Dear Clif,

I left your e-mail unread for a couple of days, in the meantime working
myself into a nice stew over the continuing harassment I've been
enduring, and figuring whatever was in your e-mail would be more of the
same, and coming up with some delightfully wicked zingers I could fling
at you in return.

(Bear in mind that my main previous experience was with Jason Aquilino,
clearly not the sharpest knife in the drawer, and a thoroughly
unpleasant twit to deal with.)

However -- what I find is a message that, while I disagree with the
position you're continuing to espouse, is at least written in a
conversational and civil manner.

Clearly, as long as you are willing to discuss things with such a tone,
I can do no less.

"McCann, Clifton E." wrote:
>
> Dear Al,
>
> In response to your request for individual decision makers' names, I
> note that I'm acting on behalf of AML and not any particular individual.

That's a normal and convenient construct, but it isn't reality.  I could
say that I am replying to an e-mail from Venable, or an e-mail from AML,
but the reality is that I'm replying to an e-mail from Clifton McCann.

Like with government -- the headline says that Congress passed a bill,
but go to an inside page and you'll see that, in reality, the following
named human beings voted yea, and the following named human beings voted
nay.

(And a useful purpose for that is that, based on some human being's
votes in Congress, his constituents can vote the rascal out at the next
election, and put a different individual in.)

You are indeed actually acting on the request of some particular
individual(s).  I don't think you got a phone call that started with a
disembodied voice saying, "This is AML."  Nor did you get an e-mail from
AML@AmericanMensa.org signed Yours Truly, AML at the bottom.

(I suspect that my original e-mail of 6/29/2005 to
WebCoordinator@AmericanMensa.org was forwarded to Pam Donahoo, and it
was she who contacted you.  Or whoever.  It's still a particular
individual, and not AML per se.)

(I also suspect that someday, if this situation isn't resolved properly
and amicably and soon, all of this will hit the fan, and names will be
named, and particular individuals will be singled out for discipline.)

> AML continues to disagree with your position

Certain particular individuals within AML continue to disagree with my
position.  They are wrong.

> and believes it has dealt
> with this matter fairly.

Of course certain individuals will believe that.  To believe otherwise
is to imply that they have been unfair and will be called to account for
it.  This is true -- they have been, and they will.

> You indicate that you're aware of relevant
> Mensan decision makers who disagree with AML's position and may have
> views you'd like AML to consider.

I've re-read my previous e-mail to you (7/15/05), and I really don't see
where I made that particular assertion using those (or similar) terms.

> Please identify those decision makers
> since I'm sure AML would be happy to consult with them if it hasn't
> already done so.

First, you start your e-mail by declining to identify those individuals
who hold what you call "AML's position" and yet you ask me to identify
individuals who may disagree with "AML's position" -- that's hardly
fair or equitable.

You may be alluding to my ongoing belief that there *must* -- somewhere
-- be individuals in positions of leadership and authority within Mensa
who believe that:

  Treating loyal volunteers shabbily is a bad idea.

  Retaliating against a fellow member who disagrees with you is a very
   bad idea

  Laying a "kill the messenger" attack on someone who points out
   problems is an extremely bad idea.

  Mensa By-Laws are to be honored and not deliberately and blatantly
   violated.

  Local Groups who sign written agreements are obligated to honor those
   agreements and not let individuals try to sabotage them.

  Anybody in a position to work toward resolving a dispute is obligated
  to hear all sides of the dispute before taking any action or giving
  any opinion on the matter.

It has been my unfortunate lot to have dealt with a number of people
within Mensa who apparently believe exactly the opposite, or at least
seem to be acting on that basis.  I remain hopeful.

Whether you personally believe any of those six things I've just
mentioned is something I have yet to learn.

> We note your registration and use of mn-mensa.org.

Plenty more where that came from.

> As you know AML
> objects to your unauthorized trademark/service mark use of MENSA, the
> Mensa Logo, and derivatives thereof, including any use of MENSA as part
> of a domain name or web page in a way likely to cause confusion, to
> cause mistake, or to deceive.

I still don't see where Minnesota Mensa's website uses those things in
any of the ways you describe.  Every other Local Group website is doing
exactly the same thing.

> AML advised you of its objections to such
> use and other violations in its June 2004 letter, and those objections
> stand.

That's not true.  AML did no such thing.   I *did* get a mis-informed
letter of threats and harassment dated June 4, 2004, but it was from a
human being identifying himself as Andrew D. Price, and it was on
Venable LLP stationery, not AML's.  He claimed that "We" represented
AML, but did not claim to *be* AML.

Clif, let's briefly take a look at this "objection" and see if we can
find the justification for it, from "AML's" point of view.

For my source, I will use the AML member information found at
https://secure.us.mensa.org/members/only/logos.php, the relevant
paragraph being:

"I. Entities directly related to Mensa may use the logo or Mensa marks
in conjunction with activities conducted for the benefit of a local
group ..."

Now, let's see if we can establish a chain here.

