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

Re: officers

Dec 23, 1999 01:27 AM
by hesse600

On Wed, 22 Dec 1999 07:48:40 -0500 Bart Lidofsky
<> wrote:

> 	An organization also needs workers who try to help it grow. If you are
> a worker but not an officer, you are a dedicated member. If you are an
> officer without being a worker, you are a good officer. If you try to be
> both, people suddenly become suspicious, and think you are trying to
> take over. Once they think that, they will do everything, honorable or
> not, in their power to stop you.
Let me see if I understand what you are saying...
Are you saying that one cannot be a dedicated worker and an
officer at the same time? I mean, perhaps our definitions
are different here, but isn't an officer a worker? I know
in Holland our present *president* is also a worker and is
trusted so much that she also gets payd. The rest of the
officers (national ones) are workers also usually in their
own lodges. Maybe this is because Holland is so small
that only the president (or national secretary) has a full
time job of it?


> 	What I realized is that the only difference between what happened to
> Alan and what happened to John Algeo is that John had a strong,
> organized body of support and was willing to use it.
Yes, that is possible. Allan, could you help us here? Was
your expulsion from the English TS(Adyar) also caused by
you not having a national network including *the right
people* ?


[I wrote before: ]
> > I am not sure that that is the way to go, because, someone
> > has to do it. I mean, officers have a dirty job, but it has
> > to be done, no, or do we want a TS in which the people who
> > do not know the pitfalls to be presidents and
> > vicepresidents etc.? I mean, the organisation needs
> > officers.

NHL Leeuwarden

[Back to Top]

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