[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Theos-World On David Green

Aug 01, 2006 11:03 AM
by Bill Meredith

Carlos, with your permission, I can ask Paul Johnson to make the personal correspondences between you and him that were exchanged just prior to your arrival here on theos-talk available so that everyone here can experience for themselves the thought processes from which you operate.
Do I have your permission?


carlosaveline wrote:

Dear Friends,

Take a look in this well-documented text, published in Theos-talk.

Regards, Carlos.

K.Paul Johnson writes:


Feb 10, 2006 05:44 AM by kpauljohnson


Now that the feud between ULT members and Daniel Caldwell has entered
theos-talk as a two-way street (rather than Daniel just posting his
side of things) I feel obliged to share some background material that
will help explain the dynamics.

As might be expected, I disagree entirely with the objections that
have been made to the HPB Letters volume and Daniel's compilation.
TPH books should be more in line with scholarly standards, not less.
Suppressing damaging information out of spiritual loyalty is
something that TPH has done too much, not too little. Nonetheless,
whether or not David Green is an independent entity, Daniel has been
on an anti- ULT crusade for a long time, and having been on the
receiving end of a similar crusade it looks like it is falling to me
to point out what has been happening:

David Green and theos-talk

Posting on theos-talk from 1998 through 2000, "David Green" appeared
obsessed with attacking the United Lodge of Theosophists. For
example, in one month alone, March 1999, he contributed more than 20
posts to theos-talk critical of the ULT, and a dozen more the
following month. A year later in April 2000 he was still obsessed,
contributing a dozen more such posts. His website includes twenty
articles he authored which are critical of Robert Crosbie, and
another four critical of William Q. Judge and Katherine Tingley: <>

All remaining articles there were written by others. No one in theos-
talk (with one exception) reports having met David Green in person,
which is unusual in the small world of Theosophical history
research. But he is clearly associated with Daniel Caldwell;
claiming to be an Australian posting from Sydney, "Green" was in fact
posting from the same Tucson ISP as Caldwell. A "see also" link to
Caldwell's Blavatsky Archives website appears prominently at the top
of Green's site. The two share a literary style that includes
relentless rhetorical questions and extensive quotations from primary
sources. They share a narrow set of obsessions, mostly attacking
Theosophical and related organizations other than the Adyar TS. In
addition to literary style and subject focus, Green and Caldwell
created websites that are remarkably similar in appearance, which can
be judged by comparing them; here is Caldwell's: <>

Google shows 82 appearances of the email address <>, every one of them in posts on Theosophical
subjects within a period of about three years. One clear difference
between Green and Caldwell, however, is that Green was regularly and
overtly hostile to individual Theosophists in the ULT; e.g. these
remarks to and about Dallas Ten Broeck and Jerome Wheeler: <> <>

Another notable feature of Green's activity was his complete disdain
for reformist critics of the Adyar TS, who organized in the late 90s
as the Association of Concerned Theosophists. He presented himself
as Australian, residing in Sydney, wrote in a peculiar style in which
articles were largely absent, and always called HPB "Mrs.
Blavatsky." In general, he was contemptuously dismissive in tone
towards almost everyone, as in this post to Govert Schuller: <>

His hostility to the ULT even extended to Dr. James Santucci, accused
of excessive deference to ULT sensibilities, e.g.: <>

Occasionally a ULT member noticed something awry with Green, and
commented on it, e.g. Peter Merriott: <>

But no one ever seemed to connect the dots and suspect that Green was
a fictitious persona. His posts were often devoted to stirring up
antagonism, as evident in this post attacking HPB: <>

Here is an excellent article on Internet trolls, explaining the
phenomenon: <>

which helps explain the history of Theosophical cyberspace. Some
relevant points from the article:

"An Internet "troll" is a person who delights in sowing discord on
the Internet. He (and it is usually he) tries to start arguments and
upset people.

Trolls see Internet communications services as convenient venues for
their bizarre game. For some reason, they don't "get" that they are
hurting real people. To them, other Internet users are not quite
human but are a kind of digital abstraction. As a result, they feel
no sorrow whatsoever for the pain they inflict. Indeed, the greater
the suffering they cause, the greater their 'achievement' (as they
see it). At the moment, the relative anonymity of the net allows
trolls to flourish."

All this applies to Green and his "colleague" Caldwell, but there is
a big difference between the two in that Caldwell for many years
refrained from publicly attacking the ULT, while Green did so
relentlessly. Since Green disappeared from theos-talk, Caldwell has
gradually become more open about his hostility to the ULT. Another
difference is that Caldwell, more than Green, has been a practitioner
of the troll technique called "flooding":

"When a troll attacks a message board, he generally posts a lot of
messages. Even if his messages are not particularly inflammatory,
they can be so numerous that they drown out the regular conversations
(this is known as 'flooding'). Needless to say, no one person's
opinions can be allowed to monopolize a channel."

"I love a good fight" was a very telling line, and I suggest that
theos-talk deserves an honest explanation of the "good fight" waged
against the ULT by Mr. "Green."

Paul [Johnson]

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

[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application