Theos-Talk Archives (July 2006 Message tt00332)

Carlos,

Again it appears that you are mixing up different 
issues.  You seem to do that alot.  I wonder why.  :)

I was quoting Tilett's opinion on the INCLUSION
policy.

As far as his other remark concerning "puppets", 
he never replied to my comments which I reproduce
BELOW:

====================================================
(5) And who are the "puppets" that you [Tillett] 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?
======================================================

Daniel
http://hpb.cc




--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "carlosaveline" 
<carlosaveline@...> wrote:
>
> Daniel,
> 
> Since you want to quote Tillett, please remember he wrote 
your "Algeo Committee" is a group of puppets who misused Cooper's 
work.  This is not my opinion --  it is his.  
> 
> You wrote to Tillett in April 2006 about that.  See below and 
remember it before trying to using Tillett to justify Algeo and 
yourself.  
> 
> 
> 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]
>