Ian Cant wrote:

Yes, Jack, one little question: if a large majority,
let's say 11000 out of 12000 members, chooses not to
contribute to the Eagle fund, does that mean that the
bulk of the membership 'don't care' and can expect
at least verbal abuse from the SSA in the future?

Perhaps that kind of attitude is not conducive to the
long-term survival of the SSA. Perhaps there is a
better way to behave and to get things done both efficiently
and in a civilized manner.

I think the SSA has been very civil and very thorough in dealing with
this matter, overall. I see no verbal abuse from the SSA or from anyone
else printed in their mailings, e- or otherwise.

Whether the decision to print Skydell's and Havener's letters apparently
verbatim was wise or not is inconsequential. What I take issue with is
exactly the sort of vindictive anti-SSA attitude that both Skydell and
Havener have come out against, and from which the OP to whom I responded
is diverting attention by whining about the fact that differences of
opinion exist. If she has trouble with expressions of loyalty in the
rough and tumble of the public forum, perhaps some other activity that
requires neither loyalty nor even enlightened self-interest would be
more appropriate for her.


Jack