From: "Ted White" <twhite8 at cox.net>
To: "WSFA members" <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: Capclave
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 22:18:52 -0400
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sam Lubell" <samlubell at verizon.net>
To: "WSFA members" <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2004 9:50 PM
Subject: [WSFA] Re: Capclave

> At 09:20 PM 10/19/2004, Ted wrote:
> > > So let me get this straight. You sit back and take potshots but
aren't
> >actually interested in taking part in
> > > the process.
> > >
> > > Just what we need around here, more armchair critics.
> >
> >You're being remarkably defensive for someone to whom I offered a copout
to
> >begin with -- that other things might've been on your mind and taking up
> >your time.   You've responded to only one of the several criticisms
which
> >Keith and I offered -- the one on which you think you have the edge.
>
> There's a distinction between constructive criticism and personal attacks
> that I think we should all keep in mind.  Saying this could be better
next
> year if we do such and such is much more constructive than saying so and
so
> did a lousy job.
>
> Obviously, it's too late to change anything for Capclave 04 (unless
someone
> has a time machine they haven't been telling us about).  So let's focus
on
> ideas for Capclave 05 instead of attacking each other.

Sam, if you go back and reread my post that started all this, you'll find
no personal attacks at all.  As you know, I contributed a column of fanzine
reviews to the WSFA JOURNAL for nearly three years.  I offered my comments
on the program book in the same vein, and I regret that Jim has taken it so
personally and reacted with so much hostility -- to both Keith and myself.
I like Jim, and I hope that all of this is the product of other stresses in
his life and not reflective of him.

--Ted White