Re: Theos-World Jerry, Cooper, Tillett & Zirkoff
Apr 21, 2006 11:17 AM
by Jerry Hejka-Ekins
Dear Carlos,
My sole reason for responding to your earlier messages was to protest
against your abuse of John Cooper and Boris de Zirkoff. Since you have
retracted your previous abuses, I have no further reason to continue our
communication.
Since you have returned my warnings about your using ad hominem
arguments with ad hominem attacks against myself and others, it is
obvious to me that any further discussion with you will just encourage
this pathology. So, providing that you do not renew your attacks
against John or Boris, or other Theosophists I know to be innocent, it
is not likely that you will be hearing from me again.
Best wishes,
Jerry
carlosaveline wrote:
Dear Jerry,
Thanks.
Again, expressions of personal anger and frustration do not change my views of things and I do not have time for that.
You say:
"Regarding your quote from the Canadian Theosophist of Cooper's editorial
objectives: However you may interpret Cooper's meaning, it is all moot
in light of the published volume of letters. The point is moot because
Cooper passed away long before this volume appeared. Therefore, the
editorial policies and results of the published collected letters series
is completely the responsibility of John Algeo who is the editor of
record. Any criticisms of the end product needs to be directed to John
Algeo and his "committee", not John Cooper or Boris de Zirkoff."
I say:
John Cooper's either opening the door to the not-properly-identified slanders against HPB, or keeping that door open, is of great importance in order to understand the process leading to Algeo's disaster. I am studying the vibration patterns underlying it.
As you build future patterns, you have to work from the basis of old patterns. That is why, at the present stage of the work, these background patterns emerge in Theos-talk. You must have read the important testimony given us yesterday by Gregory Tillett. John Cooper passed away but the results of his actions are with us.
This is what I am trying to understand in order to work now and in the future with regard to the HPB Letters. Algeo did not get things from nothing. HPB Letters is an living, evolving process. It is time now for me to start to get data about its background. I believe Boris de Zirkoff could have been more careful about the results of his translations and actions, but hindsight is much easier than foreseing things, so there is not a personal criticism in my noting that fact.
Thus, when I show the absurd of John Cooper saying that he would "publish all HPB Letters", even those of unlegitimate origin, that is, those not written by her (!) -- this is something significant. It shows the backgrond of things and how they started.
(I have Algeo's "Committee" mapped out in a reasonable way and have interacted personally with Algeo, Dara, Joy and Daniel, having good news of Nicholas' position. Now, with Tillett's and your testimonies, I get to the previous stage of things.)
You say:
"Concerning whether or not you quote me: Anything I post, for better or
worse, becomes public and is liable to be ignored, used or misused.
Since you asked, I request that you leave me completely out of any and
all of your campaigns to "re-educate" your readers. While I may agree
to some extent with some of the issues that you raise here, I do not
agree with your methods or tone. Rather, I believe that because of your
methods, your efforts are causing far more harm than good for the very
things which you champion. In other words, please do not quote me,
mention my name, or involve me in any way in your posts."
I say:
This is no surprise. Those who do not have intellectual courage will only say what they really think in outbursts of anger an then repent, and ask other people do not quote them. Not a surprise.
As to me, you know I am educating but myself . Ill-will and angered fancies will not change facts.
As to your testimony about Cooper/Algeo, it is weaker and poorer than others I already have, and I will be able to respect your wish not to be responsible in future for what you wrote here. I willl respect you irresponsibility for your words at least publically. I will quote them only in a few private correspondences -- if that comes to my mind. Happy now?
Gregory Tillett wrote it was a LIE of yours (his word) to say that Cooper's work was not used by Algeo. As to you, right after admitting you were in error in that and correcting yourself -- you had the nerve to criticize me, for my own honest admission of a previous and small mistake of mine!
But your mistake was not a LIE. It was only a mistake. Everyone makes mistakes, and hypocrites rarely admit them.
We should develop a culture where people are encouraged to, and respected for, openly correcting their mistakes.
When I suggest that Daniel Caldwell and John Algeo should admit they made a mistake in editting not-properly-identified SLANDERS against HPB, this is but a sound and well-established editorial tradition.
Professional editors correct their mistakes in a public and open way.
Reading your testimony and the text by Tillett on Algeo's work , and on Algeo's lack of Ethics with regard to Cooper's work and family, I can only consider both your testimonies should be part of History.
