Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 18:41:48 -0500
From: Ted White <twhite8 at cox.net>
To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at KeithLynch.net>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: New list (was Re: This list is... )
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at KeithLynch.net>

Mike B. wrote:

[...]
>
>  Sure, the "disenfranchised" could *choose* to attend First Friday
>  meetings (except for Ted, who has been told by the current hosts that
>  he can not...a problem that WSFA really should have addressed as a
>  high priority item weeks ago as it constitutes a violation of the
>  bylaws to hold meetings where *any* member may not attend. Note that
>  the Gillilands have a perfect right to bar anyone from their
>  home...but WSFA has a legal obligation to hold meetings at places
>  where all members are welcome, and if the Gillilands choose to bar a
>  member, then WSFA can't meet there...QED.), ...

You certainly bring up an interesting point.   It would appear that if I
was to force the issue (by showing up at the Gillilands') I could bring
it to a head and perhaps cause the Gillilands to give up their
stranglehold on the Virginia meetings.

In the abstract, this is something I favor.

But in reality, as it were, it would mean subjecting myself to no doubt
considerable unpleasantness (from two people who certainly know how to
be unpleasant when they wish to be), simply to advance a cause which is
just not that important to me. This is not the first slight I've
suffered from WSFA.  Periodically over the years I have confronted a
variety of WSFAns who spread and kept alive lies about me (the most
common:  that I stole the WSFA library).  The Gillilands' current lies
about me (none stated to my face) are just more of the same.  WSFA is
not the center of my fan-universe, and never was.  (I was an active fan
for three years before I went to my first WSFA meeting.)

No, this is not *my* issue.  It's WSFA's issue.  And if WSFA doesn't
care to take any action, then WSFA deserves what it gets.

--Ted White