Bonds. The bonds we forge with each other as Mensans, connecting with each other even as we disagree amicably or just share thoughts about the Society to which we all belong, are the strength of Mensa. Those connections are our anchor, our cohesiveness in an otherwise diverse group that celebrates its diversity. Letters to the editor are one means of connecting with each other.

In the March issue of Going Forward, there are several comments on the change from "ASIE" (Actions Still In Effect) to "Standing Orders" and now the change back to "ASIE." Here is what happened. There has always been confusion about the term "ASIE"; it is probably British in origin. As AMC Secretary, I am allowed to name them whatever works, so I thought a change to "Standing Orders" clarified what they are. ("Standing Rules" didn't work, since many ASIEs are appointments.) I made the change, but then was surprised to find out how many people expressed strong opposition to this change. Even though I envisioned it happening slowly (describing them as "… formerly known as ASIEs"), some thought we'd need to invest a great deal of time and money changing handbooks, etc. — both existing and in production. Others objected strongly to the word "orders." Since the international board uses "ASIE," and because of the many objections to the change, I am changing it back to the familiar, if sometimes misunderstood, "ASIE."

Nothing political, nothing secretive. Just a change of mind in deference to unhappy response to the alteration and positive reaction to membership preferences.

As Secretary, I compile a history of our meetings and discussions. I vote according to my response to input from members, the AMC discussion and my personal feeling of responsibility to the members. My vote on the AMC is always with my awareness that being on the AMC is a job of service to the membership. The decision to return to "ASIE" is just one example of how your positive input makes a difference.

— Judy Vasiliauskas

Angie Richardson's letter in the March Going Forward, in response to my article "Adolescent Mensa," has little to do with what I wrote. I'm not asking someone to hit the shock-jocks over the head with a club. I'm simply asking Mensa not to actively promote the seamier side of life. My other member organizations don't feel a necessity to cater to my baser instincts. I should not have to seal myself in my house, refuse magazine subscriptions, e-mail and newspapers, or avoid RGs, Mensa meetings, listening to the radio and watching television in order to avoid violence and vulgarity. My First Amendment rights have been disposed of to promote the rights of the underbelly of society.

Before I was married, I had a blind date with a very nice gentleman who asked me to select a restaurant. I picked an upscale Chinese restaurant. Imagine my consternation and embarrassment when two people were seated across from us and began using the loudest, filthiest language possible. I can remember when people were arrested for using vile language in public. Of course, now it is considered their right to be obscene. What happened to "your right to swing your fist ends with my nose"?

My abhorrence to sniggering, foul-mouthed, emotional ignoramuses also has nothing to do with religiosity. My sister, who's super-religious, sends some of the dirtiest jokes to my e-mail I've ever seen. Good taste and good manners are uncommon today. Every comedian who wants a bigger laugh goes for something even filthier. There has to be some kind of limitation to this ugliness, and I volunteer to be the "prude" who inhales with a shocked gasp. It's got to start somewhere. Remember when men used to say, after they had slipped and said a vulgar word in front of a woman, "Oh, sorry, ma'am, excuse my French"? Remember when they used to say "ma'am" at all?

I agree with Angie on a point she made in the March 2004 Spirit of '76 (Mensa 76's newsletter). She's absolutely right in that good taste cannot be legislated. Anything you get from the government results in a nuclear bomb to kill a fly. It's the nature of government. We've always had to guard our freedoms against Big Government, which is unbridled power in the hands of the idiot savants. But, surprise! First Amendment rights are for my kind as well as for the sleazy.

I enjoy some levels of sexual nuance, or what I've been laughed at for calling "tasteful violence." I remember thinking in the '60s that Portnoy's Complaint was very funny. I lent it to a friend, whom I considered much more sophisticated about sex than I was: She read it and was shocked at the filth. Obviously, we can't always know what is offensive to another, even when we think we know that person. We're all extremely different individuals, and as a courtesy, we should respect those differences.

But when we're a captive audience (except for staying at home and living without social contact or media), those who compete for our attention think they need to go further "outside the box" by displaying even a higher level of depravity, violence and/or sexual themes than conceivable unless objections are heard.

I object.

