What LACon &c....
Dr Gafia
typed pages on one topic; you may want to read it off line (or
then again, you may not want to read it at all).
p...@tor.com (P Nielsen Hayden) thanks
ddec...@ufsmain.win.net (Dan Deckert) who wrote:
>>L.A.con III intends to continue the traditions established by
>>our Worldcon predecessors. We have already established compli-
>>mentary memberships for the major fan fund winners, and we will
>>provide comp rooms for the "core" nights of the con (Thursday
>>Sunday). The fan fund administrators need to contact us to work
>>out the details.
>Those of us who have devoted time and energy to building and
>maintaining the fan funds thank you very much for this. I will
>tell you frankly that if I were a convention running fan on a
>Worldcon committee and had been reading rec.arts.sf.fandom lately,
>I would feel somewhat ambivalent about donating to TAFF, DUFF, and
>GUFF, what with various pronouncements about the fan funds
belonging somehow to "fanzine fandom."
AKshully, Patrick, I can think of only one pronouncement that even
comes close to what you are alluding to here, it was made by me and
it was made regarding TAFF only: "TAFF is fanzine fandom's toy," is
the phrase I used.
I'll get back to that in a minute, but first I wish to state my own
sincere belief that I have also "devoted time and energy to
building and maintaining the fan funds" over the years maybe not
as much as Patrick Nielsen Hayden, or maybe more, I have no way of
knowing and doubt Patrick does either but in any event not a
contemptible amount; quite a bit more than just the minimum
required for voting, which I've done most years since I became
eligible in 1958. This is not in dispute of Patrick's first
sentence; I join him in thanking Dan Deckert and the LACon III
Worldcon committee for Doing The Right Thing with regard to all the
fan fund winners--as indeed I, a minority of one, have been urging
other worldcons to do, over the indifference of others.
However, I just suddenly feel the urge to tell you all quite
frankly that, if I were a convention running fan on a Worldcon
committee and had been reading rec.arts.sf.fandom lately, I would
feel somewhat ambivalent about going to the extent of actually
comping rooms for TAFF, DUFF and GUFF winners, what with various
mealy mouthed pronouncements here on the part of more official
spokespersons for the fan funds to the effect that it is perfectly
acceptable for worldcons to shrug off ("Whoops! Sorry! Forgot
about that!") any real or imagined traditional responsibility for
it.
What this actually boils down to, I guess, is that I am coming
strongly to resent the implication in what he says that only those
who pass Patrick Nielsen Hayden's Litmus Test of Political
Correctness Regarding Opinions Which May Be Expressed About TAFF
(or the other fan funds) have devoted any time or energy to
building and maintaining them. If this is actually Patrick's
sincere belief, then I am here to tell him that he's dead wrong.
If his following remarks are Just His Way of Sounding a Warning,
then I'm here to acknowledge that, yes, I'm quite aware of the fact
that expressing opinions any opinions whatsoever, mine OR his can
lead to unpleasant, albeit unintended, consequences. Even among
the race that is destined to rule the sevegram, there are petty
assholes who may use their petty positions of power to demonstrate
how petty they can be by making innocent third parties suffer for
what someone else has said and done. Reluctantly, I grant that.
If Patrick fears them all that much, let him sit down and shut
the fuck up, or he might yet say something that They might find
offensive. But I refuse to be intimidated. By them. Or by him.
I'm much more inclined to grab such a person by the scruff of the
neck and pull them out into the public limelight where they can be
held accountable for their mean spiritedness by the whole of
fandom. Arguably, they might do their deed from the safety of
committee anonymity, but what's the worst they can do? Comp
neither the membership nor the room? I would be the first to admit
that I wouldn't want to see that happen, and yet I feel it's fair
to point out that the funds have done nothing to offend
Intersection and yet Intersection (admittedly through oversight)
will not be comping the rooms, and the overriding feeling here
appears to be that the funds are flush enough to be able to afford
the rooms so we should just shrug it off. Now raise the
possibility that some mean spirited asshole might be in a position,
at some unspecified future Worldcon, not to comp the cost of
membership as well: How does this extra factor suddenly turn the
situation into a Disaster To Be Avoided At All Costs?
*sigh* I guess I'm being a bit unreasonable in that it's been said
again and again that Intersection isn't getting anything "comped"
and thus has to pay for all the space they use (and be nickel and
dimed to death over everything else). My only question is, is this
something that's unique to Scotland or the UK or Europe? I mean,
hell, there are over 4400 paid memberships at the moment and likely
to be more than that when you come right down to it. No doubt
there's a healthy smattering of couples in there, but even so, at
a conservative estimates we're talking about delivering up to their
hotel complex the need for 3,000 rooms which are being paid for at
a rate of more than $100 a day for an average of four days roughly
$1.2 million worth of business before we buy a drink in their bar
or eat food at their table or purchase a newspaper from their
magazine stand. That's what *we* are doing for *them* at a
conservative estimate; in a competitive economic environment,
they'd either be able to comp a few measly rooms and provide some
of our program space or we could go find someone providing the
same or better services elsewhere who would. Is this sort of
dealing illegal in the UK, or is it just a case of no one on the
committee having the balls to use $1.2 million of economic force to
get some extra service? I would sincerely like to know.
However, I've digressed around long enough; I said I would get back
to the original topic, and I mean to do so:
When I said "TAFF is fanzine fandom's toy," I was speaking somewhat
tongue in cheek, baiting the usual flock of morons whose conspiracy
theory thinking leads them to believe it's all right for filkers to
hang out together, acceptable for Trekkers to seek out other
Trekkers, the most natural thing in the world that costumers should
like to spend convention time together and perfectly understandable
that gamers need the company of other gamers to play their games,
but when fanzine fans hang out together see that as a combination
of the Crime of the Century and yet further proof of what they
already want to believe, i.e., that we're all a bunch of arrogant
snobs who think we're superior to every other kind of fan.
Yes, it was an outrageous exaggeration, and it's true that the
morons mentioned above reacted precisely as expected but so what?
They're morons. What have they to do with thee and me? I have
already explained in some detail why "TAFF is fanzine fandom's
toy" was not as outrageous as it may have seemed on its face.
While an exaggeration, there was truth in what I said TAFF *is*
generally fanzine fandom's toy. [Chris Croughton, please see
the end of this, where I hope to tack on an explanation regarding
why I DON'T consider you one of the morons above.] But it's a toy
which convention fandom can take (and which it has, at times,
taken) away from fanzine fandom whenever it really puts its mind to
the task (or at least make it damned uncomfortable for us). The
simple truth is that convention fandom vastly outnumbers fanzine
fandom (somewhere between four and ten thousand fans attend sf
conventions like the Worldcon, but only five hundred to perhaps
two thousand fans [depending on how loosely you define the term]
are involved in fanzine fandom).
While convention fandom has taken the toy away from time to time,
convention fandom in general has such a relatively small attention
span that, within a year or two, TAFF winds up coming back to the
timebinding area that pays close attention to it, fanzine fandom
and fanzine fans. (Convention fandom's much touted "organization"
essentially applies to putting on conventions, and not to
accomplishing other goals.) Further, the convention fans who DO
have a long enough attention span to continue to focus on TAFF and
the other fan funds over the years turn out to be, lo, perfectly
sensible people capable of rational thought who can accept the
logic of electing someone at least some of the people on the other
side know a little about and have expressed a desire to meet, as
opposed to a total stranger. The petty people in petty positions
of power using their petty power to prove how petty they can be are
generally the exception, not the rule.
Now, as both Patrick and I are well aware, fanzine fandom is NOT
the only beneficiary of TAFF, even though it has mostly been
fanzine fandom whose members have won the races and served as
delegates/administrators. The delegates are sent to attend a
convention, after all, not to put out a fanzine, and usually appear
on the program where everyone gets to meet them. I've expressed
that opinion in r.a.s.f. before as well. It is not, except in some
peoples' fevered imaginations, that fanzine fandom considers itself
some kind of "special elite" whose members are somehow "better
than/superior to" all members of convention fandom that either
causes or justifies this when it happens--it's the fact that fan-
zine fans have regular contact with each other across the Atlantic
throughout the year with people they haven't met but might like to
meet.
That was what inspired the WAW With The Crew in '52 campaign which
brought Walt Willis to the Chicon II in 1952, which in turn
inspired the founding of TAFF in 1954. Given that there is a
genuine desire to meet the TAFF delegate, based on what fans in the
host country perceive of the delegate's personality through his/her
contributions to fanzines, there are people on both sides of the
Atlantic who are willing to open their homes and take the delegates
in to them as guests so they can actually meet folks who can't get
to the convention.
This has generally been a "given" in TAFF since its founding. But
Don Ford, one of the co-founders of TAFF, was closer to what we
think of as a "convention fan" today when he won TAFF. I don't
recall there being any grumbling about it, although fans of the
period credited his victory partly to the fact that two very
popular fanzine fans were running (Terry Carr and Bjo Trimble) and
thus split the fanzine fan vote. (Some of Terry's supporters were
miffed because Bjo agreed to be one of Terry's nominators, but
subsequently decided to run for TAFF herself, and got miffed at
Terry in turn because he used her as a nominator anyway probably
just miscommunication, as Terry most likely turned the nominating
material in before Bjo announced.)
There WAS an outcry when Bob Madle won over Dick Eney; Bob wrote a
column of fanzine reviews for one of Bob Lowndes' pulps but he was
virtually unknown in the UK [excepting some old-time fans]. Part
of the outcry was over "vote buying"; both Madle and another
candidate, Stu Hoffman, had shown up at conventions offering to pay
the voting fee for those who wished to cast ballots. There was,
however, a distinction between the two: Madle had someone else
collect the ballots and made out a check in the amount of $1 per
ballot collected, which he gave to the person who collected the
ballots. Hoffman, at the cons he attended and made his pitch,
collected the ballots, discarded those which voted for candi-
dates other than himself, and turned in/paid for only those
ballots which listed him first.
This is not to say that the disappointments have flowed in only one
direction. I was disappointed when Peter Weston lost TAFF for the
third time to a German fan who had been to the preceding US
Worldcon on his own hook and who "worked" the European convention
circuit--he showed up and kindof (in my opinion) misexplained TAFF to
convention fans in Europe, in that they were led to believe that
they were electing a kind of representative and it was perfectly
acceptable that they were in no position to really know anything
about all the candidates, which is basically the same complaint
made about convention fans running against fanzine fans).
This was nowhere more forcefully driven home than in the relatively
recent race in which a very nice lady convention fan, Martha Beck,
found herself at the center of some bitterness that was not at all
her fault or doing. This was in the final stages of what has
sometimes been called the "TAFF Wars". Some of her supporters had
a Thing (shall we say) against the front-runners in the race, so
although she did not get her nominations to the TAFF administrators
in time to be listed on the ballot, they convinced her to run a
"write in" campaign. (The ballot stipulates that write ins are
okay, though it had never been done before.) When word of this
trickled back to the UK, there were protests from those who felt
that they might have someone they had never heard of foisted on
them (as opposed to the couple that most were supporting) many of
them were signing and passing petitions to the UK TAFF Adminis-
trator urging withholding the UK portion of the fund if she should
be elected in this way.
It had to do, in part, with the manner in which the write in
campaign was being presented to innocent convention attendees in
the midwest who had little or absolutely no prior knowledge of
TAFF. Martha was presented to them as the "Midwest" candidate,
amidst talk about how the midwest was being characterized as "the
wimpy zone" in worldcon bidding; so it behooved everyone at these
conventions to vote for her to show the rest of fandom that the
midwest _wasn't_ so wimpy. And as for the stipulation on the
ballot that requires people to list someone who can vouch that
they've been active in fandom for a year (a stipulation designed to
insure that the voter has been around long enough that they might
have a reasonable chance of knowing something about all the candi-
dates and thus to make an informed choice), well, if in doubt, they
were told they could always list Bob Tucker. (Tucker is known to
just about everyone in Midwest convention fandom, and is too much
a gentleman to claim not to know anyone who claims to know him.)
One of the major ironies here is that the front runners in that
race, Patrick and Teresa Nielsen Hayden, had made names for them-
selves as convention runners AND fanzine fans while living in the
Southwest, Midwest, Northwest and East, so the convention attendees
had to be innocents indeed to fall for this "regional competition"
load of crap.
Nonetheless, at the time this type of deliberate distortion struck
me as being so contrary to the spirit of TAFF that I circulated a
broadside, along with a TAFF ballot, to roughly 800 fanzine fans at
my own expense, telling them what was going on and urging them to
cast their votes for Patrick and Teresa. (I'd been running a
little mailing list service for between 10 and 15 fanzines which I
called Drudge Enterprises, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Vernon
McCain Division of Proxyboo, Ltd., so I was one of the few people
in the microcosm who had access to that many names and addresses of
fans who received fanzines.) I don't to this day know whether I
Saved The Day or had Very Little Impact, just that there _was_ an
unusually large turnout and yet Patrick and Teresa won.
