Theos-Talk Archives (July 2006 Message tt00330)

Daniel,

Since you want to quote Tillett, please remember he wrote your "Algeo Committee" is a group of puppets who misused Cooper's work.  This is not my opinion --  it is his.  

You wrote to Tillett in April 2006 about that.  See below and remember it before trying to using Tillett to justify Algeo and yourself.  


Best regards,   Carlos. 






De:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com

Para:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com

Cópia:

Data:Fri, 21 Apr 2006 16:32:16 -0000

Assunto:Theos-World Some more Questions for Gregory Tillett

> Gregory, you wrote:
> 
> ====================================================
> The claim that John's research was not included in 
> the Algeo volume is – let me use plain language – 
> a blatant, scandalous and bare-faced lie. I have 
> beside me as I write (i) the Algeo volume, (ii) 
> John's PhD thesis on the Blavatsky letters and (iii) 
> a copy of the manuscript sent by John to the TPH 
> before his death. If I compare them I find sentence 
> after sentence reproduced but for a word or two.
> Does anyone seriously believe that, between the 
> time of John's death and the publication of the Algeo 
> volume, the complete text was re-researched and
> created anew? Including letters that John had 
> discovered? Without any reliance on John's work, 
> Algeo or his puppets, acting independently, just 
> happened to find the same material?
> ==================================================
> 
> I believe a few points of clarification are needed in order
> to avoid any possible misunderstandings:
> 
> (1) When you write:
> 
> "If I compare them I find sentence 
> after sentence reproduced but for a word or two."
> 
> Now are you telling your readers on Theos-Talk that
> you find sentence after sentence of John Cooper's
> editorial COMMENTS/commentary reproduced in the
> TPH Wheaton volume with only a word of two changed
> here and there?
> 
> (2)And could you provide us with a small number of examples
> illustrating this point of yours?
> 
> (3) Concerning your statement which reads:
> 
> "Including letters that John had discovered?"
> 
> there are 136 letters in the published TPH Wheaton
> volume.
> 
> How many of these letters did John himself discover?
> Do you know which ones in the TPH volume fall under
> this category of "John discovered" as opposed to what
> was already in the Boris de Zirkoff collection or available
> thru other published sources known by Algeo independently of
> the Cooper MSS?
> 
> (4) Again you write:
> 
> "....the complete text was re-researched and created anew?"
> 
> By "complete text" what do you mean? Does the complete
> text include all of the letters provided FROM the Boris de
> Zirkoff collection at Wheaton TS? And what particular letters in 
> this published Wheaton TPH volume were provided to the complete text 
> by Cooper himself? etc. etc. 
> 
> (5) And who are the "puppets" that you are referring to?
> Is this a somewhat "negative" term used to describe the
> persons on the Letters commmittee? And since I was on that
> committee does that mean I was a "puppet"? And when I was
> working with and assisting John Cooper on the letters, was I
> his "puppet"? And why call Dara Eklund Algeo's "puppet"? She
> was the editor of several volumes of the CW series and worked
> with Boris de Zirkoff. Was Dara Boris' puppet, too? Why use
> this term to describe the said individuals? Is this a term you 
> would use for example in an article in THEOSOPHICAL HISTORY?
> 
> (6) And since you say you have documents (i), (ii) and (iii),
> shouldn't you also be comparing all of these with document (iv) 
> [which consists of all the photocopies that TPH Wheaton originally 
> gave to John Cooper from the Boris de Zirkoff collection of H.P.B.'s 
> letters]?? Wouldn't these photocopies (which make up document iv) 
> help one to determine what was available at Wheaton to Algeo?
> 
> These are the types of questions that need to be answered so readers 
> will be in a better position to assess what you have written and 
> come to some more or less correct understanding of the issues 
> involved.
> 
> Daniel


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