Theos-Talk Archives (February 2006 Message tt00255)

Dear friends,

My first post on David Green focused on his attacks on the ULT.  But 
another group disliked by Wheaton and Adyar was also the focus of his 
contempt, a short-lived reform group to which I belonged in 1998.
Not long after I wrote a rebuttal to Daniel Caldwell's "House of 
Cards" attack on my books that appeared on Professor David Lane's 
website, I received an invitation from David Green to have it also 
published on his Critical History website.  He told me he was a 
student writing a paper, not a Theosophist, and taking mainly a 
critical view of the subject.  For almost ten years now his site has 
hosted material written by me, which I find discomfiting now in light 
of the apparent fictitiousness of his persona.  My online publisher 
is a phantom, at best.  

Although I let my membership in the Adyar TS expire in 1996, two 
years later I renewed it for a year when invited to participate in a 
reformist effort called the Association of Concerned Theosophists.  
ACT's focus was using the TS electoral system to counter the personal 
autocracy of John Algeo and bring more freedom and openness to the 
American Section.  A notable feature of Green's online activity was 
his complete disdain for critics of the Adyar TS, especially the 
Association of Concerned Theosophists.  He presented himself as 
Australian, residing in Sydney, and was overtly disdainful of 
Leadbeater and other post-Blavatskian figures in Theosophical 
history, as well as of me:

http://theosophy.com/theos-talk/199808/tt00044.html

Look for his contemptuous, dismissive remarks to others like Richard 
Ihle or John Crocker to get a feel for the function of his presence 
at the time in Theosophical online discussion.

Another pattern of Green's postings was evident trolling, that is 
stirring up antagonism, as evident in this exchange with Frank 
Reitemeyer, designed to get *me* attacked:

http://theosophy.com/theos-talk/199906/tt00048.html

Caldwell and Green were/are both equally intent on creating 
antagonism and trying to direct others' hostility toward targets 
other than themselves.  I have been the most frequent "beneficiary" 
of such treatment from Caldwell, who has delighted in stirring up 
fundamentalist Theosophists into rage against my books. But at least 
that is straightforward, whereas when "Green" posted seemingly 
favorable remarks about my books, in truth "he" was dishonestly 
stirring up anger towards me and insuring that harsh reactions would 
ensue directed not at him but at me. Caldwell befriended the ULT and 
was lionized as a hero by them (some of them) as a great scholar and 
ultimate rebutter-- while Green was furiously attacking them, that 
helped created a paranoid and contentious atmosphere online which 
served the purposes of no one but... ???

Who gains from all this?  That's the big question,

Paul

next: what about Terry Hobbes?