P. S.  I've written an article for A Bas about the differences between Pmzfans and
      confans, putting the extreme of both points of view and trying to reconcile
them. I hope you'll think the opinions of both sides are fairly represented: at any
rate, Boyd seems to think I've leaned over backwards in favour of the confans. This
is a silly and pointless squabble, trying to set the two groups against one another
- we are all Pans - and I hope you'll let it drop. Take that chip off your shoulder,
Bob; it's obscuring your vision,
                                     Walt


Dear Walt:

     Thanks very much for your letter of 22 October. It was nice to hear from you.
As a matter of Pact, and I suppose you realize this, this is the first time we've
exchanged letters. However, I have communicated with you via tape - and am wonder-
ing if either of those tapes ever reached you, (I am referring to the tape made
last New Year's Eve and to the lengthy job made at the Disclave by Pevle,t and myself,)

     Frankly, Walt, I think you are taking things a little too seriously. While I
will concede there is a little needling going on in the various chapters of "A Fake
Fan in London", I certainly don't think I em trying "to set the two groups against
one another". If there is any truth to such a statement, I am afraid the separation
of fandom into two groups occurred long before I won TAFF. And I am also afraid
that you had a lot to do with the distinction between fanzine fans and fandom in
general. I, personally, do not seriously adhere to such a distinction. To me a
science fiction fan is a science fiction fan. In other words, if someone says he is
an s-f fan, why doubt it? In reality, your definition in your letter is almost
identical to mine: "A fan is a person interested enough in sf to wish to communi-
eate with others of a like mind". In fact, I will say that the above is a perfect
definition. However, communication covers more media than mere publishing. Personal
contact is by far the most powerful of all media of communication,

     So far as the title of my Loncon report (and the sub-title) are concerned, I
feel that you are grabbing at straws to use these as a basis for your statement that
I feel that you are conducting a vast international conspiracy against me. I am
afraid that I cannot, at this late date, change the title of the report. Also, I am
Merely quoting THE EARP STATESIDE when I use the term "Relic of Antediluvian Fandom".
You said it; I thought it was hilarious when I read it; and it has stuck in my mind.
The same applies to "Ghost Fandom". I would like you to read very carefully page
16 of Ken Bulmer's Autumn 1958 issue of STEAM which contains his very excellent TAFF
coverage. You will note that Ken and I said the same things regarding American
fandom - and I guarantee you there was no collusion between us. (Incidentally, I
consider Ken's coverage far and away the best thing ever written concerning TAF'F.
Ken managed, as you probably noticed, to defend you, Don Ford, and me, all at the
same time, Such impartiality is to be commended highly. I don't agree 100% with
everything he said - but I feel that everyone who has been embroiled in the TAFF
controversy to any extent whatsoever should read it.)

     I have never actually heard the tape which went out of England when the TAFF
returns came in. Don won't let it out of his hands, but he wants me to listen to it
next time I am in Cincy. Don't know whether I should listen, as it can do nothing
but create more dissension.

     Your clarification of your stand on such issues as who is a fan, who should be
able to vote in TAFF, who should be eligible for nomination, and your opinion con-
cerning my eligibility to be nominated for TAFF (and my suitability) are interesting
to me at least. I have every intention to send your letter to Lynn Hickman, as you
requested, so your opinions can be published for the record. In reality, ft would