Theos-Talk Archives (April 2006 Message tt00248)

First I wrote:

================================================
For example in Chapter 17, Pelletier states:

"...NONE of the reports published at the time depict Judge's 
involvement at any functions, ceremonies, writing or signing any 
documents at headquarters after Sept. 21st, 1884....To show that 
Judge was NOT present at Adyar headquarters after September 21st, 
1884, it is important to note....." Part I, p. 385 caps added

Similar statements are repeated elsewhere but Pelletier apparently 
is NOT aware of the following statement by the Rev. George Patterson:

"This morning [Sept. 27th, 1884], by previous arrangement with Dr.
Hartmann, I went to the Head quarters of the Theosophical Society, 
Adyar, to examine the letters from Mme. Blavatsky to General Morgan, 
which that gentleman had, at my request, sent to Madras for my 
inspection. I was accompanied by Mr. J.D.B. Gribble (late M.C.S.) 
the Rev. J.E. Padfield (C.M.S.), Masulipatam, and the Rev. A. 
Alexander, of Madras. Dr. Hartmann, Mr. W. Q. Judge, Barrister-at-
Law, Mr. Subba Rao, B.A., B.L., and others met us...."

Quoted from:
http://blavatskyarchives.com/pattersonmm1884.htm

This reprint of the Patterson letter has been on my website for the 
last 3 or 4 years.
===================================================

Now here is Bruce's "rebuttal":

================================================
If you read Pelletier's accurate statement he says 
"NONE of the reports published at the time depict 
Judge's involvement at any functions".  He did
not say there were no letters, newspaper articles, 
etc.  In fact, he writes, immediately following 
this about an article in the Madras Mail that
describes an address given by Judge to some Madras 
students presumably within a few days of the date 
of the article, September 29th.  Regardless,
nothing hinges on the date of the 21st so it is 
immaterial one way or another.  Pelletier's statement 
was accurate, Daniel's criticism is mysterious.
=================================================

So Bruce you want to quibble over the alleged difference
between "reports" and "letters, newspaper articles"?

Well, let see what we can make of this.

FIRST OF ALL I ASK INTERESTED READERS TO READ WHAT
PELLETIER ACTUALLY WROTE.  He even says "it is important
to note...."

Pelletier's basic statement was (to quote his
own words):

"...Judge was NOT present at Adyar headquarters AFTER September 
21st, 1884...."

THIS IS PELLETIER'S CONTENTION....

Pelletier says this because he wants Mr. Judge to be elsewhere... 
after Sept. 21.  See his text for further details.

And apparently to support that statement Pelletier indulges in this
kind of reasoning (to again quote him):

"NONE of the reports published at the time depict 
Judge's involvement at any functions, ceremonies, 
writing or signing any documents at
headquarters after Sept. 21st, 1884...."

And then apparently you Bruce bend over backwards to 
see it differently.

You say "nothing hinges on the date"........

Then why did Pelletier write:

"...Judge was NOT present at Adyar headquarters AFTER September 
21st, 1884...." ?????????????????????????????

But the bottom line is:

the Patterson "report" or "article" or whatever you want to call
it shows that INDEED Mr. Judge WAS at Adyar TS Headquarters on Sept. 
27th, 1884, that is, he was at Adyar TS Headquarters AFTER Sept. 21 
and this CONTRADICTS Pelletier's basic statement which Pelletier 
himself repeats several time in his text.

Whether it is "immaterial" or not is not the point.  Since Pelletier 
repeats this statement several times in his text he must have 
thought it was germane to something --- whether it is now material 
or  immaterial to Bruce's way of "thinking."

I appeal to the two historians on theos-talk Jerry and Gregory to 
make sense of what Bruce is saying in his "rebuttal"!!!

Bruce, I will try to answer your other points as soon as I find time 
to try to understand your reasoning.

Daniel