Theos-Talk Archives (December 1996 Message tl00441)

LACK OF SCHOLARLY TONE??   PERSONAL SNIDE REMARKS??  THE GOOSE AND THE GANDER??

Tim Maroney in a previous post has written that I have made snide,
personal remarks about K. Paul Johnson in my HOUSE OF CARDS
paper.  He writes of my "attack" on Johnson.  And now I see Johnson's
latest reply to Jerry HE.  All of this is really beside the point which is:
do my
criticisms of Johnson's thesis on the Masters M. and K.H. have merit?  Does
Johnson's thesis on these two Masters fall apart like a "house of cards" in
light of my criticisms?

But I really wonder if, for example, Tim Maroney is aware that POSSIBLY
some of the things he writes doesn't necessarily have a
SCHOLARLY/NEUTRAL/FRIENDLY
TONE to them?  I reproduce BELOW excerpts from a posting Maroney wrote
on Geoffrey Barborka's THE MAHATMAS AND THEIR LETTERS.  Could some
of his comments about Barborka be viewed as "personal attack" or "negative" or
"snide"?  Do these comments reflect negatively on Barborka?  Do these comments,
in effect, make "fun" of Barborka, of his "gullibility", of his "naivete"?

"Barborka seems to delight...."  "credulously recounted [by Barborka]"
 "Barborka is very impressed...."   "Probably the most embarassing
passage is. . .where Barborka breathlessly asks. . . ."  See fuller excerpts
appended at the end of my comments.

What if I had used Maroney's choice phrases on Johnson?  Would
Maroney or Johnson have criticized me for such language?
Would Maroney, Johnson, Bain, or Crocker have complained about
MY tone if I had written:  "...Johnson almost seems to delight in ignoring
the contrary evidence to his position or thesis"?

I am not trying to create more "negativity" on Theos-l and Theos-Roots.  I
have no desire to carry on any further "argument" with Johnson,
Maroney or any one else on these side issues.  Such arguments lead
nowhere.  But I do believe there is some truth in the saying that goes:
"What's good for the goose is good for the gander."  (Is that the correct
wording?)

I also  believe the ISSUES about Blavatsky and the
Mahatmas raised by Johnson, Maroney and myself need to
be seriously addressed and discussed.  Unfortunately, such a discussion
may not take place on Theos-l or Theos-Roots in the near future.

Daniel Caldwell

>Date: Thu, 14 Nov 96 23:04:29 -0800
>From: Tim Maroney <maroney@apple.com>
>To: <theos-l@vnet.net>
>Subject: Barborka: "The Mahatmas and Their Letters"
>...........

>. . . .Barborka almost seems to delight in ignoring all the
>well-known contrary arguments to his positions.

>He never considers that Blavatsky's aunt might have assisted her in some
>minor tricks with letters, for instance, and dismisses Blavatsky's own
>possible authorship of the de Fadeyev letters based on nothing at all. . . .

>The famous Sinnett brooch incident is credulously recounted [by Barborka]
>but the reader finds not one word about the major contrary detail . . . .

>Barborka is very impressed by the spiritualistic "raps" which Blavatsky
>could produce at will.... Wasn't it the Fox sisters who made their raps by
secretly
>cracking their toe knuckles. . . .The reader will search in vain for Barborka's
contribution to this decades-old debate.

>Probably the most embarassing passage is on page 41, where Barborka
>breathlessly asks the reader to "imagine how any of us would have felt to
>have had a handkerchief produced for us from within another handkerchief
>before our eyes!" The answer, of course, is that we would feel we were
>witnessing a conventional, if not trite, feat of legerdemain.