linuxmafia.com 2013/2013.06.linuxmafia.com/linuxmafia.com/pub/skeptic/files-to-classify/sabsay.txt

Text File | 1998-09-22 | 87.0 KB | 1,878 lines

  Bay Area Skeptics' Dealings with Daniel Sabsay and His Group
 ================================================================
                          OVERVIEW
Excerpt from a letter (March 23, 1989) from Rick Moen, Bay Area
Skeptics Secretary:

...Lastly, you mentioned the East Bay Skeptics Society.  I am
afraid this is not an altogether pleasant subject.  Part of the
reason this letter has been so long delayed (my apologies) is
that I was unsure how to deal with it.  We have, alas, had a long,
sad history with its founder, organizer, president, editor, chief
cook and bottle washer, Mr. Daniel Sabsay.

Daniel was once our meeting coordinator and moderator.  He had to
be relieved of his duties as moderator after he repeatedly
disrupted, with very hostile questions and remarks, a
parapsychologist's presentation at a BAS meeting (at a meeting
site graciously arranged by the speaker, in his classroom).
Daniel thereupon resigned as meeting coordinator, with considerable
acrimony, and eventually withdrew his share of the $21,000 BAS
Challenge.  (I personally made up the shortfall.)

A few months later, Daniel completely disrupted a BAS
organizational meeting, shouting for three full hours his demand
that BAS be reorganized to eliminate the supposed abuse of power
shown by his removal as moderator.  I, at that point a blissfully
ignorant "BASIS" subscriber, intending to volunteer my efforts for
this friendly, socially constructive organization, chanced to be
sitting next to Daniel at that meeting, and it turned out to be a
grueling and disheartening experience.  We were unable to
accomplish anything else that evening, and I suspect that many
other potential volunteers went away in disgust and did NOT, as I
did, come back.

Over the years since then, Daniel has bombarded us with letters
urging his ideas.  He was extremely insistent that we must split
off the South Bay as a separate group, although no one from there
ever requested that. He nominated himself for the BAS Board of
Directors, boasting to BAS chairman Larry Loebig (according to
Larry) that he would throw Larry out.  (The Board unanimously
turned Daniel down.)  He served on our By-laws Committee and came
up with some fine ideas, which were incorporated into the
by-laws, but wrote us a nasty letter when we did not adopt ALL his
ideas.

So, he has now created his own group.  There are some very fine
people in EBSS, and great things may come of them.  It is
unfortunate, though, that Daniel has spent much of the group's
energy in hostility against BAS.  Issues of his newsletter often
contain cheap shots against us, and he has published in it
confidential information from the minutes of the BAS Board of
Directors (which he somehow consistently gets ahold of and sees
fit to read).

He has selectively lobbied members of our Board, acting
consistent with an intent to create divisions within it.  He
arranged with us to re-sell "BASIS", then violated our conditions
by undercutting our subscription rate.  In the wake of that
incident, we then prohibited him from distributing "BASIS" in the
future.  He did not, however, stop there: I have recently caught
him acting to circumvent that prohibition.

Daniel has violated my policies on the BAS computer bulletin
board (which I paid for, constructed, and maintain), blatantly
and unabashedly enough to make himself unwelcome there, and
challenged my authority to establish rules for it.  Failing with
that ploy, he fed false information about my administration of
the bulletin board to a third party, who thereupon leafleted a
BAS meeting with a flyer containing false allegations attacking
my personal character.  That flyer, incidentally, also carried an
advertisement for one of Daniel's group's meetings.  Tact is not
one of the man's leading traits.

We have NOT retaliated in kind.  Hearing that he was starting
another group, we even sent him our by-laws electronically, so he
would not have to write his from scratch.  We HAVE formally
requested that he change the name of his group, since it has
created widespread confusion with our own.  Nine months and many
letters and messages later, he still has not substantively
responded to our request in any way.

In light of all this, you may be surprised to hear that for many
years, until a couple of months ago, I was one of the BAS
activists most friendly to Daniel.  It is good to have such a
bright, energetic fellow, such a capable organizer, on our side,
and it has taken a great deal to exhaust my fund of goodwill for
him.  Unfortunately, as an old Middle-Eastern saying says, your
enemies' enemies are not necessarily your friends.  By my
reckoning, Daniel's contentiousness and his unpleasant scenes
have cost us one chairman, two editors (it nearly became three,
recently), one Advisor, two stalwart activists, and God knows
whom else.

I realise that this probably makes sour reading -- the very
reason why we generally keep our distance from Daniel and avoid
the public disputes he would have us engage in:  Nothing destroys
a volunteer group faster than squabbling.  I hope you are not
offended.  We try, as much as we can, to ignore this and concen-
trate on what our group is all about.  I just felt that, as one of
our valued supporters, you ought to hear our side of the story.

Please feel free to call me at 415-564-4225* if I may answer any
questions or otherwise be of help.  I am enclosing a copy of our
promotional flyer for the April meeting, for your amusement.

Yours Truly,


Rick Moen, Secretary
Bay Area Skeptics

[*New number is 415-543-6475, as of this date. -- RM, 12/97.]
====================================================================
[Note:  In the following, all letters and e-mail messages appear
verbatim.  All other text (generally marked "Note:") is my (Rick Moen's)
personal observations, and do not purport to represent anyone else's
perspective.

I will have to omit from this record DOZENS of pages of letters from
Mr. Sabsay to Bay Area Skeptics over the years, if only for lack of
time to type it all in.  However, his agenda was fairly clear and
simple, and repeated many times in slightly different ways.  For Bay
Area Skeptics, and as a "model charter" to "franchise" to other
groups:

  1. Explicitly-claimed "territory".
  2. "Membership" for our subscribers, to make BAS more "democratic".
  3. Explicit newsletter editorial policy (restricting the editor).
  4. Explicit "goals" policy.
  5. A great deal more organizational structure (many offices,
     committees, internal checks and balances against "abuse of power").
  6. Incorporation.
  7. An extensive, formal, computer-stored database.

The tone of these early letters was something like a cross between a
drill-sergeant and a schoolmarm:  Forceful, moralistic, hectoring and
reproachful, full of ideas and suggestions for which he intended other
people to provide the labour.  I also caught something of a suggestion
that we would be somehow violating a public trust if we were not to
adopt his numerous, lengthy, and ambitious suggestions.

Daniel nominated himself to fill a vacancy on the BAS board at the May
3, 1987 board meeting.  He was unanimously turned down, especially in
light of his boasts that he would eject BAS Chairman Larry Loebig.
However, he did join the newly-formed By-Laws Committee, of which Yves
Barbero was chairman.  They jointly produced, in June, the by-laws under
which BAS was incorporated.

Following are some exchanges from that period.]
====================================================================

[Note: Originally-private letter, publicly distributed by Mr. Sabsay.]


                                         Yves Barbero
                                         [address omitted]


Dear Daniel:

Thank you for understanding that the BY-LAWS COMMITTEE cannot be a place
to change policy and that exists solely as a technical means to carry
out the policy of the Board of Directors.

I've read your comments to CSICOP's leadership and our own Board of
Directors, and it gives me a good background on your views.  If you
would send me their replies and comments, it would complete the picture
and give me a better insight into what's been going on.

For a person such as myself, who sees organizations and committees
solely as tools to accomplish some political or social goal, your
organizational ideas are somewhat novel.  I have always thought your
insight about such organizations also being a place for like-minded
people (a couple of years ago at this address) to socialize and be
together (fellowship in a religious sense...or am I pushing the concept
too far?) was one of your best.

Of course, there is also a place for that, except that in our cynical
view, few of us would be honest enough to acknowledge it.  But it can
never be the first reason for most people in Bay Area Skeptics to be
part of the group.  The first reason must be a love of reason (in the
abstract) and an accomplishment of BAS's goals (in the concrete).

Mouthing a few phrases of ideology and taking comfort in an
organizational blanket makes me and most of the Board uncomfortable.  At
best, this would make BAS a private club (a cult in the extreme), and I
couldn't exist in such a group.  Secret societies should have gone out
with the Nineteenth Century.  Of course, I'm not so foolish as to
believe tribalism has gone forever.

If you haven't already done so, you should read "The True Believer" by
Eric Hoffer.

Regards,
Yves Barbero

====================================================================

CYBERNETIC MOMENTS
70 Yosemite Avenue #307
Oakland, CA 94611
[phone]
Daniel Sabsay

                                                      24 May 1987


TO: The Board of Directors, Bay Area Skeptics

   1) Robert Sheaffer     7) Andrew Fraknoi
   2) Larry Loebig        8) Mark Hodes
   3) Ric Moen            9) Lawrence Jerome
   4) Kent Harker        10) Michael McCarthy
   5) Ray Spangenberg    11) Terry Sandbek
   6) Diane Moser


Dear Board Member,

Last week, in conjunction with the Bylaws project, I sent Yves Barbero
the same four documents* that I previously sent to the members of the
former Board.  In reply, I received a remarkable letter from Yves which
I think is important to share with you in advance of the open Bylaws
meeting on the 30th.

In this letter, Yves seems to accuse me of being an ideolog, a true
believer and an advocate of secret societies.  I do not understand where
this imagery comes from, nor why he feels the need to call me names in
writing.  He also implies that you, the Board, share some of these
views.