1. Is "AML" claiming that Minnesota Mensa is not an entity directly
related to Mensa?  That would be absurd.

2. Is "AML" claiming that a local group's website is not an activity
conducted for the benefit of a local group?  That would be dumb.  Local
group newsletters (ours is Mensagenda) obviously fall into this
category, and so do local group websites.

3. Is "AML" claiming that a local group Webmaster is an unauthorized
person?  Again, pretty dumb.  It doesn't take a Mensa-level mind to know
that conducting an activity requires at least one human being to do said
conducting.  For the newsletter, it's the Editor; for the website, it's
the Webmaster.  Since I very much doubt that "AML" has been notifying
all the other local group Webmasters that they are not authorized to use
Mensa logos and marks on *their* local group websites, this argument
fails, too, as singling me out from all the other local group Webmasters
would violate a Mensa By-Law.

("IX(3) Every member shall have the same rights and privileges accorded
every other member, without qualifications or limitation."  I believe
it's a reasonable extrapolation that:

  Every LocSec shall have the same rights and privileges accorded every
   other LocSec, without qualifications or limitation.

  Every Editor shall have the same rights and privileges accorded every
   other Editor, without qualifications or limitation.

  Every Webmaster shall have the same rights and privileges accorded
   every other Webmaster, without qualifications or limitation.)

4. So where does "AML's" objection get its basis?  I can see only one
thing left -- the link that connects all of this to me personally.

That would mean that "AML" would have to try claiming that I am not the
Minnesota Mensa Webmaster.

This is where I step back, whip aside the curtain, and display the brick
wall that this claim is bound to run into sooner or later.

I can't say for sure, but I suspect that I am unique among Mensa local
group Webmasters:

I have it in writing.

As I type this, I am looking at a copy of a physical written agreement
between Minnesota Mensa and me -- negotiated and drafted by a Minnesota
Mensa officer, with full authorization to do so, and signed by him on
behalf of Minnesota Mensa.

It identifies me as the Minnesota Mensa Webmaster.  That, in fact, is
its primary purpose.

To recap, let's follow the chain the other direction.  I am authorized
to use Mensa logos and marks on the Minnesota Mensa website because I am
the Minnesota Mensa Webmaster, and local group Webmasters are authorized
because local group websites are an activity conducted for the benefit
of a local group, and Minnesota Mensa is a local group which is an
entity directly related to Mensa.

There -- in either direction, the chain is complete, and demonstrates
that I am, in fact, authorized to use Mensa logos and marks on the
Minnesota Mensa website because I am its Webmaster.

So I ask again, in all seriousness, where is "AML" coming up with the
notion that I am not authorized?  It's simply a false allegation.

If this unbreakable chain cannot be broken, then "AML" is wrong in "its"
allegations, and should be obligated to do all in "its" power to rectify
the damage it has tolerated and participated in.

> As necessary to protect its rights, AML is continuing to
> consider its options.

Let's hope that the option to be considered at the top of the list is
"Do what's right."  That would be a welcome change.

I have had a lot of time to also consider *my* options, and I have
compiled a rather long list.  Since I am an individual human being and
not an entity, my options are a lot more diverse and imaginative than
AML's.

Of course, at this time, Mensa Membership By-Law IIID substantially
limits some of the options for both me and AML until certain conditions
are met, since "Failure to do so may be considered an act inimical to
Mensa."

I would also hope that you personally would consider some options:

One, entertain the possibility that I might be the injured party in all
this, and that I might be in the right.  More on that in a moment.

Two, I've read about you on the Venable website, so I would hope you
would take a minute or two to learn a bit about me, so I'm not just some
disembodied name out in Minnesota but a real person with a real life.

http://www.millcityrecords.com/webwork/cv.htm, and
http://www.millcityrecords.com/music/whatido2.htm

Three, decide privately for yourself that you best serve Mensa by not
always automatically buying and parroting everything that comes out of
Arlington, TX.

Think Enron, think Worldcom, and so forth.  Sit back and ponder the real
possibility, or possible reality, that what's actually been going on is
a small handful of persons out in Minnesota who, perhaps because of low
volunteerism and low voter turnout, had been in effect electing
themselves to the board of Minnesota for so long (12 years?, 18 years?)
that they took to thinking that it was their own private sandbox fiefdom
to run any way they pleased, and heaven help the hapless volunteer who
had the temerity to question their actions.

(Except that this time, they chose the wrong person to dump on, and I
won't turn loose of this until justice is done, or I die.)

Four, do please visit the Minnesota Mensa website at
http://www.mn-mensa.org (don't forget the hyphen).  There you will find
a perfectly normal local group website.  One that's been nominated for
four Mensa awards.  (It's due for some expansion and redesign, but I'm
not able to work on that until this dispute is satisfactorily resolved.

The one thing that you *won't* find on mn-mensa.org is anything at all
that would cause confusion, mistake, or deception, because it *is*
exactly what it purports to be -- the website of Minnesota Mensa.

Again, Clif, I appreciated the civil tone of your recent e-mail to which
this is a reply.  Feel free to ask me any questions that would help you
understand what this situation is *really* all about.  (It's *not* as
you've been portraying it.)

