why was this cross-posted?
Nov 01, 2001 02:18 PM
by Eldon B Tucker
At 09:44 PM 11/1/01 +0000, you wrote:
To Brigitte and other interested persons:
Subject: What did Dallas Tenbroeck really mean by using the word
Over the last several years on the Internet's public Theosophical
forums, Dallas Tenbroeck has made numerous statements about "verbatim"
or "accurate verbatim" reprints of H.P. Blavatsky's and W.Q. Judge's
original writings. Here are just three examples from numerous
statements made by Dallas on this subject:
This message was a cross posting of a message of
Daniel's to the Universal Seekers mailing list.
Standing by itself, the message is out of context,
and likely posted without Daniel's knowledge.
On that list, Brigitte has made some statements
about theosophical history. Daniel has replied,
but found her responses unsatisfactory. He gave
this piece as an example of the thoroughness that
he peruses a subject, setting a certain level of
expectation there regarding the quality of
responses he expects from her.
Given that this message was posted without
explanation nor comment, and given that Brigitte
has been critical of both Daniel and the theos-talk
mailing list, it would seem like the intent in
posting this was to start a gratuitous argument
between Daniel and others here. Perhaps this would
be to detract from the time he might be taking to
deconstruct her historic theories on the other
The other thing might be that this is a test of
my recent call for comments about civil behavior
on theos-talk. What do we do when it appears that
someone is trying to instigate an argument between
people out of possible hostility or with the
intent of simply wasting their time?
On the surface, it appears that Brigitte is being
nasty to Daniel, and to others she may embroil in
a gratuitous argument. Perhaps there is a less
apparent but innocent reason that she could reveal
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application