Theos-Talk Archives (April 2006 Message tt00316)

An inquiring mind might also ask:

IF....IF Daniel is circulating "slanders," IS the 
ETS ALSO guilty of ciculating
"slanders" by publishing the ENTIRE Coulomb pamphlet
and with NO WORD (not even in the FINAL pages) warning the modern 
reader about the content of this "disgusting" pamphlet???

These are the kinds of questions one should be asking as
one tries to understand Carlos' reasoning in this matter
and the validity of his contentions concerning this subject.

I hope Carlos does NOT have a double standard in assessing and 
judging such matters.

Remember:

"...what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander."

Personally I do NOT believe I was ciculating "slanders" and I do
not believe that ETS was circulating "slanders".  Both TPH by 
publishing my book and the ETS by reprinting the Coulomb pamphlet 
were both performing a needed service of providing interested 
individuals with relevant historical documents.  It is for each 
individual reading these two books to determine for themselves the 
truthfulness or falsity of the statements made.

And of course, it IS Emma Coulomb's TESTIMONY even though Carlos 
apparently wants to play a word game here.

I close this posting with a quote about the Coulomb pamphlet from my 
late friend Walter A. Carrithers, Jr. (who wrote under the assumed 
name of Adlai E. Waterman):

==================================================
It is safe to calculate that for every ten thousand persons who have 
heard and believe that Richard Hodgson "exposed" H.P. Blavatsky as a 
fraud and imposter, not more than one has read his "expose;" and, 
that for every thousand of his readers, hardly one has ever seen 
Emma Coulomb's pamphlet.  

And yet, by logic and every rule of common sense, the latter 
document takes precedence over all others in standing at the very 
heart of the controversy raised by the Coulombs, comprising as it 
does the firsthand unadulterated TESTIMONY of the chief accusers, 
together with documentary "proofs" adduced for their claims.  

Yet, strange to say, practically no attention was paid to this 
PRICELESS PAMPHLET - least of all by indignant Theosophists [like 
Carlos?????] who put no stock in what Mme. Coulomb might have to 
say! -, not until, that is, the appearance in 1937 of Mrs. Hastings' 
booklet, Defence of Madame Blavatsky (Volume II) The "Coulomb 
Pamphlet".  Unfortunately, Mrs. Hastings did not live to complete 
her promising study of the case. 
=====================================================

I have added caps to Walter's own words in describing the Coulomb 
pamphlet:

TESTIMONY  and PRICELESS PAMPHLET  !!!!

Daniel



--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "carlosaveline" 
<carlosaveline@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Friends,
> 
> 
> I don't see contradiction in my two paragraphs quoted by Daniel. 
> 
> 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 of truth in them whatsoever".
> 
> He only says that those texts are not likely to be true, or 
something similar, and thus he follows the well-known "maybe 
policy". 
> 
> And even this he writes in a way which the average reader will 
most likely NOT SEE. 
> 
> 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. 
> 
> 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 literature. 
> 
> 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 future Caldwell will realize that  this is not the proper 
thing to do. 
> 
> Best regards,  Carlos Cardoso Aveline 
> 
>   
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> De:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> 
> Para:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> 
> Cópia:
> 
> Data:Mon, 17 Apr 2006 19:33:45 -0000
> 
> Assunto:Theos-World "No proper identification": Do we have a good 
example with the ETS reprint???
> 
> > Readers,
> > 
> > Please notice the progression here:
> > 
> > Originally Carlos wrote:
> > 
> > "In the disgusting volume The Esoteric World of Madame 
Blavatsky —
> > while believing the editor has selected truthful documents — 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."
> > 
> > Notice Carlos' words:
> > 
> > "....no word from the 'editor' Daniel Cadlwell admitting ...."
> > 
> > Now after I have pointed out repeatedly that this is simply not 
true 
> > by quoting directly from my book several statements showing that 
> > what Carlos wrote is not accurate, Carlos apparently backs off 
from 
> > his "NO WORD" stance and writes instead:
> > 
> > "Only in the final pages of his sad book he made commentaries 
> > admitting those 'texts' were likely not authentic."
> > 
> > Well I guess we should be happy with his apparent concession and 
> > retraction of his original statement!!!
> > 
> > But now we must puzzle over his definition of FINAL in the 
> > phrase "the FINAL pages"....
> > 
> > because more than 100 pages BEFORE the final pages of the book I 
> > wrote at the appropriate place about the Coulomb attack having 
no 
> > solid foundation....
> > 
> > Anyway moving on....
> > 
> > If Carlos is really "upset" because I gave "no proper 
> > identification" about the Coulomb testimony, then is the 
following 
> > example another example of what Carlos would consider "no proper 
> > identification."
> > 
> > In 1995, the Edmonton Theosophical Society (who is also the 
> > publisher of Fohat where Carlos originally wrote his above 
quoted 
> > words about my book) REPRINTED the ENTIRE 112 pages of Madame 
> > Coulomb's "disgusting" (to use Aveline's description) pamphlet. 
> > 
> > They published the ENTIRE pamphlet and sold it. A correspondent 
of 
> > mine originally wrote me informing me that he had bought this 
> > reprint and I in turn bought copies although I had a copy of the 
> > original. 
> > 
> > Nowhere in the reprint by ETS is there ONE WORD warning today's 
> > readers about the contents of this volume....not even in the 
FINAL 
> > pages of this reprint!!
> > 
> > Maybe Carlos should dash off a letter to FOHAT and ETS telling 
them 
> > that they should have done differently....that they should not 
have 
> > reprinted this DISGUSTING volume...and with "no proper 
> > identification." !!!
> > 
> > Daniel
> > http://hpb.cc
> > 
>