Theos-Talk Archives (January 2002 Message tt00308)

Hi Bill,

Well you mentioned my name didn't you.
I will also have to back Paul on the idea that 8 years must be enough - of attacking !
And Paul I respect your work - but I just disgree with the manner in which you - som 8 years ago presented the life and teachings of HPB - and that isthat.

Now let us all go on to become WISE.

I guess that only a few - can talk themselves 100% free from mental trouble.
Are Bill Meredith one of them ?

from the heart
Morten Sufilight



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bill Meredith" <bilmer@surfsouth.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2002 10:01 PM
Subject: Re: Theos-World Tactics and motives: to Daniel


> Hi Paul,
> 
> Good comments below. I simply wish to add my name to the list of
> interested bystanders who question Daniel's continued venemous attack of
> one man's reputation and work, when, by his own admission, Daniel could be
> contributing scathing critiques of other Theosophical works, most notable
> Sylvia Cranston's.
> 
> Daniel's writings give me the impression that he actually despises you. 
> For the same reason that I no longer dialogue with Sufilight, I have
> decided not to press Daniel for further explanations. One can never know
> when a single word might trigger a mental breakdown. I just hope he is
> OK.
> 
> regards,
> Bill 
> 
> ----------
> > From: kpauljohnson <kpauljohnson@yahoo.com>
> > To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Theos-World Tactics and motives: to Daniel
> > Date: Monday, January 21, 2002 12:38 PM
> > 
> > --- In theos-talk@y..., "blavatskyarchives" <blavatskyarchives@y...> 
> > wrote:
> > > 
> > > it is really sad to find you using the same "ad hominem" tactic 
> > > against me as Dallas Tenbroeck and Frank Reitemeyer used about one 
> > > year ago against Brigitte Muehlegger and you.
> > > 
> > No one is saying that the quality of your historical arguments can be 
> > dismissed for any reason at all. No one is advising people that you 
> > are to be ignored as an author, or saying that your writings are 
> > worthless. So when you talk about tactical parallels I don't agree.  
> > Several people have talked about the obsessive and destructive focus 
> > you have shown for years now re: my books, and my remarks were an 
> > attempt to explain why you've gone on so intensely, attacking one 
> > author for years while ignoring or praising almost all others in the 
> > field. Quite a few people, quite a few times, have suggested or come 
> > right out and said there was something unbalanced about your behavior 
> > in response to my books, and the subject has been recently raised 
> > again.
> > > 
> > > From what you write, I see that you have no understanding 
> > whatsoever 
> > > concerning my motives, actions, etc.
> > 
> > For eight years now, I've been trying to figure them out and you have 
> > not offered a single word of honest explanation to me or anyone on 
> > various lists who has wondered why you have carried on the way you 
> > have about my work. You refuse to offer me or anyone else a basis 
> > for understanding why you've done what you've done, but your behavior 
> > provides clues. I try to understand them, and others have done the 
> > same. Any hypothesis that is offered, you deny. Of course this 
> > eight year obsession couldn't possibly have anything to do with your 
> > belief system about HPB, because you won't admit to having one :)
> > > 
> > > What you say is basically downright silly and sounds almost 
> > > delusional. Believe it if it somehow comforts you.
> > > 
> > What comfort is there, really, in knowing why someone does the things 
> > you've done? The only comfort is that others share my horror at the 
> > relentlessness of it. Talk about tactics! The fact that I have been 
> > aghast at your obsessive attacks is taken by you as proof that 
> > there's something wrong with my mental health. Well, eight years of 
> > obsessive attacks makes others wonder about *yours*. But I'm not 
> > calling *you* crazy; when I try to figure out why you behave as you 
> > do, ideological factors rise to the fore. If you have anything else 
> > to offer, feel free.
> > 
> > > Look at the following four priceless gems that you wrote about me:
> > > 
> > > ". . . Daniel's worst enemies are those Theosophists that have 
> > > encouraged him to be a hatchet man. . . "
> > > 
> > Yep, you yourself have posted several times about all the praise you 
> > got for your efforts to demolish my reputation, and how some of the 
> > sources thereof turned on you later.
> > 
> > > " . . . in order to curry favor with the organizations who wanted 
> > > someone to refute the Johnsonian heresy. . . . "
> > > 
> > That's right, John Algeo found you very convenient in 1995, and 
> > websites associated with Pasadena and ULT have promoted your attacks 
> > on me in subsequent years. Now, did you *consciously* try to destroy 
> > me as a Theosophical historian in order to please others who wanted 
> > that outcome for reasons of perceived organizational interests?
> > Or did you *unconsciously* play to those interests while consciously 
> > telling yourself that your crusade was all about truth and fairness?  
> > Who knows? What is known is your institutional associations, e.g. 
