----- Original Message -----
From: "Geoffrey Mangers" <email@example.com>
To: "Elliott I. Portnoy" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 12:43 AM
Subject: The Bylaws of Confusion
Mike: he heads our local group here.
Lew: (kinda "Mike's boss") he heads half our state section here.
Mick: (kinda "Lew's boss") out at the main office back East.
("Mick and Mike": I'm already confused)
Dear Mr. Portnoy,
I can't really explain to you why I seem to find myself engaged in some
bizarre dialogue with you. Perhaps it is my Asperger's I suffer from that one of
our group leaders here has suggested I see a psychologist to get diagnosed
So I will apologise to you in advance for it, lest you find it annoying (or confusing).
Anyway, you're not helping with my confusion problems with stuff like this:
>This e-mail and any attachments
are confidential and may be protected
>by legal privilege. ...
(the rest of it looks like sheer lunacy to me):
that attachment contained Bylaws.
Those Bylaws "..*MAY* be protected..":
If not protected and they are Public, then why include such a confusing statement?
Or otherwise, if their Bylaws *are* so protected and Secret, then state so clearly.
I don't know how you expect me to figure this stuff out myself,
I have enough problems dealing with my Asperger's as it is.
Or why you're sending them knowing I've already been publishing them.
Maybe this will work:
**-ALL communication from you or your associates to me is subject to publication-**
I had already previously stated this regarding everyone over there.
Gosh, the next time I may not even read it at all and just publish it.
So please don't send me anything you don't expect to eventually see in publication, OK?
I know what I just said to you may seem confusing to you because of my
This email is public. Anyone is free to share it with whomever they wish.
They are also free to share with each other or anyone they wish all my
other emails I've previously sent on all this. I'd be happy to 'update'
anyone new in the audience out there on what's been going on also.
Anyway, I could be delusional, but it seemed to me that the
attachment you sent with that email looked completely identical
to a page in the Bylaws that Lew had faxed me earlier.
It told of a maximum term of office. The office Lew now holds.
It said it was limited to 2 years after which he must step down.
Mick told me that Lew took office November 6, 1999.
Confusing, isn't it?
But gosh, so he overstayed a few years, what's the big deal?
I've found Lew to be charming and warm
(though possibly a bit confused about all this).
There's some other confusion going on here.
"Mick and Mike" (boy that's confusing):
I don't understand why they're talking about this
IRS investigation on their 501(c)(3) in front of me.
All I did was to start publishing some of the confusion
I've seen going on around here.
But I was confused.
I tried putting some of the confusion on their listserver.
Confusingly, the listserver disappeared.
Since I had never heard anything about Lew's election in '99,
I asked him on the phone a while back about how he took office.
He seemed confused. I don't know how many votes anyone got.
It gets more confusing.
I announced my candidacy March 2 (but I was confused). Against Mike.
Confusingly, it was never publicised by Lew until July,
just 2 weeks before the election.
Somehow I wound up contesting them both.
Sorry, I was confused.
Anyway, I wouldn't worry, I think their Bylaws are pretty secure.
I couldn't find them anywhere on their national website when I looked
(our treasurer couldn't either). And I couldn't get them out of their
publications dept. when I called. Or anyone else when I called.
Locally here, our treasurer never sent them to me (I gave her my address but
she seemed pretty confused on the phone).
I tried to get a copy of the one's Mike has. He wouldn't give them to me either.
He said something to the effect that it was because he was confused.
But I'm afraid in all this confusion Lew slipped up and faxed me a copy
(which included his 2 year term limit). Boy, he must have really been confused.
I don't know why they let him have a copy of their Bylaws anyway.
Anyway, they flew Mick out here for the election to see
what all the confusion was about (I guess).
Out of a secret paid membership here of between 600-973 (that's probably
a confusing $24,000 annually at least.), we had only one voting member show up
at the election who wasn't running for office. Maybe she was confused.
She tried to explain to Mick and everyone how important it was to have Bylaws.
Maybe Mick didn't let her count the ballots because he thought she was confused.
After the count, I congratulated Mike and Lew for making some History for us here
with the contested election. But I don't think it helped.
Half the candidates didn't even show up for their own election.
Maybe they were confused.
Do you know how many votes all the candidates got? I don't.
You know what I think that election we just had was?
I think it was just another 'plebiscite'.
Like that uncontested plebiscite our branch leader
held for himself locally here last year.
He was confused too. He called it an "election".
You know what I think?
I don't think anyone over there knows what their Bylaws are anymore:
it doesn't matter how many votes anyone got.
This is the most confused bunch of people I've ever seen in my life.
p.s: I'm beginning to worry if my Asperger's may be contagious.
Perhaps I should seek quarantine lest it spread further.