Re: Membership decline
Dec 28, 1999 09:35 PM
> > And you seem to continually assert that you get fully informed in
> > advance about all manner of things,
> As do many members.
And many members do not. He knows who he has to cultivate.
> > have absolutely no difficulty at all
> > not only getting John Algeo's ear,
> As do many members.
And many members do not.
> > but having him magically listen to
> > almost everything you say,
> As he listens to whatever anybody has to say, as long as they say it to
Many people have attempted to communicate with him and been completely blown
off - in fact the complete unresponsiveness of Headquarters was one of the
things that lead to the formation of ACT. He listens to those like you ...
who, if I remember correctly, at one time was making excuses for his lack of
responsiveness by saying he was too busy. Curiously that he's too busy for
some, while simultaneously being quite willing to listen and interact with
> > and adopt half of your suggestions.
> You claim I make an assertion that I have never made. Do not do that.
> You wouldn't like me if I got angry.
I could care less whether you get angry or not. You can keep making your
points, I'll keep making mine. You want to bring this whole issue up again,
fine, I'll continue to vigorously assert my point of view. What mood that
happens to put you in personally is your business. You have asserted, over
and over, (two or three times just in the last few days in fact) that you
contacted John Algeo directly, had interactions with him, pointed things
out, and even had him then immediately change things ... all the while
accusing ACT of not bothering to ever mention things to him, and using
yourself as an example of how easy it is to bring points to his attention
and have things done. An assertion you never made? How about ...
"... the second was to call John Algeo, who informed me that the omission
WAS an error, that with all the complaints on this list nobody had bothered
telling him about it before I did, and arranged to have the wording changed
back before the ballots went out."
After members of ACT *had* attempted to convey deep concerns they had about
bylaws changes to John Algeo and other Board members, and certainly didn't
have the nice congenial response you did - they pretty much stopped
"bothering" to even try. But trying to simultaneously use yourself as an
example of how easy it is to interact with him and even get things changed,
at the same time as trying to say you made no such assertion ... and even
threatening to get mad (what a hoot) ...
You're still attempting, after all this time, to say that this was solely a
matter of *presentation*. That if only ACT had been nice and polite and
cordial the points you judged as being valid would have been openly listened
to, perhaps even acted upon. And I'll continue to say BS. He had things he
simply *intended* to do. You got an apparently warm welcome and he
immediately changed something - that he apparently did *not* intend. But ACT
was aiming at stopping a lot of things he *DID* intend, that had to do with
asserting power and control where he has *NO* right to it (I notice you
*still* don't really want to touch *that* issue) - and I suspect that if it
was something he *DID intend to do - and you called him, brought it up, had
him decline to make any changes, then persisted and brought it up again and
again ... that perhaps you'd find his responsiveness diminishing rather
rapidly as you were moved from the "supporter" category to the one called
"potential threat". -JRC
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application