... Michael. We all wish you had time to post more often.

I would like to clarify my position (and I think that of most of the folks who agree with me on this) with respect to your comments in paragraph 5:

>> 5. Despite my own strong opinions, I am absolutely and unalterably
>> opposed to the CC>CC taking punitive action against members who
>> collect slabbed chips or dealers who sell them.

I have not suggested (and don't think anyone else has either) that the club take punitive actions against either collectors who collect slabbed chips or dealers who sell them. I have said that I will, if elected, propose a resolution which would prohibit the sale of slabbed chips in club venues (including the convention floor, the club auction and the CC&TN). I do not see this as "punitive" in any way -- and would not restrict any dealer who otherwise sells slabbed chips from participating in any of these activities, so long as he does not do so in those three areas.

I have posted a pledge, which a large number of other members have joined, that states how I as an individual will deal with slabbed chips. I will choose not to buy anything from a dealer who sells slabbed chips. This is a matter of personal preference, not related in any way to the club. Of those who have joined in this pledge, a number disagree with my proposal to prohibit the sale of slabbed chips through club venues.

>> That's censorship in its most dangerous form. If the Club can decide
>> that slabbed chips and those who collect and deal in them can be banned,
>> what's to prevent the Club from banning dice collectors or roulette
>> collectors or slot card collectors?

No one, including me, has suggested that collectors of or dealers in slabbed chips would be banned from the club. Only that they would be prohibited from doing so in the three club venues mentioned above. There is, of course, a significant difference. I also think the "slippery slope" argument (which is one of the well-known fallacies of logic) has a simple answer. Even if we were talking about banning from the club, which we're not, the club could "ban" collectors of dice, roulettes or slot cards (or anything else) only if club members were willing to accept such a ban (a willingness which, it seems to me, would obviously not be forthcoming). As long as each decision is an independent choice, one does not necessarily follow from another.

>> Again, the marketplace will determine the fate of slabbing.

I agree 100% with this conclusion. The marketplace WILL decide. The three club venues that would be made unavailable to slabbers if my proposal is adopted constitute a significant part of the marketplace and we as a group could speak volumes about the acceptability of this item in the marketplace by closing our portion of it to slabbed chips.

I would also like to respond to one other comment in your post:

>> Unlike the Club, KMW Publishing Co. is a private concern,
>> and we can determine what to publish and what not to publish.

I'm not sure why you used the phrase "unlike the club" in correctly referring to KMW as a "private concern". The club is also a private organization and has every bit as much right as KMW (or any other private organization) to act in its own best interests. We have the right to determine what to publish and what not to publish in the club magazine (including restrictions on advertising content). We have the right to determine what to "publish" in our auction or on our convention floor. This is no more a "censorship" issue for the CC>CC than it is for KMW.

I hope these clarifications are useful to you (and perhaps others) in evaluating what the club should do about this problem. ----- jim o\-S