Since it was clear that the requirement to name some active fan who
could vouch for the activity of the ballot caster was no longer
doing what it was set up to do, Patrick and Teresa got together
with as many former TAFF administrators as could d/a/n/c/e/ o/n/
t/h/e/ h/e/a/d/ o/f/ a/ p/i/n/ be gathered together, and came up
with a new rule, the one requiring that the winner has to get at
least a certain percentage of the vote in the host country. Now,
I've since been forced to acknowledge that filk singers might be
known to that extent by other filk singers across the ocean. The
same is becoming the case with "on line" fans. It has been the
case with fanzine fans since sometime in the 1930s. But, except
for convention fans who regularly go to and/or work on conventions
on both sides of the Atlantic (like Ben Yalow, e.g.) and there,
you understand, the perception that they can obviously do this
themselves works against them most convention fans are NOT all
that well known to fans across the sea. Of course, I suppose it is
possible that convention fans might be told who the "convention
fan" running for TAFF might be, and some convention fans might vote
for them simply because they were fellow convention fans.
While there can be no argument as to the eligibility of on line
fans or filkers, at the same time I believe having them run for
TAFF could probably lead to more bitterness than solidarity. It's
mixing apples and oranges and pears; you might have a favorite
fruit, but no apple is going to be a better orange than an orange,
and no orange is going to be a better pear than a pear. I'm glad
to hear that filkers have a kindof TAFF of their own; I don't know
enough to vote but I'd probably bid in an auction that would
benefit them and would have no objection, when/if I were a member
of a Worldcon, if the Worldcon comped their room and membership
because all fandom would benefit.
[A quick insert for Chris Croughton. I know I ticked Chris off
with what I said initially but we've actually been "getting along"
famously in our exchanges of email of late, so I want to make it
clear that I don't/didn't consider him one of the "morons" I was
baiting. I DO think Chris was being deceived, in the same manner
as those midwest convention fans, regarding the actual nature and
intent of TAFF; and now that he knows better, I trust he can see
that what I've said above is reasonable and equitable.]
In the meantime, TAFF is fanzine fandom's toy. Until/unless the
filkers and/or on liners want to compete, or convention fandom
simply decides it wants to take it away to reward their own.
rich brown a.k.a. Dr. Gafia
Ben Yalow
also not going to respond to the "TAFF as fanzine fandom's toy"
contention. I believe the public statements by prior TAFF administrators
like Patrick, as well as my earlier comments, indicate why I believe that
statement is, at best, questionable, and, at worst, pernicious.
I do wish to address a number of the sub-arguments here, however.
1. There appears to be a claim that Patrick (and other administrators)
who have chosen a less divisive argument for why the Worldcon should
support TAFF are less effective than they would be were they to argue
more forcefully.
From the viewpoint of someone who probably is more familiar with modern
Worldcon committee dynamics, I feel that this contention lacks congruence
with reality. I believe that most committees, when making decisions
about TAFF, consider the opinions of those who present reasoned arguments
as to why a path of action is in the best interests of the Worldcon, and
of fandom. Those who present demands are, for the most part, ignored.
So if the purpose of raising thse issues is to get the hundreds of
dollars that conventions need to spend to make this contribution to TAFF,
then actions such as Patrick's are more likely to be productive. If they
are merely for the purpose of raising the volume of discourse, without
necessarily getting the donation, then other courses might well be chosen.
2. As for statements that "I'm much more inclined to grab such a person
by the scruff of the neck and pull them out into the public limelight
where they can be held accountable for their mean spiritedness by the
whole of fandom. Arguably, they might do their deed from the safety of
committee anonymity, but what's the worst they can do?", I again am
troubled by the numbers.
A typical TAFF race has about 150 or so voters. In short, about 150
people in all of fandom think that TAFF is worth as much as $2. Somehow,
this doesn't seem like "the whole of fandom". In fact, it seems smaller
than the number of people on a modern Worldcon committee. And the people
on that committee spend a lot more than $2 each.
In fact, it seems to me that fanzine fandom, if it were as large as the
500-2000 fans claimed later, has voted by at least 3:1, or maybe as much
as 10:1, that they don't think that TAFF is even worth $2. If convention
fans were to believe the overwhelming vote of "fanzine fandom" (rich's
definition), then it would be forced to conclude that TAFF isn't worth
spending even a negligible amount of money on.
Fortunately for TAFF, most convention committees disagree with fanzine
fandom, and do support TAFF.
3. I will assume the comments listed below are sincere misunderstandings
out of ignorance, rather than another rhetorical excess. I'll try to answer.
>I guess I'm being a bit unreasonable in that it's been said
>again and again that Intersection isn't getting anything "comped"
>and thus has to pay for all the space they use (and be nickel and
>dimed to death over everything else). My only question is, is this
>something that's unique to Scotland or the UK or Europe? I mean,
>hell, there are over 4400 paid memberships at the moment and likely
>to be more than that when you come right down to it. No doubt
>there's a healthy smattering of couples in there, but even so, at
>a conservative estimates we're talking about delivering up to their
>hotel complex the need for 3,000 rooms which are being paid for at
>a rate of more than $100 a day for an average of four days roughly
>$1.2 million worth of business before we buy a drink in their bar
>or eat food at their table or purchase a newspaper from their
>magazine stand. That's what *we* are doing for *them* at a
>conservative estimate; in a competitive economic environment,
>they'd either be able to comp a few measly rooms and provide some
>of our program space or we could go find someone providing the
>same or better services elsewhere who would. Is this sort of
>dealing illegal in the UK, or is it just a case of no one on the
>committee having the balls to use $1.2 million of economic force to
>get some extra service? I would sincerely like to know.
First, a correction of fact. As of about a week ago, Intersection has
gotten about 1000 room reservations, not 3000, with many rooms going for
less than $100. So you're looking at under a half million, probably, and
not $1.2 million.
Second, European (including UK) hotels work very differently than
American ones. Essentially, no convention can get either free function
space in the hotels, or, for that matter, much of anything. It varies
slightly for large conventions, but that means more than 10,000 rooms,
which start to be able to get maybe 10% off or so. European hotels are
able to sell their space almost all the time, so there's no need to give
anything away free.
Third, there seems to be an assumption that US conventions are wonderful
business, and can get lots of stuff from hotels. In fact, we're pretty
rotten business. We want cheap rates. We use up too much function space
for the number of bedrooms we fill. We don't use room service. We don't
have our parties catered by the hotels. In short, we're bottom feeders,
scrounging for our hotel space among the remainders that real conventions
(the ones that pay real money for things like rooms/booze/etc) don't use.
Now, so far, there's still been enough stuff trickling to the bottom that
we've been able to get reasonably good deals. And we've got some
relatively well trained negotiators who are able to make the most of what
advantages we do have. And, fortunately, most mundane convention
managers are simply not very good, so we look good in comparison. (I
suspect that the best fannish negotiators are in the top 10% or so of the
negotiators overall. We don't have anyone as good as the mundane best,
either as negotiators or lawyers, but our best are better than most of
the ones that hotels have to deal with.)
Eventually, that too will change. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 assured
that we won't get the hotels being built the way we want them to, and
that the hospitality business has changed. So conventions will get
harder to run, as hotels get harder to find, and more expensive when we
find them. But we'll need to do our best to adjust, since we're too
small to change the market.
I could go on for lots longer about the hospitality industry (and have at
a SMOFcon). But this isn't the forum for that, nor, since I'm going to
Westercon tomorrow, do I have time to go on at much more length.
Ben
--
Ben Yalow yb...@panix.com
Not speaking for anybody
Bernard Peek
Mi...@moose.demon.co.uk "Mike Scott" writes:
> >That's pretty accurate at Worldcon size, but not necessarily for the
> >smaller cons. The Eastercon, at about 1000 attendees, can *just* fit
> >into a few of the larger hotels. By booking all of the beds in the
> >hotel we can *usually* get free function space.
>
> I dispute your 'usually'. Looking at the last ten years, I know that
> '88, '90, '91, '94 and '95 paid for function space. I don't think that
> the two Jersey ones in '89 and '93 did, and have no information about
> the remaining three years. How about 'sometimes'?
OK
--
Bernard Peek
I.T and Management Development Trainer to the Cognoscenti
(In search of Cognoscenti.)
b...@intersec.demon.co.uk
Bernard Peek
> First, a correction of fact. As of about a week ago, Intersection has
> gotten about 1000 room reservations, not 3000, with many rooms going for
> less than $100. So you're looking at under a half million, probably, and
> not $1.2 million.
>
> Second, European (including UK) hotels work very differently than
> American ones. Essentially, no convention can get either free function
> space in the hotels, or, for that matter, much of anything.
That's pretty accurate at Worldcon size, but not necessarily for the
smaller cons. The Eastercon, at about 1000 attendees, can *just* fit
into a few of the larger hotels. By booking all of the beds in the
hotel we can *usually* get free function space.
The only reason that we can get the whole hotel is that we book it out
of season. Typically we can get 20-30% off of rack-rate. If we tried
to do the same thing at the same hotels in-season we might get their
conference rate, which may be 20% *above* peak-season rack-rate.
Conference centres don't have as much seasonal variation and hotels
attached to them *know* that if you take the conference centre you
*have* to use the adjacent hotel.
> (I
> suspect that the best fannish negotiators are in the top 10% or so of the
> negotiators overall. We don't have anyone as good as the mundane best,
> either as negotiators or lawyers, but our best are better than most of
> the ones that hotels have to deal with.)
It's very noticeable over here that SF cons get *much* better
room-rates than media conventions, or at least the ones that I have
looked at.
Mike Scott
b...@intersec.demon.co.uk "Bernard Peek" writes:
>That's pretty accurate at Worldcon size, but not necessarily for the
>smaller cons. The Eastercon, at about 1000 attendees, can *just* fit
>into a few of the larger hotels. By booking all of the beds in the
>hotel we can *usually* get free function space.
I dispute your 'usually'. Looking at the last ten years, I know that
'88, '90, '91, '94 and '95 paid for function space. I don't think that
the two Jersey ones in '89 and '93 did, and have no information about
the remaining three years. How about 'sometimes'?
--
Mike Scott || This space under construction
Mi...@moose.demon.co.uk ||
Dr Gafia
yb...@panix.com (Ben Yalow) opines
in <3sq4oi$j...@panix3.panix.com>:
>...I'm...not going to respond to the "TAFF as fanzine fandom's >toy"
contention. I believe the public statements by prior TAFF >administrators
like Patrick, as well as my earlier comments, >indicate why I believe that
statement is, at best, questionable, >and, at worst, pernicious.
I've read your earlier comments, Ben, as well as Patrick's, and I must've
missed something along the way; I can’t see what there can possibly be to
debate about it.
I guess my question to you both is, what is it that you're questioning
and/or seeing as evil or wicked in what I have been saying? It is an
indisputable FACT--not a mere opinion, much less a misguided one--that
TAFF, in its 42-year history, has been won by fanzine fans easily 95
percent of the time. The historical record of TAFF indicates that this
was what it was always intended to be--not a "reward" for contributions to
fandom as a whole, not to help the most impecunious fan(s), not to choose
the nicest person on the local club or convention fan scene, but to send
across the ocean a fan whom people on the other side knew a bit about and
had expressed a desire to meet. I believe I’ve provided detailed
explanations regarding the few exceptions; where TAFF veered away from its
original intent, new rules were implemented to ensure that it got back on
course. I believe the first of these was the provision that voters name
someone who could vouch for them if they were not known to the
administrator. I'm absolutely certain that was what motivated the change
which now requires that the winner receive a minimum percentage of the
vote in the host country. These are matters of fact, not matters of
opinion.
If I am wrong in making these assertions, it should be a simple matter for
you and/or Patrick and/or someone else out there reading this to name
names, cite dates and show me where I'm in error. But you can't, because
I'm not.
>There appears to be a claim that Patrick (and other >administrators) who
have chosen a less divisive argument for why >the Worldcon should support
TAFF are less effective than they >would be were they to argue more
forcefully.
Sorry, Ben, but that's another mirage you seem to be seeing there; as a
result, your circumlocutions wind up missing the point and misstating the
argument.
My assertion was and is that Patrick, other administrators and others
claiming to be TAFF supporters have failed to put up any argument
WHATSOEVER against this year's failure on the part of the Worldcon to comp
a room for the fan fund delegates (including but not limited to TAFF).