I am sending you this note and a copy of Yves' letter because I am
saddned by what is happening.  I sincerely hope that other Board members
have not drawn these same unfair conclusions from my writings, and that
Yves is speaking only for himself and not as a spokesperson for the
Board.

Yours truly,
Daniel Sabsay

*THE FOUR DOUCMENTS:  Two letters to Mark Plummer (December 86 &
Februrary 87), Skeptics Model Charter and my 21 April 87 Letter to the
BAS Board of Directors.


                                 Note:  Mark Plummer was at the time
                                 of this letter Executive Director of
                                 CSICOP.

======================================================================


                                          Yves Barbero
                                          [address omitted]
                                          [telephone # omitted]


TO: BAY AREA SKEPTICS BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND DISTINGUISHED FORMER CHAIRS
AND INDIVIDUAL WHO HELPED.

Attached is the next to final draft of the Bylaws.  Please read it
carefully (along with the three legally-required Statements on the back)
and...

1.  If you're happy with it, DO NOTHING.

OR

2.  Last-minute critiques are most welcome (since I don't want to do any
revisions after this one unless the changes come from the Board of
Directors).  Please be as picky as you can.  Send only corrections.
Keep Bylaws!  Hopefully, I'll have my computer by that time and I'll be
able to correct directly.

                                      [Note: 2 paragraphs omitted]


The phone poll provision was unpopular with a certain member of the
Bylaw Committee.  He thought it might be used to IGNORE him in making
decisions, since he is not a member of the Board.  Note that important
decisions are required to be made at a Board Meeting at which there is a
quorum.  The phone poll is designed to help the Chair make quick
decisions.  I'm assuming that Board members will know when a question
needs to be discussed at length at a regular Board meeting.  The Bylaws
do require Board meetings for such things as electing officers.

                                      [Note: 2 paragraphs omitted]

ARTICLE NINE, SECTION 1 (c)  This was added at the last minute to allow
                             us to publish other things besides our
                             periodical.

              Section 2. The entire section was found objectionable by a
              member of the Bylaws committee, since we don't mention any
              of the other standing committees in the Bylaws.  I think
              that describing the duties of the editor of the periodical
              was essential since 1.  He needs to be able to spend money
              without the authority of the Board for every check he
              writes, and 2.  It is desirable to state clearly that he
              has the final word on what is published.  The other option
              would be to give him guidelines, which I think would
              straight-jacket an otherwise fairly creative publication.
              In addition, clear guidelines can never anticipate the
              world around us, and it would give some individuals reason
              to tie us up in endless meetings over editorial policy.
              Our unwritten "policy" has always been understood by
              previous and current editors, and if we don't like him or
              her, we can always fire him or her.

Finally, in accordance with Article Six, Section 2 (c), I am dismissing
Daniel Sabsay from the Bylaws Committee, gratefully acknowledging the
contributions he has made to the Bylaws as attached.  His views went a
long way in determining what was in the Bylaws.  At this point, I feel
that it's a one-man job (in consultation with the Board of Directors,
naturally).

Please have your critiques in by June 15th by mail, so I can prepare a
final copy for everyone's signature.  Larry will of course determine if
a meeting of the Board of Directors is neccessary for final acceptance
(I suspect it will be).

Regards,
Yves

P.S.:  Thanks to Lawrence Jerome, who attended the Bylaws meeting and
       lent technical and moral support during a long afternoon of
       analysis and discussion, and to all the individuals who sent in
       their written critiques (especially to Diane, who found every
       missing comma and misspelling) and to my mother and father for
       bringing me into this world.

=====================================================================

CYBERNETIC MOMENTS
70 Yosemite Avenue #307
Oakland, CA 94611
[phone]
Daniel Sabsay
                                                     27 June 1987


TO: The Board of Directors, Bay Area Skeptics

   1) Larry Loebig        7) Andrew Fraknoi
   2) Mark Hodes          8) Shawn Carlson
   3) Ric Moen            9) Lawrence Jerome
   4) Kent Harker        10) Michael McCarthy
   5) Ray Spangenberg    11) Yves Barbero
   6) Diane Moser        12) [the legend of] Robert Steiner


THANKS TO YVES' PARENTS

   Congratulations to Yves for a timely and diligent effort resulting in
   the best (and first) bylaws the Bay Area Skeptics has ever had.  I
   support this document, in the main, and think it provides a good
   basis for future growth.  However, the (undated) cover letter with
   this (undated) draft of the Bylaws again contains gratuitous innuendo
   and representations of my views that are substantially mistaken and
   basically a reflection of his own imagination.

IGNORANCE IS A RENEWABLE RESOURCE

   At this point, I seriously doubt that it would be of benefit for me
   to take more of my time to write an accurate account of the ways in
   which these bylaws fail to provide an adequate architecture for a
   really effective Skeptics organization in this community.  Frankly, I
   have lost my faith that the [majority of the] twelve of you have the
   altruism, savvy or maturity to do what needs to be done.

THANKS FOR THE MEMORIES

   In addition, you are hereby informed that I have decided to withdraw
   my pledge of $2,000 in support of the parapsychology challenge prize
   money.  This is your official notification and I expect your
   acknowledgement in writing.

Yours truly,
Daniel Sabsay

                Note:  At the time of this letter, Bob Steiner was not
                on the Board or active with Bay Area Skeptics, having
                resigned in disgust when Sabsay wrecked the December
                1985 BAS volunteer coordinating meeting by shouting for
                three hours.  Nonetheless, Sabsay continually sees
                Steiner behind various act of "persecution" by BAS.

=====================================================================
[Note:  Now, Daniel switched to phase II of his campaign:  Having failed
to radically remake BAS either by election as Chairman or by shanghaiing
the By-Laws Committee, Daniel decided that he could get a more compliant
platform by creating his own group.  If he had stopped there, NOT chosen
a name so close to ours, NOT claimed affiliation with BAS, NOT sniped at
BAS in his newsletter, NOT published material from the confidential BAS
board minutes, had his friend NOT leafleted a BAS meeting with defamatory
flyers attacking BAS and advertising his group, and had he NOT continued
to interfere with the BAS board of directors, that would have been the
end of the matter.]


                                             Daniel Sabsay
                                             70 Yosemite Avenue #307
                                             Oakland, CA 94611
                                             5 January 1988


Ric Moen, Director of Bay Area Skeptics
4412 Fulton
San Francisco, CA 94121

Dear Ric,

I don't need to tell you of my impatience to transform the focus of BAS
into a more grass-roots, community-oriented service organization.  Since
this is not a likely direction for BAS in the near future, perhaps
another group may be more appropriate.

Announcing the founding of the East Bay Skeptics Society (EBSS).  EBSS
will feature membership structure, elected leadership and a specific
service area.  Primarily focused around the Berkeley and Oakland
communities, EBSS will provide enhanced presence in the many colleges
and schools in the area.  Monthly dinner meetings will be the
centerpiece of an enriched social network.

I hope there are many ways in which our two groups can cooperate and
help each other.  The new club will attempt to cooperate with BAS and
CSICOP and will peddle subscriptions to BASIS.

I have enclosed a few copies of the flyer which is being distributed
throughout Oakland and Berkeley.  If you wish to help distribute these
flyers, or if you can suggest places that should be covered, please
contact me.

Yours truly,
Daniel Sabsay

====================================================================
[Note:  In late 1987, Bay Area Skeptics created a Skeptics' Discussion
Group on a popular computer bulletin board system called "The Child
BBS". That BBS folded when its owner moved out of the area in early
1988, but it provided the inspiration for BAS's own system, "The
Skeptic's Board BBS", which I funded, built, and opened on October 16,
1988.]



From:    Daniel Sabsay
To:      All                                      Msg #23, 05 Jan 88 11:56:46
Subject: New Skeptics Club, EBSS

NEW LOCAL SKEPTICS CLUB
-----------------------
Announcing the founding of the East Bay Skeptics Society (EBSS).

To serve the East Bay community better, EBSS will feature
membership structure, elected leadership and a specific
service area.  Primarily focused around the Berkeley and
Oakland communities, EBSS will provide enhanced presence in
the many colleges and schools in the area.  Monthly dinner
meetings will be the centerpiece of an enriched social network.
The new club will attempt to cooperate with BAS and CSICOP
and will peddle subscriptions to BASIS.

A quality 2-sided flyer is available for distribution now.
Please message me here or call 420-0202 if you wish to help
distribute these flyers or if you can suggest places that
should be covered.



From:    Yves Barbero
To:      All                                      Msg #24, 06 Jan 88 10:03:12
Subject: East Bay Skeptics Club


    I'm pleased to hear that Daniel Sabsay is starting a new skeptics
club. He has had a past association with Bay Area Skeptics and done
needed work for us. We wish him the best of luck and invite him to leave
club information on this conference message board

    His approach is a bit different from Bay Area Skeptics but differing
approaches are what make life interesting and encourage the test of
efficiency.

