Theos-Talk Archives (April 2006 Message tt00250)

>THIS IS PELLETIER'S CONTENTION....
>
>Pelletier says this because he wants Mr. Judge to be elsewhere...
>after Sept. 21.  See his text for further details.
>
>And apparently to support that statement Pelletier indulges in this
>kind of reasoning (to again quote him):
>
>"NONE of the reports published at the time depict
>Judge's involvement at any functions, ceremonies,
>writing or signing any documents at
>headquarters after Sept. 21st, 1884...."
>
>And then apparently you Bruce bend over backwards to
>see it differently.

Daniel, if you actually read the book as you claimed, you would
understand the argument.  Around Sept. 21, Judge began to pull away
from any official affairs at Adyar.  That you have identified a
function he was at following this date is no big deal.  It only helps
to get a fuller picture of his whereabouts leading up to Sept. 28th,
which is the significant date according to Pelletier.  It is after
this date that his whereabouts are unknown.  Let's look at the
argument that follows his documentation of his whereabouts leading up
to Sept. 28th.  Pelletier argues:

"It has been pointed out that Judge was likely with Master "M" on
September 17th, but there are approximately twenty-eight days, from
September 28th on, which cannot be accounted for." (TJC, pt.1, 386)

Judge is argued to have been with "M" on the 17th, to have made
himself scarce after the 21st, and to have disappeared altogether
after the 28th.  His appearance on the 27th, an appearance that did
not even rate a mention in the Bombay Gazette which Pelletier quotes,
 may be said to show that it was Hartmann who took the lead on this
matter.  It was Hartmann who wrote a letter to "this evening's Mail",
that was quoted extensively in the Gazette.  Judge was pulling away
from any official duties.  Your source only strengthens Pelletier's
argument.  What is the big deal?  You claim something hinges on the
21st, then what is it?  You claim that you read the book.  How does
Pelletier use this date of the 21st that is problematic to the
arguments that he is making?  What have I missed?  You certainly seem
to think there is something.  What is it?  If you cannot even point to
how this date is a problem for him, then what are we arguing about? 
Was he at the headquarters after the 21st? Apparently so.  Does this
provide a problem for Pelletier's argument?  Not that I see.  Are you
quibbling over nothing? Apparently.

I am sorry Daniel, but this all appears to be a joke at my expense.  I
spend time looking for something and there is nothing.  Why did you
bring it up?

Sincerely,
Bruce