Theos-Talk Archives (May 2003 Message tt00066)

Paul Johnson's latest "ad hominem" tactic: A January 18, 2002 Theos-
Talk Posting

------------------------------------------------
Paul Johnson's latest "ad hominem" tactic
by "blavatskyarchives" <blavatskyarchives@yahoo.com>

Dear Paul,

I am back from my vacation in the mountains. It was quite relaxing 
and refreshing. 

I have piles of work to do but thought I would finish what I had 
initially wrote to you a week or so ago.

In your posting at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/4657

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.

At that time I wrote a reply to both Dallas and Frank. It can be 
found at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/755

Much of what I said in that letter to Dallas and Frank now applies to 
your email above.

>From what you write, I see that you have no understanding whatsoever 
concerning my motives, actions, etc. But what you write would make 
for a good tv drama! I like being characterized as a heretic 
slayer. . . . ... :)

What you say is basically downright silly and sounds almost 
delusional. Believe it if it somehow comforts you.

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. . . "

" . . . in order to curry favor with the organizations who wanted 
someone to refute the Johnsonian heresy. . . . "

"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."

"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. But how do you 
really know what did or did not motivate me? 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??

Were Theosophists encouraging me at that time to be the hatchet man?

Was I trying to "curry favor with the organizations who wanted 
someone to refute the Johnsonian heresy" when I wrote that critique?

Was I hoping to be published by TPH when I wrote that critique?

The answer to all three questions is: "No"

Yet even back then after receiving just this one letter/critique from 
me you wrote back in a letter dated April 14, 1993 and questioned my 
motives.

In my reply to that letter, I wrote to you the following:

"...it is not my intention to be adversarial with you. No doubt, you 
are a sincere individual who has devoted alot of hard work and money 
to your research. I can and do appreciate that. But if you want my 
honest opinion, then I must give it to you."

"Also in your letter to me of April 14th, you seem to think I have 
not been fair and objective in my criticism of your books; you also 
question my motivations. On this score all I will say is that I have 
given my criticisms of your thesis and you should be able to assess 
the validity of my criticisms, regardless of my own motivations."

Even at the beginning of our correspondence in 1993 it appears that 
you wanted to assign to me some kind of "negative" motivation 
although you were then and have been incensed since then by 
theosophists who have ascribed to you various negative motives for 
writing your books.

In summary, as pointed out by one of my correspondents, your 
latest "ad hominem" essay on me MAY reflect more about you than about 
me.

You might want to follow the advice I gave to Dallas and Frank last 
year. See:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/755

Daniel, the H.S. of the T.M.
http://hpb.cc