A non-controversial discussion that I personally think worth having historically

From William A. Percy
Jump to: navigation, search

I am being pedantic or whatever the word is for pushing an unimportant issue, but I personally think it is important in learning about organizations, and it has been discussed in marriages sociologically.

In Vern's book (Before Stonewall) he says that I was the precipitating cause of the division/separation or whatever term you want to use, of ONE, Inc. In the article I have been sending out that he wrote on the start of the movement, there is a final thought that Reed Erickson is important in ONE's history-I assume for the money given to ISHR. In a sense he gives more space to Reed than the founders.

I think i have a right to give my thoughts for "history." And I have no doubt that I was just used and that the reason/cause of the division was not just the differing views on priorities of Don and Dorr, BUT, the money Reed gave us.

Anything further is mere discussion and further support for my belief. But if i am right, it is important and as i said, has often been given as an explanation for why a good marriage went bad. When the money came, Dorr got more pushy. He saw a chance to do what he thought was best and was able to take the chance since he had the money. He probably would never have tried to rig the election, and fire the editors, if he had NOt had a guarantee of money.

And as much as I loved Vern, and think he is one of the greatest good things our movement has had, I do feel he "adds' Reed, as I think Wayne, you do, is because of the money-he supported the bibliography and may have given Vern money.

Members of our community/movement will have no interest in this small tangent issue, but i think if our history is to be understood, it may be a very important thing to understand-money can do harm and we were better when we had none. Most of the money coming into us today is wasted on large salaries of incompetent and unethical people and side issues. I think our progress is mainly due to the momentum from the founders and early organizations and publications.

Further, i hate to say this, but it is true-Reed, a trans person- caused more harm than good for our movement. hHs personal life of course then caused Dorr trouble-which we had foreseen.

Technically he is right-Don and the majority of legal board members wanted to make me a board member. Dorr rigged the election to keep me off-we never knew why. But this was the last straw for Don and others who were tired of Dorr trying to make himself the "decider," so since Don was the only other person qualified (morally) to have equal rights in ONE, he was the only one to make the move to stop Dorr. He did, and I and others joined him. Dorr had the money from Reed/ISHR and instead of using it to do what he thought/claimed was important, and the main cause of the dissention (Don of course thought the magazine reached more people and brought in the money), putting out the Quarterly and holding classes, etc. Instead he spent it on the lawsuit. My thought is that the separation would not have happened if Dorr didn't have the money from Reed. I had said I didn't care if I was on the board, so that might have thus been dropped and things would have gone on as before, both Don and Dorr doing the part they wanted to.

Personal tools