Theos-Talk Archives (April 2006 Message tt00313)

I don't see contradiction in my two paragraphs quoted by Daniel.=20

Indeed, in his disgusting and sad book, there is "no word from the 'editor'=
 Daniel Cadlwell admitting he is publishing documents which have no trace o=
f truth in them whatsoever".

He only says that those texts are not likely to be true, or something simil=
ar, and thus he follows the well-known "maybe policy".=20

And even this he writes in a way which the average reader will most likely =
NOT SEE.=20

John Algeo did the same thing with the HPB Letters. Some 20 per cent of the=
 texts published by Algeo in his "HPB Letters" volume I --- are fake.=20

Caldwell was more modest -- but then, he was the pioneer in publishing semi=
-unidentified lies and libels as if they were part of the theosophical lite=
rature.=20

In the introduction of his unfortunate boook, Caldwell calls "testimonies" =
those open and shameful lies.

No honest editor or Historian can do such a thing. I still hope in the futu=
re Caldwell will realize that this is not the proper thing to do.=20

Best regards, Carlos Cardoso Aveline=20



De:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com

Para:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com

C=F3pia:

Data:Mon, 17 Apr 2006 19:33:45 -0000

Assunto:Theos-World "No proper identification": Do we have a good example w=
ith the ETS reprint???

> Readers,
>=20
> Please notice the progression here:
>=20
> Originally Carlos wrote:
>=20
> "In the disgusting volume The Esoteric World of Madame Blavatsky =97
> while believing the editor has selected truthful documents =97 the
> reader will bump into many of the lies written against HPB. There he
> will see two texts by Emma Coulomb (pp. 35-36 and pp. 210-215) with
> no word from the 'editor' Daniel Cadlwell admitting he is publishing
> documents which have no trace of truth in them whatsoever."
>=20
> Notice Carlos' words:
>=20
> "....no word from the 'editor' Daniel Cadlwell admitting ...."
>=20
> Now after I have pointed out repeatedly that this is simply not true=20
> by quoting directly from my book several statements showing that=20
> what Carlos wrote is not accurate, Carlos apparently backs off from=20
> his "NO WORD" stance and writes instead:
>=20
> "Only in the final pages of his sad book he made commentaries=20
> admitting those 'texts' were likely not authentic."
>=20
> Well I guess we should be happy with his apparent concession and=20
> retraction of his original statement!!!
>=20
> But now we must puzzle over his definition of FINAL in the=20
> phrase "the FINAL pages"....
>=20
> because more than 100 pages BEFORE the final pages of the book I=20
> wrote at the appropriate place about the Coulomb attack having no=20
> solid foundation....
>=20
> Anyway moving on....
>=20
> If Carlos is really "upset" because I gave "no proper=20
> identification" about the Coulomb testimony, then is the following=20
> example another example of what Carlos would consider "no proper=20
> identification."
>=20
> In 1995, the Edmonton Theosophical Society (who is also the=20
> publisher of Fohat where Carlos originally wrote his above quoted=20
> words about my book) REPRINTED the ENTIRE 112 pages of Madame=20
> Coulomb's "disgusting" (to use Aveline's description) pamphlet.=20
>=20
> They published the ENTIRE pamphlet and sold it. A correspondent of=20
> mine originally wrote me informing me that he had bought this=20
> reprint and I in turn bought copies although I had a copy of the=20
> original.=20
>=20
> Nowhere in the reprint by ETS is there ONE WORD warning today's=20
> readers about the contents of this volume....not even in the FINAL=20
> pages of this reprint!!
>=20
> Maybe Carlos should dash off a letter to FOHAT and ETS telling them=20
> that they should have done differently....that they should not have=20
> reprinted this DISGUSTING volume...and with "no proper=20
> identification." !!!
>=20
> Daniel
> http://hpb.cc
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20


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