Theos-Talk Archives (December 2004 Message tt00270)

Daniel,

Any board I subscribe to comes to the same computer and to the same mail 
box. I see everything sent to me including the spam. The appropriate 
board to post a question concerning a previous posting of mine is on the 
board where the previous posting originally appeared; in this case: 
theos-talk. For future reference: I have no problem if you want to quote 
me (in or out of context) on another board as a source or point of 
reference in order to argue for or against some point of your own. 
Though, if you do that, I suggest that you also mention where the entire 
post originally appeared and can be found. That is fair usage. Aside 
from fair usage, I do have a problem when I find my own material 
republished by others either electronically or in print where I never 
intended them to be. My point is that anything I write is my 
intellectual property. Therefore, I believe that I should be the sole 
person to determine where anything I write will appear. I'm sure that 
in the future you will respect my position, whether you agree with it or 
not. So thanks in advance. 
Concerning your question, you previously wrote:

> All I was trying to ask you with my first posting
> was in a general context, in your opinion are there
> "surprises" in Deveney's article that pro-Blavatsky
> students (Theosophical apologists???] might have
> a problem with and therefore might try to discount
> by explaining them away?
The question you pose here is very much off the subject of my dialogue 
with Dallas, and derives from a quote which you pulled out of context of 
the subject, and, as I previous pointed out to you in two previous 
posts, the sense of the quote completely changes when it is taken out of 
the context of the entire dialogue. As I previously wrote, the subject 
of my dialogue with Dallas concerns the communication of Theosophical 
ideas to the general public. It is not about Theosophical history, even 
when references to that subject come up. Now, your question, appears to 
concern my opinion of Deveney's article. This is an entirely different 
subject, and one I never had any intention of pursuing on any discussion 
board. But to answer your question: Yes, in my opinion, some 
"pro-Blavatsky students" will be surprised by several of Deveney's 
statements and conclusions. In the past, Dr. Santucci has received 
letters of complaint whenever articles of this nature have appeared in 
Theosophical History. The problem is that TH is not a Theosophical 
journal. Rather, it is a research journal about theosophy. I know of 
several students of Theosophy who are unable to distinguish between 
these two kinds of journals, though I have tried to explain it to them. 
I'm confident that you very well know the difference, so I'm not going 
to explain it here. 
I hope, this time, that I have answered your question to your 
satisfaction. 
--j


Daniel H. Caldwell wrote:

> Initially when I posted my comments, I did not
> know which of these 2 boards you were currently
> reading, so I posted my comments to both.
>
> Since then since you have also posted followup 
> comments to both boards, I have also done so in case
> readers on either boards were also interested
> in the followup posts.
>
> Daniel