    I know I join Rick Moen, the SIGOP of this conference, in wishing
the club success.
                    -Yves

*** There is a reply. See #27.



From:    Yves Barbero                             Rec'd
To:      Daniel Sabsay                            Msg #25, 06 Jan 88 10:14:46
Subject: Leaflet

Please mail me a copy of your newsletter. I will be glad to subscribe to
your publication. Since you are now the head of a like-minded group, I
will have your name added to our complimentory list. I have your address
and you have mine. (If not, see first message in labor conference).

I'm genuinely glad you've done this.  There is a segment of the
population you can reach better than we can at Bay Area Skeptics and the
reverse is also true.  While the message base is open to anyone, the
sigop of a conference has to approve the download articles.  Rick will
undoubtably approve any article which is of general interest to both
groups.

If you will leave an announcement on this board addressed to me for
publication in "BASIS" concerning your new society, I will send it to
Kent Harker via modem with my month's work. Deadline is Jan 10th for
February issue -Yves



From:    Sax Allen                                Rec'd
To:      Yves Barbero                             Msg #27, 06 Jan 88 16:42:54
Subject: Re: East Bay Skeptics Club

Yves:

You mention Daniel's group has a different approach than that of Bay
Area Skeptics.

Just out of curiousity, could you elaborate please?

While I've got your ear (so to speak...grisly image actually) I'll
ask you about an upcoming conference which I read about in a recent
issue of "BASIS".  Could you say more about it such as when, where, who
and what?  Also how much?

Thanks!

*** This is a reply to #24.



From:    Yves Barbero                             Rec'd
To:      Sax Allen                                Msg #28, 06 Jan 88 17:31:24
Subject: ????

Don Henvick, the program coordinator for Bay Area Skeptics, would
like to have a word with you about your knowledge of CULTS for an
upcoming program.

Since he's illiterate (computer-wise), please contact him by voice
line 415-929-8487 evenings (but soon) since the meeting is in February.

As to your question, you may be referring to the November CSICOP
conference in Chicago. Don can dig out the information you want.

I meant what I said about different approaches. Daniel Sabsay is more
oriented toward organizing a social group, whereas I (and not necessarily
all directors of Bay Area Skeptics) am more oriented toward public
education and outreach.  This doesn't mean that one mutually excludes
the other but its a question of directions.  We had a parting of the
ways, but it doesn't mean that we shouldn't attempt to reach our own
constituencies in our own way or that some of the goals are not the
same.

Daniel, I'm sure, will add his own views on the matter.



From:    Daniel Sabsay                            Rec'd
To:      Sax Allen                                Msg #30, 07 Jan 88 23:55:36
Subject: Details on EBSS

Allow me to elaborate the difference in approach to a Skeptics
organization. I am disappointed that BAS has not developed the
resources to move beyond an occasional media appearance.
In particular, we have virutally no presence in schools
or colleges and BAS talks attract only BASIS subscribers
(except in San Jose via the Mercury News).  My feeling is
that we need a larger, more involved group of people to
accomplish most of our goals.  EBSS will provide a
community-based social structure and hopefully the stimulus
of personal involvement will supply the added energy and
commitment needed to build the resource base.  Also EBSS will
use a membership structure with elected leadership, something
BAS has been reluctant to try.


                            Note: There may have been more messages in
                            this discussion, but the BBS was shut down
                            before I copied them for my records.

==================================================================
[Note:  After this promising start, Daniel started telephoning various
BAS activists, demanding concessions from BAS and refusing to address
our complaints about his more aggressive actions.  Practically all of
those calls ended with Daniel shouting and the other party hanging up.
Finally, in June, we felt that we had to formally state our grievances
in the following certified letter to Daniel.]



Bay Area Skeptics
4412 Fulton
San Francisco, CA 94121


Daniel Sabsay
70 Yosemite Ave. #309
Oakland, CA 94611


                                                      June 18, 1988

Dear Daniel:

Bay Area Skeptics was founded in 1982.

Through six years of effort, perseverance, study, meetings, writing,
speaking, dedication, travel, time, money, and more, we have built up
a reputation and name recognition.  Many in the media contact us,
refer to us, and quote us.  Often, they refer to us simply as The
Skeptics.

Recently you have started an organization called East Bay Skeptics
Society, thereby taking two of the three words in our name as part of
your name.  I am flattered by your desire to use our name -- however,
it has caused considerable confusion and hardship for our
organization.  Because of your actions, Bay Area Skeptics has been
potentially exposed to increased liability.

Your action has caused considerable confusion.  As long as it
continues, it will cause additional confusion.  The confusion is
devaluating the goodwill created by our organization -- goodwill
we consider a valuable asset.

Furthermore, we consider it to be an infringement upon our proprietary
right to the name.  If you wish to start your own organization, you
are free to do so.  However, we consider it to be improper for you to
cash in on the reputation we have built up by using a name which is by
its very nature easily confused with ours.

We do not necessarily assume that it was your intent either to cause
confusion or to infringe upon our rights.  Nonetheless, you have done
both.

We respectfully request that you change the name of your organization,
and that you do not use the word "Skeptics" or any derivation thereof
in the name.  Or move your organization out of the immediate Bay Area.

If you change the name of your organization accordingly, we can then
discuss areas of cooperation.

Furthermore, if you do indeed choose to continue to ride on our coat-
tails by continuing to use a name which is easily confused with and
identified with Bay Area Skeptics, we will necessarily conclude that
it was and is your definite intention to perpetuate the confusion and
infringement upon our rights, and we will accordingly pursue
appropriate lawful action.  Such action may include, but is not
limited to, contacting CSICOP, the media, and such other parties as we
deem appropriate for the protection of our goodwill and reputation.

Since the confusion and infringement takes place every single day that
the situation continues to exist, and since the action required on
your part to completely rectify the problem can be both simple and
immediate, we will wait ten days from the day that you sign for this
letter before taking any further action.

Regarding distribution of "BASIS":  Since you failed to honor your
agreement with me concerning not selling "BASIS" at a discount, you
are hereby notified that you may neither give away nor distribute
copies of "BASIS" ("Bay Area Skeptics Information Sheet"), to take
effect immediately.  Nor may you display it or any of our other
literature at your meetings.  Nor may you distribute your literature
at our meetings.

An additional point beyond your breach of a verbal distribution
agreement, at this point in time our approval of your distribution
could seem like we endorse your copyrighted published claim of
affiliation with Bay Area Skeptics and your claim of affiliation with
CSICOP.  We endorse neither misconception.  Your organization has no
official affiliation with Bay Area Skeptics, and to the best of my
knowledge no affiliation with CSICOP.

The above steps are my interim solution and will stand until the
August BAS Board meeting.  At which time I will ask for input from the
board and will follow the decision of my fellow directors.

Since my attempts at telephone communication resulted in your verbal
hostility and verbal abuse, I suggest you respond via post.

Copies will be sent to no one outside the Board and Advisors of Bay
Area Skeptics for ten days.  If the problem is resolved by then, then
no one else need or will receive a copy of this letter.  If it is not
resolved, then we will make decisions as to who should receive a copy
without consultation with you.

In the fond hope that this can be resolved amicably,


Larry Loebig,
Chair, Bay Area Skeptics.

P.S. to the Board and Advisors of Bay Area Skeptics.  Please wait ten
days before doing anything about this, after which, please call me to
see if it is resolved.  If it is not resolved within ten days, you
may run copies and give them our as you see fit.  Let me reiterate --
I hope we can work out this problem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

East Bay Skeptics Society
70 Yosemite Ave. #309
Oakland, CA 94611

Larry Loebig, Chair
Bay Area Skeptics
4163 Shafter Avenue
Oakland, CA 94609

                                                   23 June 1988

Dear Larry:

I received your certified letter (dated June 18, 1988) today.  Thank
you for so forthrightly expressing your concerns.

I view EBSS as a natural evolution in the growth of the Skeptics
movement in our large metropolitan area.  As I mentioned in my letter
of June 18 (it seems our letters may have crossed in the mail) we are
encouraged by the enthusiasm here for a locally-based group.  We are
certain there are many ways in which our two organizations can
cooperate in the service of Skepticism.

I was not clear about all the issues you raised, but would like to
respond to a few of them.
1) Of course, feel free to communicate any opinions you may have about
EBSS to CSICOP.  We have also sent them many materials related to our
organization and will continue to do so.
2) Based on a request from CSICOP, we have already revised the form
you mentioned to accurately reflect our independent position.
3) In response to your concern, today I also deleted the reference to
Bay Area Skeptics from this form.
4) We have no objection to your releasing copies of your June 18
letter to anybody.  However, from a strategic point of view, I advise
you to tone it down so you do not damage the reputation of the
Skeptical movement.
5) We believe offering BASIS to our members would clearly benefit both
our organizations.  In a conversation with Kent yesterday, he and I
developed the following suggested resolution to the subscription
question: we could offer BASIS as a benefit of our $25 membership, and
also offer an alternate membership without BASIS for $15, but nowhere
imply that a BASIS subscription costs $10.  People could infer equally
that we are discounting our membership.  I'll send you a sample of a
membership form with this revised language for your consideration at
your August Board of Directors meeting.

I, too, look forward to amicably resolving any remaining issues.


