@AndyPR apologies as the quote function seems to be eluding me.
You said, “First, Emily explicitly provided her email in order that folks who want to can contact her to ask questions, I would suggest you send her your query. Personally, I think you are reading more into the reply than there actually is”
I agree, it is very likely I am reading too much into the statement (albeit contradictory). Clearly the SMCI as they say have been contacted by AfME but as yet, nothing has been formalised. While I guess they agree in principle to the idea reading between the lines they seem rather caught off guard (to me). But this is yet more imaginings on my part and yes, I could well email Emily but you have already done that.
Your reading of the second sentence was that ‘we’ pertained to the entire ME community, I say in context it reads to me as the ‘alliance’. Could be either, I won’t argue the toss. My point being is that it’s all so vague and we deserve more robust statements in the first instance. Don’t get me wrong, I am aware this may have taken SMCI by surprise and as I’ve said, I support their recent activities but still…is it too much to expect clear cut statements. Especially where AfME are involved.
I lament the fact that the ME community is so often subjected to vague non committal statements. I think we deserve more from our charities. Please note again, this is no comment of the current activities of SMCI which I am very much enthusiastic and in support of, just saying.