Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 18:54:33 -0500
From: "Mike B." <omni at omniphile.com>
To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at KeithLynch.net>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: Good last-minute save, WSFA
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at KeithLynch.net>

Keith F. Lynch wrote:

>> The site gets updates as needed...the event listing shows currently
>> upcoming events, such as twice-monthly meetings, with directions on
>> how to get there, ...
>
> Yes, it lists upcoming meetings for the next 7000 (!) years, with no
> indication of when it was last updated.

Perhaps it's being updated from 7000 years in the future?  Some internet
router may be sending packets cross-time or something.  (I wonder if I
just triggered a story...).

> Don't members need to know the minutes of the previous meeting?

No, not really.  Part of every meeting is the Secretary reading the
minutes of the previous meeting.  Some do this in more detail than
others, but anything that isn't clear can be queried as needed.

> I did put the minutes of any meetings not yet in a WSFA Journal at
> minutes.htm.  I see that that page is still there, and has been
> updated since I left.  But it contains, not the minutes of the last
> meeting or of the last few meetings, but the minutes of a meeting
> in June -- and not the most recent June, i.e. it's 20 months or 40
> meetings behind.

Sounds like it should be removed.  As a volunteer webmaster who has a
full-time job and other activities, I can easily understand how this
sort of thing happens.  The MCHOG site had a link to the previous year's
state rally for months after the event happened...and it wasn't noticed
by me at all...I had no reason to look at the links page, so I didn't
look there.  The available time for site maintenance was completely
consumed, and more than consumed, by calendar updates, changes in
people's e-mail addresses and other frequent work.  It got fixed when a
member noticed it and sent me an e-mail.  Took 60 seconds to fix once I
was made aware of it, but since the links page has very little on it (at
H.O.G. National's request/demand), I don't look at it much.  There are
some parts of every web site that get looked at and updated frequently,
and other parts that get set up and forgotten until someone points out
an issue, or there's a general site re-design (which is VERY infrequent
when you aren't paying the webmaster for their time).

> This is exactly what I mean by the appearance of abandonment -- pages
> that are neither updated nor taken down, but are left in limbo as if
> everyone had just vanished in the middle of dinner one day like on the
> Mary Celeste.

Is there a link to that page anywhere on the site?  I've never see it,
but haven't looked either.  If there's no link, it's unlikely to confuse
anyone who doesn't have reason to know it's there (like a previous
webmaster).  If there is, it should get removed or used...no question
about that.

>> I was not blaming you for their leaving.  Leaving was their choice.
>> You were involved to the extent that you were their main target, ...
>
> No, Ted White was.  He was the only person they banned.  And the only
> person to be denounced in every one of their letters.

Ok, I won't argue whether they targeted you or Ted more.  You can have
second place if you want. ;-)

> Arguably, they ceased hosting WSFA as soon as they banned him.  If a
> host picks and chooses which members can attend, he's not hosting a
> meeting.

That point did come up in discussing why the first Friday location had
to change.  The Gillilands said that nobody would be banned from the
business meeting, but some would be from the social time
afterward...that was not seen as an acceptable arrangement by the club.
   A number of people voted with their feet prior to the club acting as
a whole. Anyone can ban whoever they like from their house, but WSFA's
rules require that meetings be held where all members are free to
attend, so if a potential host won't allow a member, they can't host a
meeting.  Rules can be changed, but that one seems reasonable as it is.
  The only exception might be that disruptive and certain other
problematic behavior can get you ejected....or even arrested.

>> I can admit that not everyone likes everyone else all the time,
>> and that there are some people who might well benefit from therapy
>> and/or a lot of serious introspection to improve their ability to
>> deal with others (you and me included), but this is fandom, and
>> people with various kinds of non-functionality are the majority of
>> the population.
>
> I disagree.  Most fans are no more non-functional than anyone else.

I just call them like I see them.  I see all sorts of coping behaviors
and patterns that cause problems (as determined by complaints from the
individuals involved about how their lives are going).  Such are not
restricted to fans by any means, but fans seem to have this to a greater
degree in larger percentages than in the population at large.  Given how
most have been treated by the population at large, this is not at all a
mysterious outcome.

Just for clarity, by "non-functional" I don't mean they need to be
institutionalized or put under supervision.  Most can take care of
themselves well enough not to require anything like that.
"Sub-standard-functional" might be more accurate for what I'm referring
to.  On the up side, fans tend to be a lot more tolerant of this sort of
thing in others than the general population is.

> In every large organization there may be people whose idea of fun is
> making others miserable, and whose only way of building themselves up
> is to tear others down.  But WSFA is the only organization I've ever
> been associated with that seems to knowingly and systematically place
> such people in positions of honor, trust, authority, and responsibility,
> and keep them there despite knowledge of their character.

You say this like WSFA seeks out such people to elevate to positions of
authority.  You were in WSFA long enough to know how it really works.

Just like in politics in general, there are two kinds of people who seek
office: 1) selfless, dedicated and generous people who want to make a
difference, serve others, and do their part to make things better, and
2) power-hungry people who want to lord it over others and force their
will on everyone for their own gratification or profit.  You may
disagree, but I'd say that WSFA has very few of the later types, and the
ones we might have had have been pretty benign.  Had this been
otherwise, they wouldn't have been in office long, of the club would
have dissolved decades ago...fans are too intolerant of that sort of
person to let it continue long without either replacing them or leaving.
  I think this is a result of fans being smarter than average and the
way the mundane world has treated most of them through their
lives...they aren't going to stand for it in fandom.