Sincerely,

Al Heigl

Webmaster,
Minnesota Mensa
--

Al Heigl
Mill City Records
P.O. Box 177
Northfield Minnesota 55057-0177
507-663-6090

------------------------------------------------------
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Al Heigl [mailto:webmaster@mn-mensa.org]
> Sent: Friday, July 15, 2005 3:52 PM
> To: McCann, Clifton E.
> Cc: WebCoordinator@AmericanMensa.org
> Subject: Re: Minnesota Mensa website interference
>
> Hi, Clif --
>
> This is is in response to your interesting (and unhelpful) e-mail of
> 7/7/2005. (It has, of course, been posted on the Internet so that
> people can see which side of this situation you unfortunately chose to
> be on at this point. Let's hope that changes.)
>
> "McCann, Clifton E." wrote:
> >
> > Dear Mr. Heigl,
> >
> > I have been asked to respond to your June 29, 2005 email to American
> > Mensa's web coordinator.
>
> So you aver. Please provide the actual name(s) of the human being(s)
> who purportedly asked you to do this.
>
> > For reasons previously provided by American
> > Mensa and its attorneys,
>
> This hardly a true statement. American Mensa has not previously
> provided me with any coherent "reasons" for singling out Minnesota Mensa
> for harassment of its Webmaster, and its attorneys have not previously
> provided me with any coherent "reasons" for this either -- please
> enumerate these reasons.
>
> > American Mensa disagrees with your positions
>
> So you allege, and you don't run American Mensa. This has to be a
> patently false statement by definition. As American Mensa states in
> every possible way (and requires on every page of Mensa websites),
> "Mensa does not hold any opinion ...".
>
> Please enumerate the names of the actual human beings who "disagree with
> my positions."
>
> You see, Clif, my main positions are that Mensa Membership By-Laws are
> not to be blatantly violated, and that Local Groups must scrupulously
> honor any signed written agreements to which they are signatory.
>
> So it is very helpful to positively identify any individuals within
> Mensa who disagree with those positions, as it is questionable whether
> they have any place in this organization, and they certainly should not
> be allowed to be in any positions of leadership or authority.
>
> > and is unwilling to redirect the minnesotamensa.org domain name.
>
> I want to be perfectly clear on this -- you are acknowledging, in
> writing, on behalf of American Mensa, a deliberate refusal to comply
> with a legitimate request by a Local Group Webmaster to correct an
> incorrect domain name pointing?
>
> > Should
> > you wish to post information on Minnesota Mensa's website, please
> > contact Minnesota Mensa directly.
>
> That is an absurd suggestion. As Minnesota Mensa Webmaster, if I wish
> to post information on Minnesota Mensa's website, I simply fire up
> Microsoft FrontPage, load the Minnesota Mensa website master image from
> my hard disk, put in whatever additional information should be on there,
> and click the Publish button. Up it goes, to Minnesota Mensa's website,
> now located for over a month and a half at mn-mensa.org, since our
> previous domain name was hijacked in blatant violation of Mensa
> Membership By-Law IIID.
>
> > Thank you for your concern about Minnesota Mensa,
>
> I have a greater concern that you let yourself get suckered in to being
> on the wrong side of this controversy. What you should do is to
> investigate the facts and reality of the situation and act according --
> if you choose to be part of this, I highly recommend your being part of
> the solution rather than part of the problem.
>
> > and in particular your
> > concern about the proper forwarding of Minnesota Mensa-related email.
> > We will forward your concern to Minnesota Mensa.
>
> Who is "we"? I have *your* name; please provide the actual name(s) of
> the other human being(s) that will also be forwarding my concern. And
> the "forwarding" address for Minnesota Mensa-related e-mail is now
> (position)@mn-mensa.org.
>
> Though actually, this is a website concern, so you must mean forwarding
> my concern to the Minnesota Mensa Webmaster, and that's me
> (webmaster@mn-mensa.org), and I hardly need my concern forwarded back to
> me, do I? (What were you thinking?)
>
> What we *need* is for the old minnesotamensa.org domain name to be
> pointed to http://64.246.62.111/~minneso/. While I moved our website to
> a new domain name as soon as ours was wrongfully hijacked, it would show
> Mensa-level intelligence for all Minnesota Mensa domain names to point
> to our genuine website and not an incompetent rogue site.
>
> I'll say again, Clif, that you should acquaint yourself with the facts
> of this situation. It is currently in the middle of being investigated
> within Mensa, and I am expecting that the investigator will eventually
> opine against people blatantly violating Mensa Membership By-Laws, and
> in favor of Local Groups honoring any signed written agreements to which
> they are a party.
>
> Which has been my position from the start, and I hardly think it would
> enhance your reputation, or Venable's, for you to be on record
> advocating to the contrary once these issues are settled in my favor and
> things get back to normal.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Al Heigl
>
> Webmaster,
> Minnesota Mensa
>
> --
>
> Alan Heigl
> Mill City Records
> P.O. Box 177
> Northfield Minnesota 55057-0177
> 507-663-6090