Patrick et al. are inclined to shrug it off--the coffers of TAFF are full
enough, they argue, that TAFF can easily afford to pay for the room, so
let’s not rock the boat, make any claim, complain or otherwise cause
anybody any embarrassment. By all means, let’s leave the convention with
the money it appears they need to pay for all the electrical outlets they
may require for, no doubt, another thrilling showing of "Amok Time"--and
never mind if the other fan funds, GUFF in particular, might have it a
little tougher and be a little strapped for funds--they’ll just have to
Get Along, Somehow.
In such a case, Ben, I assert that SOME argument is probably better than
no argument at all. Even if it makes a few pipple uncomfortable. No
argument at all isn’t going to convince anyone of anything; some argument
might.
When I first voiced this complaint, Patrick told me (somewhat
dismissively, I thought at the time) that I was flat out wrong in the
belief that comping rooms for fan fund delegates was something the
Worldcons have done often enough to call it a tradition. Avedon agreed.
I was a bit nonplused; I’ve never been a TAFF administrator, but I have
been in fandom long enough to have observed all but the first two TAFF
races. Over the years, a number of my friends have won TAFF (besides
Patrick and Avedon, that is)--and from them I got the notion that that was
generally how it worked, i.e., the host convention provided a free
membership, comped a room and got a guest they could put on fan panels
while the fan fund paid their travel and other expenses. Nonetheless, I
was beginning to wonder if perhaps I could be wrong for the THIRD time
since 1926 (when I advised Mr. Burbee to invent bubblegum rather than sex)
and if the tradition had been publicly abandoned, perhaps when I had been
off inventing the magnetic golfball and hadn’t been paying attention.
But then a couple of pipple on the Net began asking for specifics about
the most recent cases. On further examination, it turns out that nine out
of the last ten Worldcons have done it. Others here on the Net whose
fanhistorical knowledge is better organized than mine tracked the
beginnings of the tradition down to a bit later than I initially
thought--to 1969 when Ted White gave up his fan GoHship at St. Louiscon to
the TAFF winner, Eddie Jones--but we’re still talking of a practice in
place for more than a quarter of a century, which ought to be enough to
satisfy even Avedon. Even though that does mean that I'm NOT the one
who's flat out wrong here, after all. Ho ho ho (I say, somewhat
dismissively).
>...I believe that most [Worldcon] committees, when making >decisions
about TAFF, consider the opinions of those who present >reasoned arguments
as to why a path of action is in the best >interests of the Worldcon, and
of fandom. Those who present >demands are, for the most part, ignored.
Makes sense to me--up to a point. A pity no one in a position of
authority with regard to TAFF--and I guess that would have to be Abby
Frost--was on top of things to the extent that they realized there might
be any need to present Intersection with those "reasoned arguments"
regarding what other cons which have played host to the fan fun delegates
have done over the past 25 years. I find it hard to blame Abby; my guess
is she was probably as surprised as I was that Intersection hadn't given
any thought at all to the matter until much too late to do so. (When you
walk up a flight of stairs in the dark, you can come down pretty hard when
that "last" step you step up for isn't there. There is no way to foresee
it; it's a matter of what you have reasonably come to anticipate.) But
then, neither was it Patrick's place to do so, nor Rob's, nor Avedon's,
nor even mine (although, since I've been so gauche as to voice a complaint
right out loud & everything, I HAVE been asked, here on
rec.arts.sf.fandom, where I was when the Intersection committee was doing
its financial planning). While I personally find it incredible that any
modern Worldcon committee--which Ben tells us can outnumber the people who
vote in TAFF--can be put together without having at least ONE individual
on it who knows enough about Worldcons to know how they have been handling
the fan funds over the past quarter of a century, having said that it
makes as little sense to continue to berate them for the error made in
ignorance as it does to blame Abby.
That’s not what this is about. I guess I disagree with Ben a bit on the
specific situation we have here. We all like to believe that we are only
moved by polite and/or rational discourse and that we will not be pushed
around by anyone's unreasonable demands, but at the same time I think
that, to the extent possible, most people--and by and large, convention
committees fall into this category (howevermuch they may at times SEEM
like aliens)--try to avoid unpleasantness. Now as you point out, Ben, one
way they might choose to avoid this unpleasantness is simply to ignore it.
If it’s just one person, in a small enough venue, I suppose that is easy
enough to do, but it gets harder as the venue widens and the single person
gains support. If the venue widens far enough and the single person gains
enough support, there’s no telling what might happen.
Even if it’s just one hairy mastodon trumpeting through the forest,
however, I hold that this stands out, whereas shrugging it off helps sweep
the matter under the rug. Intersection isn’t in a position now where they
can pick up the cost of the rooms of the fund winners even if they wanted
to--they’re doing the best they can (and I’ve granted that that’s the
case) by promising to make up for it out of profits IF there are any
profits to make it up from. That is as much as can reasonably be hoped
for from Intersection at this point in time; the question after that is
what other conventions playing host to the fan fund winners intend to do
in the future. LACon just checked in on the side of the righteous, amen,
but I doubt if my argument had much, if anything, to do with it (at least,
my reading of what was said indicates that the decision was reached before
I began knocking over trees and leaving wide swaths of fertilizer in my
wake). Arguably they may have made their announcement because of what I
was saying, but the decision was clearly one they reached independently
and beforehand.
Point is, the dust-up draws attention to the issue where sweeping it under
the rug, well, sweeps it under the rug. Some people reading this who
perhaps were not aware of these matters previously and who will be on
future Worldcon committees are aware of them now--because of the dust-up.
So now they will at least have the option of considering the issue
beforehand, if for no other reason than to avoid similar unpleasantness.
They might also consider me, personally, to be an arrogant cur or, in some
particularly misguided cases, evil incarnate. But I can take the huff,
since I know in my heart of hearts that my real game is spreading light
and joy (and I’m willing to take on any 20 of them, one at a time or all
in a bunch, if they want to make something out of it). At the same time,
I would LIKE to believe that these people on future Worldcon committees
are likely to be intelligent enough to consider the matter on its merits
despite what they may think of me personally, but you know them ever so
much better than I do, Ben, and if you say otherwise, I will take you at
your word.
I guess I can understand why, when I talk about holding people accountable
before the whole of fandom, you get “troubled by the numbers”. You say:
>A typical TAFF race has about 150 or so voters. In short, about >150
people in all of fandom think that TAFF is worth as much as >$2. Somehow,
this doesn't seem like "the whole of fandom". In >fact, it seems smaller
than the number of people on a modern >Worldcon committee. And the people
on that committee spend a >lot more than $2 each.
Not on TAFF of their own money, they don’t; sorry to call you on it, but
that’s a load of bull.
Part of the reason you’re troubled by the numbers, Ben, is that you
obviously have them slightly askew. Not you’re fault; you’re not the
authority on fan funds that you are on conventions. This year’s race was
fairly typical, but there were close of 150 fans casting ballots on the US
side alone. Moneys that accompanied those ballots, according to this
year’s North American TAFF Administrator Jeanne Bowman, came to more than
$850. I don’t know whether you want to take off your shoes or pull out a
slide rule, but in either case I believe once you make the tally using
real rather than imagined figures you will be able to see that it averages
out to more than three times the $2 minimum voting fee. And it is sheer
sophistry on your part, Ben, to presume that fanzine fandom’s
contributions to TAFF stop at the ballot box. The vast majority of TAFF’s
funds come from auctions (mostly of fanzines both donated and bid on by
fanzine fans) and direct sales (mostly of fanzines by fanzine fans).
>In fact, it seems to me that fanzine fandom, if it were as large >as the
500 2000 fans claimed later, has voted by at least 3:1, >or maybe as much
as 10:1, that they don't think that TAFF is >even worth $2. If convention
fans were to believe the >overwhelming vote of "fanzine fandom" (rich's
definition), then >it would be forced to conclude that TAFF isn't worth
spending >even a negligible amount of money on. :: Fortunately for TAFF,
>most convention committees disagree with fanzine fandom, and do >support
TAFF.
*s*i*g*h*
I guess that’s what I get for trying to be as egalitarian as possible
regarding what might or might not be the population of fanzine fandom
after all these years of posing as a snob. There are people in obscure
apas who do not have the least idea what TAFF is, or where the next
Worldcon is being held, or indeed any notion of fandom at all outside
their apa, but since they write for and/or publish fanzines for these
apas, I’m forced to say they’re part of fanzine fandom, embarrassing as
that is. On the other hand, Ben, you--convention fandom, I mean--have
some convention fans running your Worldcon who do not have the least idea
what TAFF is, and you don’t seem to be even slightly embarrassed about
that. I say “seem” only because it is so very easy to be taken in by
appearances.
The 500 is probably closer to what I generally refer to as mainstream
fanzine fandom--150 of whom might be considered extensively active in that
they both publish and contribute to fanzines, the rest providing a
spectrum of active involvement from contributing frequently to writing the
occasional LoC but nonetheless having awareness of fanzine fandom as a
community. (Ben, who probably considers himself to be primarily a
convention fan, actually falls into this category. For those who would
argue that this “proves” that the categories are blurred, I would say that
would only be so if Ben were typical of convention fans. But he’s not; the
“Nays” have it and the notion drifts off into the aether where it came
from when I digressed by giving it more consideration than it deserved.)
And we are talking English-speaking fanzine fandom here. That brings the
North American population down to, oh, possibly 275, with maybe 150 in the
UK and 75 in Australia. The fans in the UK, of course, do their voting on
the UK side. There’s no rule against it, but generally speaking
Australian fans don’t contribute to TAFF but to DUFF (which sends fans
back and forth between the US and Australia/New Zealand) and to GUFF
(which sends fans back and forth between the UK and Australia/New
Zealand).
So, as it turns out, on average, year in and year out, more than 50
percent (more like 3/5ths) of US fanzine fandom cast ballots in any given
TAFF race. Speaking as someone who has neglected to vote perhaps twice in
the past 10 years, I would have to say I really intended to vote even
those times I missed--I just put the ballot aside, intending to “get to it
a little later” and before I knew it the race was over. I console myself
with the fact that I have been to most of the Corflus in that period as
well, at which I have generally budgeted myself $100 to bid on fanzines in
the TAFF/DUFF auction there (although on occasion I have been held to as
low as $70 because other bidders have insisted on paying High Prices for
fanzines rather than Letting Me Have Them for a Song, the bastids, but
then that’s a subject for yet another rant). I don’t appear to be alone
in that, because Corflu auctions have consistently ranked right up there
with the Worldcon’s in terms of the amount of money they give to TAFF and
DUFF.
Ben appears to believe that the fan funds eke out some paltry sum in the
contributions they receive from their voters and then get “carried” by the
largesse of the Worldcon, passing on some more significant part of the
total out of its hundreds of thousands of dollars in profits. I might be
wrong, but I believe the last “grant”-type Worldcon contribution predates
the establishment of SCI FI, and SCI FI only gives out money to the funds
when one of their delegates produces a trip report. I don’t know if it’s
listed in any particular order, but in the race just past Jeanne Bowman
cited “noteworthy” financial contributions to TAFF from the ConFrancisco
Auctions, the ConAdian Fan Room, Corflu Auctions, Baycon Auction, direct
sales and one heroic 3-digit donation from Terry Hughes. So aside from
comping a room and a membership, the Worldcons give us space to auction or
sell things to benefit the fan funds. Those “things” are usually
fanzines--certainly in the case of Corflu and Fan Rooms, and I think
probably also in the case of Worldcon auctions. At least I haven’t
noticed any convention fans bringing out copies of THE OUTSIDER & OTHERS,
or juicy old pulps, or original artwork for the benefit of any of these
auctions. I also don’t know if these numbers would “trouble” Ben or not,
but I offer them anyway: Proceeds from Corflu auctions have been
comparable if not superior to the proceeds from Worldcon auctions for most
of the past 10 years, during which attendance at Corflu has yet to top
200--while attendance at the Worldcons has averaged, oh, is 5,000 about
right, Ben?
Now whether we’re talking about the 150 who cast ballots, the even larger
number of fans who serve on today’s convention committees, the 275 US
mainstream fanzine fans, the 500 mainstream fanzine fans in the English
speaking world, the 2000 who’ve had some contact with fanzines, the 4400
who are registered at Intersection, the 5,000 or more average stateside
Worldcon attendance, or for that matter all the attendees at the largest
Worldcon sf fandom has had to date, in no case are we talking about “all
of fandom”. In all these instances, we’re talking about a representative
portion. Whether the fans who cast ballots in the fan funds are more
representative than fans who make up a Worldcon committee I don’t think
anyone can say; but I’m not prepared, as Ben appears to be, to say they
are less. Besides, it’s really not necessary to expose the mean-spirited
to “all” of fandom. To achieve the kind of results I was talking about,
it’s only necessary to expose petty people in petty positions of power to
enough of fandom to let the fans around them know the kind of people they
are.
>>I will assume the comments listed below are sincere >>misunderstandings
out of ignorance, rather than another >rhetorical excess. I'll try to
answer.
