Theos-Talk Archives (November 2006 Message tt00530)

Carl,

So that there is no misunderstanding, I am NOT trying to divert 
attention to you!  I am NOT questioning your motives at all.  I have 
no idea what your motives are and I don't care.

Maybe I should have been more clearer....

I was just giving examples of how this COULD be done in your case 
when you wrote about the ULT.  I was trying to illustrate the "ad 
hominem" argument or rhetorical ploy of diverting attention away from 
the subject matter to questioning the motives, etc. of the writer or 
the speaker.  I think this type of arugment or ploy is illegitimate.

OBTW, when Carlos says I dislike the ULT because I write about them,
then do I dislike Leadbeater because I've written about him?

As a student of Theosophical history, I'm interested in trying to 
determine what are the facts about various historical claims, as well 
as about how Theosophical organizations work.  It is not a matter of 
liking or disliking at all.

>From reading your various postings on historical Theosophical 
organizations, I gather that you too are looking at all this material 
in a similar way.  

As regards Tillett, what I was trying to say is that SOME Leadbeater 
students apparently don't want to deal with the biographical and 
historical information about Leadbeater in Tillett's book and try 
different diversions such as questioning Tillett's motives, or 
whatever.

I could care less what Tillett's background is or what his motives 
may or may not be.  In reading and studying his book on Leadbeater, 
my only care and concern has been to see what the historical evidence 
is in support of Tillett's various statements.

I hope you understand my points.  If not I will try to explain them 
better.

Daniel

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Ek" <carl.ek@...> wrote:
>
> Daniel,
> First, you wrote:
> "I'm sure I could probably find some ULT associate who knows you and
> who may not have a favorable opinion of you. I could then bring up
> some unfavorable remarks he has about you and go from there....etc.
> etc."
> 
> You may do that, and I think you could if you want to (and that 
> would be in any favour for you), but remember that I have not said 
> anything about any single person, nor have I mentioned any names. I 
> was simply giving my reasons for leaving the ULT (and that is 
> private, and may not objective). And I think you are partly right, 
I 
> was disappointed. I have nothing to hide about my time in the ULT, 
> and what I said was about the ULT is as an organisation and not 
> about any single associate. Private, we are not liked by al, as we 
> can see and read hear concerning you. You have your "antagonists" 
> to, and if they are right or wrong, I nether know or particularly 
> much care. But if you find anything negative about my within the 
> ULT, it is totally private, and has nothing to do with the ULT, or 
> the work I did within that organisation. 
>  
> Daniel, do you know my motives?
> And can you tell us way you dislike the ULT, and is you objective 
in 
> you view? Or maybe Carlos, Paul Johnson and others is totally wrong 
> about you. You could in fact even be an ULT associate, with the 
> mission to provoke people, and thru that so to say find out their 
> real options on ULT and other subjects. ;-)
> 
> May I ask how you can call Tillett an "outsider"? He was once 
active 
> within the LCC, and ordained in the Minor Orders (I think he was a 
> lector or acolyte), so I don't see him as an "outsider". Way he 
left 
> I don't know. I know more then one here that once were working with 
> him (within the LCC), and if I was of the same attitude (as you 
have 
> shown in the quote above) as you, I could ask and probably find out 
> way he left. But I am not, so I don't have any reasons to ask.  
> 
> And about the official history of the ULT/TC (this is mostly about 
> the pre-ULT history of the Theosophical History, and that they have 
> censured out persons from the history they for some reasons 
> dislike). I can give you one example of this right now.
> 
> In Letters that Have Helped Me", book III, the Theosophy Company 
> edition, pp. 284-298; "On W.Q.J. ? Words of Students and Friends". 
> Compeer this with when it was first published in The Path and you 
> will find that one Friend of Mr. Judge's is missing in the TC 
> reproduction. The reason for this is simple; this man was dislikes 
> by Mr. Crosbie.
> The man was Mr. Hargrove. So I suspect that the compilers of Book 
> III didn't want him to be remembered as he real was, a friend of 
Mr. 
> Judge's. Am I right or wrong!?
> 
> I will later give some more expels of this.
> 
> Carl
> 
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "danielhcaldwell" 
> <danielhcaldwell@> wrote:
> >
> > Carl,
> > 
> > Thanks for your comments and observations about the United Lodge 
> of 
> > Theosophists at:
> > 
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/37218
> > 
> > In this and in a few future postings, I'm going to make some 
> comments
> > on what you have written and also show some examples of
> > how one could divert attention from the substance of what
> > you say by employing "ad hominem" remarks.
> > 
> > First of all, a question:
> > 
> > You state:
> > 
> > ========================================================
> > 1. Based on by own historical researching, I founded that the
> > official ULT/TC-history was in several parts not true.
> > ========================================================
> > 
> > Could you please give a few brief concrete examples illustrating 
> this 
> > point?
> > 
> > Now I will give an example of how I could try to divert attention 
> from
> > what you actually are stating about the ULT to attention about
> > YOU.
> > 
> > If I was like one of the posters on this board, I could point out
> > that you yourself admit that in 2003 you decided to leave the 
> > ULT.
> > 
> > Now since some of your comments seem quite "negative", I could 
> suggest
> > that you are simply a disgruntled ex-member.  And that many of 
your
> > statements simply reflect your emotional "dislike" for the ULT, 
> etc., 
> > etc.  In other words, you are no longer an objective observer, but
> > are a person who has an ax to grind, etc., etc.
> > 
> > I'm sure I could probably find some ULT associate who knows you 
> and 
> > who may not have a favorable opinion of you.  I could then bring 
> up 
> > some unfavorable remarks he has about you and go from 
> there....etc. 
> > etc.
> > 
> > The end result is that the focus is taken away from the issue of 
> the 
> > factuality of your statements about ULT and focussed on you, your 
> > motivations, etc. etc.
> > 
> > This is a rhetorical ploy that is often used to discount what 
some 
> > person is saying.
> > 
> > I have even heard some Leadbeater students use this same "ploy" 
to 
> > discount Gregory Tillett's book on Leadbeater.  Tillett is a mere
> > "scholar", he is just an intellectual who doesn't have any 
> intuition. 
> > Tillett is an "outsider" who isn't privy to the real facts.  etc. 
> etc.
> > 
> > By such a ploy, attention is diverted away from the subject 
matter 
> > that should be discussed:  in this case, various biographical and 
> > historical statements about Leadbeater.  Instead the attention is 
> > diverted to discussing Tillett.
> > 
> > Daniel
> > http://hpb.cc
> >
>