In the years ahead, the public has the right to know what Algeo did in the opinion of Jerry Hejka-Ekins and Gregory Tillett, and we have the duty to preserve these two testimonies. So I suggest you have the courage and humbleness to correct your testimony on those facts, update it, moderate your language if you want, and send it to Theos-talk readers in a firm and quotable form.
Yet I will not publish the words of a man who asks me not to make him responsible for what he writes.
Persevering students tend to go beyond personality-blaming games.
Behind elegant courtesy, there is often a great amount of repressed anger and fear.
Fortunately, behind the layers of self-delusion one finds the inner center of light and peace.
Best regards, Carlos Cardoso Aveline
De:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Para:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Cópia:"carlosaveline" carlosaveline@terra.com.br
Data:Thu, 20 Apr 2006 18:35:20 -0700
Assunto:Re: Theos-World Re: Jerry, Cooper & Zirkoff
Dear Carlos,
You wrote:
Now or later, you will probably get to see that I really do not care about them. Then you will calm down, or
not -- it is up to you.
Apparently no one ever advised you that telling people how or what they
feel is inappropriate. Indeed it is. Further, to accuse others of
certain feelings and then denigrate them for allegedly having those
feelings is a form of ad hominem argumentation which is commonly used
among adolescents. I'm sure that you can do better than that.
Regarding your twelve points, I note that you have:
1. Retracted your statement that John Cooper edited the "Letters to the
Masters of Wisdom."
2. Clarified that you have a high opinion of Boris deZirkoff.
3. And further wrote that you "nothing to criticize as to John Cooper's
INTENTIONS"
In light of your retractions-clarifications-corrections on these three
points. I think we can consider the discussion in these areas closed.
Regarding your quote from the Canadian Theosophist of Cooper's editorial
objectives: However you may interpret Cooper's meaning, it is all moot
in light of the published volume of letters. The point is moot because
Cooper passed away long before this volume appeared. Therefore, the
editorial policies and results of the published collected letters series
is completely the responsibility of John Algeo who is the editor of
record. Any criticisms of the end product needs to be directed to John
Algeo and his "committee", not John Cooper or Boris deZirkoff.
So, if we are in agreement on this point, then I think we can also come
to closure here too.
Concerning new issues you have raised: you wrote:
John Patrick Deweney had already published an article hinting at what you wrote below -- in "Theosophical
History". You may have read that.
I am an associate editor of Theosophical History. In this capacity, it
is my responsibility to read and comment on the articles before they are
published. So, yes, I did read Pat Deveney's review and made my
comments to the author and editor before the review was actually
published.
To move along...
Concerning whether or not you quote me: Anything I post, for better or
worse, becomes public and is liable to be ignored, used or misused.
Since you asked, I request that you leave me completely out of any and
all of your campaigns to "re-educate" your readers. While I may agree
to some extent with some of the issues that you raise here, I do not
agree with your methods or tone. Rather, I believe that because of your
methods, your efforts are causing far more harm than good for the very
things which you champion. In other words, please do not quote me,
mention my name, or involve me in any way in your posts.
Further, if you have not already seen it, I righly recommend that you
read and consider Greg Tillett's recent post on this discussion board
disclosing that he has evidence that John Algeo used John Cooper's
research in the first volume of the "Letters of H.P. Blavatsky." This
is a very serious allegation, and if proved, has very serious
implications. You may know that Dr. Tillett is closely involved with the
dispute between the Cooper Family and TSA (particularly John Algeo).
On a related matter: You asked if I would like to make any changes or
corrections to my previous statements. At this time, no, I do not, with
one exception where I wrote:
"Not a singe word of John Cooper's research (nor mine) was included in vol. 1 of the "Letters of H.P. Blavatsky" edited
by John Algeo."
My above statement should have been preceded by the phrase, "As far as I know,...." I routinely use such phrases and regret that I neglected to do so in this case. Nevertheless, In light of Dr. Tillett's new information, this statement may very well prove to be absolutely incorrect. So, pending further information, I defer to Dr. Tillett's correction, and completely withdraw my previous statement.
Before I close, I would like to share with you a bit of unsolicited
advice with the hope that it is accepted in the spirit that I offer it:
You wrote:
"I usually do not write to Theos-talk from my library, so I normally do not have that support in checking
things."
