Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2007 03:11:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: dicconf <dicconf at radix.net>
To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at KeithLynch.net>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: Slander
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at KeithLynch.net>

On Fri, 1 Jun 2007, Candy Madigan wrote:
> At 09:15 PM 5/31/2007, you wrote:
>> Candy Madigan <candymadigan at mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>> No, that is not what you were told.  You were told that Elizabeth
>>> had to kick you out of a party when it was time to go and that you
>>> argued with her about it.  You were not an uninvited guest, you were
>>> simply a guest who didn't leave when told to do so.

Okay, here he's "not uninvited" - so no question of crashing anything.

<snip>
>> But of course it makes no sense that she would suddenly become upset
>> with me three years after my alleged offense, given that she had
>> invited me over at least twice since the last event at her place that
>> I didn't leave in the middle of, and at least once since the last
>> event at her place that I attended at all.
>
> No, she did not "suddenly" become upset.  It's just that she finally
> decided to no longer allow you to crash her invitation only parties.

What "invitationonly" party is being talked about?  The last I heard,
the party was on the open party board at Balticon.  Was it marked on
the board as a closed party?  (I didn't even look at the party board,
so I genuinely don't know.)

> Different set of circumstances, and I told you *that* too.  There were
> people staying the night at her house.  You have frequently been among the
> last to go at my house, but everyone was asked to leave when you were asked
> to go.  At her house, you were asked to go when you were the last WSFAn
> there.  You argued with her about it.  *That* is what she is so upset
> about.
<snip>

>> mike.nelson at seahunt.org wrote:
<snip>
>>> Two other people were still present when Elizabeth asked you to
>>> leave.  When Elizabeth explained that the two other people were
>>> staying overnight, you allegedly insisted on staying since you felt
>>> the event had not ended yet.  Apparently, Elizabeth had to strongly
>>> insist that it was time for you to leave.
>>
>> I trust that everyone here realizes that this would be grossly out of
>> character for me.  Not to mention that I haven't been to her condo
>> since 2004.
>
> This happened at the last 5th Friday she hosted which was in 2004.  *You*
> are the reason she no longer hosts 5th Fridays.

It seems odd to me that it would take three years to bother to mention
it, and then to do it in such an upsetting way.

>> "Lawhorn, William - BLS" <Lawhorn.William at bls.gov> wrote:
>>
>>> To all readers please note that this is an issue between
>>> individuals.  This is not a WSFA issue.  WSFA does not condone
>>> our actions nor have any say in them.
>>
>> I posted this to WSFA, not because you and Elizabeth are WSFA members,
>> but because you and Elizabeth are WSFA *officers* (or will be starting
>> tomorrow).  You are the public face of Capclave 2009.  I'm not a WSFA
>> member, but I most certainly am a Capclave member.  I've been a member
>> of every Disclave and Capclave since 1980, and I'd like to continue
>> to have a friendly and pleasant con closer than Baltimore or Richmond.
>> I, like many others in and out of WSFA, have worked very hard for
>> years to make that possible.
>>
>> I hope club members think real hard about whether you are really the
>> face the club wants to put on Capclave.  It's not as if Capclave could
>> afford to lose any more members.  Or as if your irrational outburst in
>> your party can be kept secret from fandom.

Over the past two years I believe I have observed - how to express
it - a few oddities in how some people express themselves in WSFA
and at Capclave.  At the 2006 Capclave, for instance, there was a
party advertised as "fancy dress".  From my reading of British and
American novels of the twentieth century, I knew that "fancy dress"
means "costume party", which is rather different from "formal dress".
I was rather surprised to find that a large percentage of the people
attending honestly believed that "fancy dress" meant "formal dress",
which is a usage I have never come across before.

>>> Now at Ravencon, what you failed to notice is that everytime you
>>> entered the parties there, Elizabeth left.  Yes, she left her party
>>> so she didn't have to be around you.  She has been doing that for
>>> quite a while now.
>>
>> I didn't notice, because it didn't happen.  I recall having a pleasant
>> chat with her at Ravencon.
>>
>> If she has been avoiding me because of something I did or failed to
>> do at a Fifth Friday she hosted three years ago, do you have any
>> explanation as to why she only started doing this recently?

I think that is a valid question.  However, I also think there may
be a difference in point of view involved.

>>> The sign I posted on the party board for flyers had a 9:00-?
>>> Notation.  Guess what "?" can be 9:01.

That has nothing to do with the incident at all.  A party-ending
time is for everyone, and has nothing to do with either of the possible
situations: either a poorly-marked private party or dis-inviting one
person out of the entire convention membership invited to an open
party.

>>> [...] our private party [...]
<snip>
>>> "This is the first time in 28 years of going to cons that I've
>>> ever been asked to leave an open party."  Fandom is generous and
>>> forgiving.

Now which was it?  Private, or open?

>>> I will add that Elizabeth stopped having full WSFA club events at
>>> her home because she didn't want to cause a problem.  I was at the
>>> party in question, ...
>>
>> Then perhaps you can tell me what date it was.  If it was three years
>> ago, why was I invited by Elizabeth several times since then, and why
>> was Elizabeth open and friendly to me as recently as last month?

Again, I believe that this is a reasonable question.
<snip>

>> I will probably be at this year's Capclave, as I have
>> told others I would be there (though I may leave early if I'm made to
>> feel unwelcome).  2008, I haven't decided yet.  2009, I definitely
>> will not attend if you're in charge.  2010 and later -- if you're in
>> charge of 2009, I doubt the question will even come up, as I doubt
>> Capclave would still be around.
>
> Oh for Ghod's sake!  Grow up!  Your personal issues with Bill and
> Elizabeth do not matter to anyone but you, Bill, Elizabeth, and
> apparently to me.
<snip>

Keith has a point, in that Bill and Elizabeth are (now that it's
after midnight) officers of WSFA and will be running Capclave.
I have noticed some oddnesses about the communications at Capclave
and I find that my choices of where to spend my time, effort, and
money may well be determined by some of the things I am observing
here on this email list.

I should probably mention that, since I only ever attended one
or two WSFA meetings and I think they were over ten years ago,
I doubt that I would know Bill or Elizabeth if I tripped over
them.  I do know Keith.

=Tamar Lindsay