The difference is the "only" which I never said. That answers most of the previous post as well.
You are taking the position that the philosophy should be separated from the behavior found among its adherents. That sounds sort of like calling Islam a religion of peace.
I am not familiar enough with Islam to make an opinion one way or another. I have seen various quotes, and my Arabic is less than basic, so I have to rely on translations, all of which are interpretations. But why are you going there. Are we lacking cases in Jewish history: פרנקיסטים - which IIRC the בעש"ט himself was involved in a ויכוח against them, ש"ץ ימ"ש, קראים, Christians, etc. etc. all of which claimed to be true Jews. And להבדיל on the other side you have: שיטת המוסר, מקובלים, or some educational methods such as זילבערמאן, etc. etc.
Please try to objectively apply my methodology (unless you can explain why it is wrong) to any of those and to Chassidus. Is my methodology flawed by any measure?
If it is the philosophy which would naturally lead there then the behavior and the philosophy are one and the same.
I am not denying that, but you are assuming that the philosophy naturally leads to a certain behavior. The Alter Rebbe obviously disagrees, and along with some other Chassidic leaders of his time attempted to stop what he saw as unacceptable.
Do YOU feel that toras hachassidus hasn't changed and is the same now as it was 250 years ago?
Did the Torah Haniglis change since ששה סדרי משנה were codified by רבי יהודה הנשיא?
What about the behaviors? Have those changed over 250 years or remained the same?
That is not a question that requires an answer. It is only a question of those that תואנה הם מבקשים. It is totally irrelevant to the question of whether the חרם had any merit based on my suggested methodology.
The historians seem to pin a portion of the reasoning to fear of Sabbateanism which is certainly a fear of where it would lead.
Which is why I kind of started off this discussion with my statement about the benefit of retrospect of over 200 years of history. Additionally, using objective analysis, proper חקירה ודרישה etc. would have produced other conclusions.
Regarding the siddur, I will not be able to prove it, but I have actually seen it in Eretz Yisroel. I do not remember what the siddur was called and will not be looking for it. I understand that it would be an extreme fringe element. Either believe me or don't.
Please state what you saw and where you saw it?
My status here has been only that of asking questions. I have not given any opinion (I guess other that saying it would be naive to believe that the cherem had no effect at all on chassidus). Much of the reasoning being used to convince me is that I need to prove that there were changes due to the cherem. I only mentioned that as a possibility which would mean that the condition of chassidus today with the existence of the cherem cannot be used to prove that the cherem was wrong. That is simple logical reasoning. There has been no logical reasoning to counter that.
Bringing up a certain line of thought, which doesn't stand up to objective analysis - as per my methodology which you haven't refuted, is akin to giving an opinion.
Where do you see a lack of logical reasoning in my methodology?