Though, we as human beings are prone to error, we still have a primary
responsibility to avoid (as much as possible) making them. If what we
write or speak is nothing more than personal conclusions from half
digested information and mis-remembered information, then where is our
credibility? Why should anyone take what we have to say with more than
a grain of salt, if we do not even take the time to verify our
information before broadcasting it?
Credibility is something that is earned over a long period of time
through responsible speech, action and word: and that credibility is
easily be lost over a single unwise action, mis-spoken or mis-written
word. If you have to write, by all means, use that library and use it
often.
With this, I think we can come to closure and to a close.
Best wishes,
Jerry
carlosaveline wrote:
Dear Jerry,
I hope you are able to pay atention to what I am going to write.
I do not care about your personal emotions of anger and frustration, or whatever you call them.
Now or later, you will probably get to see that I really do not care about them. Then you will calm down, or
not -- it is up to you.
I will put this in numbered items.
1) Everything I write in Theos-talk is naturally open to examination and correction. I do not have to pretend
to myself, or to others, that I know everything.
2) I usually do not write to Theos-talk from my library, so I normally do not have that support in checking
things. I bring from home some texts which need more care, but almost all reactions to people's texts are
done away from home/library and on the spot, like this one.
3) Of course I know C. Jinarajadasa made the first editions of "Letters >From the Masters of The Wisdom". After
all, I edited the two volumes (published in one sole volume) in their Brazilian edition, late in the 1990s.
(I also translated and edited the "Mahatma Letters" and many other theosohhical books, besides having seven
books of mine published so far. For several years I was a National Lecturer of the Adyar TS in Brazil, etc.)
4) I was wrong in saying that John Cooper did a bad job in editing "Letters From the Masters of the Wisdom"
(LMW). It was John Clarke, a British citizen, and NOT John Cooper, who prepared the sixth edition (1988) of
LMW, first series (only first series), and he worked in Adyar for some time as he did that. He changed the
sequence and number of letters. Personally, I guess the work could have been better. So, I gladly admit my
mistake in that. Admitting mistakes is, I believe, pedagogically correct. None of us have to pretend we are
perfect, especially when writing quickly and not always being able to check data. Is that clear? Erase that
mmistake of mine. John Clarke -- not John Cooper... Beg your pardon. (I saw that mistake after sending my
previous posting).
5) I already told you that I had nothing to criticize as to John Cooper's INTENTIONS. Now I can add: I have
very little to criticize in his work; just a couple of sentences in his letter published in the "Canadian
Theosophist", 1991. And even this is a partial, qualified criticism, as your will see in item number 09, below.
6) I have told you I have a high opinion and deep gratitute, as a student, towards Boris de
Zirkoff. The movement owes him a lot and I am well aware of that, in spite of the fact that he was not perfect,
as nobody is. I happen to know some admirable aspects of his life, his living in the Eeks' home, etc., which
only makes me recognize him as a great human being and as a most significant theosophist.
7) I have deep respect for your friendship with Boris and John Cooper. Time may show you I am not pretending in
this. Such a respect is entirely independent from your anger, frustration or otherwise. Personality clashes
fail to impress me too much.
8) As there are things I DON'T KNOW, perhaps you will admit that there are also other things YOU DON'T KNOW,
about HPB Letters. Thus dialogue is sometimes interesting. I am fully aware of the fact that my interest in
the background-of-things have been limited up to now. So what? Backround has its importance, as future facts
also have. I am open to correct my mistakes whenever I identify them. I thank you for your testimony on FACTS.
John Patrick Deweney had already published an article hinting at what you wrote below -- in "Theosophical
History". You may have read that. But in your text below, you were stronger and clearer than Deweney.
9) My following quotation is accurate. In order to describe the first of his editorial principles for his
future work on the HPB Letters, John Cooper said:
"All letters written by H.P.B. will be included. These will include letters whose authenticity is doubtful, as
will be indicated in the editorial apparatus." Which is, Jerry, tantamount to say: "All letters written by H.
P. Blavatsky will be published, including those which have not been written by her." This is the problem.
10) This is a precedent. True, it comes ultimately from Zirkoff. Of course, it does not mean Cooper would not
publish the false letters with due identification, a question which is of critical importance (see the false
letters commented by HPB and correctly published by Zirkoff in volume VI of "HPB's Collected Writings").
