Theos-Talk Archives (April 2004 Message tt00464)

Hi Ali,

I would prefer not to have gotten involved in any discussion of CWL, 
because I have little interest in the subject and have found that 
any reference to the facts of the matter leads to personal attacks 
from his admirers. YOU ASKED QUESTIONS to which I responded 
honestly; the brother Gerald business reflects on CWL's character 
regardless of the nature of the relationship with CJ which I 
specifically said can't be known for sure. The one line below, in 
response to your further questioning, has now been turned into a 
basis for an unjustified personal attack. Dennis is apparently more 
exercised by the anti-CWL true believers than by me, but then you 
point the finger quite directly-- and all I was doing was trying to 
respond to your questions which I did not really want to address 
because CWL admirers ALWAYS ATTACK THE MESSENGER. Et tu, Ali?

I wrote:

> > >Note that Krishnamurti denied an eyewitness account of his being
> > >abused by CWL, when his father sued AB for custody.
> >

You asked:

> > >Who was the eyewitness, and what was their credibility?

Dennis replied:

> >As I recall, the eyewitness was a maid who passed the room in 
which the "ACT" was taking place. And since you don't seem to be 
aware of the juicy details of the ACT, permit me to fill you in. As 
I have pointed out here in past years, it seems to me that this is 
more of a cultural misunderstanding than anything else.

We could go into this question in detail but I'm not interested in 
it and folks like JHE and Dr. Tillett who know a hundred times more 
than I do about the subject have learned from painful experience 
that the response will be ATTACK THE MESSENGER. Suffice it to say 
that Dennis's *explanation* is precisely that, and ignores some 
relevant evidence. If you really care about this, read Tillett's 
book or better yet his dissertation. Don't take Dennis's email as 
the final truth and use it as a basis for attacking anyone.

> > >But at some point, someone would have bugged him about the 
alleged buggering, and he would have had to tell it frankly.
> >
He claimed amnesia, if I recall correctly.

> >But, as you see, there was no "alleged buggering". You are 
jumping to conclusions, and I don't see much evidence that many 
people want you to know the facts.
> 
There is certainly plenty of jumping to CWL-defensive conclusions on 
Dennis's part and yours, rather than simply saying as I have several 
times that we don't know exactly what went on.

> Thanks, Dennis. If I jumped to conclusions, it was because of the 
obviously misleading statements implying exactly that, in terms 
of 'abuse'.

I implied no such thing! You inferred it.

> What is sad is the way supposed truth-seekers resort to 
backbiting and slandering someone whom they don't like for whatever 
other reasons. It's dishonest.

It's extremely dishonest to ask someone for information, then ask 
them for further explanations, and turn around and backbite and 
slander them for their honest attempt at responding to your request.

Won't fall into such a trap again,

Paul