I knew my comments would ruffle some feathers so I revised them carefully before sending in order to offend as few people as possible. In the afterblow I see that many missed the point I was trying to make. Yes I really had a point. This is what I was trying to say. If you have an opinion about how SLAS is run you should be a current dues paying member. That way you will have voting privileges and someone will actually care about what you are saying. Otherwise you are just barking in the dark. I know UA is not an exclusive SLAS list and that is why I value the list so much. SLAS has problems that drive people out of its membership at an appalling rate. But UA should not be a platform for snipping at those who are currently trying to run SLAS. The price of an opinion on SLAS policy should be the $20 membership fee. It doesn't matter if your first joined SLAS when Nixon was in office or if you were president 5 times in the decades since then. I do look at the membership list on the SLAS website. I'm allowed to, I'm a current member. I do so because I'm terrible at remembering names and even worse at spelling them. I review the list occasionally to remind myself of the difference between Ed Erickson an Erik Hansen. I've watched Patrick trip over the two Wilsons and he's supposed to know more than anyone else about SLAS membership. I've figured out the two Fishers but I have yet to meet any of the three Smiths. And I'm not sure if any of the four Petersons are actually Petersens. As for Chuck Hards leaving this list in a huff, don't worry about it. It's an annual event and he always comes back. DT