Theos-Talk Archives (April 2004 Message tt00486)

Reread the thread and you will see that I never took anything you wrote as a personal attack and twice now have made it very explicit. Nor did I say you were buying into any Leadbeaterian belief; just that you were jumping to exculpatory conclusions without looking at all the evidence. Nor have I ever said anything more about the Krishnamurti and Jinarajadasa cases than that we can't know what happened based on the available evidence.

But when you examine the cases of Robin Dennis, Douglas Pettit, and Hubert Van Hook, or the report of Dick Balfour-Clarke, or the 20s brouhaha in Australia, there is much more solid ground to stand on. Looking at the whole Tillett bio, the "CWL was simply misunderstood and unfairly targeted" claim has no plausibility. The Elder Brother has been out for 22 years and there has not been a single serious rebuttal from CWL admirers, just dismissals and personal attacks on Tillett.

Now the focus has managed to shift from whether CWL in fact was a pedophile who abused a large number of victims, to whether Paul is too thin-skinned, or guilty of hubris, or needs a lesson in netiquette. If someone other than me had brought up these issues, he or she would suddenly become the focus of negative personal attention. Anything to avoid dealing with the very unsavory evidence about CWL and its implications.

I have nothing against you and no wish to argue with you. But wish you would examine the entirely of Tillett's book and argue against it rather than cherry pick a single aspect of the CWL case that neither he nor I has ever presented as conclusive. 

Paul