11) I consider your testimony about the process previous to the publication of "Letters of HPB - Volume I" an
important piece of information. I quote:
* I worked closely with John Cooper assisting in his research for the
Blavatsky letters. Not a singe word of John Cooper's research (nor
mine) was included in vol. 1 of the "Letters of H.P. Blavatsky" edited
by John Algeo.
* After John Cooper died, John Algeo declared his contract with Cooper
concerning the letters null and void. Whatever decisions John Algeo and
his reformed "committee" make concerning the publication of those
letters, had nothing to do with any previous agreements with Cooper, nor
was Cooper's research included in that volume.
* I knew Boris--and for a time, was seeing him on a monthly bases. I
studied for 18 years with his editorial assistant, who, before she died,
was training me to assist him in his work. Therefore I was in a position
to follow incident by incident the problems concerning the production of
the Collected writings. Boris was a careful scholar, but near the end,
he too, did not have complete control of the publication of his works.
(End of quote.)
This, Jerry, I intend to quote in any future articles I write -- if I feel like,
as coming from you "in a Theos-talk posting dated 18 Abril 2006". Unless
you convince me it is ethically beyond my rights and I cannnot do that.
If you want to correct, enlarge or improve this testimony of yours, please
do so by all means.
I say it is my intention to incorporate these three paragraphs into
my files on HPB Letters because I tend to consider Theos-talk as public and
open, but you may show me it is not. I would like to hear from you.
I would have more things to tell you about this, but I guess it is enough for now.
12) You say:
"Do not blame those who have passed on for the mistakes of those who took
up the work."
I will not do so. Be sure about that.
I leave aside your emotional reaction and thank you for the background
information you gave me, and gave Theos-talk, on the process of "HPB Letters"
being finally published in 2003 with a shameful collection of "obviously spurious letters" (to
quote Radha Burnier in a letter to me). In fact, a collection of libels and lies adopted
by John Alge in spite of having been warned by (at least) Nicholas Weeks.
Commentaries welcome.
Best regards, Carlos Cardoso Aveline, 19 April 2006.
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
De: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Para: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Cópia:
Data: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 19:00:54 -0700
Assunto: Re: Theos-World Jerry, Cooper & the Slanders
Dear Carlos,
I mentioned facts in my posting. Sorry.
No, you did not mention facts in your posting. You do not know the facts.
If you got personally offended because you consider late John Cooper a friend of yours, sorry --
I am deeply offended because you are demeaning others who did important
work for the Theosophical Movement, while you have done nothing but
broadcast untrue information about them based upon information which you
do not understand and know nothing about. Yes, I am proud to have called
Cooper and de Zirkoff friends, but that is not why I have spoken up. If
the information you are spreading were true, I would have remained
silent. But, it is my duty to stand up for those who are being falsely
demeaned. Therefore, I must speak up.
If you want facts, here are four which you can verify on your own,
providing you know who to talk to:
1) I worked closely with John Cooper assisting in his research for the
Blavatsky letters. Not a singe word of John Cooper's research (nor
mine) was included in vol. 1 of the "Letters of H.P. Blavatsky" edited
by John Algeo.
2) After John Cooper died, John Algeo declared his contract with Cooper
concerning the letters null and void. Whatever decisions John Algeo and
his reformed "committee" make concerning the publication of those
letters, had nothing to do with any previous agreements with Cooper, nor
was Cooper's research included in that volume.
3) "The Letters from the Masters of Wisdom" was originally edited by C.
Jinarajadasa. Not John Cooper.
4) I knew Boris--and for a time, was seeing him on a monthly bases. I
studied for 18 years with his editorial assistant, who, before she died,
was training me to assist him in his work. Therefore I was in a position
to follow incident by incident the problems concerning the production of
the Collected writings. Boris was a careful scholar, but near the end,
he too, did not have complete control of the publication of his works.
Do not blame those who have passed on for the mistakes of those who took
up the work.
Regards
Jerry
carlosaveline wrote:
Dear Jerry,
I mentioned facts in my posting. Sorry.
I have no clear criticism with regard to Boris. I have a high opinion of him.
In fact, by some coincidence, two of the PATH volumes (1894-95) which belonged to Zirkoff happen to be in
my personal library right now.
As Ifirst looked at his personal handwritten notes in those old pages, I could see how careful he was in
checking things.
As to J. Cooper, it is true that he did, in my opinion, a lousy editorial work with the "Letters From the
Masters of the Wisdom" while he was in Adyar.
