Theos-Talk Archives (June 2006 Message tt00164)

Friends,

One must admit that Michael Gomes has been  no slanderer, and no libel-propagator, so far.  

The opposite is true. Gomes has a  2005 a book/dossier  (published by "Theosophical History") on the "Coulomb Case".  

The volume gives splenmdid evidence that the Coulombs cannot be taken as a source of historical information. 

Solovyof worked but on the foundations of Slander established by the Coulombs.   

Once the Coulombs are shown to be false, and they have been shown such from the very beginning, then Solovyof must be seen as he is -- a criminal liar AND also a "sacred" reference to his 21st century Apostles. 

Regards,  Carlos Cardoso Aveline  



De:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com

Para:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com

Cópia:

Data:Tue, 06 Jun 2006 22:21:22 -0000

Assunto:Theos-World Michael Gomes on V.S. Solovyov

> Michael Gomes on V.S. Solovyov 
> 
> Carlos wrote:
> 
> ======================================================
> 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
> ==========================================================
> 
> Again Carlos commented:
> 
> =========================================================
> 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
> =========================================================
> 
> Now let us take one of these "good examples" that Carlos mentions.
> 
> Michael Gomes gives the following estimation concerning Solovyoff:
> 
> ==========================================================
> 
> Although he LATER claimed that he was playing the role
> of the docile inquirer, Solovyov's name appears in
> a number of letters to the press [in 1884 for example]
> testifying to the VALIDITY of Theosophical phenomena.
> 
> The publication of Richard Hodgson's damning report of H.P.B.
> in the December 1885 Proceedings of the Society for
> Psychical Research, and the attendant ridicule it brought
> to the adherents of Theosophy, must have caused him to RECONSIDER
> his position, for HIS ATTITUDE toward her RADICALLY CHANGED. . . .
> 
> ============================================================
> Caps added. Quoted from Gomes' Introduction to Beatrice Hastings'
> SOLOVYOFF'S FRAUD.
> 
> Now compare the above with what I wrote in ESOTERIC WORLD OF MADAME
> BLAVATSKY:
> 
> ======================================================
> ...At first, relations between the two were friendly but Solovyov
> turned against HPB and wrote a book . . . in which he attempted to
> portray HPB as a fraud....
> ======================================================
> 
> Daniel
> http://blavatskyarchives.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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=1,1149632923.607487.29116.mangoro.hst.terra.com.br,5525,Des15,Des15
> 
> Esta mensagem foi verificada pelo E-mail Protegido Terra.
> Scan engine: McAfee VirusScan / Atualizado em 06/06/2006 / Versão: 4.4.00/4778
> Proteja o seu e-mail Terra: http://mail.terra.com.br/


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