Hi, Dave --

Dave Remine wrote:

 
> Al Heigl writes:
> "I am rather shocked at the content of your letter, as your previous one
> was worded so as to lead me to believe that the charges you mentioned
> were (finally) being brought against those current and former board
> members of Minnesota Mensa that have been maintaining a pattern of
> non-cooperation with, and outright harassment of, me as Minnesota"
> Mensa's Webmaster."
>
> How anyone could take my statement in the first sentence from my letter
> of May 10, 2006, "The Mensa Advocate, Guy Conti, has filed with my
> committee the charges of acts inimical against you." as anything other
> than YOU are the one being charged is beyond belief.

Maybe beyond *your* belief, which is continuing a pattern of limited
perspective on your part. (Analysis -- no denigration intended.)

> What did you think
> "against you" meant?

Well, Dave, it's a two-part answer:

The first 50% involves our relative command of the English language.

(Note: at various times I have earned a tidy dollar as a contract
proofreader, mostly in the area of computer user manuals, my most
notable client being Hilgraeve, creators of the HyperTerminal program
included within Windows for the last decade+. I read not only for
spelling and typos, but also for grammatical correctness and clarity of
meaning. Also note that I make my own share of errors, and it's hard to
proofread oneself.)

In properly crafted English, modifiers are to be placed near the words
that they modify; conversely, a reader encountering a modifier will tend
to associate it as modifying the nearest reasonable word. The farther
apart referents are placed, the less likely they are to be seen as
referents to each other.

The most extreme situation would be where an intended modifier, by
virtue of the sentence structure, actually modifies something other than
what would be intended.

Here's an extreme example: "Being of Italian descent, Benjamin's dining
table often featured a pasta-based main course." We might understand
the writer's intent, but in grammatically correct English usage, an
introductory modifying clause is applied to the subject in the main
clause. Thus, what this sentence actually says is that Benjamin's
dining table is of Italian descent.

So, to answer your question, I first extracted the information that,
writing from your perspective, Guy Conti had filed charges with my
committee. Further parsing of your sentence, to establish the nature of
the charges, yielded "inimical acts against you."

That's what you wrote, and I interpreted it in terms of the way in which
you wrote it. Guy Conti had filed charges, and the charges concerned
inimical acts committed against me.

I'm now sure that what you *meant* to write -- indeed, what you may have
thought you were writing -- was:

"The Mensa Advocate, Guy Conti, has filed with my committee charges
accusing you of committing acts inimical to Mensa."

But that's not what you wrote, is it?

The *other* 50% involves the circumstances of the underlying situation
here at Minnesota Mensa.

Dave, don't ever forget that *I* am the injured party here -- I am the
one who's been victimized and harassed, disparaged and lied about, over
the past four-plus years, primarily as retaliation for properly doing my
job as Minnesota Mensa Webmaster.

In fact, the Mensa Ombudsman has been investigating this whole situation
at least since April 21, 2005, when he sent me an e-mail advising me of
that fact.

So, combined with your choice of phrasing in the above-mentioned
sentence, I naturally thought that Eldon had finally joined me in
determining that one or more of at least these three things were
"inimical acts against Mensa" worthy of bringing charges:

  Retaliatory attempts to remove me as Webmaster, which was detrimental
  to Minnesota Mensa and also a likely violation of Article IX(3) of the
  American Mensa Bylaws.

  Willful failure to fully honor and implement the 8/10/02 written
  settlement agreement to which Minnesota Mensa was signatory, an
  abrogation of their duties as board members.

  Egregiously premature instigation of WIPO Case No. D2005-0068, a
  blatant violation of Article IIID of the Constitution of Mensa.

Given the way in which you constructed your sentence, combined with the
fact that I have done nothing "wrong" in carrying out my duties and
responsibilities as Minnesota Mensa Webmaster, combined with the fact
that certain past and present board members of Minnesota Mensa have been
guilty of infractions, I don't think it was anything other than
perfectly natural that I would assume as I did.

Plus, you also wrote "At this point there is no action required by
you." (Note: properly phrased would be "At this point, no action by you
is required.") I would have certainly thought that if *I* were the
party being charged, you would not be trying to lull me into inaction,
but rather requesting me to respond to the charges.

> It appears that not only do you ignore CERTIFIED
> mail and take an unreasonablly long time to open regular mail you don't
> read it with much attention to detail when you do finally open it.

No, as I've explained above, the problem was lack of attention to detail
when you wrote it.

> You write,

 
> "That would be interesting, if true, but I have no knowledge of this.
> Please have a copy of the charges as filed, the purported "evidence",
> and a copy of the policies/rules mailed to me ASAP. Preferably in an
> envelope identifying itself as having to do with Mensa."
>
> By copy of this I direct the National Office to send you ANOTHER copy
> of Mr Conti's submission. Please open it when it arrives.

That is very much appreciated, and I thank you for the gesture, at the
same time trusting that, in the interest of a fair and impartial
hearing, it is not just a gesture.

I will certainly open it immediately upon its arrival.

(Yesterday, Wednesday, 9/13/02, I checked the house mailbox and found
only a Charter Cable solicitation (we're probably the only house in the
neighborhood that does not have -- or want -- cable tv). The sign at
the Post Office says that mail is sorted to boxes by 10:30 a.m.; when I
went there at around 3:30 p.m. (*CDT*), the only things there were the
local paper and the current AARP Bulletin. I shall be checking again
today.)

However, I will quote once more from your "May 10, 20056" letter:

"It will take the HC some time to review all of this."

I'm sure from that that you will acknowledge the validity of my also
asserting that it will take me "some time" to review all of it, too, and
that it is not unreasonable for me to request some time in which to do
so before responding with a defense and refutation.

> That all said and done the Hearings Committee will meet by phone
> at 1:30 pm on 9/16/06 to discuss this case and reach a decision
> as previosuly stated.

Well, to quote Reagan, there you go again.

First, in your letter of 6/14/06, it was a "hearing in Minnesota."

Then, in your e-mail of 9/8/06, it was reduced to an "electronic
hearing" for which "Only the members of the Hearings Committee will be
on line" (violating Article IX (5) of the American Mensa Bylaws).

Now, you've downgraded it again to a conference call via telephone.

I suppose I should be thankful that you are making the road to Appeal
City into the equivalent of a 10-lane expressway, but, frankly, I don't
care for the grief factor that it costs me.

I don't have any enumerated right to be present at a conference call in
which the case is "discussed" although I would be willing to
participate, particularly if the discussion concerns adopting a revised
timeline for the actual hearing, giving me the time to review the
charges (as you wrote that the HC needed), to furnish the Hearings
Committee with a response and refutory evidence, and to promptly answer
any e-mail questions the HC may have over a reasonable period of time.

Should this conference call veer into any actual consideration of the
charges, much less reaching a decision, Article IX (5) of the American
Mensa Bylaws gives me the right to participate.

I certainly hope (and expect) that said conference call will be the
former and not the latter. The primary topic of discussion should be
balancing the costs (none) against the benefits (many) of postponing a
hearing on these charges (which I have yet to even read) for a
reasonable amount of time so that my guarantee of a "fair and impartial"
hearing can actually be implemented in actuality and not just on paper.

Sincerely,

Al Heigl

Webmaster,
Minnesota Mensa

--

Alan Heigl
Mill City Records
P.O. Box 177
Northfield Minnesota 55057-0177
507-663-6090
(Professional Proofreading,
Web Site Work using FrontPage/Expression)
http://www.millcityrecords.com/webwork/