But as I’m nine lines down on the top of my seventh single-spaced page,
I’ll not quote them back here. For my part, wishing to be every bit as
gracious, I accept them as a sincere answer to the question(s) I posed,
rather than the sick rantings of a depraved hysterical mongoose.
_n_
8-([:o\}
-u-
Seriously, Ben, it’s good to have some of these things down in black and
white where the attitudes can really be looked at and considered. You’ve
dispelled more of my misconception than you may have realized.
(I do hope, some time when this entire matter is all behind us, you can
tell me how hotels in the UK manage to stay booked most of the time when
those in the US can’t--not that I’m disputing anything you’ve said or
because I think it means anything, just because I’m curious & I’d like to
know. I mean, I assume there’s some perfectly mundane explanation for
it--e.g., perhaps we in the US “overbuild” hotels beyond our genuine
needs, or maybe in the UK businesses use hotels in some way that we don’t
in the US. Something like that. Not anything important to this
discussion.)
I was surprised to find, however, that the reason why we can’t get any
leverage these days to get freebies or force cost reductions is because
we’re too small. It may no longer be the case--times have changed, after
all--but at one point the reverse was actually true and by becoming large
enough to require half a dozen or more hotels rather than just one, we
moved from a buyer’s to a seller’s market. When a single hotel could
accommodate a Worldcon, and a dozen or more hotels in any major city were
large enough to do the job, they vied with each other for our business.
But these days we don’t need just one of them, we need all of them, and
they are well aware of it. I really don’t expect convention fandom to see
any other way out of this except to grow larger. I’m kindof grateful that
I didn’t know about this earlier, as in some situations ignorance is
bliss; I was the Chair of Corflu III, and not knowing the terrible
reputation sf fandom had managed to achieve, I got one of our two
across-the-hall hospitality suites for free and a discount on our function
space, for all that we had a bit less than a hundred attendees. A pity one
cannot exercise any leverage when we are filling a “mere” (I stand
corrected) half million dollars worth of rooms.
But there I go again, making the same error, over and again out of old
habit. When I talk about the Worldcon, I make the presumption and am
guilty of the oversight of continuing to say “we”. As if, you know, the
Worldcon were just as much “my” Worldcon as anyone else’s in fandom--as if
the entire sf community was still just one community and we were all still
combining our celebration of Roscoe’s birthday with our adopted family
reunion.
We fanzine fans started the hobby top to bottom, including the Worldcon,
and though we opened it up to share with other kinds of fans (even as we
were being accused of being snobs), we’ve also gone along rather
presumptuously (we are now being told) by “inviting” a different guest
every year for the past 42 and, as a matter of course, expecting them to
be treated as honored guests (not Guests of Honor) at our adopted-family
reunion for the past quarter of a century. We certainly have to get our
act together, to be sure, now that this newer breed of Worldcon
committees, and the SMOFs behind them, are making it clear that they run
things THEIR way at the Worldcon today and if we wish to beg a boon from
them, we should do so properly, beforehand, perhaps tugging our forelocks
and keeping our eyes averted, twisting our cap in our hands and/or kissing
their pinkie ring afterwards. We are being further instructed not to
present this as if it were anything we feel we have any right to, but
rather leaving it to each Worldcon committee to decide for themselves. If
in the fullness of their subsequent deliberations they decide TAFF and
DUFF and GUFF are indeed “worthwhile” and of continued benefit to “all” of
fandom, they will give the fan funds the same magnificent boon the
Worldcons nearly always have before--and if not, then the TAFF and DUFF
and GUFF delegates will need to be informed that they can have as much as
they’re willing to pay for, but shouldn’t expect any different treatment
than anyone else who comes in off the street.
And this marvelous boon we’re supposed to kiss boots and lick toejam for
the chance to obtain--just what is it? A room for four days, in this
specific case; Ben even tells us they have them available for less than
$100/day. If the Worldcon committee comps a room for a fan fund delegate,
the money doesn’t come out of THEIR pockets, it comes out of Worldcon
membership fees, which have been paid by the fans registered to attend.
If Intersection had been able to see their way clear to pay for the rooms
of the TAFF and GUFF delegates, each member of the convention could
legitimately claim that 20 cents of their $100 (or so) membership fee, or
0.2 of one percent, went to TAFF and GUFF combined. That’s one tenth of
the minimum voting fee of either fan fund, two thirds of the cost of a
first-class postage stamp or a pack of chewing gum in the US.
I guess I can understand TAFF administrators and others concerned not
wishing to toss even this to the wind. Every little bit helps. But I
question whether it’s worth it for the bother. The committee has been
apologetic about making the mistake, but I’ve seen a lot of hostility
about the funds, about fanzine fandom and fanzine fans and how we are
perceived by current-day convention fandom, and I question if we are
really welcome at what was once our own party anymore. If we’re NOT
welcome, then clearly somewhere along the line we made a mistake; we have
to return to that point, tie a knot, and then move on--on our own, if
needs be.
Come to think of it, in fact, there are a lot of ways in which the current
Worldcon seems to me to have the tail wagging the dog. Leave them the
names Worldcon and Hugo; we could have International Science Fiction
Conventions that would be centered on written sf and hand out “Gernsies”
(after Hugo Gernsback) for what we considered best. Without gaming or
all-night movies or 97 different tracks of programming for any subject
even remotely associated with sf, we might only attract a few thousand
people. And it’s not, you know, as if we hadn’t done it before. We do it
over, we get to skip the previous mistakes.
--rich brown a.k.a. Dr. Gafia
P Nielsen Hayden
>My assertion was and is that Patrick, other administrators and others
>claiming to be TAFF supporters have failed to put up any argument
>WHATSOEVER against this year's failure on the part of the Worldcon to comp
>a room for the fan fund delegates (including but not limited to TAFF).
>Patrick et al. are inclined to shrug it off--the coffers of TAFF are full
>enough, they argue, that TAFF can easily afford to pay for the room, so
>let's not rock the boat, make any claim, complain or otherwise cause
>anybody any embarrassment. By all means, let's leave the convention with
>the money it appears they need to pay for all the electrical outlets they
>may require for, no doubt, another thrilling showing of "Amok Time"--and
>never mind if the other fan funds, GUFF in particular, might have it a
>little tougher and be a little strapped for funds--they'll just have to
>Get Along, Somehow.
What on earth are you talking about, rich? You have absolutely no idea what
I and other TAFF administrators, past and present, have done in regard to
Intersection and the fan funds. In point of fact I've had several exchanges
with Martin Easterbrook on this very matter, making my concerns quite clear.
You also have no idea what I think; the views you impute to me are a
potpourri of notions taken from the words of others, combined with wilfully
dopey readings of things I did say. They are not my views, and you should
be ashamed of yourself for saying that they are.
Every ten years, it would appear, a well-regarded old-time fan goes
completely dingo on the subject of TAFF. What I learned last time is that
there's no point to responding to this kind of abuse in detail. Because
make no mistake: this is abuse. I didn't put up with it then and I'm not
going to put up with it now.
-----
Patrick Nielsen Hayden : p...@tor.com : opinions mine
http://www.panix.com/~pnh : http://www.tor.com
Pam Wells
> What on earth are you talking about, rich? You have absolutely no idea what
> I and other TAFF administrators, past and present, have done in regard to
> Intersection and the fan funds. In point of fact I've had several exchanges
> with Martin Easterbrook on this very matter, making my concerns quite clear.
May I add my voice to Patrick's, too -- I'm a former TAFF administrator who's
been talking to Martin Easterbrook about the TAFF/GUFF situation by e-mail,
as well as more generally to Intersection-related people within the Interfan
mailing list. And I dislike other people putting words in my mouth every bit
as much as Patrick does. So please don't do it, rich. You don't have the
monopoly on 'caring about TAFF', believe me!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pam Wells 'She was the best of tarts, she was the worst of tarts'
Dr Gafia
Pam Wells <Vacuou...@bitch.demon.co.uk>
offers in <804814...@bitch.demon.co.uk>:
>In article <3t95ib$p...@panix2.panix.com> p...@tor.com "P >Nielsen Hayden"
writes:
>> What on earth are you talking about, rich? You have
>> absolutely no idea what I and other TAFF administrators,
>> past and present, have done in regard to Intersection and
>> the fan funds. In point of fact I've had several
>> exchanges with Martin Easterbrook on this very matter,
>> making my concerns quite clear.
>May I add my voice to Patrick's, too -- I'm a former TAFF >administrator
who's been talking to Martin Easterbrook >about the TAFF/GUFF situation by
e-mail, as well as more >generally to Intersection-related people within
the >Interfan mailing list. And I dislike other people putting >words in
my mouth every bit as much as Patrick does. So >please don't do it, rich.
You don't have the monopoly on >'caring about TAFF', believe me!
I didn't mean to "put words in your mouth", Pam, and I'm sorry you read it
that way--I did, after all, say "TAFF administrators" and I have to admit
that it's a flip of the coin whether you read that as "more than one TAFF
administrator" or "all TAFF administrators on line" or even "all TAFF
administrators”. I only had two specifically in
mind, neither of them you, Pam, but going by what has been said (and left
unsaid) here on rec.arts.sf.fandom, I had no idea (until you just told me)
what you had or had not done with regard to this situation.
However, Pam, one of the points I made earlier here on the Net is that if
the Worldcon doesn't appreciate the fan fund winners being sent to them,
perhaps we might find a
convention that still DOES appreciate them, like Corflu, for them to
attend. Patrick didn't appreciate this suggestion at all when I made it.
But not long after, you came on the Net, presumably not having seen what
I’d said earlier, and tossed out a similar notion--not specifying Corflu,
as I did, but suggesting that a more appreciative convention than Worldcon
might be found--as if you thought it might be worth discussing (or even
doing if the discussions led in that direction). So I hope I'm not
putting words in your
mouth when I say we “agree” on this point?
Perhaps I generalized more than I should from Patrick's specific comments
on the Net to me, his comments here to others apologizing for things I had
said and done, and Avedon's implicit concurrence with Patrick's opinion
that I was flat-out wrong when I said Worldcons "traditionally" comp rooms
for fan fund winners. He was telling me to sit down and relax and not get
upset and not verbalize, right out where other people can see it, what I
felt was shabby treatment of the fan fund delegates--and Patrick is
certainly correct in that, when it was offered, I did not realize this was
a piece of do-as-I-say-and-not-as-I-do advice. Since he didn't mention
it, I certainly didn't realize that Patrick was off expressing HIS opinion
in the place where he felt it would do the most good.
Actually, Pam, if you could successfully pass on to Patrick the notion
that former TAFF administrators don't necessarily have a monopoly on
'caring about TAFF' either, it would be appreciated. I tried, to no
avail, so I feel I should warn you that you might not be able to get it
across no matter how you try. It depends. On the one hand, you've agreed
with me that it's not an absolutely outrageous notion to consider sending
a TAFF delegate to a convention other than the Worldcon even when the
Worldcon is available, if the Worldcon isn't going to help us honor the
delegate. That's a possible black mark against you. On the other hand,
you're a former TAFF administrator too, and you've expressed your concerns
to Martin Easterbrook, even as Patrick has done, so maybe the two are
enough to wipe out the stain
of your sin.
The only way to find out for sure is to do it. If Patrick brings out the
skeleton of Richard Bergeron and rattles in over your head in voodoo
fashion, well, all least you'll be able to say that at least you tried.
Richard Newsome
>But then a couple of pipple on the Net began asking for specifics about
>the most recent cases. On further examination, it turns out that nine out
>of the last ten Worldcons have done it. Others here on the Net whose
>fanhistorical knowledge is better organized than mine tracked the
>beginnings of the tradition down to a bit later than I initially
>thought--to 1969 when Ted White gave up his fan GoHship at St. Louiscon to
>the TAFF winner, Eddie Jones--but we’re still talking of a practice in
>place for more than a quarter of a century, which ought to be enough to
>satisfy even Avedon.
It goes back further than that. The 1955 Worldcon in Cleveland comped
the TAFF winner's hotel room. Ken and Pam Bulmer were the TAFF delegates
that year, and here is a quote from the Clevention Progress Report #4:
"Many individuals have helped out on TAFF, of course [...] the CLEVENTION
is providing free lodging for the British delegate, this year". (page 14)
Pam Wells
> I didn't mean to "put words in your mouth", Pam, and I'm sorry you read it
> that way [...]
OK, rich; allow me to apologise publically for my misreading of your previous
post.
> However, Pam, one of the points I made earlier here on the Net is that if
> the Worldcon doesn't appreciate the fan fund winners being sent to them,
> perhaps we might find a
> convention that still DOES appreciate them, like Corflu, for them to
> attend. Patrick didn't appreciate this suggestion at all when I made it.
