Starchild:
I wrote my message because it looked to me as though you remained somehow unaware of the degree to which you were pissing people off and leading them to adopt rigidly self-protective stances in relation to you. It was my guess that it would be helpful to us all if you understood that. It's not clear to me yet that you do, although responses like Rob's continue to reinforce what I was talking about. Whether you get it or not, I don't think I have any more to say about it.
I sometimes observe in social systems that something important is universally known but never spoken about, and I often take it as my role to name what I see going on. In this case, I think everyone else is simply more polite than I. Rob, for instance, had avoided being so blunt about DAF until you pressed him on it. But my strategy is not without risk. Sometimes the stability of social systems depends on things never being named--I think of marriages which work only so long as the affair both partners know about is never mentioned. I can't tell for sure yet whether my posting will have been helpful on the whole; if it wasn't, my apologies to everybody.
I should clarify that I haven't particularly felt my own boundaries violated, just because I've been able to protect myself unobtrusively. That wouldn't be an option if I were, say, chair. That's one reason (but only one of several) why I wouldn't be interested in the chair's position. (I can't imagine, incidentally, anyone's ever doing so outstanding a job in that position, in all respects, as Chris.)
Thanks for the specific invitation to the Speakeasy. Though I'm not much of a party person or socializer, these events sound like fun, and I might well come, except for being under an unprecedented crush at work, which will keep me working evenings and weekends for the rest of the month.