One example of where you are wrong, I openly protested against using Melton's 1986 encyclopedia article about the DLM as a source for Wikipedia because a better source (Wim Haan's article) was available. I used to be skeptical of Anton Hein's characterizations of Melton as a 'cult apologist' but after I read Melton's book about "Ramtha's School of Enlightenmemt", I openly protested on usenet (alt.support.ex-cult) against Melton's charicatures of critical ex-followers of NRMs (apostates). But still, unlike Anton Hein, I would like to remain civil with him and keep the line of communication with him open. I think that Melton has done good things in describing cults/NRMs, though I think that he is unrealistically uncritical.

Before I come to the conclusion that Melton was bribed by the Family/Children of God, I first want to hear his version of the story.

Another example, I said and I will continue to say that there are people who were involved in SSB and not harmed but that does not make my verdict about SSB positive or a "cult apologist"; I do not want to overgeneralize from my own bad experience. How can I be a cult apologist when I was myself seriously harmed by a cult? I cannot deny my own experience.