> But not long after, you came on the Net, presumably not having seen what
> Id said earlier, and tossed out a similar notion--not specifying Corflu,
> as I did, but suggesting that a more appreciative convention than Worldcon
> might be found--as if you thought it might be worth discussing (or even
> doing if the discussions led in that direction). So I hope I'm not
> putting words in your
> mouth when I say we agree on this point?
But here, rich, we definitely do not agree. I think what I said was that
there was some discussion within TAFF Europe when I was administrator as to
where the delegates should be sent. Many different options were discussed,
over here, which I didn't go into. No conclusion was reached. I didn't state
my own preference, which I shall do now. I think the TAFF winner should
attend the largest _neutral_ convention in the host country, which will
usually be the Worldcon in America or the Eastercon in Britain. If the
Worldcon has been in Britain, the American TAFF winner has traditionally
attended that instead of the Eastercon. I think an argument could be made for
the TAFF delegate to attend either the Eastercon or the British Worldcon, if
both occur in the same year. But there is no American equivalent of the
Eastercon -- you have no annual National Convention, as such, other than the
Worldcon or the Nasfic. To choose any host convention other than the Worldcon
or the Nasfic would be divisive, either on grounds of specialism (a la Corflu,
Ditto, Readercon, Fourth Street) or regionalism (a la Noreascon, Lunacon,
Disclave, Westercon). So the Worldcon it is, because a Worldcon gives most
fans the chance of meeting the Eurpoean TAFF delegate. (Whether the Worldcon
attendees choose to make use of that chance or not -- well, now we're into
a totally different discussion!) I hope my viewpoint on this matter is now
crystal clear.
Having said all that, I think it's perfectly acceptable -- and even desirable
-- to encourage discussion on this point and other TAFF-related matters, but
I have always believed that this should be done through (and encouraged by)
the administrators of the day and the newsletters they produce. We should be
encouraging the current administrators to produce more newsletters so that
these points can be aired more widely and discussed with the whole electorate,
not just those of us who are lucky enough to have access to the Internet.
> Actually, Pam, if you could successfully pass on to Patrick the notion
> that former TAFF administrators don't necessarily have a monopoly on
> 'caring about TAFF' either, it would be appreciated.
Certainly -- and not just to Patrick: to _everyone_. Only the current
administrators can be argued to have a monopoly on 'caring about TAFF' --
because that is their _job_, for the duration of their tenure. The rest of
us, former administrators or no, may care, or not. Clearly you, Patrick and
I all do care, as do many others in this newsgroup, and I think it's both
stupid and impossible to try and measure 'who cares the most'.
> The only way to find out for sure is to do it. If Patrick brings out the
> skeleton of Richard Bergeron and rattles in over your head in voodoo
> fashion, well, all least you'll be able to say that at least you tried.
OK: I tried; I tried....
Odd that you should mention Richard Bergeron here, though -- someone asked
me for his address the other day. No, seriously. Does anyone know where he
resides these days? If so, please e-mail me.
Thank y'all for your time, and sorry about the bandwidth....
P Nielsen Hayden
>Although that's my opinion too I'm against the idea of the TAFF
>establishment telling candidates or voters what to do. If someone
>wants to stand on the basis that they intend to go to Corflu then I'd
>say it's up to the voters to make the decision.
This is an assertion designed to make anyone who disagrees with it look like
a no-fun authoritarian hardass ("So you're saying you're _against_
motherhood and the flag, is that right?"), but I would want to think long
and hard before agreeing with this. If it were allowed and if that
candidate won, it would need to be handled with a heck of a lot of tact.
This flap notwithstanding, Worldcons have by and large been very generous to
TAFF. Simply giving the institution the cut-direct would not seem, to me,
entirely in keeping with the whole TAFF ideal of cosmopolitan generosity.
That's really what bothers me about this whole fuss: the selfish peevishness
of it all. For cripes' sake. We can go to our little elite conventions any
time. Being a TAFF delegate is supposed to involve being accessible to a
broader range of fans. It's a good gig; it hardly seems a lot to ask.
Gary Farber
: But,
: more importantly, the TAFF race is there to select the most popular
: _candidate_ in a given year, so the playing field has to be level.
Where in the rules or traditions does this come from? The voters can
decide their voting criteria on any basis they wish, no matter that any
of us disagree with them.
-Gary Farber
Pam Wells
b...@intersec.demon.co.uk "Bernard Peek" writes:
> Although that's my opinion too I'm against the idea of the TAFF
> establishment telling candidates or voters what to do. If someone
> wants to stand on the basis that they intend to go to Corflu then I'd
> say it's up to the voters to make the decision.
>
> I think it would be a stupid thing to do, but despite what Heinlein
> said, stupidity is not yet an offence.
I agree with you that it would be stupid, and I agree that the voters
would probably throw it out. But I'd dislike to see candidates standing
in a single race to attend a number of different host conventions. For
a start, the timing of the race would be virtually impossible, as the
chosen host conventions could be spaced out through the year. But,
more importantly, the TAFF race is there to select the most popular
_candidate_ in a given year, so the playing field has to be level. If
the candidates are planning to attend different host conventions,
people could be voting for the convention _or_ the candidate (or some
combination of the two). This flies in the face of the purpose and
ethos of TAFF, IMHO.
Dr Gafia
new...@panix.com (Richard Newsome)
offers in <3tagmq$s...@panix.com>:
>drg...@aol.com (Dr Gafia) writes:
>>But then a couple of pipple on the Net began asking for specifics about
the >>most recent cases. On further examination, it turns out that nine
out of
>>the last ten Worldcons have done it. Others here on the Net whose
>>fanhistorical knowledge is better organized than mine tracked the
>>beginnings of the tradition down to a bit later than I initially thought
>> to 1969 when Ted White gave up his fan GoHship at St. Louiscon to the
>>TAFF winner, Eddie Jones but we're still talking of a practice in place
>>for more than a quarter of a century, which ought to be enough to
satisfy >>even Avedon.
>It goes back further than that. The 1955 Worldcon in Cleveland comped
the >TAFF winner's hotel room. Ken and Pam Bulmer were the TAFF delegates
that >year, and here is a quote from the Clevention Progress Report #4:
>"Many individuals have helped out on TAFF, of course [...] the CLEVENTION
is >providing free lodging for the British delegate, this year". (page 14)
Well, as I said, I "initially thought" it went back further. That was, by
the way, the _first_ TAFF trip, was it not?
Thanx for the added information, Richard; you're a gentleman and a scholar
(and there are so few of us left, it's pitiful...).
Gary Farber
: In article <3tbi4d$7...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> drg...@aol.com "Dr Gafia" writes:
<SNIP>
Pam says: : I didn't state my own preference, which I shall do now. I
: think the TAFF winner should attend the largest _neutral_ convention in
: the host country, which will usually be the Worldcon in America or the
: Eastercon in Britain.
<MORE SNIP>
: To choose any host convention other than the Worldcon
: or the Nasfic would be divisive, either on grounds of specialism (a la Corflu,
: Ditto, Readercon, Fourth Street) or regionalism (a la Noreascon, Lunacon,
: Disclave, Westercon).
<MORE SNIP>
I think that a key to rich's perspective (and I know he won't let me put
words in his mouth, no matter how tasty) is that he, to some fair degree
at least, and some other folk, no longer see the worldcon as a "neutral"
convention, a locution that is new to me. Those who feel this way
already see the maintenance of the worldcon as the TAFF destination as a
divisive choice.
Which it demonstrably, to some degree, is, or this argument would not be
taking place. The question is how significant is that point of view.
I don't hold it myself, but I understand it.
It is a matter of fact that the number of people who hold this view are a
tiny minority of long time worldcon attendees. rich's point of view is
that, indeed, some people have a much greater claim to the "rights" to TAFF
by virtue of historical continunity. I'm sympathetic to this, and agree
with a very small degree of it, but feel that it's an untenable
argument in practical terms.
Sophisticated versions of:
"Mine!"
"No, mine!"
(*Wap*) "No, mine!" (*Bop*)
won't go far.
: Having said all that, I think it's perfectly acceptable -- and even desirable
: -- to encourage discussion on this point and other TAFF-related matters, but
: I have always believed that this should be done through (and encouraged by)
: the administrators of the day and the newsletters they produce. We should be
: encouraging the current administrators to produce more newsletters so that
: these points can be aired more widely and discussed with the whole electorate,
: not just those of us who are lucky enough to have access to the Internet.
I could not agree more. This is a problem when the administrators will
not or cannot produce newsletters. As has more often been the case than
not. Such as currently.
rich reasonably says:
: > Actually, Pam, if you could successfully pass on to Patrick the notion
: > that former TAFF administrators don't necessarily have a monopoly on
: > 'caring about TAFF' either, it would be appreciated.
Pam reasonably replies:
. Clearly you, Patrick and
: I all do care, as do many others in this newsgroup, and I think it's both
: stupid and impossible to try and measure 'who cares the most'.
Try _to_ measure. How about a series of tag-team wrestling matches to
settle it? Why, Arnie Katz can referee; he's neutral.
rich:
: > The only way to find out for sure is to do it. If Patrick brings out the
: > skeleton of Richard Bergeron and rattles in over your head in voodoo
: > fashion, well, all least you'll be able to say that at least you tried.
I have this sudden vision of fannish Richard Bergeron All Hallow's Eve
costumes beng worn by young fannish children: booga, booga, booga. Oooh,
scary, kids.
Then there's the Bergeron loa just a few islands away.
Y'know with a little effort we can get all the great historic fannish
feuds tied up into one multidimensional meta-fuggheadry. Let's not and
say we did.
-gf
Bernard Peek
Vacuou...@bitch.demon.co.uk "Pam Wells" writes:
> In article <3tbi4d$7...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> drg...@aol.com "Dr Gafia" writes:>
> > I didn't mean to "put words in your mouth", Pam, and I'm sorry you read it
> > that way [...]
>
> OK, rich; allow me to apologise publically for my misreading of your previous
> post.
>
> > However, Pam, one of the points I made earlier here on the Net is that if
> > the Worldcon doesn't appreciate the fan fund winners being sent to them,
> > perhaps we might find a
> > convention that still DOES appreciate them, like Corflu, for them to
> > attend.
[...]
> But here, rich, we definitely do not agree. I think what I said was that
> there was some discussion within TAFF Europe when I was administrator as to
> where the delegates should be sent. Many different options were discussed,
> over here, which I didn't go into. No conclusion was reached. I didn't state
> my own preference, which I shall do now. I think the TAFF winner should
> attend the largest _neutral_ convention in the host country,
Although that's my opinion too I'm against the idea of the TAFF
establishment telling candidates or voters what to do. If someone
wants to stand on the basis that they intend to go to Corflu then I'd
say it's up to the voters to make the decision.
I think it would be a stupid thing to do, but despite what Heinlein
said, stupidity is not yet an offence.
--
Gary Farber
: In article <804926...@intersec.demon.co.uk>
: b...@intersec.demon.co.uk "Bernard Peek" writes:
: > Although that's my opinion too I'm against the idea of the TAFF
: > establishment telling candidates or voters what to do. If someone
: > wants to stand on the basis that they intend to go to Corflu then I'd
: > say it's up to the voters to make the decision.
: >
: > I think it would be a stupid thing to do, but despite what Heinlein
: > said, stupidity is not yet an offence.
: I agree with you that it would be stupid, and I agree that the voters
: would probably throw it out. But I'd dislike to see candidates standing
: in a single race to attend a number of different host conventions.
I lean towards Mr. Peek on this issue. I believe strongly in the minimum
necessary rules. The voters are capable of deciding this for themselves.
-Gary Farber
Pam Wells
> Pam Wells (Vacuou...@bitch.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> : But,
> : more importantly, the TAFF race is there to select the most popular
> : _candidate_ in a given year, so the playing field has to be level.
>
> Where in the rules or traditions does this come from? The voters can
> decide their voting criteria on any basis they wish, no matter that any
> of us disagree with them.
It comes from the fact that each of the candidates in any given race is
running _to_ the same convention, and _in_competition_with_ all the other
candidates on the ballot in the same race. You can't make it any more
level than that, I think....
The tradition is that all the candidates in the same race run to attend the
same convention. This has _always_ been the case -- right, Gary?
Bernard Peek
> Bernard Peek <b...@intersec.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
> >Although that's my opinion too I'm against the idea of the TAFF
> >establishment telling candidates or voters what to do. If someone
> >wants to stand on the basis that they intend to go to Corflu then I'd
> >say it's up to the voters to make the decision.
>
> This is an assertion designed to make anyone who disagrees with it look like
> a no-fun authoritarian hardass
Not so. I know the opposing argument and it's a perfectly reasonable
stance to take, it's just not one that I agree with.
> ("So you're saying you're _against_
> motherhood and the flag, is that right?")
Well, yes. But what's that got to do with TAFF?
