Hey Chris,
The magazine is coming along well, you will have seen my other posts. This may help you address improvements. As to my letter that wasn&#039;t published, I have no problem. At the time, the board had just read John&#039;s which was published, and had just prior to that seen the version which John had sent to Chapter Presidents, but not board members. The board&#039;s feelings were the members needed an opposing viewpoint from John&#039;s. As a Chapter President I had received John&#039;s letter, and sent him a letter rebutting every issue he brought forward, sent a copy of this letter to John and every board member. Nobody could say I went behind their back. If members want to figure out what was in that letter all they have to do is look at John&#039;s and find something that opposes each and every issue he brings forward, that is basically what it does. It is probably a good thing it wasn&#039;t published, even though the board asked my permission to do so, and of course I granted that permission. But, Bob Tallman always said the best way to get ashes is to throw gasoline on the fire, there is alot of truth to that. I hope you checked with the board before making that decision, just to cover your backside.
Be careful with the editing situation, there is a fine line between editing and censorship, that line shouldn&#039;t be crossed. I wouldn&#039;t agree with reducing the size of a members letter. If they took the time to write it, and it is selected to be published, it should be published as written, with exception of spelling, no change should be made, and sometimes there is purpose for misspelling.