Theos-Talk Archives (April 2002 Message tt00110)

On the subject of quoting other's on these lists . . . 
"I wonder . . . I wonder . . ." (to quote John Cleese's character from 
"A Fish Called Wanda) how some of us might approach that topic . 
. . 

Could it be that, on some lists, (such as those that might be 
somewhat generally perceived as "t/Theosophical," or, say 
"somewhat t/Theosophical," maybe . . . ?) could it be that on 
THOSE kinds of lists there might be some sort of "generally 
perceived" or "individually perceived" preference, (or some kind 
of "tentative preference," here or there, possibly?) to the effect that, 
in light of certain "kinds" of content in certain "kinds" of 
Theosophical books (possibly to be found in such books as the 
Secret Doctrine and Isis Unveiled?) . . . well, in light of what might 
be a somewhat general perception (say?) that those books might (or 
"do," possibly?) contain a number of passages that might be 
described ("might be described," possibly . . . ?) . . . 

[Being a fairly new student of Theosophy, I, myself, am not, of 
course, in any kind of position to offer anything more than "certain 
kinds" of tentative, "speculative" comments!]

. . . and so, (to continue): . . . uh . . . oh, yes, I was saying
(well, "speculating," actually, basically, I think) that, for whatever
reason, there MAY be SOME "students of Theosophy" (and, in a sense, 
who isn't, after all, "a student of Theosophy" in SOME sense, 
basically . . . . ?). . . ?) who may TEND to feel, for whatever 
reason, that, in light of certain "kinds" of content in certain "kinds" 
of Theosophical books (possibly to be found in such books as the 
Secret Doctrine and Isis Unveiled?---if I may kindly update the reader's
memory re my general trend, here. . . ?) Well, it MAY be, (if just as
per my tentative, speculative tendencies), that there MAY be those who,
as a result of having discovered that the SD and the IU were, as it 
were (apparently?), "co-authored," are therefore (as a possibly 
"direct result" of that discovery, possibly?) are therefore, or 
MIGHT be, therefore, "inclined," at times, in some 
circumstances/cases (or "somewhat inclined," possibly, at times?) 
to interpret such a "co-authoring/quoting technique" as a "significant 
precedent," in some apparently "significantly relevant sense,"
(possibly?) and an indication (possibly?) that one is, under certain
"KINDS" of circumstances (as when, say, "infomally" offering email on
certain kinds of discussion lists?) excempted from certain "more-formal
requirements" re such as "regular considerations" about "plagiarism" . .
. Not that I'm saying, or implying, that HPB was particularly
plagiaristic, herself, per se, (apparently?), in as much as she did, I
think, at some point point out something about her references to
"VARIOUS" sources, many of which (or all of which?) were mentioned and
"credited." Not being a scholar of the subject, I can offer no more 
than my "speculative impressions."

Of is it that there is the "impression" among some that HPB did not 
"credit enough," or "all" of her sources? If so, I wonder if such an 
impression might have something to do with tending to lead some 
people, in certain circumstances, on certain discussion lists, to 
"similarly" "quote freely" from various sources without giving 
"regular credit" to the original authors . . . Could it be that there
are some list contributors who see themselves as removed from the 
"ordinary rules" of the "regular world" (as per their interpretation 
of HPB' ways and means, possibly?), and thereby might be inclined 
to "follow suit" in keeping with their interpretive tendencies . . . ?

Speculatively,
Mauri