Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 18:22:05 -0500
To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at KeithLynch.net>,
        WSFA members <WSFAlist at KeithLynch.net>
From: "Mike B." <omni at omniphile.com>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: Response to Alexis's Memo
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at KeithLynch.net>

At 02:51 PM 11/13/2005 -0500, Keith F. Lynch wrote:

>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.

This came up at the First Friday meeting.  Barry was there (and is here as
far as I know and can confirm or deny this) and was asked about it.  He
seemed a bit flustered, said he didn't remember doing so, but that it was
certainly possible that he signed Ted's application.  My impression of his
attitude about it was that if there was nothing out of order with it, it
wouldn't have been a memorable event, just routine, and that he was
surprised that it was an issue...but that's just the impression I got from
being there.

>Alexis and Lee both know a great many things that aren't so.

They certainly "know" my motives for bringing up the location of the next
First Friday meeting at the prior Third Friday meeting...and what they
"know" in that case is certainly wrong.  Alexis' description of this event
as a "passionate outcry" and his accompanying comments about possible
motives is both wrong and insulting as well as casting doubt on much of the
rest of what he wrote.  When someone is that wrong about one aspect, it
does make one wonder about the validity of the rest. Since the First Friday
meeting location question was New Business at Third Friday, it should have
been Old Business at First Friday, but I don't recall it coming up there.
Maybe at Third Friday.  The transition to a new Secretary to track such
things seems to be in progress...at least we had a temporary secretary for
the meeting.

>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.

At First Friday I believe Bob said he got the money, not Barry.  However,
that was made clear in the meeting, and Alexis had already written up his
memo before that, and just distributed it after the meeting.  I don't know
where Alexis got the idea that Barry accepted any money.  Even when a
trustee signs off on a new member application, I don't think it's normal
for them to accept the dues...that's not how it went when I re-upped (I
don't remember how it worked when I first joined...it was a long time
back).  I paid it directly to Bob.

>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"?

Alexis seems to be fixated on the idea that Ted is trying to force his way
back into their house, over their objections.  From that POV, Ted wouldn't
have been re-joining to be a member, but just to get around the Gilliland's
objections to his presence, and so "false pretenses" might apply if that
were the case.  As with several of the other claims in Alexis' memo, that
wasn't the case, as Elspeth's, Keith's and Ted's messages confirm.

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

No, I don't think that's what he's claiming.

>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.

I appreciate it being unmoderated.  Moderated lists generally die quickly
in my experience if much moderating occurs.  It was suggested at the last
meeting that there be a moderated list for WSFA, and I commented that if
there was, and if there were people who wanted such a thing, there probably
should be, there should also be a list that isn't moderated that contains
all the messages...the moderated one would just be a filtered version of
the unmoderated list.  It was also suggested that there be an
"announcements-only" list for those who didn't want the chat, and I agree
again that if there's a need for that, it should probably exist, if
someone(s) can be found to run it...it would just be a more severely
moderated version of the unmoderated list anyway.  Steve and Barry are
looking into all this.

>I never denounced Lee on the WSFA list or at Capclave.  In both
>locations, I only responded when other people brought up the subject.

The list archives will handle that.  I spoke with you a few times at
Capclave and I can confirm that you didn't denounce Lee in any of those
conversations, nor did you initiate discussion of the situation where I
could hear it.  What you may have done or not done when I wasn't around I
obviously have no knowledge of, but I didn't hear of such things from
anyone else either...for whatever that's worth.

>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.

I haven't heard any of those from Lee...though I did hear two of them from
Alexis a while back when I inquired why you and Lee weren't getting along
very well.  It was when I first started coming back to WSFA occasionally,
and before I rejoined, at a meeting at the Ginter's house.  Nothing I saw
of you before or after that time seems to fit with those accusations, so I
discounted them, and chalked them up to a misunderstanding between you and
Lee over interpretation of events...though recent events are making me
wonder if I shouldn't re-evaluate again, further in your favor.

