Theos-Talk Archives (March 2006 Message tt00187)

Carlos,

And, who are you to judge whether anyone is an "experienced" theosophist or 
not?   

Or, is that just another "personal" opinion of yours? 

And, if you accept someone else's opinion, isn't that a personal choice of 
yours, too?   

And, doesn't that make you personally opinionated?   

In any event, where's the proof of the "theory" that you've accepted as true 
enough to justify your crucifying another (possibly "experienced" theosophist) 
on the "guilty until proven innocent" line you've personally chosen as part 
of your apparent personal vendetta -- that could very well be your joining in 
with the vendetta of other opponents of Daniel whom you label as "experienced 
theosophists" to justify your own personal opinion?   

So. Who are you kidding?   What's so impersonal about all that?   How can 
your "suspicion" not be personal?   I don't see anyone else posting their 
suspicions about other persons and naming names in the subject line. (Except for some 
that name dead theosophists like HPB, AB and CWL, etc.)   Although it could 
be possible that Daniel's silence may be due to your hounding him to death... 
Which, of course, would then put you in the same category of all those other 
personal beaters of dead horses. </:-)>

Leonardo


In a message dated 3/4/06 9:59:42 AM, carlosaveline@hotmail.com writes:


> Leonardo,
> 
> 
> Suspicions about Daniel are not personal.
> 
> They have been circulating for some years among experienced theosophists and
>   none of them, as long as I know, doubted the theory according to which 
> Daniel  has been inventing false persons for his own reasons and motives,
> especially  to help himself attack some theosophical blanks.
> 
> Now he has the opportunity  to  answer to such a general evaluation about
> him.
> 
> Regards,  Carlos.
> 
>From: leonmaurer@aol.com
>Reply-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
>To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: Theos-World Impersonal Suspicions on Daniel
>Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2006 00:26:51 EST
>
>Carlos,
>
>Your letter is just some more nonsensical excuses about your endless gossip
>that has noting to do with theosophy. Nor does it answer the more important
>questions raised by my letter.
>
>You are the one who is doing it, and you are personally responsible for
>these
>continuing public accusations criminalizing another person's rights --
>whether they be for anonymity, actions or opinions you don't like, or
>silence in the
>face of your groundless gossip... All of it based on hearsay and other non
>evidence, that you, personally, intend everyone to overhear.
>
>If this endless and repetitive barrage accusing other people by innuendo
>and
>insinuation isn't personal, then what is?
>
>All of what you write against others with such an obvious personal pique,
>indicates that (besides being plain gossip which HPB abhorred) you put
>personality before brotherhood -- which is as far from theosophical as
>anyone can get.
>
>So, give it up, brother... You are merely adding food to the fire that
>paints
>you out as a troll, and a busybody, as well as a disrupter of this
>theosophical forum...
>
>Besides just becoming tiresome beyond belief, we might all wonder for what
>personal purpose this emotionally tinged "stoking" is being done?
>
>Leonardo
>
>In a message dated 3/1/06 11:52:45 AM, carlosaveline@hotmail.com writes:
>
>
> >
> > Leonardo,
> >
>
> > I only now see your posting below.
> >
> > I have the time to tell you one thing.
> >
> > Suspicions about Daniel are not personal.
> >
> > They have been circulating for some years among experienced theosophists
>and
> > none of them, as long as I know, doubted the theory according to which
> > Daniel
> > has been inventing false persons for his own reasons and motives,
>especially
> > to help himself attack some theosophical blanks.  Now he has the
>opportunity
> > to 
> > answer to such a general evaluation about him.
> >
> > Regards,  Carlos.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >From: leonmaurer@aol.com
> > >Reply-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> > >To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> > >Subject: Re: Theos-World Did Daniel Committ Fraud?
> > >Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 20:27:13 EST
> > >
> > >
> > >In a message dated 2/25/06 10:27:48 AM, carlosaveline@hotmail.com
>writes:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Dear Friends,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yes, I am getting really curious about all of this.
> > > >
> > > > A lawsuit against Paul?  It might be most unlikely.
> > > >
> > > > Why not such a sub-threat as a way to try to bully people
> > psychologically?
> > > >
> > > > You can bully some people all the time, you can bully all people for
> > > > some time, but you cannot bully all people all the time.
> > > >
> > > > And I am still waiting for Danniel's clarifications. Maybe he is
> > > > innocent?
> > > >
> > > > Really curious as Ethics is of the essence for us.
> > > >
> > > > Best regards,  Carlos.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >So you say...
> > >
> > >And, how ethical is your continued hounding of Caldwell through not so
> > >subtle accusative implications of his guilt by means of subtly sly
>reverse
> > >innuendo's (not to mention your repetitive subject lines with his name
> > >constantly being impugned) whenever you see an opportunity? 
> > >  He may be innocent as you say,and undeserving of such treatment...
> > >But in such a case, you certainly would not be in the eyes of any
> > perceptive
> > >theosophist on this list.
> > >
> > >What you are doing by such widespread and repetitive public disclosure
>of a
> > >personal suspicion so as to influence the thoughts of others -- you
>call
> > >"friends" (but whom are not necessarily so) -- appears to this observer
>to
> > >be highly unethical, from both a legal and a theosophical point of

>view.
> > >
> > >In addition, passing the libel and slander buck back to Paul, as well
>as
> > >adding further implications that Caldwell is a bully as well as a
>fraud,
> > doesn't
> > >appear to be so ethical either... Especially, when you are safe behind
>a
> > >foreign border.
> > >
> > >In addition, your flooding of this list with your repetitive side
>issues,
> > has
> > >almost completely shoved the discussion of theosophy into the mud and
> > >covered it over with slime in the form of gossip -- that would, in my
>view,
> >
> > >make HPB disown you as her chela (if you ever were or could be one:)
> > >
> > >So far, all you seem to be doing is dominating this theosophical forum
>and
> > >spreading tension, apprehension, and dissension among its members.  
>(Not
> > >to mention wasting my time reading and responding to your overly
>repetitive
> > >and boring letters whenever they go beyond the boundaries of
>theosophically
> > >useful or interesting information.)   Stating your opinions about long
>dead
> >
> > >teachers or members of this forum once -- is enough.
> > >
> > >Leonardo
> >
>
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]