Theos-Talk Archives (January 2007 Message tt00068)

------------------------------------------------
Paul Johnson's "ad hominem" tactic in 2002

Below is my reply to one of Paul Johnson's commentaries
on me back in 2002

--------------------------------------------------------

Dear Paul,

....

In your posting at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/4657

it is really sad to find you using the same "ad hominem" tactic
against me as Dallas Tenbroeck and Frank Reitemeyer used about one
year ago against Brigitte Muehlegger and you.

At that time I wrote a reply to both Dallas and Frank. It can be
found at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/755

Much of what I said in that letter to Dallas and Frank now applies to
your email above.

>From what you write, I see that you have no understanding whatsoever
concerning my motives, actions, etc. But what you write would make
for a good tv drama!

I like being characterized as a heretic slayer. . . . ... :)

What you say is basically downright silly and sounds almost
delusional. Believe it if it somehow comforts you.

Look at the following four priceless gems that you wrote about me:

---------------------------------------
". . . Daniel's worst enemies are those Theosophists that have
encouraged him to be a hatchet man. . . "

" . . . in order to curry favor with the organizations who wanted
someone to refute the Johnsonian heresy. . . . "

"In all sincerity I believe that what has happened here is that by
becoming an attack dog serving Theosophical orthodoxy, despite
knowing full well that he could have attacked Cranston just as
viciously as he did me using the same criteria, that he sold his
birthright for a mess of pottage."

"But by acting on his *interests* (to be somebody respected in the
movement, to be published by TPH, and whatnot) and violating his
stated *principles* he has become a sectarian apologist and heretic-
slayer, and thrown away all opportunity to be taken seriously in the
world of scholarship."
--------------------------------------------------

I guess you're trying to say here that I was motivated by
various "negative" INTERESTS to critique your books. But how do you
really know what did or did not motivate me? Sheer speculation it
would appear to be....possible, yes ....plausible, yes but is any of
it really true?

Paul, did those INTERESTS also motivate me in 1993? It was in
January of that year that you first wrote to me asking me for input
on your first self-published book. I took the time and effort to
write to you an 18 page letter and added appendices of relevant
material. What initially motivated me at that time to critique your
book??

Were Theosophists encouraging me at that time to be the hatchet man?

Was I trying to "curry favor with the organizations who wanted
someone to refute the Johnsonian heresy" when I wrote that critique?

Was I hoping to be published by TPH when I wrote that critique?

The answer to all three questions is: "No"

Yet even back then after receiving just this one letter/critique from
me you wrote back in a letter dated April 14, 1993 and questioned my
motives.

In my reply to that 1993 letter, I wrote to you the following:

"...it is not my intention to be adversarial with you. No doubt, you
are a sincere individual who has devoted alot of hard work and money
to your research. I can and do appreciate that. But if you want my
honest opinion, then I must give it to you."

"Also in your letter to me of April 14th, you seem to think I have
not been fair and objective in my criticism of your books; you also
question my motivations. On this score all I will say is that I have
given my criticisms of your thesis and you should be able to assess
the validity of my criticisms, regardless of my own motivations."

Even at the beginning of our correspondence in 1993 it appears that
you wanted to assign to me some kind of "negative" motivation
although you were then and have been incensed since then by
theosophists who have ascribed to you various negative motives for
writing your books.

In summary, as pointed out by one of my correspondents, your
latest "ad hominem" essay on me MAY reflect more about you than about
me.

You might want to follow the advice I gave to Dallas and Frank last
year. See:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/755

Daniel, the H.S. of the T.M.
http://hpb.cc