— Nancy Park

Bob Strippy, for those who might not know him personally, has been a member of Mensa for over 20 years. He has written for his local group newsletter, served on the national nominating committee and corresponded with members for many of those years. His insightful columns and comments kept us all on our toes. After a variety of careers ranging from university history professor to church organist to public relations specialist, he was enjoying semi-retirement and trying to manage his many and extremely serious health problems while living on Social Security. And then, right in his beloved Shenandoah Valley of Virginia, he got caught in the Gears of The System.

In a nutshell, Bob was attacked by a young drunk. In the struggle over a gun, it fired; the drunk got shot; and Bob got arrested for defending himself. Because Bob didn't have funds for a private attorney, he relied on the local Public Defender's office. Everything that could go wrong in a rural county's unsophisticated court system went wrong, and Bob was convicted. After an eight-month delay, partly because the local court clerk couldn't verify his foreign doctorate degrees (and during which time Bob sat in jail), Bob was convicted and sentenced to 10 years.

Recently, Bob was transferred to one of the Virginia Correctional Centers, where he is trying desperately to hang on health-wise while a private lawyer hired by his many friends worldwide works on an appeal. His only link to sanity at present is the letters he receives from friends and even from people he's never met before, but who have heard about his plight. These letters are a lifeline for this erudite man. Mensans are invited to write to him at 332218 PMU 180-1, Powhatan Correctional Center, State Farm, VA 23160.

For more details, check the Bob Strippy website.

— Didi Pancake

Regarding "Two Too Much" ["InterM"] in the March Going Forward: The actions attributed to me were not entirely accurate. I cannot discuss the details at this time since there have been a lot of misunderstandings involved, and they still have not been completely resolved.

Being an RVC is a very difficult task, and I appreciate all efforts being made to work out everything in a polite manner.

— Edward Gordon

[EDITOR'S NOTE: GF regrets and apologizes for any errors that may have been made.]

The Allen Neuner draft bylaws [Sept. '03 (Special Issue), Dec. '03, and March '04] adopted many of my suggestions, but there is still one matter with which I strongly disagree: the avoidance of "vagueness."

Allen excised from his draft the terms "acts inimical" and "fairness" on the grounds that they are vague. The hidden premises in that reasoning are: 1) "precision is better than vagueness" and 2) "to avoid vagueness, we should eliminate vague terms." I agree with the first, but not the second premise.

At bottom, all language is imprecise and dependent upon context. Justice Potter Stewart stated the case precisely when challenged to define "pornography": "I can't tell you what it is, but I know it when I see it." In striving for precision, we often overload the case with nuances, distinctions, qualifications and hidden assumptions to the point that meaning is obscured or even lost. I suggest that even if "acts inimical" and "fairness" are imprecise, they are not without meanings, and those meanings have an important place in the Bylaws.

Bylaws are documents with constitutional dimensions. They are not statutes, rules or regulations (although parts of bylaws contain or have characteristics of those kinds of documents). It is an illusion that one can achieve a community intention by establishing a set of rules — particularly under a document that is difficult to change. Conditions change, willy-nilly, and words won't change facts. The best we can do is use words as models that explain, not control, the world. ("World," in this case, includes both the physical and the social environment.) I find that the most productive and reliable approach to constitutional drafting is to start with a consideration of functions and limitations and periodically return to a reconsideration.

Our minds play tricks on us by driving us to seek closure or certainty. Sometimes (even often) we find it in conceptual formulas that satisfy these internal urges even though they do not comport well with reality. Some parts of the real world are actually — in part — chaotic; we need to accept that rather than force a false order on our perceptions and create destructive dissonances. When it comes to writing constitutional documents, parts (like inimical and fairness) are better left vague and imprecise lest we trap ourselves in circumstances we have not clearly foreseen, or worse, become conceptually changed by abstract arguments or context shifting. We need to learn to live with the real uncertainties lest we bind ourselves to error.

In the original Mensa Bylaws, "acts inimical" was deliberately left loosely defined and vague for a reason. Let us not tamper with that well-thought-out decision simply because certainty feels good to many — even most — people.

— Sander Rubin

[EDITOR'S NOTE: Sander has prepared a table comparing his views and suggestions with our current Bylaws and the Neuner draft.]