Transcribe
Translate
Yhos, whole no. 13, 1944
Page 16
More information
digital collection
archival collection guide
transcription tips
of the value of good examples over monotonous grousing. If you chose, you could be a stimulant, (as you have at times in the past) instead of a mere irritant. How about it? DEVIL TAKE THE HINDMOST #1: Perhaps i became unduly excited in last issue about the Searles "menace." I should have realized that no amount of vehemence would affect a character of your type. Langley, so I'm changing my tune, & hope that an appeal to your common sense will change yours, & we'll all be friends again. I'll use a quote of your own to prove my point: "I think it is definitely unfair for a few members to risk the safety of the whole organization..." Golly, can't you see that this is exactly what you would be doing if you carried out your threat? If it were to be only the offending publication that would suffer, fine; but the fact remains that the PO Dept as headed at present, is "narrow-minded & puritanical". Witness the Esquire fracas. Again, in your own words: "64 necks are on the block beside the original offender." Laney voluntarily cleaned up FAN-DANGO before your ultimatum was served. What more can you ask? So please, please - let's not toss the fate of the whole fapa so nonchalantly on a roll of the dice before some grouch behind a barred window who may have climbed from the wrong side of the bed that morning. The gamble is too lop-sided. Give us a chance to put our house in order ourselves. We can do it, i'm sure. In any case, the cure is much worse than the disease..... TIMEBINDER #1: If by "equal" you mean "deserving of equal opportunities", ok: but if you mean intrinsically equal, i must disagree. But on the Personal Adequacy article as a whole, you are undeniably right, despite the saccharine embroidery. My greatest pleasures & happiness have come thru pursuing this policy. Reject it, & you are only half (or some fraction) of a 16
Saving...
prev
next
of the value of good examples over monotonous grousing. If you chose, you could be a stimulant, (as you have at times in the past) instead of a mere irritant. How about it? DEVIL TAKE THE HINDMOST #1: Perhaps i became unduly excited in last issue about the Searles "menace." I should have realized that no amount of vehemence would affect a character of your type. Langley, so I'm changing my tune, & hope that an appeal to your common sense will change yours, & we'll all be friends again. I'll use a quote of your own to prove my point: "I think it is definitely unfair for a few members to risk the safety of the whole organization..." Golly, can't you see that this is exactly what you would be doing if you carried out your threat? If it were to be only the offending publication that would suffer, fine; but the fact remains that the PO Dept as headed at present, is "narrow-minded & puritanical". Witness the Esquire fracas. Again, in your own words: "64 necks are on the block beside the original offender." Laney voluntarily cleaned up FAN-DANGO before your ultimatum was served. What more can you ask? So please, please - let's not toss the fate of the whole fapa so nonchalantly on a roll of the dice before some grouch behind a barred window who may have climbed from the wrong side of the bed that morning. The gamble is too lop-sided. Give us a chance to put our house in order ourselves. We can do it, i'm sure. In any case, the cure is much worse than the disease..... TIMEBINDER #1: If by "equal" you mean "deserving of equal opportunities", ok: but if you mean intrinsically equal, i must disagree. But on the Personal Adequacy article as a whole, you are undeniably right, despite the saccharine embroidery. My greatest pleasures & happiness have come thru pursuing this policy. Reject it, & you are only half (or some fraction) of a 16
Hevelin Fanzines
sidebar