> , but I would want to think long
> and hard before agreeing with this. If it were allowed and if that
> candidate won, it would need to be handled with a heck of a lot of tact.
If it ever wins, the time for tact is long past. But I don't think it
would win.
I'm one of the people that would vote, and probably campaign, against
it. But TAFF re-creates itself each year and the decision should lie
with the voters in that year. If the Worldcon/Eastercon can't attract
the candidate then it doesn't deserve to get them.
In any situation where it was really likely to happen then a lot of
people *should* be thinking long and hard.
>
> This flap notwithstanding, Worldcons have by and large been very generous to
> TAFF. Simply giving the institution the cut-direct would not seem, to me,
> entirely in keeping with the whole TAFF ideal of cosmopolitan generosity.
>
That's the way it's worked, and that's the way I would expect it to
work in the future. But I want it to work because the people involved
want it to, not because they think it ought to.
Over here conventions have made donations to TAFF and I don't see any
reason for that to stop. Given the smaller number of voters, donations
from conventions are probably the main source of income for TAFF UK.
> That's really what bothers me about this whole fuss: the selfish peevishness
> of it all. For cripes' sake. We can go to our little elite conventions any
> time. Being a TAFF delegate is supposed to involve being accessible to a
> broader range of fans. It's a good gig; it hardly seems a lot to ask.
I'm pretty sure that most of the voters (and any candidate with any
chance of winning) think that way too. But to state that candidates
*must* take the Worldcon/Eastercon choice provides fuel for the
counter-arguments.
Gary Farber
: In article <3tepu0$c...@panix2.panix.com> gfa...@panix.com "Gary Farber"
: > Pam Wells (Vacuou...@bitch.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: > : But,
: > : more importantly, the TAFF race is there to select the most popular
: > : _candidate_ in a given year, so the playing field has to be level.
: >
: > Where in the rules or traditions does this come from? The voters can
: > decide their voting criteria on any basis they wish, no matter that any
: > of us disagree with them.
: It comes from the fact that each of the candidates in any given race is
: running _to_ the same convention, and _in_competition_with_ all the other
: candidates on the ballot in the same race. You can't make it any more
: level than that, I think....
It pains me to disagree with a person I have nothing but respect for, so
early in our contact, but I trust I can be gentle, and that this is
friendly conversation.
So: the above statements of yours, put together, are tautalogical, Pam.
The TAFF candidates must run on on a platform of attending the same
convention, worldcon, so that that the playing field will be level because
they must all run on a platform of attending the same convention?
That's certainly level, but hardly my point. I'm not sure when
"levelness" became an official criteria for a candidacy. I thought the
reason for an election is so that the voters will express their unlevel
preferences.
Perhaps I snipped too much last go-round. Which of us is missing something?
: The tradition is that all the candidates in the same race run to attend the
: same convention. This has _always_ been the case -- right, Gary?
Absolutely, you are correct that that is the tradition. And if I choose
to step forward, and announce that I wish to run for TAFF, in a year that
we're sending someone eastward, and that I am campaigning on a platform
that if I win, I will go to, well, assume for the sake of argument that
Mexicon were still around, so I say I'm am standing with the intent of
attending the theoretically existent Mexicon.
Are not the voters competent to decide whether this is a stupid and
destructive idea, and vote my candidacy up or down as much as they care
to on that basis?
Oh, yeah, I'd be setting a precedent, and violating a tradition. Shoot
me. I'll leave it to the voters to decide if that's a good idea. Not
the administrators.
(I hasten to assure you that, brain-damaged as I am, I am nowhere as near
brain-damaged as to have the slightest intent of running for TAFF again;
I've had enough masochistic experiences in fandom.)
Obviously, you are free to believe that the voters must be protected from
themselves, and that the administrators must act to prevent such a
horrible, destructive, occurence as the hypothetical I offer.
I simply disagree, and feel that it is a legitimate postion for someone to
stand upon. I'm quite curious as to how other people feel about this.
Still friendly?
-gf
Ed Dravecky III
:
: But, more importantly, the TAFF race is there to select the most
: popular _candidate_ in a given year, so the playing field has to be
: level.
Of course, there is the distinct possiblity that a vote or two is
going to the person the voter would most like to see off of his or
her particular landmass for a while... (Or was mine the only high
school on the planet where a male was occasionally nominated for
homecoming queen?) People vot for the *strangest* of reasons...
--
Ed Dravecky III is: > "Do not put chopsticks in your hair. Especially
dshe...@netcom.com > after lunch." -- Miss Manners, 01 July 1995
Seth Breidbart
Ed Dravecky III <dshe...@netcom.com> wrote:
>Of course, there is the distinct possiblity that a vote or two is
>going to the person the voter would most like to see off of his or
>her particular landmass for a while...
I thought that was what MAFF is for.
Seth
A^3
: >My assertion was and is that Patrick, other administrators and others
: >claiming to be TAFF supporters have failed to put up any argument
: >WHATSOEVER against this year's failure on the part of the Worldcon to comp
: >a room for the fan fund delegates (including but not limited to TAFF).
: >Patrick et al. are inclined to shrug it off--the coffers of TAFF are full
: >enough, they argue, that TAFF can easily afford to pay for the room, so
: >let's not rock the boat, make any claim, complain or otherwise cause
: >anybody any embarrassment. By all means, let's leave the convention with
: >the money it appears they need to pay for all the electrical outlets they
: >may require for, no doubt, another thrilling showing of "Amok Time"--and
: >never mind if the other fan funds, GUFF in particular, might have it a
: >little tougher and be a little strapped for funds--they'll just have to
: >Get Along, Somehow.
Get off your high horsde, Dr Gafia. Whose money would be paying for
this complimentary room? The money paid by every attending and
supporting member of Intersection. The electricity outlets are a vital
part of the con - you try running something like a worldcon without
wally phones (which take power for the base station and the battery
charger) or without PA - yeah, great guests guys, pity only twenty
people can hear them. If I want to help a US fan visit a British con
I'll donate money to TAFF in some form or other. I don't see why a
con should HAVE to pay out money for the TAFF guest. If the committee
feel it's a legitimate expense, then OK. But it doesn't benefit
enough people at the con to be an automatic expectation.
--
TTFN, A^3 ***************E-mail*a...@dcs.st-and.ac.uk*****************
***Mundus Vult Decipi****S-mail*45 Fife Park, St Andrews KY16 9UE****
****************************Tel*+44-1334-463268***+44-589-464141*****
********Home Page: <http://www-theory.cs.st-and.ac.uk/~aaa/>*********
Martin Easterbrook
[..]
>
>Get off your high horsde, Dr Gafia. Whose money would be paying for
>this complimentary room?
Before more people rush to enlist in this war let me point out once more that
it doesn't exist outside of rich brown's imagination. TAFF are well aware of
the problems you mention and are helping us with a bit of 'creative
accounting' to get around them. If there is something immoral about
their helping us rather than fighting with us then I don't understand it.
GUFF's finances are not as healthy as TAFF's so the programme Division have
reorganised their budget to cover their rooms.
I would not deny that a mistake has been made here. I would suggest that a
contributing factor to this is that the comp rooms used by previous Worldcons
don't show up on their budget.
The TAFF and GUFF delegates will be welcome guests at Intersection. Despite the
implications of some postings on this thread this is not an "us vs them"
situation. One of our fan programme organisers is an ex TAFF delegate and one
of our board members is a friend of this years GUFF delegates.
We have always said that it was our intention to reimburse the TAFF rooms
after the convention. Amongst the hot air there have been some valid points
made about the fan funds at Worldcon. To try to raise their profile
wer are donating a sales and exhibition area for TAFF, GUFF and DUFF in our
'Fan Fair' area.
If anyone still feels aggrieved then I suggest they put their feelings in a
fanzine and sell them to us there. If nothing else it will be cheaper
than the phone line costs to download rich's postings and the money will go
to the fan funds not the phone company.
P Nielsen Hayden
>I'm pretty sure that most of the voters (and any candidate with any
>chance of winning) think that way too. But to state that candidates
>*must* take the Worldcon/Eastercon choice provides fuel for the
>counter-arguments.
That's a good point.
David E Romm
> Y'know with a little effort we can get all the great historic fannish
> feuds tied up into one multidimensional meta-fuggheadry. Let's not and
> say we did.
It sure was fun to watch, though.
--
Shockwave radio: Science Fiction/Science Fact.
http://www.winternet.com/~romm
David G. Bell
AFAIK, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Food is currently
concerned with burying agriculture in paperwork, letting the Spanish
wrech the fisheries, and allowing the food to poison us, so averting the
otherwise inevitable consequences of their other policies.
--
David G. Bell -- Farmer, SF Fan, Filker, Furry, and Punslinger..
Never criticise a farmer with your mouth full.
Gary Farber
<large snip>
: I guess that means I need more than 2 fans not part of what you consider
: fanzine fandom. Of the first 15 (much less 42), try Madle, Shorter, and
: Bosnyak. (I know you can argue about Madle having done fanzines in his
: youth, but the entire argument over his election proves that "fanzine
: fandom" didn't think so.)
Please, Ben. In that parenthetical remark, you are committing the same
error as rich: no one speaks for "fanzine fandom," or "con fandom." Not
then, not now.
<More huge snip>
: Further on, rich continues:
: >Now whether were talking about the 150 who cast ballots, the even larger
: >number of fans who serve on todays convention committees, the 275 US
: >mainstream fanzine fans, the 500 mainstream fanzine fans in the English
: >speaking world, the 2000 whove had some contact with fanzines, the 4400
: >who are registered at Intersection, the 5,000 or more average stateside
: >Worldcon attendance, or for that matter all the attendees at the largest
: >Worldcon sf fandom has had to date, in no case are we talking about all
: >of fandom. In all these instances, were talking about a representative
: >portion. Whether the fans who cast ballots in the fan funds are more
: >representative than fans who make up a Worldcon committee I dont think
: >anyone can say; but Im not prepared, as Ben appears to be, to say they
: >are less. Besides, its really not necessary to expose the mean-spirited
: >to all of fandom. To achieve the kind of results I was talking about,
: >its only necessary to expose petty people in petty positions of power to
: >enough of fandom to let the fans around them know the kind of people they
: >are.
I think you may want to reconsider the numeric argrument, rich. I think
you lose.
Further: "Whether the fans who cast ballots in the fan funds are more
representative than fans who make up a Worldcon committee I don't think
anyone can say. . ."
Representative of what, rich? This is key.
". . .but I'm not prepared, as Ben appears to be, to say they are less."
I love English. Ben did not say or imply that fans who vote in the Fan
Fund races are less. He did imply or say that they are fewer. This is
inarguable, yes? You are a fine writer when you take time, rich; I know
you know the difference. I think your faintly veiled accusation there
against Ben is untrue, unfair, and descending into an unnecessary personal
attack.
<again, dangerous snips>
rich continues:
: >But there I go again, making the same error, over and again out of old
: >habit. When I talk about the Worldcon, I make the presumption and am
: >guilty of the oversight of continuing to say we. As if, you know, the
: >Worldcon were just as much my Worldcon as anyone elses in fandom--as if
: >the entire sf community was still just one community and we were all still
: >combining our celebration of Roscoes birthday with our adopted family
: >reunion.
Ben replies:
: But it *is* your Worldcon. And mine. And that of every fan who has
: become a part of the community. We are all a part of fandom, and TAFF,
: and the Worldcon, are all owned by active fandom.
: And I will continue to do what I can, in my way, as you will in yours. I
: only hope that the ways chosen are those that bring the community
: together, rather than those which bring us apart.
What Ben says so well.
You are one of my fannish heros, rich, and I don't mean a sandwich. You
truly are. I hope you will hear the following calmly, and that I'm not
pushing your temper button. I continue to hope that this can be a
friendly exploration of differing views. (Caveat: if these sorts of
views define me into Ted's "New Fandom" category for someone, bite me.)
In essence, I'm not sure you've gotten out and around fandom in a majorly
surveying way, rich, in the last twenty years. We live in an entirely
different fannish meta-universe than when the Fanoclasts made the Great
Trek to Westercon in 1965.
It's very easy to go to Disclave, Corflu, and a handful of other cons,
keep in touch with the same old fans, getting only a few new zines per
year, seeing a handful of new apas, and look at the con listings in SF
CHRONICLE, and think that there are tens of thousands of ignorant folk
out there who delude themselves that they are fans, but we know better.
We know that they can't discuss the history of the Vanguard APA, or
whether Shelby Vick's CONFUSION was a better zine than the dittoed
PSYCHOTIC, trace how the weekly apa was started by APA-F, and ever-onwards.
The thing is, when we think that, when we make that sweeping
generalization, we're very often wrong.
