Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 13:57:53 -0500
To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>
From: Elspeth Kovar <ekovar at worldnet.att.net>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: Minutes of the November 5th meeting are online
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>

Sorry to be running so late with this.  I'll try to skip the parts that
have already been answered.

At 05:01 PM 11/12/04, Keith F. Lynch wrote:

>Elspeth Kovar <ekovar at worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>Fixed.  You did say "we," and I was aware of it, but couldn't figure
>out a graceful way of phrasing it, since the others weren't named.
>I've changed it to:
>
>   Elspeth said "we" did a walkthrough of a newly built Marriott near
>   White Flint [The Bethesda North Marriott Hotel & Conference Center,
>   which opened November 1st] ...
>
>I considered phrasing it something like that in the first place,
>except that the quotes might be mistaken for "scare quotes," which
>might lead some to wrongly believe I was expressing skepticism.

Good point.  How about "we did a walkthrough . . . "?

>My editorialization drive also sneaks in via words such as "claimed"
>and "pointed out".  I've ruthlessly turned all such intrusions back
>into "said," even though that may make the minutes a little more
>tedious to read.  "A said this, B said that, C said some other thing."
>(If I've missed any, someone please tell me.)

You've been doing an excellent job of trying to keep out the
editorialization, and using square brackets to do the clarifications works
well.

> > "Elspeth has adopted a new Seal Point Birman cat."
>
> > I've adopted her, but she's not here yet.
>
>Understood.  That's why I used "adopted" rather than "has," which was
>the word I used for Steve's cat.
>
>That was the sentence that took me the longest to write.  Mainly
>because I had to view several sites on breeds of cats to figure out
>what you were saying, how it is spelled, and which parts of it should
>be capitalized.  I had never heard of that breed before.

Oops.  Sorry about that one -- it was a spur of the moment
announcement.  In any event she's here, and purring in my lap as I
type.  We haven't figured out what her name is yet but she's an absolute
sweetheart.  If I make any announcement about her I promise to write it
down for you!

>Elspeth Kovar <ekovar at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > (And, for that matter, I think that the money didn't come from WSFA
> > but was advanced to the '05 Capclave.)
>
>Advanced for that specific purpose.  The September 17th minutes have:
>
>   Mike wants to spend $1000 at this year's World Fantasy Convention,
>   which will be in late October in Tempe, Arizona, to promote Capclave
>   '05.  The money will be counted as an advance to Capclave '05.
>
>Not that I see that it matters how it's counted, since it's all the
>same pile of money.

It is and it isn't.  IIRC -- and I hope someone can elaborate and clarify
this -- Disclaves were run with their own budget and bank account, with
each Disclave providing the seed money for the next.

>. . . I also see that they also hosted -- or will host --
>this year's World Horror Convention.  (They have a dreadful website.
>After ten minutes I gave up trying to figure out *when* that con was
>or will be.)

I think that it's already happened.

>I wonder how many people come to a con because of the pros.
>
>Of course there may be a positive feedback effect.  Maybe ten fans
>come to the con because of the pros, then twenty come because they
>know those ten will be there, then forty come to chat with those
>twenty...  And pretty soon we have a 4000+ person con, like Boskone
>in the mid-80s.

Gads, I hope not!  We don't have the staff for that.  But the positive
feedback effect is what I'm hoping for.

>The good thing about having lots of money is it gives us the freedom
>to experiment.  At the February 20th meeting, when we were being asked
>what do with our windfall, I suggested, only half in jest, that we
>keep holding Capclaves until the money runs out.
>
>History shows that we can recover from such doldrums.  One Disclave
>had just 22 (!) members, none of whom were pros.  A few years later,
>Disclaves had over 1400 people.  (For sufficiently large values of
>"a few years".)

In this case we're not recovering from the doldrums, we're trying to build
up a new convention.  (""But how can I have more tea when I haven't had any
yet?" asked Alice.")

Elspeth