Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2009 18:42:34 -0500
From: <lees103 at verizon.net>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: Good last-minute save, WSFA
To: "WSFA members" <WSFAlist at KeithLynch.net>
Cc: "Lee Strong" <lees103 at verizon.net>
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at KeithLynch.net>

    The reason why the WSFA website has no "WSFA Journals" more recent than
October 2008 is that the Secretary and his wife were physically ill for some
time.  What energy they had left over from getting well went into mundane
stuff like earning a living.  WSFA and WSFAns cut the man large amounts of
slack, and a series of volunteers took over portions of his fanac while he
was recovering.  He recently returned to WSFA and immediately announced that
a new Journal is in production.
    At least 18 people attended the most recent WSFA meeting and we had a
series of lively parliamentary discussions on several topics including
Capclave and the WSFA Small Press Award.  Several people vigorously
disagreed with each other's policies during the discussions and then chatted
amicably together over food and drink later.

     -- Lee Strong
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike B." <omni at omniphile.com>
To: "WSFA members" <WSFAlist at KeithLynch.net>
Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2009 11:58 PM
Subject: [WSFA] Re: Good last-minute save, WSFA

> It wasn't well stated, but I suspect that what was bugging Candy was the
> bitterness and sniping that keeps coming into your posts about WSFA.
>
> You did a lot for WSFA, and were more than fair in how you dealt with
> transferring things when you left.  Some WSFAns, most notably the
> Gillilands (who are no longer WSFAns either, due to actions on the part
> of WSFA that resulted from the way they treated you and their reaction
> to those actions), treated you very badly.  WSFA as a whole did not
> react as quickly as you demanded to that situation, so you've decided to
> blame the organization as a whole, and, at times, anyone still, or even
> newly, since you don't discriminate those who have joined since you
> left, affiliated with it, and you take frequent potshots at the
> organization when it doesn't meet your expectations.  You act as if WSFA
> and everyone in it thought the way the Gillilands treated you was just
> fine...when the facts clearly show otherwise.
>
> WSFA is a social organization.  People show up for fun.  They don't show
> up for strife, anger, yelling, accusations, or other unpleasantness.
> When that sort of thing happens, the first reaction of most people is to
> hope that it will die down on its own...which it usually does.  Ernest
> ticked me off royally a year or two ago through some actions he took in
> an official capacity.  My response was to request a change in club
> rules, which, after discussion and some amending, was done to everyone's
> satisfaction, and Ernest and I have spoken civilly on several occasions
> since then.  When things don't resolve on their own, the next step is
> generally to try to talk sense into the participants, to figure out what
> the problem is, and get it resolved.  That was tried too, but failed in
> your situation.
>
> Your situation with the Gillilands was not typical at all for several
> reasons.  It appears to have been caused by some actual irrationality
> for one thing, and for another it involved one of the club's oldest and
> longest standing members...someone who has done a great deal for the
> club over the decades...something even you have granted as true even
> after you left.  It isn't at all unreasonable for folks to be a bit slow
> in doing anything to hurt such a person...avoiding doing so until all
> other options have been exhausted...but that doesn't mean that the bad
> treatment wasn't noticed or was condoned...it was noticed and it wasn't
> acceptable.  That getting something done about it outlasted your
> willingness to put up with bad treatment that probably crossed the line
> into libel and slander is very regrettable, but to write and talk as if
> nobody objected or took any action is not fair.  There were people who
> tried to talk to Lee and Alexis about it.  There were comments made at
> meetings about the situation being a serious problem that needed to be
> resolved.  There were people who stopped attending meetings at the
> Gilliland's home...and who said why that was, in some cases to Alexis
> during the meetings as part of official business.  Eventually first
> Friday meetings were moved from the Gilliland's home to another
> location, over Alexis' strenuous objections...objections that resulted
> in his leaving the club when the move was voted to happen anyway...by
> the membership of WSFA.  The way that vote went was a pretty clear
> indication of what the club as a whole thought of the way the Gillilands
> had been acting, and how you were treated.  You'd already left, so it
> wasn't to try to convince you to stay...it was because the behavior that
> caused you to leave wasn't tolerable, and something had to be done to
> make sure it didn't happen again to anyone else.
>
> You are free to react however you like, and say whatever you like about
> anything, especially on your own listserve, but if you keep getting more
> and more bitter about what happened, it isn't going to make your life
> better, or result in very many people wanting to associate with you in
> future.  Candy's reaction, however stated, is likely to be reflected at
> least to some extent in others who get painted, even slightly, by your
> broad brush strokes.  The message that triggered her response had a
> similar effect on me, though I'm not ready to throw in the towel just yet.
>
> -- Mike B.
>
> Keith F. Lynch wrote:
>> "Catherine Madigan" <CandyMadigan at mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Could you please take me off this list, because I'm really tired of
>>> listening to you be an asshole.
>>
>> So I'm an asshole when I help WSFA, and I'm also an asshole when I
>> don't?  It's hard to believe that as recently as two years ago, I
>> cared what you thought of me.  You're one of the reasons I've never
>> returned to WSFA.
>>
>> I have unsubscribed you at your request.  Don't let the door hit you
>> on your way out.
>>
>