Sincerely,


Daniel Sabsay

                                         cc: BAS board of directors

          Note: 1.  When he wishes to appear reasonable, Mr. Sabsay
          encourages us to express our views to CSICOP.  On other occasions,
          he strongly objects, and cites it as evidence of a conspiracy
          against him.  2.  To date, Sabsay has declined to state that his
          claim of affiliation with BAS was in error.  3.  Note Mr. Sabsay's
          tendency to capitalize "skeptic".  4.  Note that he refers to
          himself in the plural ("We believe...."):  He frequently invokes the
          alleged support of others for his more aggressive moves.  5.  Note
          that this letter is pointedly non-responsive to Larry's.  Mr.
          Sabsay, to this day, alleges the contrary.  6.  Mr. Sabsay had
          offered "BASIS" ($15) with EBSS membership ($15) for a package
          price of $25.  Larry and Kent had made his distribution of "BASIS"
          conditional on Sabsay's not discounting it.  Mr. Sabsay's attempt to
          rationalize his violation of that condition was HIS ALONE, not his
          and Kent's, as he maintains.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

     Bay Area Skeptics was founded in 1982, in the San Francisco Bay
Area of California.
     Its telephone number has always been in the area on the East side
of the Bay.  This area is referred to as the East Bay.
     For most of the years of its existence, the address of Bay Area
Skeptics has been in the East Bay.
     Many of the subscribers of "BASIS" ("Bay Area Skeptics
Information Sheet") live in the East Bay.
     Many of the people who attend meetings of Bay Area Skeptics live
in the East Bay.
     Many of the meetings of Bay Area Skeptics are held in locations
in the East Bay.
     The Chair of Bay Area Skeptics lives in the East Bay.
     Many of the activists of Bay Area Skeptics live in the East Bay.
Bay Area Skeptics activists have frequently appeared on television and
radio, and have been written up in newspapers and magazines, by media
serving the East Bay.
     Since inception, the media has frequently referred to Bay Area
Skeptics simply as "The Skeptics."

     East Bay Skeptics Society was founded in 1988.
     Bay Area Skeptics has requested that East Bay Skeptics Society
change its name, because of the confusion, and because of the
proprietary rights Bay Area Skeptics has in the name Bay Area
Skeptics.
     The use by East Bay Skeptics Society of two of the three words
from the name of Bay Area Skeptics could cause, and in fact has
caused, enormous confusion in the minds of the public and the media.
     Much of the time, effort, and energy of the activists of Bay Area
Skeptics has been diverted from the worthy purposes for which it was
formed, and on which its level of accomplishment has been
considerable.  These activists must now spend a considerable portion
of that time, effort, and energy in explaining who they are and who
they are not.
     Such expenditure of time, energy, and effort is simply to explain
away the confusion caused by East Bay Skeptics Society in fact reaping
some of the benefits of the good work and reputation established over
the years by Bay Area Skeptics.  Whether such benefits obtained by
East Bay Skeptics Society riding on the coattails and reputation of
Bay Area Skeptics was intended or unintended is academic.  It is in
fact happening.
     The results of the above are many.  Some of those results are:
          Presentations by Bay Area Skeptics turn from exciting
     investigations and analyses of critical thinking about (for
     example) the scientific method to such bureaucratic and mundane
     things as who has the lawful right to use the words in the name
     Bay Area Skeptics.
          This bores and drives away the public.
          This bores and drives away activists and potential
     activists.

     This may be, and in fact appears to be, a major threat to the
skeptical movement itself.  That threat is not limited to the San
Francisco Bay area.   If such infringement upon proprietary names is
condoned within the movement, the good deeds and reputation of any
group are up for grabs.  And the movement itself will bore the public
with its wrangling.

Prepared and submitted by Bob Steiner, Bay Area Skeptics, September 2,
1988.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Excerpted from "Non-Profit Corporations, Organizations, and
Associations", 3rd edition, by Howard L. Oleck, of the New York and
Ohio Bars, Professor of Law, Wake Forest University:

Corporate Name, Seal, and Office,
Section 99:  Avoid Use of Deceptive Names
[footnotes are omitted]

Choice of a name for non-profit organization is affected by legal
restrictions similar to those governing choice or use of a business
organization name.  The basic principle is that the law will protect a
prior user of a name against unauthorized use by another.

Public policy in the United States and elsewhere is to prevent
confusion and unfair use of organizational names.  Protection of the
public as well as of the prior user of a name is the primary policy.
Statutory protection of organization names now is found in all
American jurisdictions, while common law protection also is available.

Typically, state statutes forbid the secretary-of-state to file
articles if the corporate name is likely to mislead the public or is
not clearly distinguishable from the name of any other corporation
(whether non-profit or for profit), unless written consent of the
other corporation is attached.  The discretion of the secretary-of-
state in such cases will not be questioned by the courts unless it
clearly was unreasonable.

...Ordinarily, it is not necessary that actual confusion of names, or
deception, be shown.  It is enough if use of a name is likely to cause
confusion or deception in the minds of people of reasonable
intelligence.  Innocent intention on the part of the second user of an
existing name is not justification.  And actual competition between
the organizations is not deemed to be essential in order to enjoin use
of a name by a new organization, if any confusion or deception at all
may occur.

Any person or organization injured by use of a deceptive name by
another person or organization may enjoin such use, or at least obtain
damages for his or its injuries.

A name deceptively similar to that of an organization already existing
within a state may not be used by another organization.  A certificate
of incorporation bearing such a deceptive name may not be accepted for
filing by any public office.  Even if it is filed, as a result of
clerical mistake or other error, this does not authorize the free use
of the deceptive name, nor prevent injunctive action or damage suits.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
          Note:  1.  Following are messages from Bay Area Skeptics's
          electronic bulletin board.  2.  "SYSOP" means the SYStem OPerator,
          Rick Moen.  3.  Messages with "*" preceding the message number are
          private, only readable by the recipient and sender.  4.  When
          I (Rick Moen) started the BBS, on Oct. 16, 1988, Daniel was
          the second person I invited (by telephone) to use the system.
          He wrote asking if he might advertise his club on the BBS, and
          I thanked him for asking and asked him not to do so, "pending
          resolution of the conflict between our groups, which I assume
          will be imminent."


Msg # *402  Dated 11-04-88 22:53:07  Security: 1
 From: DANIEL SABSAY
   To: SYSOP (message not visible to public)
   Re: LETTER TO CSICOP

I understand that a recent letter has been sent to CSICOP by Larry and
perhaps others.  Are you going to make the text available other than by
private phone conversation to, let's say, interested people?  I might
remind you that it was a couragous thing for the co-signers of the
Lattanzio-Hodes-Kent-Henvick-Carlson to openly share the contents of
their correspondence with us.  Nobody will ever know the contents of the
many long phone conversations between Bob Steiner and CSICOP concerning
the founding of EBSS (and perhaps others with CSICOP).

          Note:  1.  Some weeks before the Chicago CSICOP conference and
          Executive Council meeting, four BAS board members (plus Don
          Henvick) sent a letter to the Council urging it to give Sabsay's
          group "recognition", and alleging that Larry was not voicing the
          sense of the board.  2.  The rest of the board (& Larry) were
          kept ignorant of this until just before the Council meeting,
          precluding any response from the overwhelming majority of the
          board that disagreed with the letter.  3.  Two of the signatory
          board members now feel that their trust was abused regarding
          timely notification of Larry, which they had been assured would
          occur.  One consequently resigned out of embarrassment -- a
          significant blow to BAS in itself (yet another example of
          damage to BAS on account of Sabsay).  4. At the local groups'
          session after the Chicago conference, BAS co-founder Bob Steiner
          expressed to the assembled local activists the BAS board
          majority's grievance with Daniel's club's choice of NAME
          (and NOT with the group itself), and met with overwhelming
          approval from the assembled local-group officers.


Msg # *427  Dated 11-05-88 09:58:32  Security: 1
 From: SYSOP
   To: DANIEL SABSAY (message not visible to public)
   Re: (R)LETTER TO CSICOP

Daniel, I personally sent a letter to CSICOP's Executive Council Friday
morning via facsimile machine (the quickest means available to me, but
nonetheless very likely too late), as soon as possible after learning of
the earlier letter, after having the latter read to me Thursday evening,
upon Larry's very belated receipt of his copy.  Copies of my letter,
together with copies of the other, for fairness and context, will be
sent to all BAS board members (by yours truly).

Although I understand well your interest in this matter, the actual
contents of my letter I regard as an internal BAS board matter.

I cannot see that the "sharing" you mention involved "courage".  Talking
to people who feel the same way is not generally regarded as a
courageous act.

If you and your fellow board members ever truly wish to address our
legitimate grievances against EBSS, you know where to find us.


          Note:  1.  My letter was never delivered, having arrived too late.
          Consequently, although I sent out to our board copies of the four
          board members' letter (something they should themselves have done),
          I have not done so with my own.  2.  Mr. Sabsay wishes to imply
          that the four board members showed "courage" because of
          supposed retribution by the rest of our board.  He seems to
          like thinking himself (and those who support him) persecuted.
          3.  I have pointedly not contacted Sabsay's board of
          directors, because I strongly disapprove of his continual
          meddling with ours.


Msg # *438  Dated 11-05-88 13:51:24  Security: 1
 From: DANIEL SABSAY
   To: SYSOP (message not visible to public)
   Re: COMMENT

Thank you for the quick response.  I would truly like to know what you
think are "legitimate grievances against EBSS".  I have waited over two
months for a response from Larry to my last letter, and even though I
"know where to find you", "you" are not responding, nor are you
providing a forum to discuss this issue.  Larry in his last letter to me
requested that communication with him be written, and as I mentioned, he
has not responded for over two months.
Now, if one and only real issue remains the concept that BAS owns the
name "skeptic", this has no basis in fact and is obviously not changable
at this time.  BAS never bothered to register its name in Alameda County
and presumably, although I have not checked, not in Contra Costa Coundy
either.  I also believe that you have a mistaken idea about what was
said and agreed to in the matter of BASIS subscriptions, but since
there is no paper record of what Larry said and did, presumably it is
his word against mine.  Now, I am in the habit of putting important
things like this in writing and you have many such documents from me.
Do you PERSONALLY have the experience that I have not lived up to my
commitments to YOU?  Perhaps your "facts" about what has happened have
been skewed by one-sided information?
I have it by rumor that you think you the co-signers of the letter to
CSICOP are not in a position to know me as well as some others
(yourself?).  This premise is not supported by the facts.
I hope you will reconsider what your objectives are in this situation.

          Note:  1.  As previously noted, Mr. Sabsay never substantively
          responded to Larry's letter.  2.  Larry asked that all
          communication be by letter after repeated being yelled at, at great
          length, by Mr. Sabsay during the latter's telephone calls to him.
          3.  Mr. Sabsay, for rhetorical reasons, attempts to re-cast the
          issue as ownership of the name "skeptic".  4.  Mr. Sabsay attempts
          to imply some special significance to filing a Fictitious Business
          Name Statement.  It may be that he does not make his point more
          explicit because he knows there is no such significance.  5.  Note
          that he explicitly concedes priority to us in that passage  6.  It
          is NOT his word against Larry's, but rather his against Larry's and
          Kent's.  7.  Here, he casts Larry as the villain.  Whether, at a
          given moment, one is classified as hero or villain by Mr. Sabsay
          correlates very well with whether he sees you as advancing or
          opposing his interests.  8.  Mr. Sabsay cites "rumor" as his
          source, thinking it a big secret which BAS board members have the
          poor judgement to report to him everything we do or say.  9.  Those
          board members who are most supportive of Mr. Sabsay are
          generally those who have known him (in the context of the
          skeptics' movement) for the shortest time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Msg #  437  Dated 11-05-88 11:01:25  Security: 1
 From: SYSOP
   To: ALL (message open to public view)
   Re: COMMENT

(Here's a message I wrote to Daniel Sabsay, which somehow got
erased.  -- Rick Moen)

Dear Daniel:

I just wanted to say that you have a good memory!  Yes, the '84
Palo Alto CSICOP conference was INDEED the first time I became
actively involved with Bay Area Skeptics (through the fateful act
of walking up to Don and Susie Morris and saying "Can you use
some help?").  I had, however, been a "BASIS" subscriber long
before that, had attended BAS meetings, and knew you from them
(though not, obviously, as a personal acquaintance).  Before
that, I was a "Skeptical Inquirer" reader from almost the very
beginning, having seen the original "Objections to Astrology"
article in "The Humanist".  I've since acquired the couple of
initial issues I missed.

'Still seems like yesterday to me.  Twelve years, now!

                          [The point of this message was to counter
                          Sabsay's then-widely-heard claim that I'm a
                          patsy who's easily taken in because I'm such
                          an ignorant, brand-new arrival, and therefore cannot
                          possibly understand the alleged conspiracy
                          against him.  Oddly, the original version of the
                          above public message to Sabsay got deleted by
                          someone, immediately after I posted it, and had
                          to be retrieved from a copy I'd saved in
                          anticipation of such a "disappearance" occurring.

                          In my BBS software, any post to an individual could
                          be deleted by sender or by recipient.  The original
                          post was addressed to Sabsay.  My RE-post was to
                          "ALL", thereby averting any repeat deletion.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------


Msg # *439  Dated 11-05-88 14:00:36  Security: 1
 From: DANIEL SABSAY
   To: SYSOP (message not visible to public)
   Re: COMMENT

By the way, it is my understanding that a Chairman is responsible to the
Board, not the other way around.


Msg # *454  Dated 11-05-88 22:17:00  Security: 1
 From: SYSOP
   To: DANIEL SABSAY (message not visible to public)
   Re: (R)COMMENT

Daniel, it is a continual source of amazement to me that, now that you
are helping to run a group set up much more to your liking, you
nonetheless persist in attempting to run the Bay Area Skeptics.  This is
most peculiar.

As long as you continue to try to involve yourself in internal BAS Board
matters, I am going to continue to have to tell you that it is not your
business.


Msg # *447  Dated 11-05-88 18:55:50  Security: 1
 From: DANIEL SABSAY
   To: SYSOP (message not visible to public)
   Re: COMMENT

I hope you will also pause to consider that the reason so many people
who are knowlegeable about BAS are helpful to EBSS is because of the
behaviour of certain people within BAS.

          Note:  1.  The spelling of "behaviour" here is a reference to my
          own use of British spelling.  2.  This message is typical of Mr.
          Sabsay's tendency to deflect criticism by identifying himself with
          a larger cause, and to suggest that he is being persecuted by a
          small group.  He glosses over the fact that he has powerfully
          offended a couple of DOZEN BAS activists by his actions over the
          years.


Msg # *453  Dated 11-05-88 22:13:20  Security: 1
 From: SYSOP
   To: DANIEL SABSAY (message not visible to public)
   Re: (R)COMMENT

Daniel, I saw one response by you to Larry's letter dated June 18.
Yours was dated June 23.  I do not consider yours to be a substantive
response.  You did not address or even refer to Larry's major grievance,
the fact that the name you chose for your group is likely to be confused
with ours.  Naming an organization such that it is likely to be confused
with an existing organization is contrary to public policy, and I
believe it to be illegal, although I do not have statutory or common law
references on this point in front of me.  In the absence of a
substantive response, we are still waiting, and thus the principal
conflict between our groups remains unresolved.

"The matter of BAS subscriptions" I assume to have been a
misunderstanding.  Similar misunderstandings will not now occur.  This
is not an issue.

In publications of yours, you stated that BAS was "affiliated" and a
"sister group".  Later, The Beacon ran, buried in an article on p.2, a
statement that you are not affiliated with CSICOP, and above this was a
section heading reading "No Affiliates" and a statement that EBSS is
independent and autonomous.  This was described as "a reminder", as
though you had not made the earlier statements.  You should run a
statement, equally as prominent as the original, stating clearly that
BAS is NOT affiliated with EBSS.   These are the grievances, and I look
forward to much mutually beneficial cooperation when they're resolved.


Msg # *464  Dated 11-06-88 04:52:44  Security: 1
 From: DANIEL SABSAY
   To: SYSOP (message not visible to public)
   Re: COMMENT

This is first news I have that there is demand from anyone on the BAS
Board (you, or are you speaking for someone else?) that "retraction" was
not sufficient.  Perhaps this is CSICOP's business, not yours or even
BAS.

Neither you nor Larry has stated what is the minimum condition you are
requiring for name change.  This is the essence of my request to Larry
in last letter.  Perhaps you think some other form of casual request is
presumed to have been made?
If so, there is no sign that you or Larry understand what negotion is
like.  I don't know what you think would be sufficient remedy in name
choice, seems no one is willing to put that in writing.
Is sufficient by your standards the majority wish of the Board?
And finally, it is imprecise to say of equal prominence without stating
the reference.  BAS has printed many documents with untrue statements
about affiliation.  Long after CSICOP decided not to have Chapters,
BASIS bore the masthead "The first local chapter of CSICOP"

          Note:  1.  Mr. Sabsay suggests that it is not our business that
          he erroneously claimed affiliation with us.  2.  Having (by my
          reading) broken the law and aggressively taken a free ride on our
          reputation, now Mr. Sabsay wants us to haggle.  3.  When he
          senses that his position is weak, he attempts to sow division
          among us.  4.  He attempts to excuse himself by drawing in a red
          herring.  The banner did remain on the "BASIS" masthead for a
          while, out of inertia.  CSICOP never complained, and we removed
          it when we noticed it.  (BAS and the local skeptics groups then
          in existence jointly decided at the 1984 Palo Alto CSICOP
          Conference, hosted by BAS, to end the formal "chapter"
          affiliation in effect until that time.)


Msg # *481  Dated 11-06-88 13:48:15  Security: 1
 From: SYSOP
   To: DANIEL SABSAY (message not visible to public)
   Re: (R)COMMENT

I don't think I need to learn a whole lot about negotiation.  I spent
many a long hour in the souks and shuks <grin>.

You speak of a "retraction", yet I know of none, just the so-called
"reminder" I alluded to earlier.  I should not think any "demand" should
be necessary.  You knew, or should have known, that the claim of
"affiliation" was incorrect, and furthermore were reminded of that fact
in Larry's letter of June 18, page 2, paragraph 4.  In my opinion, a
person of good will would want to correct such a misstatement without
prompting, much less a "demand".

