Theos-Talk Archives (December 2006 Message tt00476)

Dear Friends, 

I can hear Mr. Caldwell's resoundingly significant silence on the 
informations available (see below) about possible frauds and 
slanders committed by him in the recent history of the movement.


Of course, he has the proverbial right to remain silent.


Carlos.


oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo


From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jjhe@...>
Reply-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Theos-World The Caldwell-Green-Hobbs question
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 14:00:02 -0800

Dear Ramadass, Friends,

One doesn't need a computer to analyze and identify patterns in 
written
discourse. Anyone who has taken a course in literary criticism and
analysis already has been taught the basic tools they need to do 
this on
their own.

Personally, I began to suspect that David Green and Daniel Caldwell 
were
the same persons shortly after Green entered the discussion group. My
suspicions were partially based upon my own analysis of these 
discourse
patterns. My suspicions were also based upon clues I had previously
picked up from dozens of phone conversations with Dan, email 
exchanges,
a four hour meeting my wife and I had with him in Tucson (years 
before
the incidents in question), and because of certain information he had
volunteered in confidence.

Paul Johnson did his own investigation and independently noted some 
of
the same patterns I had previously noticed, and made further matches 
to
the Hobbs material. Paul's independent analysis, along with the IP
evidence, has made, in my mind, a compelling case for the common
identity of the three personae. Further, Dan's defensive message a 
few
months ago, addressing the subject of pseudonyms, in my mind, pushed 
the
evidence beyond any reasonable doubt. Not because of what he
specifically wrote, but because of omissions and the way he modified
certain information which I also have first hand knowledge.

I remained silent on this matter because I anticipated that if I 
spoke
up, my doing so would merely draw ridicule, accusations concerning my
motive, and solve nothing. Accordingly, Paul Johnson, in stepping
forward with his evidence, took a huge personal risk in doing so.
Regardless of one's opinion concerning the Caldwell-Green-Hobbs 
identity
I feel that we need to recognize and appreciate the risk Paul had 
taken
by coming forward.

May I also add that while Dan's guilt or innocence is unprovable in 
any
absolute sense of the term, this situation is an apt warning that we
would do well to give serious thought to what can be done in order to
make this discussion board a productive and progressive one for the
advancement and deepening of our common interest in Theosophy and the
Theosophical Movement. My hope is that theos-talk becomes a place 
where
we all may better exchange knowledge and insights in an atmosphere of
respect, and where all participants may feel safe in doing so.

Best Wishes,
Jerry

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo