And here again-
Rula using his position to block my membership-
against the wishes of other Nomenus Membership:

Jerry Berbiar wrote:

> Rula,
> I cannot go along with Machiavellian tactics that
> exclude members from an
> egalitarian consensus organization, manipulates
> members to act against each
> other, cuts off conference calls to stop members
> from being heard, and in
> the case of Vaughn, claim that we reached consensus
> to reject his
> membership, when we never did so. You are out of
> control and have lost any
> support you might have had from me. Please don't
> phone me again.-JTF
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Chip Hair"
> To: <chiphair
> Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2006 6:38 PM
> Subject: HELP!!!! (please)
>
>
> > Hi-
> >
> > First of all, even though you are receiving this
> > as a BCC, this is only so the spam sorters won't
> > put this in bulk mail or delete it.
> >
> > I need assistance. I feel like I was out of
> > control at last COTL, and that energy was more
> > than matched by Rickster. I am completely over
> > the idea that meeting after meeting we are forced
> > to listen to whatever he and WillIAm have to
> > bitch about. I don't think it's consensus - but
> > whenever they are called on it, it mushrooms into
> > a huge to-do about censorship and control.
> >
> > I am not appealing to you to automatically take
> > my side, either. If Nomenus is to continue - and
> > I do think there is a real danger it won't - then
> > the dynamic needs to change. I am clueless (OK,
> > not totally) or at least ineffectual at dealing
> > with them when they ride around like 2 of the
> > horsemen of the Apocalypse.
> >
> > I must say that my energy at the last COTL would
> > have frightened me off, did I not know who I was.
> > There has to be a way to confront them without
> > being untrue to ourselves and the principles of
> > consensus; yet also effective. Just allowing them
> > to go on is not effective and it has a really
> > depressing and demoralizing effect, at least on
> > me.
> >
> > This is the end result I would like to work
> > toward. One, they - R&W - don't dominate the
> > meetings. If (really when) they go off subject,
> > even in a check-in, they are marshaled back.
> > There will be strong resistance. If the story is
> > the same, always gently explained, from everyone,
> > they may stop. However, I think they prey on our
> > reluctance (OK, so maybe it's not mine) to argue
> > the point, and they just wear everyone down to
> > allowing them to proceed because they won't let
> > it go and eventually we just sigh and let them.
> >
> > As far as I can tell, they don't contribute
> > anything. I mean this literally. Anything they do
> > contribute (outside of WillIAm's decorating,
> > which he is flawless at) creates incredible
> > controversy (last summer's SGRF) and hurt
> > feelings (and not just on their part) or an
> > incredible (and inedible) mess, WillIAm's
> > breakfast.
> >
> > All of us are volunteers in this. My friend
> > Sterling really doesn't understand why I continue
> > to stay involved. The last time I took a hiatus,
> > though, was when Vaughn was running amok, and I
> > (maybe with some self-flattery) believe that the
> > whole organization took a big hit. If a
> > sustainable Nomenus is to be a reality, we have
> > to be able to minimize the impact of members who
> > create an antagonistic and unhealthy dynamic. And
> > at times, I am aware that I can be included in
> > this rubric.
> >
> > I think we all should learn some real
> > facilitation. Or, maybe practice what we already
> > know. I want to say that I don't see ceasing
> > R&W's memberships as the solution.
> >
> > Disempowering Vaughn's negative energy was easy,
> > with no blood on our hands, because he flushed
> > himself. (And, incidentally, I do find it ironic
> > that I am the only person really working at
> > developing language that would allow him, at some
> > point, to become a member again.) I don't see R&W
> > resigning - it's not their MO to flounce out of a
> > meeting and post an angry resignation online.
> >
> > In re-reading this letter, I find myself
> > wondering if I am being too fatalistic about
> > this. I want to point out my fears that lead me
> > to my conclusion. The warning that Rickster gave
> > at the COTL about blocking everything unless all
> > that he introduces is consensed to, I think is
> > very telling. And he wasn't threatening me, he
> > was threatening everyone else (If you don't do
> > something about Rula ...).
> >
> > I do a lot of work for this organization. I also
> > have a lot of expectations about the emotional
> > energy of it, and quite forthright about how that
> > energy should be changed if I think it's not as
> > it should be. I like doing the work - meeting
> > with State and County officials, organizing the
> > meetings (setting up the teleconference),
> > producing the draft agenda, creating the
> > facilities management list, mentoring when I get
> > the chance - but the meeting have become Shit
> > City. Am I taking this all too seriously? Are
> > people OK with R&W dominating the meetings and
> > setting the emotional tone they way they do?
> >
> > I know only too well that what I am choosing to
> > do is clearly NOT working, so I need an
> > alternative. And it's not coming readily to mind.
> >
> > There's a CoCo meeting this Sunday, tomorrow. I
> > am planning on facilitating it. Here is how I am
> > going to approach contentious proposals. I am
> > going to ask if people want to have each item
> > individually on the agenda. I will place
> > Rickster's item on that list, but in last place.
> > I want each person to say "yes" or "no" when I
> > ask about each in a nice clear loud voice.
> >
> > And if I don't hear another "no" about discussing
> > Nomenus Officers, I will let it remain on the
> > agenda and I will leave the meeting, because I
> > will not feel supported. It may be that you all
> > are OK with it being discussed, and maybe are
> > looking forward to a verbal spanking for Rula. If
> > so, it will happen, but Rula won't be there.
> >
> > Then, if anything is NOT on the agenda, if it
> > comes up in other discussions, I will interrupt
> > the speaker with "excuse me, excuse me" until
> > they stop (or scream "Shut the fuck up!") and
> > gently explain that the discussion of an item not
> > consensed to is not allowed. If it gets
> > contentious and stays that way, I'll arrange
> > another teleconference, and exclude R&W. There
> > are items - or at least one item - that require a
> > real decision; spending money on a survey of our
> > border with the State of Oregon.
> >
> > I will need everyone's help in all of this. If
> > there are other ways you see to approaching this
> > problem, please let me know.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Rula
> >
> >

There does seem to be some inconsistency here. I resigned my membership publically
after the 1997 Great Circle
and what seemed to me to be a railroading of women's taking up permanent
residence on the land without prior Great circle discussion. They called five MONTHS a "visit."

I reapplied for membership prior to the meeting at which
a presumed agreement took place for the pangenderist faction to look for their own land for a pangender sanctuary,
not taking over Wolf Creek, with Nomenus support.

Although I did not attend the meeting, my check was cashed and I did receive Nomenus bulletins for about
a year, then I let it lapse.

At this point in my life, I am exhausted from this battle.

The best thing for MLM's to do would seem to be to expand the MLM use of the sanctuary,
attending and supporting the annual men's gathering, and also at other times, to build up
the support for the founding vision of a gay men's spiritual and sexual space.

I will be in Portand for the Rose Parade next weekend, may appear at coffee, but will not be
involved in PDX gay day.


David K.