Theos-Talk Archives (March 2007 Message tt00099)

Thanks hari9896 for your comments below.

In light of what you say about the volume which you describe as
"the greatest muckraking biography of CWL", may I ask you a question.

What year was Charles Webster Leadbeater born?

This is a relevant question in light of your opinion of the above 
mentioned biography.

I will make a few comments later on this particular issue.

Daniel
http://hpb.cc


--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "hari9896" <hari9896@...> wrote:
>
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "danielhcaldwell" 
> <danielhcaldwell@> wrote:
> >
> > Dear hari9896,
> > 
> > You write about "the greatest muckraking biography of CWL
> > ever published."
> > 
> > What specific biography are you referring to?  Title?  Author?
> 
> I don't want to mention that because I don't want to publicise the 
> book. 
> > 
> > But much more importantly, can you give us more details about WHY 
> you 
> > have described this biography as "muckraking"?
> 
> Because I think the book is, in its account of all the alledged 
> sexual activities it describes, a collection of lies, 
misunderstoods, 
> fantasies and salacious useless gossip which only serves to 
unjustly 
> and untruly malign a man who is already down and unable to defend 
> himself (not that it would have done him any good trying)
> 
> Its a completely useless book.
>  
> > Are you suggesting that the author of this biography should NOT 
> have 
> > included such "muckraking"?
> 
> No because such muckraking was the sole purpose of the book, as far 
> as I can see. The author would have lacked motivation to write it 
> without the muck. Therefore it would be better if it had never been 
> published because then CWL would not have been maligned and people 
> would not have been deceived by it.
> > 
> > In other words, how should the biographer have dealt with the 
> > biographical events which are labelled by you as "muckraking"?
> 
> It would be a good idea to separate fact from fantasy for a start. 
> If speculating that harmful fantasies might have been real will 
cause 
> many mindless dupes to believe they were it would be in the public 
> interest not to speculate.
> 
> What you've described as "biographical events" were imho all 
> imagination and would only act as fuel for other sickos to believe 
> CWL was a pervert.
> 
> Don't forget we're dealing here with nearly everyone's favorite 
> subject. Even a small mention of it is like a spark that can start 
a 
> forest fire. Many years ago when working with laborers digging 
> ditches etc I found that thenumberthatcomesafterfive was something 
> they would talk aqbout endlessly, for hour after hour after hour. 
> These normal men were mad on the subject, which was their main 
reason 
> for living and their main motivation in life. Even people who hate 
it 
> often love to wallow in salacious gossip and use it as a club to 
beat 
> their enemies with. eg accusing innocent people of pedophilia, of 
> which we read so much in the media these days.
> 
> I quote from the post of Mark Jaqua, elsewhere on this board:
> 
> Quote for Sun., Mar. 4
> 
> 
> ".... A human being is at least ninety-eight
> percent subconsious mind and at most two
> percent conscious mind. The conscious two
> percent spends much of its time trying to
> explain, after the fact and in logical terms,
> what the ninety-eight percent subconsious mind
> decided to do and did."
> 
> - Charles Sheffield, "Proteus in the Underworld"
>