Theos-Talk Archives (December 1999 Message tl00257)

Bart wrote (to Alan)

> 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.

Accepted.
>
> 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).

Is this the small print?

> > 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

That was not now it read.
>
> > 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.

There are degrees of victim?  I don't think so.  The extent of the
actual victimization may vary, but however we look at it, there is no
justification for a theosophical organisation (at *any* level) to
victimize it's own members or elected officers, of which *I* was one
at the time.

Your story below demonstrates all too clearly, to my way of thinking,
how "brotherly" theosophical lodges can be anything but "brotherly" or
"theosophical."

I first studied theosophy (TS brand) in 1956, and learned a great many
useful things that have sustained me throughout my life.  If that were
not true, I would not bother with this list, which contains some fine
people as subscribers.  My problems only began when I actually
*joined* the wretched organization in 1989.  So thanks, HPB and your
successors for your input into my life (including those of you who got
things wrong) but no thanks, successors, for what you did with the
foundation HPB and her contemporaries laid down.

All of the false accusations against me were instigated by an ES
member.  Very many letters of protest to the then Gen. Sec. of the
English Section (another ES member) were ignored.  They could not,
however, ignore voices on tape, and the instigator was forced to admit
to the crime at the ensuing lodge AGM, at which - owing to the
pressure upon her - the Gen. Sec. had to chair.  I, however, was *not
allowed* to attend or speak at the same AGM as by then I had
transferred out of lodge membership to "unattached" - the same as
"member at large" in the US.  I had done this in order to protect my
TS membership itself, which was also under threat.  I must have been
crazy to want to keep it.  And HPB must have been crazy to set up an
Esoteric Section.

I have nothing against theosophists gathering together for mutual
benefit, study, and discussion.  What is NOT needed is a pyramidal
hierarchy.  Maybe theosophical groups could become syndicated, bit
individually autonomous, but that's another discussion - might revive
ACT!

> 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 definitio
ns
> 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

I hope your lodge watches out for  *their* attitudes.

Alan
http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/