I feel that my use of the term "equal prominence" was amply clear.

As to what name your organization should have, that ball is plainly in
your court.  The name you chose is likely to be confused with ours; any
different name should not be.  That should be very clear.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Rick,

I am unfamiliar with the undoubtedly hugely successful, yet still
somewhat obscure school of souks and shuks negotiation.  So if
you'll forgive me, I'll presume that you might not understand my
perspective on this issue.

As you probably know, for a year and a half, I staged the monthly
BAS event. In cities around the Bay Area, skeptics of all kinds
would come up after the event and ask if any other activities or
group gatherings would be available on a continuing basis IN
THEIR COMMUNITY.  This happened so regularly that I began to
wonder if BAS was really serving the needs of these people in
cities far from San Francisco (or El Cerrito).  Worse yet, BAS
policies were actually preventing the establishment of local
community-level skeptics groups.  These people reminded me that
other groups and clubs, like Toast Masters, Kiwanis, AA, etc.
have become valuable and successful members of their communities
by operating as a network of local groups.  The names of these
groups are generally the same, city to city, to provide a
regional and national identity.

I watched as the Sacramento Skeptics, originally a part of BAS
decided to become locally autonomous.  This was a positive step
for Sacramento and did not seem to bother BAS.  Maybe Sacramento
was not really part of the "Bay Area."

When you assert that it is contrary to public policy or illegal
to use names that are likely to be confused you might have in
mind a notion that BAS has an exclusive right to a territory that
extends over a certain geographic region.  I wonder if this right
includes the obligation to explicitly define the region.  Is San
Jose, for example, in the Bay Area?  Is Concord, San Ramon,
Pleasanton or Livermore?  Is Marin, Benicia, Vallejo or
Fairfield?

Perhaps the region is defined by counties.  Legally, this is the
easiest to do, since each county provides a method to register a
name for exclusive use by an organization.  Before I filed a
Fictitious Name Statement for the East Bay Skeptic Society on
April 29, 1988, I checked the register to see if BAS had already
filed in Alameda County.  Finding no entry for BAS, I concluded
that legal priority in Alameda County would not be an issue.

You may have noticed that the East Bay Skeptics Society has a
very clear statement in its Bylaws which restricts its activities
to the counties of Alameda and Contra Costa, a clearly defined
territory.  This territory therefore does not include, for
example, San Francisco, Vallejo or San Jose.  I am not aware that
BAS has ever actually defined, much less legally asserted, an
explicit region of influence.  Would a group in Santa Rosa or San
Jose, for example, wishing to use the word "Skeptics" in its name
expect help or opposition from BAS?

I assume you are aware that EBSS has already filed for nonprofit
corporate status in California; I anticipate that we will be
granted nonprofit status within about a month.  If BAS actually
expects EBSS to consider changing its name in some way, I would
imagine a realistic negotiation would begin with a clear
statement from the BAS Board of Directors concerning the exact
territory claimed and minimal name changes requested.  Without
these elements, any legal analysis would conclude that BAS is not
seriously negotiating about anything. I'm not even sure at this
point what advantage EBSS would expect from concessions to BAS
requests (if they should ever be forthcoming).

Concerning affiliation, I have observed that BAS never felt it
necessary to retract the many, widely distributed issues of BASIS
and BAS letterhead that proclaimed BAS was a chapter of CSICOP
long after CSICOP stipulated this was not the case.  This caused
much talk in Skeptics groups around the country.  In contrast,
the two documents you alluded to had very limited distribution
and they were discontinued immediately upon the request of BAS.
EBSS no longer claims any relationship whatsoever with BAS and I
would be surprised if anyone could be found who is confused on
this point.  It is not clear to me what purpose would be served
by a prominent retraction, other than some abstract satisfaction
on the part of a few individuals.

In the absence of any real negotiation on the name issue, the
motivation to deal with previous sins of loose wording on a few
limited-distribution documents that are no longer in circulation
seems rather thin.

Yours truly,

Daniel Sabsay

          Note:  1.  Mr. Sabsay takes the stance that since I don't agree
          with him, I must not understand him, in spite of being familiar
          with his doings since 1983.  2.  No BAS policies have ever
          hindered, much less prevented, the formation of smaller skeptics'
          groups.  We helped set up Sacramento Skeptics (now the Society for
          Rational Inquiry) and Berkeley Skeptics, and are presently helping
          set up groups in San Luis Obispo and Carmel.  We have never turned
          down requests for help (and even gave it to Mr. Sabsay).  3.
          Sacramento Skeptics asked our approval to keep that name after
          splitting off, even though no one would confuse them with us.  We
          immediately granted this polite request.  4.  Mr. Sabsay attempts
          to recast the issue as one of territory.  His objective seems
          to be to claim the East Bay, where we have always been most
          active, as his private preserve.  (He has written separately
          suggesting that we concentrate on the West Bay.)  5.  He again
          asks us to haggle over reversing his rude and aggressive actions.
          6. Our inadvertantly leaving the "First Local Chapter" banner on
          the masthead and stationery did NOT cause "much talk" in
          skeptics' (not "Skeptics") groups.  As previously noted, this is
          irrelevant.  7.  He dismisses our expressed concerns as
          unimportant.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Msg # *526  Dated 11-08-88 14:12:26  Security: 10
 From: SYSOP
   To: DANIEL SABSAY (message not visible to public)
   Re: YOUR LETTER

Souk:  Arabic word for "market".  Shuk:  Ditto in Hebrew.  This is from
my kibbutznik days.

Daniel, I wrote two separate replies to your letter, and discarded both.
I had been neatly analyzing all the irrelevant issues you raised, but
finally realized that there was not much point to it.  Instead, let me
summarize:

Since you asked me to list our grievances (which should be familiar to
you), I gave you the major one:  Your group's name is likely to be
confused with ours.  I stated why I felt it must change.  I also
strongly suggested that you appropriately correct the claim of
affiliation, which you knew (and had been reminded) was incorrect.

Your talk in response about the Sacramento Skeptics, your hypothesis
that we are claiming an explicit territory, your characterization of
Fictitious Business Name Statements, your hypothetical questions, your
talk of minimal changes, and your talk about CSICOP all miss the point.
However, since you want to know what advantages meeting our requests
would have, here they are:  Legality, morality, good faith, and the
demonstration of good will.  If you do not see those advantages, I see
no need to debate further.


Msg # *527  Dated 11-08-88 14:42:19  Security: 10
 From: DANIEL SABSAY
   To: SYSOP (message not visible to public)
   Re: LEGALITY & MORALITY

I do not find good will in the attitude of BAS.  Perhaps you might, in
the fullness of time, see the morality in changing your group's name to
the San Francisco Skeptics.

          Note:  Mr. Sabsay makes more explicit here what seems to be
          his aim of ejecting us from our primary area of activity in
          the East Bay.


Msg # *528  Dated 11-08-88 15:26:15  Security: 10
 From: DANIEL SABSAY
   To: SYSOP (message not visible to public)
   Re: MORALITY ADDITIONS

I have been to vote since my last message, and I had time to reconsider.
I decided I should acknowledge the good will of some substantial
fraction of the BAS Board.


Msg #  1008 Dated: 01-03-89 00:23:29 Security: 1
 From: DANIEL SABSAY
   To: RONALD HAYDEN (message _open_ to public view)
   Re: (R)WOMEN

As the person who produced 18 straight events for B.A.S. in the period
starting in late 1984, I had the occasion to talk to women at many of
the meetings.  Many mentioned something that no one has yet discussed,
the lack of a local community presence.  Women (and men too) who
live in San Jose are more likely to be motivated to attend meetings
of a group that meets regularly in their own community.  Mary
Couleman, who was mentioned earlier, lives in Navato.  She was
a real trouper. I remember her coming to the meetings as far away as
the San Mateo planetarium. She was disappointed that there were no
meetings in her area; she doesn't come to any meetings any more.
   Genie Scott, in her letter BASWOMEN, said that there have been women
on the B.A.S. board.  My recollection is that there was exactly one
woman, Dianne Moser, who joined with her colleague Ray Spangenberg
when they were co-editors of BASIS and resigned together when they
tired of the job.  Perhaps the most parsimonious explanation is
neither any "fault of the incumbant administration" nor "a national
conspiracy of males".
   Perhaps the reason lies in the notion that one group can adequately
serve both the regional and the local scene at the same time.
Having a local level of organization provides enhanced opportunity to
build skeptical skills slowly, maybe eventually providing motivated
and capable regional leaders.


Msg #  1009 Dated 01-03-89 00:45:28  Security: 1
 From: DANIEL SABSAY
   To: DANIEL SABSAY (message _open_ to public view)
   Re: (R)WOMEN

   A recently formed local skeptics group in this area has, in a year
achieved a nearly 30 percent female membership and a 33 percent
female Board membership.  The gender balance seems to be getting
more balanced as the group, currently at 60 paid members, grows.

