Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 11:51:03 -0400
From: Ted White <twhite8 at cox.net>
To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: Lee; WSFA
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>

Mike B. wrote:

>  At 07:41 AM 9/29/05 -0400, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
>
> > I would hope that every WSFAns would spring to the immediate public
> > defense of anyone who was unjustly attacked. The fact that this
> > didn't happen is one reason I'm going to call for this vote.
>
>  As a WSFAn who didn't jump into this, let me explain why that might
>  be.
>
>  - Blowups are not uncommon in WSFA. Most die out quickly...unless
>  others get involved, in which case they often get bigger and can
>  result in secondary explosions.
>
>  - It's *really* easy to be misunderstood in e-mail, so discussing
>  things at the next meeting, in person, is generally wiser.
>
>  - While I was interested in seeing the movie, I never heard for sure
>  where it would be, or exactly when, until after the event had
>  happened, so I had no idea what the ticket situation was, who said
>  what to whom, or any of the other relevant facts. All I know about
>  the situation is what's been posted here, and that consisted of a lot
>  of mysterious overreactions and two very different versions until
>  Mike Walsh put his info into the mix and at that point it seemed like
>  the facts were settled...if not the feathers.
>
>  - Knowing something of the personalities involved in this, but little
>  of whatever past history has led to the overreactions I was seeing
>  here, it seemed unwise to jump into the middle of it, particularly
>  since I had no firsthand knowledge of the facts anyway.
>
>  - As you say, this is supposed to be fun. Jumping into the middle of
>  a feud is never fun, unless maybe you are a masochist. It may be
>  necessary at times, to preserve the fun environment, but it isn't fun
>  and should not be undertaken unless armed with solid facts and an
>  understanding of the *real* issues underlying it...which I didn't,
>  and don't, have.
>
>  I hope that clarifies why there wasn't a general rush to get involved
>  in this a bit. I can't say if those reasons apply to all, but they
>  were mine. Others can join me, state their own, or continue to remain
>  out of this as they choose of course.

A very sensible post, Mike.  I didn't "jump in," but I did post a mild
statement that I'd heard/seen no "lies" here -- and not much else,
either (which you more or less echoed above).  In return I received an
off-list threat.  I think a lot of us tend to walk on eggs around Lee.
That this looks like a lack of support to Keith is regretable, if
understandable, and I've tried to explain this to Keith.  I've urged
him, without success, not to insist on this vote of confidence/no
confidence.

>  Personally, I think you do a great job as secretary. You are
>  meticulous about the details, prompt with the work involved, don't
>  allow emotion to get in the way of accurate reporting of events, and
>  are reasonable about discussing matters if there's disagreement.
>  That pretty much defines "great club secretary" to me.

Agreed.  A vote of no confidence would be WSFA's loss.

>  You, like pretty much all members of WSFA (me included) or fans in
>  general for that matter, have what might best be referred to as an
>  "unusual" personality. This results in a high tolerance level for
>  unusual personalities in fandom...if there wasn't a high tolerance
>  level for this, fandom would have imploded decades ago. It might be
>  good if everyone refilled their tolerance prescriptions so they can
>  see past the differences and concentrate more on the things we all
>  have in common again.

Again, very sensible.  We can only hope your advice is followed.

--Ted White