Theos-Talk Archives (September 1994 Message tl00095)

According to Jerry Hejka-Ekins:
>
>      You are playing with words.  There is what you meant, what
> you wrote, and what I inferred.  What you meant and what I
> inferred are equally valid interpretations of what you wrote.

HMMM.  What I meant, I KNOW.  What you inferred, you
INTERPRETED from an ambiguous phrase.  There's an important
difference here.  And a message for me as well as you (which
Eldon recently pointed out.)  Before rushing to punish someone
for what you interpret him/her as having meant, it is best to
make sure that your interpretation is correct.  This would save
a lot of wasted energy and hurt feelings.  I will try to
remember this in future and not shoot from the hip as I feel
you have done.
 My
> inferences, (or any one else's for that matter) don't come in a
> "void."  They are based upon our whole history of interchange.
> Your last postings were intent upon showing Judge guilty in this
> poison letter incident.
This is a reading of motive (intention) that is absolutely
wrong.  I'm by no means intent of showing Judge guilty; I was
intent on showing that HSO did indeed refer to the poison
question.  My focus in what I am writing is Olcott's motives
for arranging such an elaborate journey through India with
Besant.  The Judge case will receive a paragraph or two as
background for the main part of the section, an account of the
trip.
  I offered evidence that raised questions
> to your conclusions, and you responded by speculating upon
> further evidence that if it exists, would support your original
> premise.  When you came back with your third hand information and
> declared that you original premise "seems credible" again, I had
> every reason to infer that you were re-asserting it without
> backing it up with no more evidence than a third hand report.
Despite the fact that I explicitly stated that I was pursuing a
specific lead about where the passage in question could be
found?  Again, shooting from the hip on the basis of a
misinterpretation of my motives.
>
>      How can you possibly write on the Judge case without access
> to such a basic, vital and primary document as this?  That's
> almost like researching the holocaust without taking Hitler into
> account. I can think of a half dozen people (all of whom you
> know) who would have provided you a copy of this document if only
> you had asked.
As stated, I did not set out to write "on the Judge case."  I
am writing on Besant's journey through India.  The Judge case
came in as background material.  After reading Nethercot, I
realized I needed to find more on the "poison letter" issue and
started looking through ODL.  You dissuaded me from thinking I
would find anything there; Herb revivified the search.  When I
found what HSO wrote, THEN I realized that it pointed to yet
another source I needed-- Garrett.  As a librarian, the first
course of action that occurred to me was to get it on ILL, not
survey my friends to find out who might have it.
>
>
>      And if Michael Gomes tells you that he has no information
> that can help your case,
STOP treating me like a prosecutor out to convict Judge!  My
intent is to shed some light on the circumstances of Annie's
journey.  What Annie and HSO interpreted the Judge/Morya
communications to mean is far more important to that question
than whether they were right.  Thanks to you, and Herb, that
part of the investigation is pretty well complete.
 are you going to conclude that he is
> hiding information from you?

This is a gratuitous attack on my psychological state-- an
accusation of paranoia.  Which I may have in some cases but not
regarding Gomes.  I was told by a friend that MG had reported
finding evidence in the Adyar archives that was damaging to
Judge, but refused to elaborate.  Therefore, I thought he might
choose to withhold material because he was planning to publish it
himself in some future work.  He doesn't owe it to me to share
his findings, although he has already been quite generous.  If he
says he has no information that can help me, I'll believe him.
But what I expected was that he would just decline to reveal the
alleged discoveries.
> > PJ> What I will say in the book, and to
you here, is that the
> > specifics of the threat are far less relevant to my inquiry
> > that the fact that it was made.
> > No evidence has been shown that such a "threat" was ever
> made.
But Jerry, you just provided the evidence! A telegram threatening
"grave danger" followed by a letter from Judge and another
allegedly from M., making it even clearer that both were warning
Annie not to go to India because of some unspecified harm that
might befall her.  I call that a threat-- it was certainly
effective in changing her behavior on the basis of evoking fear.
Garrett, reporduces the text of the letter and shows that
> the words "poison" or "poisoning" do not appear, and to infer
> this from the text was really far a out thing for them to do.
> With all of the evidence to the contrary, how in the world can
> you conclude that a "threat" was ever made? Because
> you provided the evidence.
>
> PJ> Which means either that M,
> > through Judge, was genuinely warning Besant to stay away from
> > Olcott, or that Judge was producing fraudulent letters to
> > dissuade Annie from going to India (look at the power struggle
> > of the time for clues as to why) or-- maybe-- that the letter
> > wasn't a genuine Mahatma letter but also not deliberate fraud--
> > self-deluded mediumship.  The latter seems somewhat less
> > credible than option 2, because of the self-serving
> > implications of Annie's believing it and thus remaining more
> > allied to Judge and less to Olcott.
>
> The only thing that has so far been documented in this
> discussion is that Besant received letters asking her not to go
> to India.  Whether the letters are genuine, fraudulent, talks of
> poison etc.  is all speculation on your part that goes far beyond
> the evidence.
>
All I did above was sketch 3 logical possibilities and suggest
that one of the three seemed more likely than another.
Speculation, yes, but clearly such.  "Seems somewhat less
credible" sounds speculative as all get-out to me.  But to avoid
your buzz saw in the future you can be damn sure I'll NEVER leave
out those two crucial words "to me."
> I hope that this message clarifies things so that we can get
> back to productive work.
Agreed.