe, but YES, YOU have belabored the point.  YOU have made clear your
> position, and laid out the evidence.  But why DEMAND a reply?  Why make it
> so PERSONAL?
>
> You sound like the GRAND INQUISITOR, thankfully not. . . .

Daniel Caldwell replies:

Tony, I like Dallas very much.  He and his wife were wonderful hosts
when we visited him several years ago at his home in California.  Dallas
has been very kind to send me various information and materials when
I've requested it.  So I have no personal ill will toward him.  So
please don't imagine or try to invent something.

I'm simply trying to deal with the issues under discussion.  For all I
care, let us delete all references to Dallas' name and focus solely on
the questions.

But Dallas himself is a plainspoken person who speaks his mind---he can
often be blunt, frank and honest. *Actually I like that in a person.*
In the case under discussion, Dallas gave criticisms of Mead's and de
Zirkoff's editing of HPB's works. That's fine; that's okay. Dallas also
set up certain standards concerning HPB's work. etc. etc.  In turn, I've
asked frank and straightforward questions and I would hope that Dallas
would be forthright with his answers.  Of course, whether he does or
does not decide to answer, that's his decision to make.

In regards to your comment:

>Is the tone of demanding questioning to Dallas, really asked in the true
> spirit of Brotherhood?

Tony, what does this have to do with the subject under discussion?  As
far as I can see, there is no relationship. Again, your other remarks
directed *towards me* are nothing but *ad hominem* remarks apparently
designed to distract from the real points under discussion.  Both Paul
Bazzer and you have indulged in similar remarks in previous
discussions.
Some time ago on Theos-World, I can remember when Dallas apparently
"demanded" of Paul Johnson some evidence to back up various assertions
made against HPB by Johnson.  I can also remember when Dallas made
various remarks *against* C.W. Leadbeater's teachings.  Etc. etc.  No
doubt, some Theos-World subscribers considered Dallas's remarks in a
similar vein to mine.  Some may have responded to Dallas' statements by
asking whether such "demands" and "remarks" were given in "the true
spirit of Brotherhood" or who appointed Dallas as "the grand
inquisitor".  If I mistake not, this was part of Johnson's own response
to Dallas.

IMO, this type of "ad hominem" response (whether directed toward Dallas
or me) is just a technique/ploy to distract from the real issues under
discussion.

BTW, why don't you give us your 2 cents about A MODERN PANARION?