> > who recommended your attack on me to TS members in 1995, and what 
> > publisher published your second edition.
> > 
> > > "In all sincerity I believe that what has happened here is that by 
> > > becoming an attack dog serving Theosophical orthodoxy, despite 
> > > knowing full well that he could have attacked Cranston just as 
> > > viciously as he did me using the same criteria, that he sold his 
> > > birthright for a mess of pottage."
> > 
> > You, Daniel, made an admission that is pretty damaging in this 
> > regard. That is, that you perceived Cranston's book as no better or 
> > worse than mine, no more fair game for attacks. And yet when two 
> > people asked why in the world you'd furiously attack one author for 
> > eight years and ignore the other one, you had no answer. If there is 
> > no reason *you'll admit to* for you to attack one author for years 
> > and ignore the other, then people (certainly including the author 
> > you've attacked) are going to wonder what interests are at stake 
> > here, what explains this disproportionate reaction on your part.
> > > 
> > > "But by acting on his *interests* (to be somebody respected in the 
> > > movement, to be published by TPH, and whatnot) and violating his 
> > > stated *principles* he has become a sectarian apologist and heretic-
> > > slayer, and thrown away all opportunity to be taken seriously in 
> > the 
> > > world of scholarship."
> > > 
> > > I guess you're trying to say here that I was motivated by 
> > > various "negative" INTERESTS to critique your books.
> > 
> > The question is not "what motivated Daniel to critique Paul's books" 
> > but rather "what motivated a furious singleminded eight-year 
> > obsession on Daniel's part to demolish Paul's reputation among 
> > Theosophical readers?" It's got to involve your interests, Daniel, 
> > because you yourself have admitted that your *principles* would have 
> > you applying equal amounts of scrutiny to the work of all authors 
> > about HPB, rather than furiously attacking one for years and years.
> > 
> > But how do you 
> > > really know what did or did not motivate me?
> > 
> > Of course not. That's your secret. But plenty of folks can connect 
> > the dots...
> > 
> > Sheer speculation it 
> > > would appear to be....possible, yes ....plausible, yes but is any 
> > of 
> > > it really true?
> > > 
> > > Paul, did those INTERESTS also motivate me in 1993? It was in 
> > > January of that year that you first wrote to me asking me for input 
> > > on your first self-published book. I took the time and effort to 
> > > write to you an 18 page letter and added appendices of relevant 
> > > material. What initially motivated me at that time to critique your 
> > > book??
> > 
> > All I know is that soon after the book came out, this letter and 
> > appendices was distributed by you as an "Open Letter to Paul Johnson" 
> > despite my having asked you during the correspondence that all this 
> > remain private. Thus, I assume that one of your initial motivations--
> > apart from the obvious one that I asked you to comment-- was the idea 
> > that you would later publish this as an attack on my book.  
> > > 
> > > Were Theosophists encouraging me at that time to be the hatchet man?
> > > 
> > You told me about the many hours of phone conversations you had with 
> > various people about my work. Presumably some encouraged your 
> > crusade, and others didn't.
> > 
> > > Was I trying to "curry favor with the organizations who wanted 
> > > someone to refute the Johnsonian heresy" when I wrote that critique?
> > 
> > What is at question isn't the initial writing of a critique but an 
> > eight-year obsession, reposting it and repeating the accusations 
> > contained therein. Which takes a bit more explaining than just 
> > writing something and leaving it at that.
> > 
> > snip
> > 
> > > 
> > > Even at the beginning of our correspondence in 1993 it appears that 
> > > you wanted to assign to me some kind of "negative" motivation 
> > 
> > That wasn't the beginning! The beginning was when I wrote to you in 
> > a friendly way to ask for some input. The beginning of a sick 
> > feeling about your negative motivation came when I read what you sent 
> > in reply. An adversarial, confrontational document full of caps and 
> > exclamations, that looked like sectarian polemics intended for 
> > publication, rather than the private letter in a normal tone that was 
> > expected.
> > 
> > Any explanation of your behavior towards me these last eight years 
> > would be welcomed by me and others who have noticed that it has been 
> > rather extreme. As long as you withhold explanations, yet admit 
> > that you could just as easily and with equal justification attacked 
> > other authors about HPB, people will wonder about your interests and 
> > motivations. They'll ask; and I'll give them what fragmentary and 
> > tentative explanations I can offer in the circumstances. Which 
> > you'll then dismiss, of course. But without offering any alternative 
> > explanation that makes more sense. See a pattern here?
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > 
> > Paul
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> 
> > 
> 
>  
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
> 
> 
>