KM wrote:

I think that the last part of [Skydell's] letter where [he] mention[s]
the "two camps" of the SSA is a little bit inappropriate. Mike H's
response further serves to drive a wedge in the SSA membership. This is
a pivotal time for the SSA and I feel the last thing we should be
doing is dividing the membership. The SSA should (And to a greater
degree is) be working to restore confidence and provide value for the
membership dollar.

Yes, I agree, the SSA _is_ working to restore confidence and provide value.

The divisions in the membership will hardly be widened simply by calling
attention to them. They do exist, but so often only because of some very
narrow thinking. There have always been some members and some non- or
former- members who have enjoyed taking potshots at the organization --
sometimes deserved, often not deserved, simply because they are negative
personalities. These are the types that I believe Havener agreed can be
done without, and who should be ignored as worthless and worse.

If you want a viable, valuable, SSA, then step up and contribute --
time, talent, money -- what have you.


Mike Haverners childish rant was completely inapropriate and I am
surprised the SSA would alow it in their E News.

On rereading it I find it to be pretty harmless, but it sure has brought
the whole thing to the surface again, hasn't it? And, it's given us all
an opportunity to rethink any initially negative reactions to the need
for our assistance as the SSA restructures itself. An organization
doesn't build or rebuild itself. We do it. If some don't want to
contribute, fine -- the benefits of membership are deserved by those who do.

Those who think they can do better are always welcome to try. For some
reason there has been a dearth of contenders.


Jack