Mr. Aveline is NOT the only person to use "ad hominem" arguments....
Jan 03, 2007 09:14 AM
Mr. Carlos Aveline is NOT the only person
to use "ad hominem" arguments and distractions....
Below is part of what I wrote almost 6 years ago on Theos-Talk
to Dallas Tenbroeck and Frank Reitemeyer:
Dear Dallas and Frank,
I know that both of you are sincere students of Theosophy. You have
both been helpful in assisting me from time to time on various
research concerning Madame Blavatsky. I certainly appreciate your
help. But I am concerned about how the two of you have characterized
the work of both Brigitte Muehlegger and K. Paul Johnson.
You may not agree with their conclusions concerning various alleged
activities of Madame Blavatsky. I may share some of your concerns and
views BUT why must we paint either one of them as bad people?
I've corresponded with both Brigitte and Paul and at no point have I
had any reason to conclude or even think that they are "bad" people
or that they are somehow "insincere". I assume that they are both
sincere seekers of truth. Why ascribe to either of them less than
If either of you truly disagree with what they say, and feel that
they have distorted the record concerning Madame Blavatsky, please
show the illogic, irrationality, etc. of their STATEMENTS about HPB
rather than suggest nefarious motives on their part.
Also Dallas I think it is really unfair to make the following
statement as you recently did:
"... I WISH TO PROTEST again in the matter of K. Paul Johnson's
book: 'THE MASTERS REVEALED' (1944). This book has been written for
sensational purposes and for profit. As far as I have been able to
determine it has not[h]ing of value in it."
However much I may have disagreed with Paul Johnson about his thesis
on the Theosophical Mahatmas, I have never got even the faintest
glimmer or suggestion that he wrote the book for "sensational
purposes and for profit."
It would appear that I have made more money off THE OCCULT WORLD OF
MADAME BLAVATSKY (1991) than what Paul did on THE MASTERS REVEALED.
Does that therefore cast me in a bad light, too? :)
I think Paul has had a genuine interest and desire to unravel
the "mystery" surrounding HPB's Masters. Having said that, I
certainly don't accept many of his conclusions and I don't always
understand his reasoning for those conclusions.
Dallas and Frank, if you see the fallacies in what Brigitte and Paul
have written about HPB, please present your facts and your reasoning
and refute their ideas and conclusions. This will be the constructive
route and will possibly help all interested readers gain a better
undertstanding of the issues involved.
In a rush.
Blavatsky Study Center
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application