Theos-Talk Archives (February 2002 Message tt00508)

Daniel Caldwell: "Let me set the record straight. Although what Paul 
writes may apply to SOME Theosophists, it certainly doesn't apply to 
me and"

Paul to Daniel: "The only comfort is that others share my horror at 
the relentlessness of it. Talk about tactics! The fact that I have 
been aghast at your obsessive attacks is taken by you as proof that 
there's something wrong with my mental health. Well, eight years of 
obsessive attacks makes others wonder about *yours*. But I'm not 
calling *you* crazy; when I try to figure out why you behave as you 
do, ideological factors rise to the fore. 

The question is not "what motivated Daniel to critique Paul's 
books" but rather "what motivated a furious singleminded eight-year 
obsession on Daniel's part to demolish Paul's reputation among 
Theosophical readers?" It's got to involve your interests, Daniel, 
because you yourself have admitted that your *principles* would have 
you applying equal amounts of scrutiny to the work of all authors 
about HPB, rather than furiously attacking one for years and years.

I replied with respect and friendliness in 1993 to Daniel's 
distinctly disrespectful, unfriendly reference to my first 
book in his own; also to his prosecutorial, confrontational, document 
produced in response to my request for a more helpful critique. In 
1994 someone long since absent from theos cybercircles posted on 
theos-l an "Open Letter to Paul Johnson" which was a public recap of 
his correspondence to me, which I had explicitly requested remain 
private, thus revealing that all along his intent had been to attack 
me publicly rather than advise me privately as requested. 

Moreover, I had never seen this "open letter" until it was mentioned 
on the Net.
An escalating series of challenges/confrontations 
from Daniel on theos-l in 1994, before finally giving up in the 
realization that there was unquenchable ideological/personal 
animosity here and no amount of patience, friendliness and 
cooperativeness on my part would ever change that. I was feeding a 
monster. The "feud" began when I started complaining about Daniel's 
tone and style of discourse, his ALL CAPS, his EXCLAMATION POINTS!!!, 
his constant attempt to humiliate his "opponent" rather than dialogue 
with his fellow scholar. Which only added fuel to the fire.

Not one word in all these years that would reveal a human emotion, a
political pinion, a spiritual inclination, a personal experience. 
Nothing but robotic repetition of challenges to others on a narrow 
range of issues related to Theosophical history. A Theosophical-
historica refutation-bot, you might say.First when Michael Gomes said 
something supportive to me at AAR in 1994, arning me of Theosophical 
attacks coming, and I mentioned this on theos-l. Daniel expressed 
astonishment, saying that he'd had close to 20 long phone
onversations about my work with Gomes, and couldn't imagine his 
being at all supportive of me after that. (Also let drop that he'd 
put effort into persuading John Cooper that he was wrong to admire 
the work.) Second, when the House of Cards piece came out in print, 
and Daniel said that he had selected 109 (IIRC) influential 
Theosophists and scholars to send it to free of charge. In both of 
these cases I realized that I was up against an obsession to demolish 
my reputation. 

Brigitte: Although Daniel relentlesly demands that other against 
their will discuss the subjects with him the way these others don't 
want it on theos-talk, Daniel as you mentioned does not answer any 
questions himself when asked, he will only accuse others.
That means here on theos-talk we are still up against the same 
obsession as you mentioned.

See also: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/4254

--- In theos-talk@y..., "bri_mue" <bri_mue@y...> wrote:
> Daniel Caldwell: "Do you agree or disagree with Stubbs?"
> 
> Steve Stubbs, Paul Johnson, and myself do not want to discuss the 
> subjects reg. "Masters visitations" the way Daniel wants to enforce 
> it with repeated senseless mails on theos talk.
> 
> Steve Stubbs and I as was already reported before in:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/5168
> 
> have been discussing this subject since Januari privately, and due 
to 
> the harrasment of Daniel Caldwell plus the attacks by Adelasie not 
> anymore on theos-talk. 
> 
> Recently we have moved all discussions reg. this and related 
subjects 
> to Universal-Seekers where also Paul Johnson is currently again 
part 
> of this discussion.
> 
> Yet in spite of this condition Daniel Caldwell keeps reposting and 
> distorting old mails from Steve and myself even our research on 
these 
> subjects has considerable evolved since more then one month ago.
> 
> We do not want, to discuss the subject on theos-talk, even if 
Daniel 
> Caldwell posts another 100 provocative mails trying to force me or 
> others to discuss certain subjects with him. 
> 
> A degree of freedom should be respected on theos-talk but this is 
> obviously not the case as I pointed out yesterday already and 
> therefore probably never will be the case.
> 
> So Paul and Steve are currently having all of there discussions on 
> Universal Seekers where Daniel Caldwell does not have access.
> 
> Bri.
> 
> 
> --- In theos-talk@y..., "danielhcaldwell" <danielhcaldwell@y...> 
> wrote:
> > Brigitte, you wrote:
> > 
> > > We would have more peacefull and interresting discussions 
> > > that would enrich all if the above where applied. But Daniel 
> > > Caldwell's constant harrasment and distortions of the truth 
> doesn't 
> > > help verry much
> > 
> > Brigitte, please explain in direct and straightforward language 
> > my "distortions of the truth" that you are referring to?
> > 
> > For example, in my Message at 
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/5514
> > 
> > what did I distort?
> > 
> > OBTW, why don't you set the record straight by explicitly stating 
> > whether you agree or disagree with what both Steve Stubbs and 
Paul 
> > Johnson have written about Olcott's encounters with the Masters. 
> If 
> > you need to refresh your memory of what they wrote as well as 
what 
> > you wrote, see:
> > 
> > http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/masterschart.htm
> > 
> > I'm sure we could have peaceful and interesting discussions of 
the 
> > above. I'm interested in your specific views and even more 
> > interested in the thinking and reasoning behind your views, etc. 
> And 
> > would like to know yours views so that I can compare them with 
> > Johnson's and Stubbs' views.
> > 
> > I will start the ball rolling by saying that my personal views 
> about 
> > Olcott's encounters with the Masters are similar if not identical 
> to 
> > what Stubbs writes at:
> > 
> > http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/mastersstubbs.htm
> > 
> > Do you agree or disagree with Stubbs?
> > 
> > Daniel H. Caldwell
> > BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES
> > http://blavatskyarchives.com/introduction.htm