From: "Ted White" <twhite8 at cox.net>
To: "WSFA members" <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: Capclave
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 00:17:06 -0400
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Kling" <jkling at nasw.org>
To: "WSFA members" <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2004 11:25 PM
Subject: [WSFA] Re: Capclave

> Tuesday, October 19, 2004, 10:18:52 PM, WSFA members wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> Ah, well. I don't hold grudges very well. Ted, I like you and respect
you, though you have a confrontational
> way of expressing yourself that rubs some the wrong way. For example, I
considered your description of my
> choice of font as 'inexplicable' to be condescending, and it irritated
me. I chose the font becuase I felt it
> was easier to read, and because I was including a lengthy story in the
program book, I felt that this was an
> important consideration.

I believe that it has been shown that proportionally-spaced fonts
(typically Times New Roman) are easier to read.  They can save up to a
quarter of the space occupied by text, over a fixed-space font like
Courier.  But of course I have read a great deal of typewriter-generated,
fixed-space material, from the fanzines of yesterday to a vast number of
manuscripts, and I'm used to reading "Courier"-style faces.   The most
readable column-width, for either kind of face, is around 3 inches --
narrower than the Capclave booklet's.   This is more important when lines
are single-spaced; the eye sometimes has trouble tracking back to the
beginning of the next line.

> As for your other criticisms, I did in fact consider them. I sent an
email to Hannah Shapero apologising for
> that gaffe (or was it Keith that pointed that out? I don't recall). The
use of the word 'errata' was simply an
> error on my part.
>
> Most of my concern was about your allegation that I violated Nick
Pollotta's copyright. That is something I
> take very seriously, and I believe it is not true. If your investigations
prove otherwise, please let me know
> and I will send Nick Pollotta an apology.
>
> Finally, I want to say that I appreciate the kind words you had Saturday
for Ivy and myself. It's a difficult
> time for us and the support is welcome.

I sincerely hope that this brings to a close this dispute.  We obviously
both have strong personalities, but I believe they can co-exist
comfortably.

--Ted White