Theos-Talk Archives (July 2006 Message tt00683)

Friends,

So, Calwell has (among other things) this in common with Emma and Alexis Coulomb: they do not (or did not) care about what theosophists, or other thinkers,  say.

As to the word "dugpa", which Daniel uses so often with regard to himself, this is a word I rarely use, except quoting the "Mahatma Letters". 

I also make no accusations against Daniel -- I just brought here a text by a non-theosophist, K. Paul Johnson. 

Best regards,   Carlos.  


De:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com

Para:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com

Cópia:

Data:Mon, 31 Jul 2006 16:53:36 -0000

Assunto:Theos-World Aveline asks: "Does Caldwell Care?" Caldwell replies.....No, I don't care.....

> 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" 
> 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] 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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=1,1154365024.649606.26472.almora.hst.terra.com.br,9466,Des15,Des15
> 
> Esta mensagem foi verificada pelo E-mail Protegido Terra.
> Scan engine: McAfee VirusScan / Atualizado em 28/07/2006 / Versão: 4.4.00/4817
> Proteja o seu e-mail Terra: http://mail.terra.com.br/


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