Theos-Talk Archives (November 2001 Message tt00507)

Brigitte wrote:

> Reg. my mail "The genesis of the Master Letters."
> Daniel stages exactly, word for word, the same attack as before, 
> but again doesn't answer my mail as such.
> Instead of answerring my mail as a whole , as for example Jerry has 
> done with a much longer mail from me, and others do also, Daniel 
> simple refuses and circumvents the issues as awhole.
> by bringing as an excuse the Tillet/French case again wich hass 
> notting to do with the discussions about Blavatsky and the Master 
> letters wich is debated here.
> And the tiny bit Daniel does nible on for a moment is presented ina 
> distorted way mentioning he will "maybe" write "more" in the year 
> 2002 ! . . . .
> The same trick Daniel uses now however by writing "Better yet, 
> don't trust the statements Brigitte writes but go to the source 
> material yourself and grapple with the material".
> ( However Daniel will seldom recommend book by good Theosophical 
> historians like Deveney, Godwin, and so on)
> 
> Again most (look at the length of the mails Steve answers on a 
> daily basis) others answer mails the same day, Daniel promishes 
> to "maybe" answer it in a year or so.
> Yet at the same time stages a fierce attack.

Brigitte, in the above verbiage you are simply DISTRACTING from the 
points I have actually made. If you do not want to reply to what I 
say that is fine. I have made the points and I think they stand on 
their own merits. Readers of my posts can then look at what I have 
written and compare to the same material in your essays. Perceptive 
readers then if interested can delve deeper into the material for 
themselves. I see no reason to give a detailed point by point 
rebuttal for your benefit alone. You would probably just ignore it 
all and distract as usual.

When I find ample time to write a critique of much of what you have 
written, I will do so. And it will be a essay published on the WWW. 
But I'm sure again you will simply DISTRACT from the specific issues 
at hand and complain in an ad hominem way about what I didn't deal 
with.

Again I will be more than happy to deal with ONE SUBJECT, ONE TOPIC, 
ONE POINT at a time, but I see little to be gained by jumping 
superficially around on 12 topics at once. If you are really 
interested in dialogue then take one point and let's us deal 
specifically with that. Once we are done with that we can move on to 
a second or third or fourth topic, etc. Start with my commentary on 
what you recently wrote. You wrote:

". . . If the Hiraf document [an article by HPB] and . . . [HPB's 
book] Isis [Unveiled] mention India and some oriental terms, they 
didn't have to be authentic Sout[h] Asian . . . or 
have . . . 'oriental Masters' living in Tibet involved . . . ."

My specific comments are to found at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/3829

Comment meaningfully on what I've written and then we can move on to 
a 2nd or 3rd or 4th or 5th point.

Looking forward with dealing with specific items instead of your ad 
hominem comments about me.

Also if another reader of this forum would like for me to deal with a 
particular subject or point that Brigitte has brought up, I will 
gladly do it. 

Daniel H. Caldwell
BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES
http://hpb.cc