Theos-Talk Archives (May 2006 Message tt00235)

Trying to Understand Carlos' Use of the word "slanderer"

Carlos, 

You comment: 

========================================================= 
So if Daniel, Katinka, Algeo, P. Johnson and others want to look 
like scholars, they must first of all examine their sources, then 
admit that V. Soloviof, Eleanor Sidgwick and Alexis/Emma Coulombs 
are all liars, and finally start to stick to facts. Three good 
examples these people could follow are Leslie Price, Michael Gomes 
and Ernest Pelletier -- who have different positions/opinions, but 
all respect facts and examine their own sources. 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/32948 
========================================================= 


Carlos, you also say quite emphatically:

====================================================== 
Why should anyone except a slanderer consider Soloviof a legitimate 
source of historical information? But -- why using Soloviof as a 
source if you are not a slanderer? 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/32946 
========================================================== 

Carlos, let me try now to understand your position here.

Are you actually saying that if a writer uses any material from 
Soloviof's book as "a legitimate source of historical information", 
then you would consider him or her as a "slanderer"?

Let me try to give a specific example or two, so that there is no 
room for misunderstanding your position as given in the above two 
quotations of yours.

Since you mention me in the first quote above, let us suppose, I 
have written an article or maybe even a chapter for a possible book 
on HPB and Theosophy and in the course of my narrative, I write:

===================================================
In the latter part of 1877, H.P.B. told others that she was planning 
to go to the East. She wrote to a Russian correspondent Mr. Aksakov:

"We have now a multitude of corresponding fellows in India, and are 
proposing next year to set off for Ceylon and to settle there, as 
headquarters of our society." (A Modern Priestess of Isis, p. 277.)

==================================================

Now here I believe I would be --- by your own definition --- 
using Soloviof's book as "a legitimate source of historical 
information." 

Right?

Would you therefore say that I am a "slanderer"?

And furthermore if I don't mention to the reader that this is a 
possibly forged letter or in fact a forged letter, that is, not an 
authentic letter of H.P.B., would I then be compounding the "crime" 
even more???

Again, would you say that I am a "slanderer"?

Or let us suppose that in my essay or book I wrote:

===================================================
H.P.B. writes about her first book ISIS UNVEILED as follows:

"Well, my book has appeared at last.  My darling was born last 
Saturday, September 29th, but a week ealier my publisher had sent 
pre-publication copies to the editors of all the papers. I am 
enclosing herewith the review in the New York Herald...."  (letter 
by H.P.B. to N.A. Aksakov from V.S. Solovyov's A Modern Priestess of 
Isis (London, 1895).

==================================================

Am I a "slanderer", Carlos, by YOUR OWN definition by using 
Soloviof's book in this example as "a legitimate source of 
historical information."?

I am trying to understand your reasoning here and I hope these two 
examples may help to clarify the points that you are trying to 
convey to readers on Theos-Talk.

Daniel
http://hpb.cc