ALL OUR YESTERDAYS has sold many thousands of copies over the years. THE
ENCHANTED DUPLICATOR has been read by tens, and possibly hundreds of
thousands of people. Really. There are more autobiographies of fannish
pros than I will bother to list (Pohl, Knight, all of the numerous
interview books). The amount of fannish knowledge available in book form
alone can fill a bookshelf. Then we have the the conveying of knowledge,
tradition and references through all the local fanzines and apas that you
and I do not see. Next we have the tremendous oral conveyance of
knowledge, traditions, and funny stories that most cons and clubs pass
along to all who stay around. Lastly, we know have the net itself
spreading memes. We do not know how many lurkers are reading this, and
actually bothering to care (I expect that there may be as many as five,
or even six!).
The fannish knowlege that you and I possess is shared by a far larger
number of people to a far larger degree than I suspect you are aware.
Sure, we know far more than most. Sure, we are far more closely
connected to the "core" thread of Founding Fandom from Palmer, Ackerman,
and Wolheim to Burbee, Laney, and Jacobs, and on down to, oh, Barnaby
Rappaport, say.
But if you travel around the US, touring the clubs, and cons, although you
will certainly find that the majority of fans there know little of these
things, if you do an in-depth survey, you will find amid the
misconceptions, confusions, indifference, fuggheadery, and mistakes, that
there is an ever-spreading knowledge of the history of fandom rippling
outwards from all those who genuinely care about the field.
Correct me if I'm inserting words in your mouth again, but I believe that
you have long used the "if you and your fanac are known to me, and I
believe it connects with my tradition of fandom, than you are a fan"
definition. This is also known as the "identify the following names:"
definition.
This has always been the easiest definition of "who is a trufan," as it
is a subset of the Potter Stewart default.
A currently prominent faned used it within the last few months. I've
used it in the past.
I long ago decided, though, that the "fandom, c'est moi" definition can
no longer be used. You may continue to disagree.
I believe it can no longer be used because I no longer find that it
describes reality. When I have had occasion to visit a club meeting of
people I do not know, or go to a convention, I have often found that
there are people pretty darn conversant on many areas of fanhistory whom
I have never heard of before. I jolly well can't and won't say that I am
so central and important to sf fandom that if I don't know them, or they
don't know me, they are "not fans," or "not trufans," or not "real fans"
or whatever locution you prefer.
I can't do that and speak truth, nor can you, Ted, Andy Hooper, Arnie,
Ben, Patrick, Moshe, Lise, Leah, Lichtman, Pelz, or anyone else.
We can only speak of the people whom we know to be trufen, to whatever
degree, not that we know all the trufen.
Standing by to receive more beardmutterings.
-Gary Farber
Gary Farber
: Further: "Whether the fans who cast ballots in the fan funds are more
: representative than fans who make up a Worldcon committee I don't think
: anyone can say. . ."
: Representative of what, rich? This is key.
: ". . .but I'm not prepared, as Ben appears to be, to say they are less."
: I love English. Ben did not say or imply that fans who vote in the Fan
: Fund races are less. He did imply or say that they are fewer. This is
: inarguable, yes? You are a fine writer when you take time, rich; I know
: you know the difference. I think your faintly veiled accusation there
: against Ben is untrue, unfair, and descending into an unnecessary personal
: attack.
: -Gary Farber
After sending off the previous message that the above references, I
realized I owe rich one small apology, and this is it. I picked on rich
for not defining his terms in using "representative" without an object.
Then I picked on him for misusing the difference between "less" and
"fewer," leaping past to the rest of my point.
Too late, I realized that of course rich was using "less" to mean "less
representative," and that therefore I picked on him for one small point
that was my misreading, not his mis-writing.
Sorry about that, rich. I still maintain that if we all had to crank a
Gestetner model 100 five hundred times before "send" was enabled, that
net discussion would be better off.
My question as to "representative of what?" and the rest of my comments
still stand.
-Gary Farber
Ben Yalow
and reply. I'll give enough to let people understand my context.
rich says:
>It is an indisputable FACT--not a mere opinion, much less a misguided
>one--that TAFF, in its 42-year history, has been won by fanzine fans
>easily 95 percent of the time.
>If I am wrong in making these assertions, it should be a simple matter for
>you and/or Patrick and/or someone else out there reading this to name
>names, cite dates and show me where I'm in error. But you can't, because
>I'm not.
I guess that means I need more than 2 fans not part of what you consider
fanzine fandom. Of the first 15 (much less 42), try Madle, Shorter, and
Bosnyak. (I know you can argue about Madle having done fanzines in his
youth, but the entire argument over his election proves that "fanzine
fandom" didn't think so.)
Further on, rich continues:
>Point is, the dust-up draws attention to the issue where sweeping it under
>the rug, well, sweeps it under the rug. Some people reading this who
>perhaps were not aware of these matters previously and who will be on
>future Worldcon committees are aware of them now--because of the dust-up.
>So now they will at least have the option of considering the issue
>beforehand, if for no other reason than to avoid similar unpleasantness.
>They might also consider me, personally, to be an arrogant cur or, in some
>particularly misguided cases, evil incarnate. But I can take the huff,
>since I know in my heart of hearts that my real game is spreading light
>and joy (and Im willing to take on any 20 of them, one at a time or all
>in a bunch, if they want to make something out of it). At the same time,
>I would LIKE to believe that these people on future Worldcon committees
>are likely to be intelligent enough to consider the matter on its merits
>despite what they may think of me personally, but you know them ever so
>much better than I do, Ben, and if you say otherwise, I will take you at
>your word.
I'm not claiming that the noise you're making is, in and of itself,
hurting TAFF. What I am claiming is that the *argument* you use (TAFF as
fanzine fandom's toy) is hurting TAFF.
A Worldcon committee is *required* to only use its surplus "for the
benefit of WSFS as a whole". If TAFF doesn't fall under that rule, then
donations to TAFF are barred. Fortunately, those of us arguing the other
position (that TAFF is for all of fandom) have succeeded in making that
case.
If your viewpoint wins, of course, then I believe that the Worldcon would
have no choice but to withdraw its support from TAFF. But since I
believe that fandom has more wisdom than to succumb to your argument, I'm
not that worried.
Further continuing, rich says:
>Part of the reason youre troubled by the numbers, Ben, is that you
>obviously have them slightly askew. Not youre fault; youre not the
>authority on fan funds that you are on conventions. This years race was
>fairly typical, but there were close of 150 fans casting ballots on the US
>side alone. Moneys that accompanied those ballots, according to this
>years North American TAFF Administrator Jeanne Bowman, came to more than
>$850.
Actually, this year was a rather atypical race. Since Samanda was
running, she brought in extra votes, both among the convention fans who
might not otherwise have voted, and the fanzine fans who decided to
vote. I would consider Lichtman/McGuff (165 votes total), or
Bowman/Brandt (178 total), with about 125 votes from the US side, as far
more typical of modern races.
And if more than that number of people in fandom at all (much less
fanzine fandom) believed it was worth more than $2, they could have
voted. Some individuals in that group clearly believe it's worth more
than $2, both by voting fees and donations. But if anybody *else*
believed it was worth more than $2 (or, arguably, $2.32 or so), then they
would have voted. So that it's worth a lot per person, but only to a
small group.
>The 500 is probably closer to what I generally refer to as mainstream
>fanzine fandom--150 of whom might be considered extensively active in that
>they both publish and contribute to fanzines, the rest providing a
>spectrum of active involvement from contributing frequently to writing the
>occasional LoC but nonetheless having awareness of fanzine fandom as a
>community.
So, using your new numbers, it still seems clear that "mainstream fanzine
fandom", in general, is voting at least 2:1 that TAFF isn't worth $2.
Fortunately, the people who control most Worldcon committees disagree
with that conclusion.
Continuing, rich says:
>Now whether were talking about the 150 who cast ballots, the even larger
>number of fans who serve on todays convention committees, the 275 US
>mainstream fanzine fans, the 500 mainstream fanzine fans in the English
>speaking world, the 2000 whove had some contact with fanzines, the 4400
>who are registered at Intersection, the 5,000 or more average stateside
>Worldcon attendance, or for that matter all the attendees at the largest
>Worldcon sf fandom has had to date, in no case are we talking about all
>of fandom. In all these instances, were talking about a representative
>portion. Whether the fans who cast ballots in the fan funds are more
>representative than fans who make up a Worldcon committee I dont think
>anyone can say; but Im not prepared, as Ben appears to be, to say they
>are less. Besides, its really not necessary to expose the mean-spirited
>to all of fandom. To achieve the kind of results I was talking about,
>its only necessary to expose petty people in petty positions of power to
>enough of fandom to let the fans around them know the kind of people they
>are.
In fact, since the typical Worldcon committee is selected by about
1500-2500 people, then my only claim is that it's picked by a much larger
group. And since voting fees are $20+, it's people willing to spend a
lot more on their opinions.
Continuing, rich says:
>I was surprised to find, however, that the reason why we cant get any
>leverage these days to get freebies or force cost reductions is because
>were too small. It may no longer be the case--times have changed, after
>all--but at one point the reverse was actually true and by becoming large
>enough to require half a dozen or more hotels rather than just one, we
>moved from a buyers to a sellers market. When a single hotel could
>accommodate a Worldcon, and a dozen or more hotels in any major city were
>large enough to do the job, they vied with each other for our business.
>But these days we dont need just one of them, we need all of them, and
>they are well aware of it. I really dont expect convention fandom to see
>any other way out of this except to grow larger. Im kindof grateful that
>I didnt know about this earlier, as in some situations ignorance is
>bliss; I was the Chair of Corflu III, and not knowing the terrible
>reputation sf fandom had managed to achieve, I got one of our two
>across-the-hall hospitality suites for free and a discount on our function
>space, for all that we had a bit less than a hundred attendees. A pity one
>cannot exercise any leverage when we are filling a mere (I stand
>corrected) half million dollars worth of rooms.
Small cons (like Corflu) are a different story altogether. For bottom
feeders like us, a lot can trickle down if it doesn't take much to feed
on. But if we are the size of a modern Worldcon (or even a mid-sized
1000 person regional), then we are competing with people with real money,
and we lose any place we compete. We get what's available that they
don't want.
>But there I go again, making the same error, over and again out of old
>habit. When I talk about the Worldcon, I make the presumption and am
>guilty of the oversight of continuing to say we. As if, you know, the
>Worldcon were just as much my Worldcon as anyone elses in fandom--as if
>the entire sf community was still just one community and we were all still
>combining our celebration of Roscoes birthday with our adopted family
>reunion.
But it *is* your Worldcon. And mine. And that of every fan who has
become a part of the community. We are all a part of fandom, and TAFF,
and the Worldcon, are all owned by active fandom.
And I will continue to do what I can, in my way, as you will in yours. I
only hope that the ways chosen are those that bring the community
together, rather than those which bring us apart.
Ben
--
Ben Yalow yb...@panix.com
Not speaking for anybody
Pam Wells
> Perhaps I snipped too much last go-round. Which of us is missing something?
Neither of us, I suspect. I think we just disagree. Fair enough. No hassle.
And if I'm arguing tautologically, then there's probably nothing else I can
think of to explain my position. Time for me to stand back a bit, maybe.
> Still friendly?
But of _course_, Gary!
Pam Wells
uad...@tdc.dircon.co.uk "Martin Easterbrook" writes:
[much sensible stuff, but I spotted the deliberate mistake and claim my
anorak:]
> One of our fan programme organisers is an ex TAFF delegate
Er, for the record, Christina Lake and Lilian Edwards are _two_ of your fan
programme organisers. Although they won TAFF on a joint candidacy, and thus
shared the win, I still think they can be thought of as _two_ delegates.
(Care to comment, Patrick? Were you and Teresa one TAFF delegate, or two?)
Seth Breidbart
>And if more than that number of people in fandom at all (much less
>fanzine fandom) believed it was worth more than $2, they could have
>voted. Some individuals in that group clearly believe it's worth more
>than $2, both by voting fees and donations. But if anybody *else*
>believed it was worth more than $2 (or, arguably, $2.32 or so), then they
>would have voted. So that it's worth a lot per person, but only to a
>small group.
I have to disagree here. It's worth more than $2 to me, and from time
to time I contribute more than that (both directly and by bidding and
shilling in auctions), but most years I don't get around to voting.
Seth
Seth Breidbart
Gary Farber <gfa...@panix.com> wrote:
>Sorry about that, rich. I still maintain that if we all had to crank a
>Gestetner model 100 five hundred times before "send" was enabled, that
>net discussion would be better off.
Not to mention, fandom would be in a lot better (physical) shape.
Seth [thread drift? what thread drift?]
