Theos-Talk Archives (November 2006 Message tt00527)

Daniel,
First, you wrote:
"I'm sure I could probably find some ULT associate who knows you and
who may not have a favorable opinion of you. I could then bring up
some unfavorable remarks he has about you and go from there....etc.
etc."

You may do that, and I think you could if you want to (and that 
would be in any favour for you), but remember that I have not said 
anything about any single person, nor have I mentioned any names. I 
was simply giving my reasons for leaving the ULT (and that is 
private, and may not objective). And I think you are partly right, I 
was disappointed. I have nothing to hide about my time in the ULT, 
and what I said was about the ULT is as an organisation and not 
about any single associate. Private, we are not liked by al, as we 
can see and read hear concerning you. You have your "antagonists" 
to, and if they are right or wrong, I nether know or particularly 
much care. But if you find anything negative about my within the 
ULT, it is totally private, and has nothing to do with the ULT, or 
the work I did within that organisation. 
 
Daniel, do you know my motives?
And can you tell us way you dislike the ULT, and is you objective in 
you view? Or maybe Carlos, Paul Johnson and others is totally wrong 
about you. You could in fact even be an ULT associate, with the 
mission to provoke people, and thru that so to say find out their 
real options on ULT and other subjects. ;-)

May I ask how you can call Tillett an "outsider"? He was once active 
within the LCC, and ordained in the Minor Orders (I think he was a 
lector or acolyte), so I don't see him as an "outsider". Way he left 
I don't know. I know more then one here that once were working with 
him (within the LCC), and if I was of the same attitude (as you have 
shown in the quote above) as you, I could ask and probably find out 
way he left. But I am not, so I don't have any reasons to ask.  

And about the official history of the ULT/TC (this is mostly about 
the pre-ULT history of the Theosophical History, and that they have 
censured out persons from the history they for some reasons 
dislike). I can give you one example of this right now.

In Letters that Have Helped Me", book III, the Theosophy Company 
edition, pp. 284-298; "On W.Q.J. ? Words of Students and Friends". 
Compeer this with when it was first published in The Path and you 
will find that one Friend of Mr. Judge's is missing in the TC 
reproduction. The reason for this is simple; this man was dislikes 
by Mr. Crosbie.
The man was Mr. Hargrove. So I suspect that the compilers of Book 
III didn't want him to be remembered as he real was, a friend of Mr. 
Judge's. Am I right or wrong!?

I will later give some more expels of this.

Carl

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "danielhcaldwell" 
<danielhcaldwell@...> wrote:
>
> Carl,
> 
> Thanks for your comments and observations about the United Lodge 
of 
> Theosophists at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/37218
> 
> In this and in a few future postings, I'm going to make some 
comments
> on what you have written and also show some examples of
> how one could divert attention from the substance of what
> you say by employing "ad hominem" remarks.
> 
> First of all, a question:
> 
> You state:
> 
> ========================================================
> 1. Based on by own historical researching, I founded that the
> official ULT/TC-history was in several parts not true.
> ========================================================
> 
> Could you please give a few brief concrete examples illustrating 
this 
> point?
> 
> Now I will give an example of how I could try to divert attention 
from
> what you actually are stating about the ULT to attention about
> YOU.
> 
> If I was like one of the posters on this board, I could point out
> that you yourself admit that in 2003 you decided to leave the 
> ULT.
> 
> Now since some of your comments seem quite "negative", I could 
suggest
> that you are simply a disgruntled ex-member.  And that many of your
> statements simply reflect your emotional "dislike" for the ULT, 
etc., 
> etc.  In other words, you are no longer an objective observer, but
> are a person who has an ax to grind, etc., etc.
> 
> I'm sure I could probably find some ULT associate who knows you 
and 
> who may not have a favorable opinion of you.  I could then bring 
up 
> some unfavorable remarks he has about you and go from 
there....etc. 
> etc.
> 
> The end result is that the focus is taken away from the issue of 
the 
> factuality of your statements about ULT and focussed on you, your 
> motivations, etc. etc.
> 
> This is a rhetorical ploy that is often used to discount what some 
> person is saying.
> 
> I have even heard some Leadbeater students use this same "ploy" to 
> discount Gregory Tillett's book on Leadbeater.  Tillett is a mere
> "scholar", he is just an intellectual who doesn't have any 
intuition. 
> Tillett is an "outsider" who isn't privy to the real facts.  etc. 
etc.
> 
> By such a ploy, attention is diverted away from the subject matter 
> that should be discussed:  in this case, various biographical and 
> historical statements about Leadbeater.  Instead the attention is 
> diverted to discussing Tillett.
> 
> Daniel
> http://hpb.cc
>