>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.

I certainly haven't.  In fact, I think I could say pretty much the same
thing for everyone I've met in WSFA.

>And I
>have never had the slightest romantic or sexual interest in Lee.

I don't think I've seen a romantic or sexual interest from you toward
anyone or anything.  I'm not saying you don't have such, but if you do, you
keep them to yourself when I'm around at least.

>If she and I were the last two people on earth, our species would die out.

I'd say the feeling on that point is probably mutual.  Let's hope it
doesn't come to that, eh?  ;-)

>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.

Confirmed here.  I found his characterization of my actions there a bit
insulting, and certainly wide of the mark...though he didn't say who he was
talking about by name.

Prior to reading that portion of his memo I did speak with him about my
motives though...I wanted to make clear to him why I brought up the
question, so there wouldn't be any misunderstandings.  He kept repeating
that a host had the right to bar anyone from their home that they chose
to...which I never disagreed with, and went to some pains to agree with
explicitly in our conversation.  I also tried to explain, though I'm not
sure I was successful, that if a host barred any member from their home,
that WSFA would have to meet elsewhere, as WSFA's bylaws say that members
must be allowed to attend all meetings.

That was not, however, the reason I raised the issue of where the First
Friday meeting would be held...though it may be a reason to raise the issue
again as New Business if it isn't handled as Old Business at some point.
My main reason was that several long-time members have stated that they
will not attend any more meetings held at the Gilliland's house, and that
one of them is Capclave Present's chair...and having that person missing
from half the meetings is likely to interfere at least somewhat with club
business.  That seemed to warrant at least raising the issue for discussion
and decision by the chair.  It was discussed, a request was made to
investigate alternatives, the chair decided, announced the location and
time of the next meeting as required by the bylaws, and that was the end of
that for that meeting.  The following meeting was in fact held at the time
and place announced.

>I understand that Alexis has said that no paid-up members will be
>banned from the business part of the meeting.

He did say to me at First Friday that Ted was banned from his home though.
He seems to feel that Ted being banned before Ted became a member has some
effect on this situation.  I don't agree, unless someone can find something
in the bylaws to support this view.  If the bylaws say that members must be
permitted to attend, Ted is a member, and Ted may not enter the Gilliland's
home due to their prohibition on this, then the Gillilands have essentially
said they can't host meetings anymore.  Another way to put it is that WSFA
can not accept their offer to host under the prevailing conditions.

That's a choice they have every right to make, without question, and they
should not be denigrated for making it.  They've hosted far more WSFA
meetings than anyone else in history and deserve much thanks for this.  It
may well be Ted's choice not to push the issue, and let things lie as they
are.  He certainly has the right to decide not to go to a meeting where the
hosts don't want him, and to avoid the trouble this would cause and spend
the time more pleasantly with his band.  If not, and if the Gillilands
stick with their ban (and Alexis seemed vehement about it to me), then the
club will have no choice but to move the First Friday location elsewhere.
If that ends up being the case I hope the investigations into alternate
meeting locations in Virginia have been successful.  Given that Ted seems
to have been banned for nothing more than poor manners toward the Hostess
(ignoring for the moment that Ted seems to be denying the events in
question happened...I wasn't there so I can't say one way or the other),
this may come up again with someone else in future, so having some ideas
for alternate locations seems wise to me.

>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).

Confirmed.  I believe I suggested that as a possibility...and went on to
clarify that I was referring to one with a "party room" where we could meet
away from the rest of the clientele.  There's a regular Mensa event in
Frederick at a Pizza Hut that meets in such a room, and I've been to
several business meetings held in such places.  Generally if you fill
enough seats, and order food of some sort, the room is free of charge.  The
issue of closing time remains a potential problem though, unless we pick a
24 hour place like IHOP (no idea if they have private rooms...I suspect
they don't).

-- Mike B.