Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 14:51:38 -0500 (EST)
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl at KeithLynch.net>
To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at KeithLynch.net>
Subject: [WSFA] Response to Alexis's Memo
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at KeithLynch.net>

Yesterday, after I mentioned that I hadn't seen the memo Alexis
distributed on First Friday, someone scanned it in and emailed it to
me.  Thanks.  I won't name that person here, lest that person also
become a target of the Gillilands' wrath.

I'm responding to it here because many of you received a copy, and
because it contains false statements about me.

The complete archives of this list are available at
http://keithlynch.net/wsfa/list/ (and, at least temporarily, at
http://www.wsfa.org/list/).  They will confirm that Ted White, Barry
Newton, and I never attacked Lee Gilliland on this list.  (Start with
April 20, 2002, and with September 26, 2005.)  I did defend myself
when *she* attacked *me* without provocation.

Neither did I attack her, or witness Ted or Barry attacking her,
anywhere else, though of course perusal of the list archives won't
prove that.

Barry had nothing to do with Ted's membership renewal.  As far as I
know, he wasn't even aware of it.  Alexis's air of absolute certainty
that Barry signed off on it -- and took money for it -- is worthy
of note.  Alexis and Lee both know a great many things that aren't so.
Often things that involve believing the worst about long-time club
members.

Even if Barry had approved the membership, he would not have accepted
any money.  The treasurer gets the money, not a trustee, and it goes
directly into WSFA's account, not his own.

And the acceptance of money was not under false pretenses.  Is Alexis
alleging that Ted White, who was president of the club 50 years ago,
was never a member?  (Then, as now, our bylaws said officers must be
members.)  If not, then how is a membership renewal "false pretenses"?

Or is he claiming that Barry embezzled the money rather than placing
it in WSFA's account?

In fact, no cash was involved.  I asked Bob to cut me a smaller
reimbursement check for printing the October WSFA Journal at Staples,
$21.98 rather than $31.98, and he did so.  Check number 198.

I'm certain that Elspeth's motives in offering to pay for Ted's
membership were honorable.  She, I, and several others had been
"conspiring" to attempt to save the club and heal the growing rift.

This list is not unmoderated because of my insistence, but because
the majority of subscribers prefer it that way.  And because the vast
majority of subscribers have never needed moderating.

If this list had been moderated, I'm sure that Lee would have attacked
me for my moderation decisions.  The only messages I can recall
offhand that I ever would have blocked, had I been list moderator,
were some of hers.

Lee didn't "imply" that I was a liar, she outright stated it, several
times.  And continued to do so even after the person I supposedly told
there weren't enough tickets told her that I had never said anything
of the sort.  Instead of apologizing to me, she promptly changed her
accusation to something else.  And when I offered to play the tape of
the relevant meeting to disprove *that* accusation, she changed it to
something else yet again -- without even listening to the tape first.

I never denounced Lee on the WSFA list or at Capclave.  In both
locations, I only responded when other people brought up the subject.
And I only responded with the facts as I knew them.  I have not
speculated on Lee's motives.

Many people at Capclave had heard *something* -- not from me -- and
wanted to hear my side of it.  Was I supposed to remain silent and
let people believe false and defamatory things about me?

The "feedback from my audience" was overwhelmingly positive.  People
told me I should not resign.  Some even told me I should sue.  Not one
person said I should resign.  A number of people shared their own Lee
stories.  Several former WSFAns said Lee was why they had left the club.

Like them, I have left the club because Lee has made it unpleasant for
me to remain.  WSFA is supposed to be fun.  If it ceases being fun for
me, I stop going.  Also, I feared that my supporters might tear the
club apart.  I don't want to win at that cost.  I don't want to win at
all; I want to hang out with, and work alongside, pleasant, sociable,
and honorable people.

I also learned, at Capclave and elsewhere, that Lee has been spreading
malicious falsehoods about me behind my back for *years*, e.g. that
I'm madly in love with her, that I've been stalking her, that I hacked
into her computer, and that I've made threats against her.

As for "simple misogyny to unrequited love," I'd wager that no other
woman (or man) in WSFA has seen any sign of misogyny in me.  And I
have never had the slightest romantic or sexual interest in Lee.  If
she and I were the last two people on earth, our species would die out.

Alexis is quite certain of what happened at Third Friday, even though
he wasn't there, and even though his version doesn't correspond to the
meeting minutes, to what's on the tape (which I will gladly play for
any member), or, I would wager, to the recollections of anyone who
was there.

It's true that WSFA's bylaws don't say that hosts can't ban members.
Obviously, a host can ban anyone he likes, for any reason, or for no
reason at all.  However, if WSFA members are banned, the host is no
longer hosting WSFA.  If hosts can pick and choose which members get
to show up, they effectively have unlimited power in the club, since
they can stack any vote.  (Our bylaws disallow proxy votes.)

Hosts need not fear being stuck with a rogue member, since our bylaws
do contain a way to expel members.

I understand that Alexis has said that no paid-up members will be
banned from the business part of the meeting.  But people are not
likely to go where they know they aren't wanted, especially if they
have to wait out in the weather until the meeting is called to order,
and leave the instant it's adjourned.  And, judging by the allegation
of "false pretenses," he reserves the right to decide that some
members aren't really members.

I did not start or participate in the discussion of changing our
meeting location (except to remark that restaurants are too noisy,
when someone suggested such a venue).  But it's hardly surprising that
people would bring it up, since numerous members feel unwelcome at the
Gillilands'.  I don't know why Alexis wouldn't welcome a change of
meeting place, since he's obviously quite unhappy with many members.

I am dismayed that even my leaving the club hasn't ended the
Gillilands' campaign of libel and slander against me.  Perhaps they
are relying on their knowledge of my extreme distaste for the court
system to keep them safe from lawsuits.  And, indeed, I have no
current plans to sue.  But obviously I don't speak for anyone else
whom they have libeled or slandered.

The club owes Alexis a lot for hosting meetings at his house for 38
years.  This debt does not, however, give him the right to falsely
badmouth past or present club members.

Please feel free to print this out and give it to anyone who saw
Alexis's memo.  Thank you.