Theos-Talk Archives (November 2006 Message tt00591)

Daniel,

Thank, al is clear now. Sometime I miss the "colour" of the words; 
hence English is not my native language. So, I am sending my 
apologises.

Carl

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "danielhcaldwell" 
<danielhcaldwell@...> wrote:
>
> Carl,
> 
> So that there is no misunderstanding, I am NOT trying to divert 
> attention to you!  I am NOT questioning your motives at all.  I 
have 
> no idea what your motives are and I don't care.
> 
> Maybe I should have been more clearer....
> 
> I was just giving examples of how this COULD be done in your case 
> when you wrote about the ULT.  I was trying to illustrate the "ad 
> hominem" argument or rhetorical ploy of diverting attention away 
from 
> the subject matter to questioning the motives, etc. of the writer 
or 
> the speaker.  I think this type of arugment or ploy is 
illegitimate.
> 
> OBTW, when Carlos says I dislike the ULT because I write about 
them,
> then do I dislike Leadbeater because I've written about him?
> 
> As a student of Theosophical history, I'm interested in trying to 
> determine what are the facts about various historical claims, as 
well 
> as about how Theosophical organizations work.  It is not a matter 
of 
> liking or disliking at all.
> 
> From reading your various postings on historical Theosophical 
> organizations, I gather that you too are looking at all this 
material 
> in a similar way.  
> 
> As regards Tillett, what I was trying to say is that SOME 
Leadbeater 
> students apparently don't want to deal with the biographical and 
> historical information about Leadbeater in Tillett's book and try 
> different diversions such as questioning Tillett's motives, or 
> whatever.
> 
> I could care less what Tillett's background is or what his motives 
> may or may not be.  In reading and studying his book on 
Leadbeater, 
> my only care and concern has been to see what the historical 
evidence 
> is in support of Tillett's various statements.
> 
> I hope you understand my points.  If not I will try to explain 
them 
> better.
> 
> Daniel
> 
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Ek" <carl.ek@> wrote:
> >
> > 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
> > >
> >
>