But I am not saying Cooper would publish the libels against HPB without proper identification. I am only
stating the obvious facts -- Caldwell and Algeo did do this unproper and disloyal publishing.
If you got personally offended because you consider late John Cooper a friend of yours, sorry -- but I have
a sincere admiration for HPB.
Regards, Carlos.
De:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Para:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Cópia:
Data:Tue, 18 Apr 2006 14:49:17 -0700
Assunto:Re: Theos-World John Cooper & the Slanders
Dear Carlos,
You write,
In general terms, such a policy was announced in 1991 by John Cooper, who was first chosen to edit the HPB
Letters, after Boris de Zirkoff´s death.
Frankly Carlos, you don't know what you are talking about. You never met
John Cooper or Boris de Zirkoff. You never worked with them, and you do
not know the work they did for the Theosophical Movement and the
personal sacrifices they made to do that work. Further, you certainly
understand nothing about what happened after they died. John Cooper and
Boris de Zirkoff devoted their lives to assuring that Blavatsky's
writings be preserved unaltered and be made available for future
generations of students. It is time that you cease making your ignorant
slanders against them.
Further, I am deeply saddened that this discussion board has been
allowed to become so degraded that it has become dominated by someone
like you who has nothing but disrespect for those very past workers whom
you owe a great deal. It is very odd that you give lip service to
preserving HPB's actual writings, yet devalue those very people who
devoted their lives to doing just that.
As I suggest to you before. You would do well to listen and think very
carefully before posting messages. Who knows, if you begin doing this,
perhaps, some day, you will post something that is worth reading.
Regards,
Jerry
carlosaveline wrote:
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
An Uncomfortable Question
PUBLISHING SLANDERS AGAINST H.P.B:
SHOULD WE ALL SHARE THE BLAME?
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Dear Friends,
It would not be correct to ascribe solely to John Algeo the decision of absorbing many false and
slanderous documents as part of the HPB Letters.
True, Mr. Algeo is the main responsible for the first volume of H.P. Blavatsky´s personal correspondence
(TPH, Wheaton, 2003, 634 pp.), which includes dozens of shameful libels. But he is not the only responsible for
the adoption of those forgeries in the book. In general terms, such a policy was announced in 1991 by John
Cooper, who was first chosen to edit the HPB Letters, after Boris de Zirkoff´s death.
Coincidence or not, it was in 1991 that Daniel Calwell published his sad book "The Occult World of Madame
Blavatsky". Caldwell included in it a collection of the worst slanders against H. P. Blavatsky and the Masters.
He also had the nerve to present those slanders as "testimonies" and "acounts".
That same year, "The Canadian Theosophist" published a letter by Mr. John Cooper entitled "The Collected
Letters of H.P. Blavatsky" (1).
The text starts thus:
"Through the kindness of those who are carrying on the work of Boris de Zirkoff, I have been engaged by
the Theosophical Publishing House to prepare a critical edition of "The Collected Letters of H. P. Blavatsky".
And then John Cooper proceeds to reveal "some of the editorial principles that will be followed in
preparing the letters for publication". It is here that the letter shows a remarkable absence of common sense,
for the very first "principle" says:
"All letters written by H.P.B. will be included. These will include letters whose authenticity is
doubtful, as will be indicated in the editorial apparatus."
Which is obviously tantamount to say:
"All letters written by H. P. Blavatsky will be published, including those which have not been written by
her."
These two short sentences are a magnificent example of the "double-thinking" denounced by George Orwell in
his famous novel entitled "1984". Translated into English, the sentences meant that Mr. John Cooper intended to
publish both true and false letters, those witten by HPB and those written by the 19th century forgers who were
her enemies and slanderers.
As long as I know, John Cooper´s decision and announcement was not challenged or opposed.
Of course, John Algeo, who succeeded Cooper in the task, could have corrected that decision. In fact,
Nicholas Weeks, a member of Algeo´s "Editorial Committee", told Algeo that he should not accept as true the
letters forged by Mr. Vsevolod Soloviof. But the warning was in vain - as Ms. Dara Eklund, also a member of the
Editorial Committee, reported to me in a 2004 letter.
Besides Soloviof´s forgeries, John Algeo decided to include many other slanderous letters, with some very
modest aknowledgements that they had ... "poor legitimacy".
