Theos-Talk Archives (December 1999 Message tl00250)

Alan:

	I had originally planned to put this at the end of the post, but I was
afraid that you wouldn't read that far down, so I'm putting it here:

	1) While John Algeo WAS slandered (see below), the level of slander
against him was nowhere NEAR the level of slander against you.

	2) While the relative sizes and strengths of the detractors vs. the
protectors in yours and his case were possibly the major difference,
what I wrote could certainly be read as to minimize HOW much of a
difference this was.

	3) You suffered greatly and were entirely innocent; John Algeo WAS
guilty of some of the things being said against him and suffered not at
all (and probably grew a little out of the experience).

	The point I was trying to make, and failed miserably, was to use you
and John Algeo to show the extremes of the spectrum. Instead, I left the
impression that I thought that what happened to the two of you was more
or less equivalent. For that, I certainly apologize.

	Now, on to the details....

ambain wrote:
> HOLD IT RIGHT THERE!  What happened to me was that the local
> leadership did everything dishonorable
> in their power to stop me.  In this case it was dishonorable,
> slanderous, and as I have some of it on tape, libellous.

	Certainly slanderous; unless they put it on tape on purpose, however, I
do not believe it was libellous (not that it was true, but that it was
not published). It has not yet been legally determined whether things
like that said on the Internet are considered slander or libel; no case
has made it through trial yet (every case has been settled out of court
in one way or another).

> They had a strong, organized core committee to fight me.  When I quit
> 20% of the members (about half of the *active* ones) either quit or
> let their membership lapse.

	I think that was a point I made; the group slandering you was much
stronger than the group falsely accusing John Algeo, and the group
protecting you was much weaker than the group protecting John Algeo.
Also, most of the slanders against John Algeo were easily disproved (for
example, the statements that he was using TS funds to go around as a
National Speaker for electioneering purposes; while the purpose could
not be proven either way, he was able to demonstrate that he used his
own funds, and did not use TS funds for expenses). I could list quite a
few of the slanders against John Algeo, but then there'll be a bunch of
people who have only second-hand knowledge flooding the list with, "But
they were true!!!!", much like if the people who drove you out would do
if they were on this list and you were defending the accusations against
yourself. (This is not to say that ALL the accusations against John
Algeo were false; that is evident by the fact that he changed his
behavior in certain areas, such as the running of day-to-day affairs in
Wheaton).

> You read all the postings on this Bart, and I hope you will
> apologize - there is a HELL of a difference if you are the victim.

	If a person is falsely accused of a crime and thrown into jail, he is a
victim. If a person is falsely accused of a crime, and exonerated, he is
far less of a victim, but still a victim. Of course, all I have in your
case is my own opinion, with no first-hand knowledge, but your story so
closely matches patterns of false accusations I have seen in the past
that I have no doubt of the truth of your story. I, myself, have been
the victim of slander campaigns (and those who have participated in some
who are on this list know who you are).

	There was one particular area where I WAS guilty. For a period of a
year or two, I was virtually running the day-to-day operations of the
New York Lodge (those who were theoretically in charge either were
absent, or asked me to take care of things). During that period, I was
not doing great in my business life (and the two WERE related), and was
very happy that I was able to use my skill sets for something good. My
problem was that I ACTED too happy. The accusation was that I "walked
around like I ran the Lodge". Unfortunately, there are two definitions
of running a Lodge; one is keeping it going on a day-to-day basis, and
the other is making the high-level decisions. And my attitude caused
people who were not making the high-level decisions think that I was
making those decisions, overriding those in charge. So I changed my
attitude, and also found people willing to take over tasks.

	Bart Lidofsky