Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 07:40:18 -0400
To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at KeithLynch.net>,
   WSFA members <WSFAlist at KeithLynch.net>
From: "Mike B." <omni at omniphile.com>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: Gilliland Fliers
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at KeithLynch.net>

At 10/25/2006 01:23 AM, Walter Miles wrote:

>   "January 6, 2006.  ...Walter Miles... [others] formed a small clique
>   of WSFAns refusing to attend first Fridays at the Gillalands..."
>
>   The tone of these suggest that I conspired with or acted on the
>   instruction of others.  I did and said the things that my conscience
>   required.  I came to these decisions on my own.

I wasn't mentioned, but I did stop attending 1st Friday meetings at the
Gilliland's, so I guess I'm part of this "clique".  I've never been part of
a "clique" before, so the novelty might be nice, but unfortunately, I too
came to the decision on my own, for my own reasons, and didn't discuss it
with anyone else (though I did inform a couple of people of the reasons,
they just nodded and that was all the "discussion" there was).

I reached the decision after Alexis handed out his first "flyer" and the
reason had to do with my aversion to telling someone they are behaving
badly in their own home, while I'm a guest there.  Alexis and Lee seemed
intent on provoking me into doing that, so after trying to get Lee to see
things differently (she seems to be the cause of all this...Alexis was, I
think, just being supportive of his wife), without success, I removed
myself from the situation.  I wasn't happy about it, as I've always liked
Alexis and gotten along well enough with Lee and I've had fun at WSFA
meetings at his home back in the 80s as well as recently, but I completely
understand the need to relocate the meeting.  If similar problems had come
up with any other host, there would have been no delay and far less
discussion involved with relocating.

>About the rest of the flier:  I wonder if anyone on this list feels
>that half of the details are correct?  Or that a quarter of the
>characterizations of personalities or motivations are remotely
>reasonable?

I still haven't read the second half, but so far I don't see much that is
accurate or fair.  There is missing information, incorrect information, and
attributions of motives that make no sense and which Alexis can't possibly
have any actual knowledge of (i.e. it is just assumptions stated as fact,
and then used to assume more facts).  It would seem that Lee and Alexis
have convinced each other that their version of reality is true, and that's
sad, but I doubt they are interested in anyone trying to correct it.

-- Mike B.
--
A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking.