Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 11:53:39 -0500 (CDT)
From: <samlubell at verizon.net>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: WSFA and hosts
To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>

>From: Ted White <twhite8 at cox.net>
>Date: Tue Oct 18 11:37:39 CDT 2005
>To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>
>Subject: [WSFA] Re: WSFA and hosts

>>
>> > 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?
>
>This is, to put it simply, a non-responsive reply.  If you continue in
>this vein I can *guarantee* you the loss of our secretary, Keith Lynch,
>and a probably schism as well.
>
>Is this what you really want?
>

I'm sorry you considered this a non-responsive reply.  It was meant as an honest question.  If we were to do what the original message advocated and present our hosts with an ultimatum, what *exactly* is it that we should be demanding they do?