Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 12:37:39 -0400
From: Ted White <twhite8 at cox.net>
To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: WSFA and hosts
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>

Samuel Lubell wrote:

>  At 03:54 AM 10/18/2005, you [Elspeth] 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?

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?

--Ted White