Theos-Talk Archives (January 1999 Message tt00281)

>SUBJECT:  Dallas wrote:  "I am not interested in the philology [of
>Devachan]. . . .Be content with your view, and let me be happy with
>mine.  Enough."
>
>Daniel Caldwell wrote:
>"W. Dallas TenBroeck" wrote:
>
>> Jan 23rd 1999
>>
>> Dear Rich:              Re:  DEVACHAN
>>
>> We surely are at cross purposes.  I repeat:  I am not interested
>> in the philology, any more than "Tony" is according to his latest
>> memo.
>>
NOW HERE WE GO:

The above para arrived here as, when written and sent by Dallas:

We surely are at cross purposes.  I repeat:  I am not interested
in the philology, and more than "Tony" is according to his latest
memo.

Please note the difference between the two messages ---"and" as originally
sent, "any" when it came from Daniel.  A "d" became a "y."

The original message was understood as meaning, that Dallas was not
interested in the philology, even more not interested than "Tony" is.  Which
had the effect of saying (whether implied or not by Dallas, as opposed to
"Dallas," please note the difference), for goodness sake don't get bogged
down in all this stuff, get on with what HPB wrote, or words to that effect.
Live and breathe....... It is good advice.  And the point was taken. Now
whether Dallas (N.B.) made a mistake or not in putting "and" instead of
"any" is not the issue.  The mesage was loud and clear, from wherever it
came.  But you, by correcting it Daniel (perhaps you didn't?, and it was a
change during transmission) have completely altered the meaning of the
original message of "Dallas,"  by changing just one letter of a word.   This
is precisely the point that is being made.  When we start
altering/correcting what other people write this is what happens.  Hence
thousands and thousands..... of so called corrections.

Tony