Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 12:04:48 -0400
To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at KeithLynch.net>
From: Candy Madigan <candymadigan at mindspring.com>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: David Dance?
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at KeithLynch.net>

At 09:53 AM 10/27/2006, you wrote:
>Candy Madigan wrote:
> > At 09:43 PM 10/26/2006, you wrote:
> >
> >>Candy Madigan wrote:
><snipped>
> >>
> >>Hey, we let it slide when they banned my son Steven from their house,
> >>and it just made them think they could ban lots of other people. I can't
> >>say that was all bad, because it did get us to rediscover BSFS (now
> >>hashing out a possible series of author readings, over on *their* list,
> >>by way of contrast) but I can't say any of us are happy about it.
> >>
> >>Had we known that taking on a developmentally delayed 2 year old was
> >>going to lead to banning Keith and Ted, we would have made more of a
> >>protest at the time. But Jack felt like the club was OK with telling
> >>Steven to leave, so we let it slide. Now I'm sorry we did.--Eva Whitley
> >
> > That was a slightly different issue.  Expecting parents to parent is not
> > unreasonable.  If the parents won't or can't keep a child under control
> > (i.e., reasonably behaved) then it is not unreasonable to ask them not to
> > bring that child.  Steven got nothing from the club and the club got
> > nothing from him.  It impacted you because you had to make a choice
> between
> > getting a sitter and not coming, but you still could have attended
> meetings
> > had you chosen to leave him behind.
>
>You assume that Alexis and Lee are right in that I wasn't keeping Steven
>   under control. (My memory is that I was doing a fine job parenting
>him, just like I did with David, but I could be wrong.) And we could
>have attended meetings at Stately Ginter Manor, too, but I think that
>would have compromised our point.

I assume that because of the time you dumped him on me for four hours while
you "paid the lunch bill".  Now, admittedly, one time does not make a
trend, but it does tend to lend verisimilitude to accusations of that sort.

>What Steven got from attending SF meetings was a very low key
>socialization with adults. Given how often we see our extended families,
>I think that was good for him. And given that initial diagnosis was
>later revised as high functioning autism (and, later, Asperger's
>Syndrome), I think having him in social setting where he was expected to
>behave was good for him.
>
>I don't think BSFS got anything from Steven when he was a toddler, but
>certainly having him attend meetings for close to a decade led to his
>interest in becoming more involved in the club. He's a department head
>at Balticon, and had we gotten him a sitter and left him home all those
>years I don't think he'd be as interested in running cons. --Eva

I'm sure it was good for him, and I'm glad it was good for him, but (and
correct me if I'm wrong) as I understand it, BSFS meets in a club house and
not in someone's home.  If I were in charge of hostessing in a club owned
facility, a poorly behaved child would not be nearly as upsetting as if I
were afraid they were going to trash my home.

Candy
(301)345-6635