          Note:  1.  The preceding two messages were public messages, posted
          in the main message area.  2.  When I invited Mr. Sabsay to use the
          electronic bulletin board on 10-16-88, I asked him to not publicise
          his group there, "pending resolution of the conflict between our
          groups, which I assume will be imminent".  In these messages, doing
          exactly that but omitting the exact NAME of his group, Mr. Sabsay
          was testing how far he could push me.  3.  He is justly proud of
          his success at recruiting women members, although he's very quiet
          about minority group representation.  4.  I came across these
          messages as I was deleting a political debate over affirmative
          action that did not belong in the main message area (as I had
          warned that I would do).  They were part of that discussion --
          sufficient reason for me to delete them, if I needed a reason.  I
          do not, and DID delete them.  5.  His dichotomy between regional
          and local groups is bogus.  BAS is a local group, albeit a big one.


Msg # *1012 Dated 01-03-89 03:58:06  Security: 1
 From: DANIEL SABSAY
   To: SYSOP (message not visible to public)
   Re: CENSORSHIP

Fortunately, I took the precaution of keeping a copy of messages 1008
and
1009.  They are under way to their destination by electronic mail that
you do
not control.  Perhaps skepticism is not strong enough for the truth.

          Note:  Prior to deleting those messages, I printed them out and
          hand-delivered them to their nominal addressee, Mr. Hayden, at
          considerable expense in time and trouble.


Msg # *1013 Dated 01-03-89 06:06:43  Security: 1
 From: DANIEL SABSAY
   To: SYSOP (message not visible to public)
   Re: CENSORSHIP

The nice thing about a BBS with real names is that the people can also
be reached by real mail.  A lot of people who claim they live within the
territory of EBSS are not listed in the phone book.  But neither is Sax
Allen, since this is not his real name.
I do not understand your need to change history.  This can only reflect
badly on you and harden my resolve to compete harder.  Your claims not
to be ideological are belied by your actions.

          Note:  1.  Mr. Sabsay trolled our electronic bulletin board as a
          source of names to solicit for membership in his club.  2.  I
          didn't claim to be non-ideological.  Yves made some general remark
          about ideologues needing to form clubs for the like-minded.


Msg # *1016 Dated 01-03-89 19:39:15  Security: 1
 From: SYSOP
   To: DANIEL SABSAY (message not visible to public)
   Re: QUESTIONABLE JUDGEMENT

Dear Daniel:

I erased a large number of messages yesterday evening, for various
reasons, including their being inappropriate for the message area in
which they were entered.  Please see bulletin #1 for my policy regarding
messages.  By the way, please note that you still may not publicise your
group on this BBS, pending resolution of the grievances BAS has with it,
which you have not yet seriously addressed.  Please note, also, that
this is your one warning on this point.

Yours, Rick Moen


Msg # *1036 Dated 01-08-89 01:41:00  Security: 1
 From: DANIEL SABSAY
   To: SYSOP (message not visible to public)
   Re: OPEN DISCUSSION

    "From: SYSOP To: DANIEL MURPHY Re: (R)BAS

    Personally, I would very much welcome speculation as to why, in
    particular, there seem to be so few women actively involved in
    skeptics' organizations.  (I'm gratified that no one thinks this
    reflects any policy of the Board.)  One of our activists, Mary
    Coulman, worked on this problem for a while, but I don't believe
    she came up with any really satifying answer."

Just located one of the messages at the beginning of the thread.
Thought you might not remember it exactly, seems it invites discussion
of the subject of women in skeptics organizations.


Msg # *1039 Dated 01-08-89 15:00:36  Security: 1
 From: SYSOP
   To: DANIEL SABSAY (message not visible to public)
   Re: MORE QUESTIONABLE JUDGMNT

First of all, your message was not directed towards the issue of why
there are so few women in skeptics' activities, but was rather just
another point of departure in expounding on your favourite organizational
theories.

Second, when discussions start delving into religion and/or politics,
in the MAIN area, I may at my option delete them or do whatever I damn
well please with them.  Vide THE BLACK HOLE.

Third, you did not stop with the tie-in with your armchair sociology,
but then violated my carefully and politely explained policy.  In light
of this fact, your crybaby complaints about "censorship" are rather
cheeky.  You are a guest on this BBS; it is not your house organ.
Please read bulletin #1 on my message policy.  If you cross me again,
you may encounter "censorship" on a larger scale.  Get straight on this
point, Daniel, or prepare to ship out.

Note:  Mary (whose name you mis-spelled) did NOT stop participating
because of lack of a "local" group as you conceive it, or for lack of
Marin meetings, but because she became too busy.  Diane (whose name you
mis-spelled) did NOT quit the board because she "tired of the job", but
because she became too busy.

If you don't like what I'm telling you, I really DON'T want to hear about
it.  You are wasting my time.


          Note:  1.  "THE BLACK HOLE" was a message area specifically for
          discussions of religion and politics, set up to get them out of the
          "MAIN" area.  2.  Bulletin #1, the BBS "policies" bulletin, stated
          in part that I can and do delete messages, and don't need reasons.
          3.  Diane and Ray told me, shortly after this message, that they
          _actually_ quit because they were tired of being harrassed by Mr.
          Sabsay (although they were also very busy).  4.  I hold against Mr.
          Sabsay most, leaving aside all the other ways I feel he has
          damaged Bay Area Skeptics and the skeptics' movement, the fact
          that he has wasted huge amounts of my and others' time.  Soon
          after this message, I downgraded his access to the electronic
          bulletin board:  He had no respect for my rules, and never
          participated except to harrass us.  Again, I do not need reasons
          for regulating access.


Msg # *1532 Dated 03-27-89 19:32:47  Security: 0
 From: DANIEL SABSAY
   To: SYSOP (message not visible to public)
   Re: JERK

CSICOP has informed me that East Bay Skeptics Society will be listed in
the next issue of the Skeptical Inquirer.  The story is over.  You can
continue to be a jerk or you can accept this and start over with me.

          Note:  1. I killed this message, and ignored it.  2.  "Accept this
          and start over" seems to mean "give me everything I want and
          haven't been so far able to grab, since I somehow got CSICOP to do
          the same".  I cannot go into how Mr. Sabsay was able to get what
          he wanted from CSICOP.  (Actually, I _could_, but I won't.)


Msg # *1544 Dated 03-29-89 20:21:24  Security: 0
 From: DANIEL SABSAY
   To: SYSOP (message not visible to public)
   Re: INTEMPERATE

Dear Rick,

I have had a quieter moment to reflect and I regret my earlier
intemperate remark.  I appologize.  I meant that it is no longer
useful to suppress information of EBSS on this board and I would
hope your sense of fair play would lead you to restore normal
access.
Thanks in advance, hoping we can move ahead in the next year.


Msg # *1547 Dated 03-29-89 00:05:15  Security: 0
 From: SYSOP
   To: DANIEL SABSAY (message not visible to public)
   Re: WHERE WERE WE?

No offense taken.  "Jerk" is mild indeed, and I am not that
thin-skinned.

You want normal relations with BAS (at least, so you say) and
cooperation.  We want you to stop using an organizational name likely to
be confused with ours (as the law requires).  "Useful" is a matter of
opinion.  To date, you have not substantively responded to us on that
request in any way.  Fair play can start right there.

Once again, a warning for you, and this one you had better heed.  You
may NOT sign onto this board under any false name for any reason
whatsoever, and both civil and criminal charges, under some harsh
federal and state statutes I know well, may be brought against you if
you do.  Do yourself a favour, and take me at my word.

Not everyone you encounter, Daniel, can be nudghed into doing everything
your way.  Learn to back off a bit (that shameful episode with Dan
Dugan, your repeated cheap shots at BAS in your newsletter, your reading
the confidential BAS board minutes and publishing info. from them, your
selective lobbying of BAS board members, your attacks on my sysop
authority, your boast that you would throw Larry off the BAS board, your
dealings regarding BASIS distribution all come to mind), and you will
make a lot more friends.

          Note:  1.  Mr. Dan Dugan left a defamatory message in the main
          message area complaining of my and BAS's alleged ill-treatment of
          Mr. Sabsay and his club, falsely stating (among other things) that
          I "erase private messages from Sabsay to BAS board members".  (I
          DO erase private messages AFTER they have been received.)  He told
          me that his sole source of information for all his allegations
          was Mr. Sabsay.  Confronted with evidence of his reckless errors,
          Dugan has refused to apologise or retract his statements.  2.  I
          telephoned Mr. Dugan, to try to reason with him, as did Larry and
          Yves.  After he hung up on us and threatened Larry, I erased his
          BBS message, and did so again with his second defamatory attempt.
          3.  He leafleted the next BAS meeting with his message text and an
          advertisement for Mr. Sabsay's next meeting.  He maintained that
          he was solely responsible for this action.  4.  Bear in mind my
          above warning to Mr. Sabsay when you read the next two messages.


Msg # *1548 Dated 03-30-89 00:28:44  Security: 0
 From: DEE SAB
   To: SYSOP (message not visible to public)
   Re: COMMENT

Hi Rick


Msg # *1569 Dated 04-01-89 01:34:57  Security: 0
 From: SYSOP
   To: DANIEL SABSAY (message not visible to public)
   Re: BEDTIME FOR DANIEL

You were the second person I invited to use this bulletin board
system (after Shawn), back before you worked so hard to make
yourself unwelcome.  Now, because of your continuing, blatant,
and unapologetic violations of the BBS rules, you are the very
first to be un-invited.  Congratulations!  Another noble
achievement for you!

