Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 08:12:33 -0400
From: Samuel Lubell <samlubell at verizon.net>
Subject: [WSFA] WSFA and hosts
To: WSFAlist at WSFA.org
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>

At 03:54 AM 10/18/2005, you wrote:
>At 07:58 PM 10/17/2005, Ted White wrote:
> >samlubell at verizon.net wrote:
> >
> > >  Let's please not use the calls to end the infighting as the bell to
> > >  start round three (or perhaps three thousand).
> > >
> > >  I spoke to the Gillilands yesterday. They are not excluding any
> > >  paid-up WSFA member from the meeting part of WSFA meetings. That's
> > >  true for the Madigans as well. And Ted, I specifically asked about
> > >  you since I believe you currently are a paid-up member.
>
>This addresses only the smallest and least significant part of the matter,
>which may be why it's the simplest one.  Ban someone from a place where we
>hold meetings, which have been traditionally open to everyone, and get away
>with it because they're not a member?  Okay, make them a member.  Which is
>exactly what was done when this red herring came up.

The club obviously cannot require the members to get along.  We can
and do ask that our hosts allow all WSFA members to attend the
meetings.  As I said, this is not a problem. I checked at Capclave
and no WSFA member is being excluded.  If some members choose not to
attend, it is by their own choice.  So far, I've not heard any real
options for an alternative meeting place.  Both the Gillilands and
the Madigans, like previous hosts, are extremely generous in allowing
us in their homes once a month, preparing the place and the food,
and, all too often, cleaning up the mess we leave behind.  It's a lot
of work and Alexis has been doing this for decades.

> > >  We don't all have to be best friends, but I think we can all get
> > >  along with each other and work together as long as we remember that
> > >  our fellow members are human too and have feelings that can get hurt
> > >  and brains that can misfire, make mistakes, and sometimes fail to
> > >  understand what we intended to mean.
> >
> >Sam, you're being a Pollyanna.  I don't think that, much as you'd like
> >to, you can paper this over and pretend the ugliness and viciousness
> >revealed don't really exist.
I'm hardly a Pollyanna.  I'm a pessimist.  But I like WSFA and I
think it is worth preserving.  This means, as in any social
interaction, making compromises so we don't all kill each other.

>Sam, Bob, and Michael, I understand why you keep asking that people shake
>hands and play nice, that you're afraid that this could kill WSFA.  There's
>no "could" about it: this is killing WSFA.  Paper it over again and we'll
>have nothing left.
>
> >It's time for you to stand up on your hind legs and give Lee an
> >ultimatum: She does not *own* WSFA.  The Gillilands do not have a lock
> >on WSFA's Virginia meetings.  It's time to move them and allow the
> >Gillilands to be WSFA members like the rest of us, free to come and
> >depart when they feel like it, but having no fiat over who else may attend.
Again, they are not doing that.  Every WSFA member can attend every
WSFA meeting in either location.

>An ultimatum from the President would have the advantage of resolving the
>issue, as we'd be promptly kicked out by the Gillilands.

I'm not sure I understand what this ultimatum would be.   Either you
_______ or we'll move, but what would go in the blank?