Theos-Talk Archives (November 2006 Message tt00458)

As I have said before on Theos-Talk, 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, somehow allied with Dr. 
Algeo....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 historical 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.

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. First I will continue with the "Starting an 
Esoteric Group" series and also more on DES and Mr. Crosbie.

>From 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 at long last 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