Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 19:13:24 -0400
From: Ted White <twhite8 at cox.net>
To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: Beyond a Great Con...
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>

Michael Nelson wrote:

>  --- Ted White <twhite8 at cox.net> wrote:
>
> > It was more than a joke getting out of hand. The joke simply
> > revealed the tip of a large iceberg. And that iceberg is the
> > behavior and attitude of one person -- WSFA's loose cannon. Either
> > this attitude and behavior is curbed (which seems unlikely) or WSFA
> > needs a new Virginia meeting place. She cannot be allowed to
> > dictate, on her own personal
> > whims, who is and who is not welcome at WSFA.
>
>  I apologize for not including your own involvement in the current
>  mess, Ted. I did not mean to trivialize it. I was trying to disarm
>  one ticking bomb at a time.
>
>  Article II, paragraph 2 of the WSFA bylaws states:
>
>  ARTICLE II
>
>  Membership and Dues
>
>  2. Members in good standing shall have the right to attend and
>  participate in all meetings of the membership, hold office and vote.
>
>  and
>
>  C. Revocation of Membership
>
>  1. A petition to revoke any membership may be presented in writing
>  at any regular meeting.
>
>  2. It must state the grounds and be signed by at least fifteen (15)
>  members and be communicated to the member concerned at least ten (10)
>  days before the presentation of the petition for action.
>
>  If someone agrees to host WSFA meetings at their home, they should be
>  aware that these meetings must be open to all WSFA members. If the
>  current personal conflicts cannot to be resolved privately, perhaps
>  we do need to find a new First Friday meeting space. I don't know
>  what else to do. WSFA meetings must be open to all members.
>
>  On the other hand, what are the rights of the hosts? Requesting that
>  young children be supervised during meetings lost us two long-time
>  members. But I did support the request since I'm the parent of three
>  kids and I disapprove of parents who let their kids run wild at
>  meetings and conventions. But ignoring the WSFA bylaws and banning
>  members because of personal dislikes is overstepping the role of WSFA
>  meeting host.
>
>  I don't understand the whole mess... I mean, Joe "Mr. Charm" Mayhew
>  was tolerated for years! [That was a joke.]

Well, I was banned for affirming Walter Miles's post.  Subsequently I
heard (third hand) that the "reason" for my banishment was that I "was
not a paid-up and current member."  Last Friday another WSFAn, having
heard this, paid my dues for 2005 (and has refused my reimbursement).

But I do not feel either welcome or comfortable in that house, and I
know that I am not alone in this feeling.

I am not a significant or very active member of WSFA, and I won't be
missed by many of you (although, since I joined in 1954, I am the oldest
surviving member who has attended recent meetings).  But there are
others, whose contributions to the club have been somewhat greater, who
will not return to the Gillilands' house either, in the absence of a
sincere apology from the hostess.

Considering the Real Work Keith Lynch has put into the club -- as both
Secretary and as webmaster/list-host for the club -- I would be
astonished if the club turned its back on him and his contributions.
The scurilous tales being told about him by the Gillilands are
completely false and without merit and indeed are delusional.  The
current situation is simply the latest eruption of this festering set of
delusions (in which Keith was blamed for Mike's joke, and called a liar
when he denied it).  I deeply regret that my old friend Alexis has
apparently bought into these delusions and is echoing them, although I
can understand why he has done so.

The club needs to deal with this situation in a way in which WSFA can
emerge whole and not rendered by schisms.  I think changing the venue
for the Virginia meetings is the obvious path to resolution, and I hope
this will occur.

--Ted White