Theos-Talk Archives (May 2006 Message tt00152)

Carlos,

You want me to answer that question?

Well, as I said below, I worked with and assisted
John Cooper in various ways with the letters project.
So maybe someone like you might say I was Cooper's
"puppet."

I simply did the same thing with Algeo:  worked with
and assisted him on the letters by contributing comments,
information, etc.

As far as I know, I helped Algeo in the same way I helped
Cooper.  Therefore if you want to call me Cooper's puppet
or Algeo's puppet, then fine.  But I don't view it that way.

Remember also that Dara Eklund would therefore be one of
Algeo's puppets according to Tillet's phrase if he was
referring to the people who helped Dr. Algeo on the letters
project.

Daniel
http://hpb.cc

 

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "carlosaveline" 
<carlosaveline@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Friends,
> 
> Daniel Caldwell,  a member of John Algeo's "Editorial Committee"
> for the  HPB Letters, has asked Gregory Tillett whether he, 
Daniel, is, or was,  a puppet. SEE BELOW. 
> 
> An interesting question, yet to be answered.  Daniel himself could 
try and answer that question for us. Is he a puppett? After all, he 
should know more about that then Tillett. 
> 
> Daniel's words to Tillett: 
> 
> "5) And who are the "puppets" that you are referring to?
> Is this a somewhat "negative" term used to describe the
> persons on the Letters' commmittee? And since I was on that
> committee does that mean I was a "puppet"? And when I was
> working with and assisting John Cooper on the letters, was I
> his "puppet"? And why call Dara Eklund Algeo's "puppet"? She
> was the editor of several volumes of the CW series and worked
> with Boris de Zirkoff. Was Dara Boris' puppet, too? Why use
> this term to describe the said individuals? Is this a term you 
> would use for example in an article in THEOSOPHICAL HISTORY?"
> 
> So far, Daniel's questions. His whole letter to Tillett is below. 
> 
> Best regards,  Carlos. 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> De:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> 
> Para:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> 
> Cópia:
> 
> Data:Fri, 21 Apr 2006 16:32:16 -0000
> 
> Assunto:Theos-World Some more Questions for Gregory Tillett
> 
> > Gregory, you wrote:
> > 
> > ====================================================
> > The claim that John's research was not included in 
> > the Algeo volume is – let me use plain language – 
> > a blatant, scandalous and bare-faced lie. I have 
> > beside me as I write (i) the Algeo volume, (ii) 
> > John's PhD thesis on the Blavatsky letters and (iii) 
> > a copy of the manuscript sent by John to the TPH 
> > before his death. If I compare them I find sentence 
> > after sentence reproduced but for a word or two.
> > Does anyone seriously believe that, between the 
> > time of John's death and the publication of the Algeo 
> > volume, the complete text was re-researched and
> > created anew? Including letters that John had 
> > discovered? Without any reliance on John's work, 
> > Algeo or his puppets, acting independently, just 
> > happened to find the same material?
> > ==================================================
> > 
> > I believe a few points of clarification are needed in order
> > to avoid any possible misunderstandings:
> > 
> > (1) When you write:
> > 
> > "If I compare them I find sentence 
> > after sentence reproduced but for a word or two."
> > 
> > Now are you telling your readers on Theos-Talk that
> > you find sentence after sentence of John Cooper's
> > editorial COMMENTS/commentary reproduced in the
> > TPH Wheaton volume with only a word of two changed
> > here and there?
> > 
> > (2)And could you provide us with a small number of examples
> > illustrating this point of yours?
> > 
> > (3) Concerning your statement which reads:
> > 
> > "Including letters that John had discovered?"
> > 
> > there are 136 letters in the published TPH Wheaton
> > volume.
> > 
> > How many of these letters did John himself discover?
> > Do you know which ones in the TPH volume fall under
> > this category of "John discovered" as opposed to what
> > was already in the Boris de Zirkoff collection or available
> > thru other published sources known by Algeo independently of
> > the Cooper MSS?
> > 
> > (4) Again you write:
> > 
> > "....the complete text was re-researched and created anew?"
> > 
> > By "complete text" what do you mean? Does the complete
> > text include all of the letters provided FROM the Boris de
> > Zirkoff collection at Wheaton TS? And what particular letters in 
> > this published Wheaton TPH volume were provided to the complete 
text 
> > by Cooper himself? etc. etc. 
> > 
> > (5) And who are the "puppets" that you are referring to?
> > Is this a somewhat "negative" term used to describe the
> > persons on the Letters commmittee? And since I was on that
> > committee does that mean I was a "puppet"? And when I was
> > working with and assisting John Cooper on the letters, was I
> > his "puppet"? And why call Dara Eklund Algeo's "puppet"? She
> > was the editor of several volumes of the CW series and worked
> > with Boris de Zirkoff. Was Dara Boris' puppet, too? Why use
> > this term to describe the said individuals? Is this a term you 
> > would use for example in an article in THEOSOPHICAL HISTORY?
> > 
> > (6) And since you say you have documents (i), (ii) and (iii),
> > shouldn't you also be comparing all of these with document (iv) 
> > [which consists of all the photocopies that TPH Wheaton 
originally 
> > gave to John Cooper from the Boris de Zirkoff collection of 
H.P.B.'s 
> > letters]?? Wouldn't these photocopies (which make up document 
iv) 
> > help one to determine what was available at Wheaton to Algeo?
> > 
> > These are the types of questions that need to be answered so 
readers 
> > will be in a better position to assess what you have written and 
> > come to some more or less correct understanding of the issues 
> > involved.
> > 
> > Daniel
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>