> But publicly
> stating that I or any other innocent person is dishonest, violent, or
> creepy, that's way over the line, and no, I'm not going to give them
> any consideration or kindness.

Dishonest or violent probably get covered under character assassination,
and there are laws about that sort of thing, so you aren't the only one
who feels that way. Society as a whole agrees with you.

"Creepy" on the other hand is more a statement about how the speaker is
affected than about any actual aspect of the person referred to.  Just
like with more positive judgments, like "attractive", "kind" or
"cuddly".  Most people recognize this as a subjective judgment, not an
objective fact, and will reflexively make their own judgment about it.
It's not a factual statement, it's an opinion...unlike "he's a liar" or
"she's a thief"...which can be objectively determined as either true or
false (at least in theory) and are not merely a matter of opinion.

There are obviously people you refuse to associate with...you've said as
much more than once.  I presume this is because they make you feel some
way you don't wish to feel...angry, annoyed, uncomfortable, or whatever
it is.  Should your publicized opinion (whether by stating it or through
your flagrantly avoiding them) that they are "annoying",
"discomforting", or whatever be reason for you to be shunned?  If not,
why should their claim that you are "creepy" be different?  It's just
how you make them feel...and obviously others are not affected in this
way, so it's not anything inherent to you, it's the interaction of you
with the person having that opinion, and so reflects on them at least as
much, if not more, than it does on you.

Why this situation exists could be due to lots of things...your
mannerisms, your resemblance to their strange uncle Charley when seen in
just the right light, a brain tumor they haven't detected yet, their
being sheep-like and going along with an opinion of someone else that
they are trying to get closer to, or lots of other things.  I suspect
that everyone is "creepy" to at least one other person on the planet, at
least some of the time, as well as being interesting, cuddly or other
things to at least one other person on the planet at least some of the
time.  Opinions vary, and can sometimes be influenced.  There are even
songs written about how wrong opinions like these can be at times...Koko
Joe, by Jerry Reed, for instance.

One thing I've noticed that makes folks, especially mundanes, want to
avoid others is when expected social interactions don't happen in the
right order, or at precisely the right timings, or when specific things,
like eye contact, maintaining personal space, etc. are missing.  Some of
these are cultural, some are personal, and tolerances vary, but when
tolerances are exceeded, people feel uncomfortable, though they can't
always say why.  Note that I'm not saying any of those particular things
apply to any one in particular...they are just examples I've seen at
different times over the last 5 decades.  There are plenty of other
factors in addition to these.

Certain types of incompatibilities in this sort of thing are often
characterized as "creepy", especially by women.  Others are "rude", or
"clueless" , or "weird", or "disconcerting" or various other terms,
depending on what's not meshing well enough and the vocabulary of the
person making the judgment, but theres a desire not to interact more
than necessary in such cases.  When everything meshes well, the
characterization is more like "comfortable", "nice", "pleasant", and
there's a desire for more association.

People are weird.

>> You might have a bone bruise.
>
> I doubt it.  It's still painful when I walk, but less so.  There's no
> pain at all when I'm off my feet.  There's no swelling.  There is pain
> in my leg when I walk, which is obviously due to my basically walking
> on tiptoe on that foot to keep my weight off my heel, which stresses
> my leg muscles in unusual ways.

Glad it's not a bone bruise, and that it's getting better.

>> The ISP may be needed to get your domain un-blacklisted if that
>> happens.
>
> There's not much they can do about it, any more than someone else's
> ISP can get me to remove something from *my* blacklist.

When Verizon blacklisted mchog.com for sending the same message to more
than a few Verizon customers (it was our monthly newsletter, sent to
those who had asked for it to be sent to them...Verizon is particularly
brain-dead when it comes to e-mail...which is why I don't use them for
e-mail...just DSL connectivity), our ISP, pair networks, had to contact
Verizon and swear that they didn't permit spamming by any of their
customers.  That got Verizon to unblacklist us...us telling them that
the message was to an opt-in list was of no interest at all to Verizon's
  minions.  It took pair networks doing so again to get us whitelisted a
month later when Verizon blacklisted us again for the same reason.  Like
I said, brain-dead...nothing there but primitive reflexes.

>> Have you got SPF records on your domain?  Those are sometimes used
>> to detect fake addressing so that spammers who do this can be routed
>> to the bit bucket more easily, and no bounce generated.
>
> My procmail filters catch nearly all of the blowback.  Unfortunately,
> that means they also block legitimate bounce messages.

Check out SPF records...they aren't for you to detect spam of the sort
you are having problems with, but for others to recognize messages
purportedly from you as being spam.  I.e. if a message is sent with an
envelope from that purports to be your domain, but from an IP address
that is not listed in your domain's SPF record, it is spam and can be
dumped without a bounce.  Not enough mail servers check SPF records, but
those that do get to reject a lot of spam, and don't bother innocent
folks whose domains are hijacked and referenced in spams.  Another
reason I don't use Verizon for e-mail...they don't know what an SPF
record is, and can't provide me with a list of mail server IPs so I can
add them to SPF records.

-- Mike B.