Theos-Talk Archives (December 2006 Message tt00488)

Friends,

If Mr. Caldwell can take some time wasy from his intense activity with regard to the theosophical misunderstandings in the first part of last century, perhaps he will comment the enlightening message below by Jerry Hejka-Ekins.

I am sure Mr. Caldwell could explain himself.

Regards,   Carlos. 

ooooooooooooooooo

From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jjhe@charter.net>
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


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