Theos-Talk Archives (July 2006 Message tt00681)

Aveline asks:  "Does Caldwell Care?"  

Caldwell replies.....No, I don't care.....

As I have said before, I simply don't care
what Johnson, Aveline or other people think
about me and my supposed motives, etc.

If I was to try to explain what is what,
Mr. Aveline would no doubt only make that
a pretext for something else!

As I  said before, maybe I am one bad ------   ------
(or in the terminology loved by Carlos) one bad
dugpa.

Soon after my first criticisms of Johnson's thesis
concerning HPB's masters, Johnson himself wrote to me
questioning my sincerity...I assume at that time because
he didn't like my critique of some of his arguments.

See my published critique of Johnson's thesis at:

http://blavatskyarchives.com/johnson.htm

Later instead of confining his remarks to the subject matter
of my critique, he was more interested in suggesting I was 
a "heretic slayer", a theosophical fundamentalist fighting against 
the likes of Mr. Johnson  himself....blah..blah...blah...

As far as I can see this is simply the old AD HOMINEM argument which 
simply serves as a distraction from the relevant subject matter.

Johnson kept up a steady stream of such distractions instead of
either dealing with the critiques of his thesis on the Master M.
and K.H. or simply refusing to discuss the subject.

Now Mr. Aveline is more than happy to jump on the Johnson bandwagon.

And now Mr. Aveline uses this "ad hominem" tactic every chance he 
can find.

But I will continue to deal with the various subjects of 
Theosophical history.  In the near future I will present some more 
of my studies on what Dallas has written about Mr. Crosbie and Mrs.  
Tingley.  And then I will continue with some other relevant material.

>From several emails I have received from some readers on this 
forum, they tell me that they have found the historical material of 
interest and want to  know more.  I promise not to let Mr. Aveline's 
postings distract me from presenting the requested material.

Remember I may be one bad dugpa but I simply say:

Let readers judge the validity of my arguments based solely on the 
historical material, evidence and reasoning I give. 

I was actually hoping Mr. Aveline might confine himself to trying to 
deal in an intelligent way with the historical material presented 
but instead he apparently either has no valid arguments or simply 
wants to distract from even discussing the substance of the material 
presented.

Daniel
http://hpb.cc







--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "carlosaveline" 
<carlosaveline@...> wrote:
>
> 
> Friends, 
> Take a look at the testimony of Paul Johnson on Daniel 
> Calwell's methods of work.  It remains important,  as long 
> as Caldwell does not give a proper answer to it. 
> So far -- following the example of the 
> public answer given by the Coulombs to Theosophists
> in the 1880s --  Daniel only says that he "does not care" about
> what PJ and others may think. Paul Johnson is NOT a theosophist. 
> He does not believe in HPB, in Theosophy or the Masters, 
> so his testimony is entirely independent, in a way.  
> Regards,  Carlos.  
> ooo ooo 
> 
> "David Green and Me", by K. Paul Johnson 
>  Theos-Talk  --- 13 Feb 2006
>  
> Hey, 
> My first post on David Green focused on his attacks on the ULT.  
But 
> another group disliked by Wheaton and Adyar was also the focus of 
his 
> contempt, a short-lived reform group to which I belonged in 1998.
> Not long after I wrote a rebuttal to Daniel Caldwell's "House of 
> Cards" attack on my books that appeared on Professor David Lane's 
> website, I received an invitation from David Green to have it also 
> published on his Critical History website.  He told me he was a 
> student writing a paper, not a Theosophist, and taking mainly a 
> critical view of the subject.  For almost ten years now his site 
has 
> hosted material written by me, which I find discomfiting now in 
light 
> of the apparent fictitiousness of his persona.  My online 
publisher 
> is a phantom, at best.  
>  
> Although I let my membership in the Adyar TS expire in 1996, two 
> years later I renewed it for a year when invited to participate in 
a 
> reformist effort called the Association of Concerned 
Theosophists.  
> ACT's focus was using the TS electoral system to counter the 
personal 
> autocracy of John Algeo and bring more freedom and openness to the 
> American Section.  A notable feature of Green's online activity 
was 
> his complete disdain for critics of the Adyar TS, especially the 
> Association of Concerned Theosophists.  He presented himself as 
> Australian, residing in Sydney, and was overtly disdainful of 
> Leadbeater and other post-Blavatskian figures in Theosophical 
> history, as well as of me:
>  
> http://theosophy.com/theos-talk/199808/tt00044.html
>  
> Look for his contemptuous, dismissive remarks to others like 
Richard 
> Ihle or John Crocker to get a feel for the function of his 
presence 
> at the time in Theosophical online discussion.
>  
> Another pattern of Green's postings was evident trolling, that is 
> stirring up antagonism, as evident in this exchange with Frank 
> Reitemeyer, designed to get *me* attacked:
>  
> http://theosophy.com/theos-talk/199906/tt00048.html
>  
> Caldwell and Green were/are both equally intent on creating 
> antagonism and trying to direct others' hostility toward targets 
> other than themselves.  I have been the most 
frequent "beneficiary" 
> of such treatment from Caldwell, who has delighted in stirring up 
> fundamentalist Theosophists into rage against my books. But at 
least 
> that is straightforward, whereas when "Green" posted seemingly 
> favorable remarks about my books, in truth "he" was dishonestly 
> stirring up anger towards me and insuring that harsh reactions 
would 
> ensue directed not at him but at me. Caldwell befriended the ULT 
and 
> was lionized as a hero by them (some of them) as a great scholar 
and 
> ultimate rebutter-- while Green was furiously attacking them, that 
> helped created a paranoid and contentious atmosphere online which 
> served the purposes of no one but... ???
>  Who gains from all this?  That's the big question,
>  
> K. Paul [Johnson]