- ... Why then address this as if I was wrong in a reply to my post? ... Jones never attended the conferance and thought as the correspondence between him andMessage 1 of 65 , Jan 31, 2005View Source--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Frater Uranus <frater.uranus@g...>
> I don't seem to recall this being a rebuttal to you but I could beWhy then address this as if I was wrong in a reply to my post?
> wrong. It has been about four days since I wrote this...
> It was my understanding that after the Weida conference that JOnes,Jones never attended the conferance and thought as the correspondence
> Traenker AND Hirsig withdrew support for AC.
between him and the relevant parties show it to be frankly a waste of
time. As such he never signed the statement that some of those who
Traenker withdrew his support of A.C. as world teacher (adn obviously
as OHO as he later sat himself up as a OHO. Before this however he did
accept AC's claims to being OHO as appointed by Reuss which made his
original nomination of A.C. as O.H.O. moot and never realised), as did
Mudd and Hirsig several years later(after first trying to deal with
thelema without Crowley) but again this has nothing to do with the
point of my post.
> You said they elected him OHO, not World Teacher. I pointed out theNo I said they nominated him as OHO, which they did in the letters and
> problem in your statement.
correspondence which even you would have access to if you had
bought/read Saint Peter's Noch Mehr Materialen zum der OTO or simply
asked the source of Peter for them as you do know him I believe (scans
of them have circulated since before Saint Peter published them anyway
and they have been referenced several times by Marlene Cornelius and
others on various discussions on LJs). Your comment about zzzz wrong
answer just clearly shows you did not read very carefully what I
wrote. It was also me who first pointed out in this discussion that
the Weida Conference dealt with getting a World Teacher on the foot
against what Crowley perceived as the "Krishnamurty-cult". If you read
the letter you replied to a bit more carefully you can see that I
adressed this very issue, so why you are confused as to whether or not
I was aware of this I am not sure.
> I tire of OTO and OTO arguements. Lets talk magick.Then bring up magick subjects (like your circle post) and do not reply
to discussions that are academic at best, moot at worst >;)
I am still not quite convinced that we actually crossed wires, but it
is not a big deal in any case, all best :)
- 93, ... I refer the right honourable gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago: The only point I made was that David R. Jones was wrong to say that thereMessage 65 of 65 , Feb 1, 2005View Source93,
--- In email@example.com, "henriebenholt"
>I refer the right honourable gentleman to the reply I gave some
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Ian Rons" <ianrons@y...> wrote:
> > > Then why bring it up?
> > I didn't -- you brought it up in order to disagree with me about a
> > point I hadn't made, and I pointed out that I hadn't said anything
> > about the OHO office.
> Go reread the letter I originally replied to and you will see it was
> you who brought it up and I who called you on it.
"The only point I made was that David R. Jones was wrong to say that
there were procedures regarding expulsions which Reuss would have had
to have followed (unless one considers whatever By-laws were in force,
which might be relevant if anyone knew what they were)."
> > My general position, as I have said previously, is that there is noYou have misunderstood my post again -- I was responding to the fact
> > hard evidence that Crowley was expelled by Reuss or that Reuss
> > appointed Crowley OHO."
> > Evidently you are wrong.
> How so?
that you accused me of making "negative remarks" about the content of
people's posts on every occasion when people disagreed with my
opinions. I quoted that post as evidence against that, so when I said
"evidently you are wrong", it had nothing to do with the issues
surrounding OTO at all. Please re-read the post:
where you will see I have made it quite clear.
> There exist no such letter indicating it, only a littleNone of those comments apply to what I have said. What I have
> article from Christian Bernard of which we have the english
> translation of the danish translation of the original english, where
> part of a letter by Reuss to Crowley is quoted which mentions no such
> thing. A vague reference to Clymer was given in order to support it,
> which noone has given the title and the page or even the quote form
> the book it is purporting to be from. I on the other hand have quoted
> amply from Clymer on the subject where he clearly states that Crowley
> succeeded Reuss as O.H.O. So at the very least, if we were not
> entitled to it before (which we were), we should get the title, page
> and quote that indicates that Clymer changed his position later. No
> such thing has been forthcoming despite me saying that it was possible
> and pleading for the reference. All the surviving leaders in the
> O.T.O. seems unaware of any such purported letter of expulsion or even
> the expulsion itself and all of them at one point or other accepted
> A.C. as O.H.O. Why should we think such a letter or action took place
> if everyone is unaware of it and the letter some people here thinks
> proves his expulsion says no such thing.
repeatedly said is: "My general position, as I have said previously,
is that there is no hard evidence that Crowley was expelled by Reuss
or that Reuss appointed Crowley OHO."
I don't see what you find to disagree with me about.