Algeo has been for some years the international vice-president of the Adyar Society, and from the
viewpoint of political power, he might have strong reasons to use those old slanders as instruments to attack
HPB at the moral ground. It would be a cunning way to help prevent Adyar Society members from rediscovering
true Theosophy, or from getting rid of the ritualistic fancies and authoritarian power-structure created by C.
W. Leadbeater.
John Algeo is, no doubt, the main responsible for such an attempt to absorb dozens of slanderous texts
into the heart of the theosophical literature - nay, into the very body of HPB´s writings. Yet one could say
that this was not his idea. After all, he only put it into practice. In a way, it all started with John Cooper
back in 1991, or even earlier with Boris de Zirkoff.
In fact, the attempt to adopt slanders as pa rt of our literature developed gradually.
First., there was no need for Zirkoff to translate many of those "letters" from the Russian, as he did, or
at least to plan to publish them, if he planned indeed. Why publishing and circulating forgeries?
During the 1980s, there was a new and strong evidence that those "materials" should be abandoned: it was
the self-criticism of the Society for Psychic Research, SPR. The same institution which used those forgeries to
"comdemn" Blavatsky as a fraud in 1885 withdrew all charges against HPB in 1986, after experts´ examination of
the documents showed that the "process" against HPB was biased and fraudulent, while HPB was innocent and a
victim of persecution. In spite of this, Daniel Caldwell decided to include the slanders in his 1991 book on
HPB. The libels were not clearly identified as such by Caldwell. Also in 1991, John Cooper announced his
intention to publish the forged texts as part of H.P.B. Letters.
The ethical defense of truth started in 2004, soon after the publication of the false HPB letters. In
2005, "The Aquarian Theosophist" announced it intendedf to publish a first volume with the authentic Letters of
HPB - "a volume containing no slanders against the founder of the modern esoteric movement".
Better late than never. But since 1991, when John Cooper announced the future publication of the slanders
and Daniel Caldwell actually published many of them, up to 2004, when r eactimon started, there was some sort
of paralysis in the movement´s ability to defend truth - and, to defend itself.
This is something for us to think about.
Perhaps we should humbly share part of the responsibility for such a collective lack of common sense and
absence of respect for the main founder of the modern esoteric movement.
One of the great souls who help humanity, Helena Petrovna´s work will only help us more, if we are able to
understand the truth about her wisdom, decency and generosity.
We will certainly have more to do about that in the years ahead.
Best regards, Carlos Cardoso Aveline.
NOTE:
(1) "The Canadian Theosophist", Toronto, March/April 1991, p. 21.
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Yahoo! Groups Links
Yahoo! Groups Links
E-mail classificado pelo Identificador de Spam Inteligente Terra.
Para alterar a categoria classificada, visite
http://mail.terra.com.br/protected_email/imail/imail.cgi?+_u=carlosaveline&_l=1,1145396964.602395.11974.vacoas.hst.terra.com.br,11032,Des15,Des15
Esta mensagem foi verificada pelo E-mail Protegido Terra.
Scan engine: McAfee VirusScan / Atualizado em 18/04/2006 / Versão: 4.4.00/4743
Proteja o seu e-mail Terra: http://mail.terra.com.br/
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Yahoo! Groups Links
Yahoo! Groups Links
E-mail classificado pelo Identificador de Spam Inteligente Terra.
Para alterar a categoria classificada, visite
http://mail.terra.com.br/protected_email/imail/imail.cgi?+_u=carlosaveline&_l=1,1145412100.396875.14761.chipata.terra.com.br,15252,Des15,Des15
Esta mensagem foi verificada pelo E-mail Protegido Terra.
Scan engine: McAfee VirusScan / Atualizado em 18/04/2006 / Versão: 4.4.00/4743
Proteja o seu e-mail Terra: http://mail.terra.com.br/
Yahoo! Groups Links
Yahoo! Groups Links
E-mail classificado pelo Identificador de Spam Inteligente Terra.
Para alterar a categoria classificada, visite
http://mail.terra.com.br/protected_email/imail/imail.cgi?+_u=carlosaveline&_l=1,1145583345.929373.13552.vacoas.hst.terra.com.br,29295,Des15,Des15
Esta mensagem foi verificada pelo E-mail Protegido Terra.
Scan engine: McAfee VirusScan / Atualizado em 20/04/2006 / Versão: 4.4.00/4745
Proteja o seu e-mail Terra: http://mail.terra.com.br/
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Yahoo! Groups Links
[Back to Top]
Theosophy World:
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application
