Theos-Talk Archives (July 2006 Message tt00075)

Carlos, you write [is that doublewrite? :) ]---

> It means, as you said earlier, that the SPR has had no "official" 
> or "formal" position with regard to HPB.  
> 
> Hence its slanders against HPB were "unofficial" or "informal", 
> and then, in 1986, they were informally withdrawn.  
> 
> Got it now? 

But even if what you say is "true" [informally?],
what can one conclude from this "informal" charging
and "informal" withdrawing?

Seems to me the bottom line is as follows:

Does any of this so-called "informal" action by the SPR [that you 
are suggesting] really tell us whether the original charges made by 
Hodgson and the SPR committee have valdity or not?

As far as I can tell, this alleged "informal" action by the SPR 
settles nothing and seekers of the truth interested in this 
particular subject should actually read and study for themselves 
the "Hodgson Report" and the other relevant material. And on this 
basis, decide the validity/invalidity of the charges, etc.  Anything 
less is to succumb to some "organizational" authority, in this case, 
the SUPPOSED "informal" withdrawing of the report by the SPR...

Remember even HPB told Mrs. Besant to read a copy of the Hodgson 
Report and decide for herself...

Daniel
http://hpb.cc