So, effective on receipt of this message, you may not use this
BBS under ANY name for ANY reason whatsoever, until I decide
otherwise.  Don't call me; I'll call you.  Further, no one may
call this BBS from your telephone number.  Enforcement provisions
are imminent, and if you indulge yourself in illegal unauthorized
access of this system, I may, at a time of my choosing, bring
criminal charges.  Now, it may be that acknowledging someone else's
position of authority is a new thing in your miserable, sociopathic,
self-righteous existence, but NOW would be a very expedient occasion
to learn how.  I do not intend to give you any more warnings.

Make my day.

          Note:  At that time, I set up the evidential means to legally
          enforce this prohibition.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Jim Miller
                                           East Bay Skeptics Society
                                           P.O. Box 20989
                                           Oakland, CA 94620
                                           6 July 1989

Board of Directors
Bay Area Skeptics

Dear BAS Board:

I am writing you on the occasion of the publication of the Summer 1989
"Skeptical Inquirer".  In this issue, as you probably know, EBSS has been
included in the roster of groups cooperating with CSICOP.  This opens a
new era in our relationship with CSICOP, and logically should begin a new
era in relations with your group.

A local group like ours has several advantages in serving the local
community.  We can economically target local media in our event promotion,
sponsor social events geographically convenient to our members, and
eventually provide a presence in the local school system.  This is how
local groups can complement a regional group such as yours.

The EAST BAY SKEPTICS SOCIETY, INCORPORATED has reached 91 members and is
still growing steadily.  Our monthly events consistently draw a minimum of
70 people and the large turnout is an asset in attracting interesting
speakers.  Our newsletter is well received and will soon be distributed by
CSICOP.

It has been nine months since we last wrote you, and three since our last
letter to Larry.  We still want to establish normal relations with BAS and
have yet to hear from Larry in this regard.  We are also concerned about
your electronic BBS which, although publicly listed in local magazines,
has an unpublished policy of erasing any messages that mention EBSS, and
banning access to people who mention EBSS.  This policy has great potential
to be an embarrassment to the Skeptics in general, and BAS in particular.
It has already had some unpleasant consequences.

We look forward to future cordial relations.  We suggest a good start would
be (a) to reconsider your policy on the BBS, and (b) to cooperate in cross-
promoting each other's events in "BASIS" and "The Beacon".  We would welcome
any other suggestions you may have.

Yours Truly

Jim Miller
Secretary

          Note:  1.  Same old stuff.  2.  Although signed by Mr. Miller, this
          letter shows Mr. Sabsay's distinctive style and tone, not to
          mention the same old ideology.  (Note that "Jim" capitalizes
          "skeptic", and speaks of himself in the plural.)  3.  Mr. Sabsay
          has a talent for hiding behind other people and identifying his
          own interests with larger causes.  4.  The BBS policies that
          "Jim" complains of never existed.  His statement is therefore
          defamatory of me, the person who would have to create and enforce
          those purported policies. The day the BBS started (Oct. 16,
          1988), Daniel was the second person I invited to use it.  He
          asked if he might publicise his group, and I thanked him for
          asking, and asked him not to, "pending resolution of the conflict
          between our groups, which I assume will be imminent." Daniel has
          gradually inflated this request to the above blanket "unpublished
          policy", in keeping with his tendency of attempting to identify
          himself with a larger, persecuted group.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
          [The following reply was in fact never sent. -- Rick M.]

                                               Rick Moen
                                               4030 Moraga
                                               San Francisco, CA 94122
                                               July 9, 1989



Jim Miller
P.O. Box 20989
Oakland, CA 94620


Dear Jim:

You always struck me as a good fellow.  Yet your recent letter states that
my BBS "has an unpublished policy of erasing any messages that mention EBSS,
and banning access to people who mention EBSS".  This is both incorrect
and an attack on my character.

I am willing to assume that you were relying on extremely biased sources
and did not check the facts.  The case was similar with Mr. Dugan's
defamatory flyer:  He told me that his sole source of information was Mr.
Daniel Sabsay.  You and Dugan both should really know better than to fall
for Mr. Sabsay's old throw-some-mud-and-see-what-sticks tactic.

That having been said, I must ask for an immediate retraction and apology.

Your representative, Mr. Sabsay, has consistently declined to substantively
respond to Larry's certified letter of June 18, 1988 (which stated our
grievances), despite numerous reminders.  "Establishing normal relations" can
start right there.  However, given the absence of good faith in Mr. Sabsay's
dealings with us, I have little hope.

Sincerely,

Rick Moen


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message base SCIENCE Subboard

Msg #:  2457  Security: 1
 From:  JIM MILLER                            Sent: 08-09-89 19:15
   To:  ALL (message _open_ to public view)   Rcvd: 08-11-89 17:23
   Re:  LECTURE ON PLACEBO EFFECT

The East Bay Skeptics Society will present a FREE PUBLIC
LECTURE and discussion titled "The Placebo Effect: Natures  Most
Effective  Medicine?"
   Can delusion cure disease or control pain?
   What are the ethics of using a placebo?
   What is the natural life cycle of disease?
   Do you get better or just feel better?

DATE -- August 20,  5 p.m.
PLACE -- Le Conte Hall/Room 1, UC Berkeley
For more information -- [phone]

Our speaker will be Dr. Howard Fields, a professor of neurology &
physiology at University of California, San Francisco.  He is a
clinician
specializing in the treatment of pain, and a neuroscientist actively
studying brain mechanisms that modify the perception of pain.  One of
his main research interests is the physiology underlying the placebo
effect.

Dr. Howard Fields will deliver a lecture on the general nature, and the
clinical uses of, placebo.  An engaging speaker, Dr. Fields welcomes
audience participation and will entertain a question and answer period
following the talk.

--- RBBSMAIL 17.2A
 * Origin: THE SKEPTIC'S BOARD [phone] (RBBS-PC 8:914/207)

          Note:  1. Mr. Miller posted this message, of strictly local
          interest, in the international Science conference.  From there, it
          was sent out by telephone around the WORLD at sysops' expense.  2.
          When this sort of thing happens, those other sysops' displeasure is
          expressed directly at the sysop of the electronic bulletin board
          from which the message originated.  Sysops are expected to keep
          their callers in check, even rude and insensitive ones like Mr.
          Miller.  3. In effect, Mr. Miller was damaging my reputation,
          that of Bay Area Skeptics, and that of my board, among people I
          could not afford to offend.  4.  Dr. Howard Fields, some may
          recall, was a speaker BAS found and hosted.  This follows the
          typical pattern of Mr. Sabsay aping or latching onto everything
          we do, from copying our newsletter design to rehashing our prior
          meetings with the same speakers, to attempting to manipulate our
          board members and our electronic bulletin board.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONCLUSION:
----------

My admiration goes out to all those who have slogged through this lamentable
affair to the end.  Those who are still interested, in all fairness, might
wish to consult Mr. Sabsay and his club for their comments on this correspond-
ence record.  Here are a few pointed questions you might want to put to them:

1.   Why has Mr. Sabsay never responded in any substantive way to our
     chairman's letter of June 1988, stating our grievance, despite
     numerous reminders?  This is especially puzzling because Sabsay
     knows that full cooperation between the groups, which he professes
     to desire, would result if he dealt with our grievance.

2.   Why do Mr. Sabsay and his supporters continually attempt to get
     concessions from BAS by making scenes in BAS meetings, on the BAS
     bulletin board, and in other BAS forums, and by committing libel
     there?

3.   Why hasn't Mr. Sabsay, if he has ideas or complaints he feels we're
     suppressing, ever submitted them in an article for "BASIS", our
     monthly newsletter, using instead the above means?

4.   If his problem is that BAS "does not provide a forum" for
     discussion of his issues, why has he never aired his dispute with
     BAS in his own newsletter?  Is it because he knows it would bore
     and alienate his readers, and wishes instead to bore and alienate
     OUR people?

5.   Why does Mr. Sabsay get and read the minutes of the BAS Board of
     Directors meetings, and publish information from them in his
     newsletter?

6.   Why does he continue to allege persecution by BAS, when BAS has
     left him strictly alone, except for attempts to get him to change
     his group's name to one less likely to be confused with ours?


Rick Moen
Bay Area Skeptics
744 Harrison
San Francisco, CA 94107-1235
Voice: 415-543-6475
e-mail: [e-mail]
WWW:  http://hugin.imat.com/bas/

    [NOTE:  Following paragraph is for historical purposes.   I closed
    my BBS in 1996, after a phenomenally successful run. -- RM, 12/97]

The Skeptic's Board BBS (dial-up modem access):  415-648-8944
(Hours:  continuous except 1-2 am and 3:30-5:00 am PST)
FidoNet address:  1:125/27
RBBS-Net address:  8:914/207
ParaNet [sm] address:  9:1012/2 (Alpha-Centauri)
InterNet address:  [e-mail]
                or [e-mail]

    [Again, the information in the preceding paragraph is no
    longer current.  The BBS and its sundry network addresses
    ceased to function as of 1996.  Please see our Web pages and
    world-wide skeptics' ftp archive at http://hugin.imat.com/bas/.]

                            - end -