Steve Glover
Martin Easterbrook <uad...@tdc.dircon.co.uk> wrote:
[loadsa stuff snipped]
>The TAFF and GUFF delegates will be welcome guests at Intersection. Despite the
>implications of some postings on this thread this is not an "us vs them"
>situation. One of our fan programme organisers is an ex TAFF delegate and one
>of our board members is a friend of this years GUFF delegates.
Erm... I wasn't aware that one of Lilian and Christina had quit... Or are you
counting them as a joint delegate?
Steve, who's been told it's fifteen years since they were first
referred to as the six year old twins...
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Soliciting for Intersection issue of Etranger: topics include morality in
works of people called Smith or about people called Smith; net stuff of likely
interest to SF fans, art... Deadline 15-JUL-1995: steve_...@hicom.lut.ac.uk
Ben Yalow
>I have to disagree here. It's worth more than $2 to me, and from time
>to time I contribute more than that (both directly and by bidding and
>shilling in auctions), but most years I don't get around to voting.
I stand corrected. I clearly didn't include some of the other "costs".
Since you get a ballot, however, I think it's probably accurate to say it's
not worth $2+5 minutes (or however long it would take to vote). If you
could use $2+5 minutes to "buy" a TAFF vote for yourself, and didn't, it
would seem that you didn't feel the purchase was worth it.
>Seth
Bernard Peek
Quite a lot. Please take care rich. My magic machine automatically
kills any posting over 300 lines.
I've read most of it in previous postings so I don't think that the
majority of it requires any further comment. There's just a couple of
corrections required though.
> >A typical TAFF race has about 150 or so voters. In short, about >150
> people in all of fandom think that TAFF is worth as much as >$2. Somehow,
> this doesn't seem like "the whole of fandom". In >fact, it seems smaller
> than the number of people on a modern >Worldcon committee. And the people
> on that committee spend a >lot more than $2 each.
>
> Not on TAFF of their own money, they dont; sorry to call you on it, but
> thats a load of bull.
I thought a bit about this but it's actually true. Most of the people
on the con committee will be making a bigger donation to TAFF than the
voters do.
The way it works is that the committee running the convention pay most
of their own out-of-pocket expenses in the bid and run-up to the con.
In the case of a Worldcon that's going to include things like
transatlantic travel. Part of the expenses will be reimbursed from the
bid funds, but most of the money comes from the committee. Say $5,000
each for ten people - $50,000 is a reasonable guesstimate.
The committee may have a lot of fun putting the con together, but they
pay real cash for it.
When the con makes a profit (if it does) the surplus goes to refunding
memberships for the workers and to various fannish charities --
including TAFF.
So TAFF gets a donation of, say, $500 and a $100 membership, but it
costs the con committee around a hundred times that.
> On the other hand, Ben, you--convention fandom, I mean--have
> some convention fans running your Worldcon who do not have the least idea
> what TAFF is, and you dont seem to be even slightly embarrassed about
> that. I say seem only because it is so very easy to be taken in by
> appearances.
No. I'll admit to that. There are people involved in running Worldcons
that have no idea what TAFF is, or why they should support it.
There are quite a number of people who's fannish history doesn't
include fanzines, or not in the form that you think of them. I can't
think of any good logical reason why they should donate to TAFF. But
they seem to be pretty happy to do so -- or they have been so far.
> We certainly have to get our
> act together, to be sure, now that this newer breed of Worldcon
> committees, and the SMOFs behind them, are making it clear that they run
> things THEIR way
Fandom runs Worldcons the same way that we always have. The ones
that put in the time and effort get to make the decisions. Luckily
fandom at large seems pretty happy with this state of affairs.
> The committee has been
> apologetic about making the mistake, but Ive seen a lot of hostility
> about the funds, about fanzine fandom and fanzine fans and how we are
> perceived by current-day convention fandom, and I question if we are
> really welcome at what was once our own party anymore.
What's this WE Kimo Sabe?
I've seen lots of hostility too. But not about fanzine fandom or
fanzine fans. Just about assholes. Sorry rich, but don't try to pass
the buck.
Dr Gafia
Out of a $90-$120 membership fee, ten cents from each of the 4400 members
of Intersection would comp a room for a fan fund delegate.
Now if you are a member and you begrudge this, that's okay with me--it
just
gives more credence to my notion that the worldcon is no longer the best
place to send the fan fund delegates. That's all I've been saying.
You can have it one way, or the other, but not both. Take your pick. I'm
personally comfortable with EITHER.
Regards,
rb
Ben Yalow
>TAFF is worth more than that; however, a slight amount of control over
>the winner, most years, isn't. My opinions about people who I haven't
>met, and mostly haven't even read much by, are rather weak.
But you could cast a "No Preference" vote for the cost of $2 (plus time
and postage), without needing to have any opinions on how the various
candidates should be ranked.
I will clearly admit that the postage and time are transaction costs, and
therefore lost to all parties, but otherwise the $2 seems like an upper
limit on your value of TAFF. There clearly may be other transaction
costs, as well, but I don't know what they would be.
There's also the "value" of seeing yourself listed in the TAFF voter
report, but monetarizing that is very personal (although probably positive).
>Seth
Seth Breidbart
TAFF is worth more than that; however, a slight amount of control over
the winner, most years, isn't. My opinions about people who I haven't
met, and mostly haven't even read much by, are rather weak.
Seth
David G. Bell
kur...@tardis.ed.ac.uk "Steve Glover" writes:
> In article <uad1104.805049741@tdc>,
> Martin Easterbrook <uad...@tdc.dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> [loadsa stuff snipped]
>
> >The TAFF and GUFF delegates will be welcome guests at Intersection. Despite
> >situation. One of our fan programme organisers is an ex TAFF delegate and on
> >of our board members is a friend of this years GUFF delegates.
>
> Erm... I wasn't aware that one of Lilian and Christina had quit... Or are you
> counting them as a joint delegate?
>
> Steve, who's been told it's fifteen years since they were first
> referred to as the six year old twins...
So when do they get the 21st Birthday party?
David E Romm
wrote:
Well, Gary admitted in a previous thread that his Mac was hand cranked.
So this is not as much of a drift as you might think at first.
Seth Breidbart
>In <3tkbnf$7...@panix3.panix.com> se...@panix.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:
>
>>the winner, most years, isn't. My opinions about people who I haven't
>>met, and mostly haven't even read much by, are rather weak.
>
>and postage), without needing to have any opinions on how the various
>candidates should be ranked.
And I can just contribute some arbitrary amount at some random time
even more easily.
>I will clearly admit that the postage and time are transaction costs, and
>therefore lost to all parties, but otherwise the $2 seems like an upper
>limit on your value of TAFF. There clearly may be other transaction
>costs, as well, but I don't know what they would be.
>
>There's also the "value" of seeing yourself listed in the TAFF voter
>report, but monetarizing that is very personal (although probably positive).
You've demonstrated that $2 is an upper bound on the value to me of
seeing my name listed in the TAFF voter list. If at some random time
I hand the administrator $20, or some books to be auctioned off, or
something, that seems to indicate that the value of TAFF to me has a
lower bound of $20 (or whatever).
Seth
Martin Smith
In article <805120...@bitch.demon.co.uk>, Pam Wells (Vacuou...@bitch.demon.co.uk) writes:
>> One of our fan programme organisers is an ex TAFF delegate
>
>programme organisers. Although they won TAFF on a joint candidacy, and thus
>shared the win, I still think they can be thought of as _two_ delegates.
Is that vacuous spelt "pedantic"?
Muttley
Gary Farber
: <stuff deleted>
: So that, based on past records, it would seem that about 150 represents a
: good approximation to the number of people in the US in any year who feel
: that TAFF is worth more than $2. Note the "approximation" in there; it's
: clear that there is some uncertainty in the measurement, since all that
: can be determined are sets of proxies for the item we truly want to measure.
: But I suspect they're pretty good proxies.
I don't believe it grossly affects the argument in either direction, but
for the record, while I have no quibble at the moment with your reasoning
or general point here, Ben, in the interest of precision of language in
a way that does have a _minor_ affect upon the larger point:
150-200 people may be reasonable numbers for an average number of voters
in this country in a typical TAFF race.
The number of people "in any year who feel that TAFF is worth more than
$2" is probably more like 400 people. Conservatively. IMHO. I doubt I
can prove this, at least easily. I simply offer it as my opinion based on
my experience.
Said experience tells me that Seth is in no way unique in contributing to
TAFF (and the other fan funds and charities) with either direct donations,
offerings of auction materials, purchases of auctions materials, and the
fair range of other direct fund-raising methods that have been
sporadically used over the years ranging from cookie sales, to, well, all
sorts of odd methods.
A quite significant number of people (meaning in this case, probably
under five hundred) contribute without voting. Sometimes, if not this
year, than the next, or the third.
So if we're debating numbers of fans who support TAFF in a significant
way, to rely strictly on the voting numbers is somewhat misleading.
-Gary Farber
Ben Yalow
<stuff deleted>
>You've demonstrated that $2 is an upper bound on the value to me of
>seeing my name listed in the TAFF voter list. If at some random time
>I hand the administrator $20, or some books to be auctioned off, or
>something, that seems to indicate that the value of TAFF to me has a
>lower bound of $20 (or whatever).
Agreed. However, the number of people who do that (make large donations
to TAFF without voting) is probably small. In addition, most such
donations are listed in the TAFF administrator's reports, and since there
are typically only a few names listed, it would further hint that the
number is small.
So that, based on past records, it would seem that about 150 represents a
good approximation to the number of people in the US in any year who feel
that TAFF is worth more than $2. Note the "approximation" in there; it's
clear that there is some uncertainty in the measurement, since all that
can be determined are sets of proxies for the item we truly want to measure.
But I suspect they're pretty good proxies.
>Seth
Dr Gafia
tacks on, after comments to Gary Farber:
<<snip>>
>>[thread drift? what thread drift?]
I think we may all legitimately start to wonder at this point where Anne
McCaffrey's dragons are, now that we so clearly need them...
--rich brown a.k.a. Dr. Gafia
Dr Gafia
replies to se...@panix.com (Seth Breidbart):
> <stuff deleted>
>>You've demonstrated that $2 is an upper bound on the value to me of
>>seeing my name listed in the TAFF voter list. If at some random time
>>I hand the administrator $20, or some books to be auctioned off, or
>>something, that seems to indicate that the value of TAFF to me has a
>>lower bound of $20 (or whatever).
>Agreed. However, the number of people who do that (make large donations
>to TAFF without voting) is probably small. In addition, most such
>donations are listed in the TAFF administrator's reports, and since there
>are typically only a few names listed, it would further hint that the
>number is small.
In the most recent race, on the US side only, four auctions (two Worldcon,
one large regional and one at Corflu) are listed among the "noteworthy"
financial contributions. The material to be auctioned had to be provided
by
someone, and some people had to pay money for the items to make the
auctions successful. The vast majority of that at Corflu (and I
personally suspect at the other auctions as well) has been fanzines. But
at the most recent Corflu someone paid over $100 for two rocks Rotsler had
drawn some cartoons on. The numbers may be smalll among convention fans,
Ben, but I've averaged close to $100/auction over the past 10 years at
Corflu all by my self, and I don't believe that I am unique in that kind
of spending for the auctions that benefit the fan funds. I've seen
fanzines I have donated sell for anywhere from $15 to $50 apiece at those
auctions and the by-mail auctions conducted by fan fund administrators.
Gary Farber
: se...@panix.com (Seth Breidbart)
: tacks on, after comments to Gary Farber:
: <<snip>>
: >>[thread drift? what thread drift?]
: I think we may all legitimately start to wonder at this point where Anne
: McCaffrey's dragons are, now that we so clearly need them...
: --rich brown a.k.a. Dr. Gafia
To think some people say we don't talk about science fiction in these. .
. .
Richard Newsome
>
>So that, based on past records, it would seem that about 150 represents a
>good approximation to the number of people in the US in any year who feel
>that TAFF is worth more than $2. Note the "approximation" in there; it's
>clear that there is some uncertainty in the measurement, since all that
>can be determined are sets of proxies for the item we truly want to measure.
This is utterly specious logic, Ben. Obviously in a situation like TAFF
you have a lot of free riders who get their $2 worth without having
to kick in. I didn't pay my $2 last year but I got at least $2 worth
of enjoyment out of reading about Abby Frost's misadventures in America.
Everybody doesn't have to pay up for TAFF to work, just enough people
to pay for the trip. This does not mean that the people who don't kick
in don't want TAFF or aren't getting anything out of it. A lot of people
in fandom don't have $2 to respond to every fund appeal, or are just
too busy to respond, but get as much out of TAFF as those who do respond.
Obviously, in today's bloated fandom, 90% of the people attending Worldcon
probably don't know what TAFF is, but I would guess that there are at
least 1000 people out there who do want it.
P Nielsen Hayden
>Er, for the record, Christina Lake and Lilian Edwards are _two_ of your fan
>programme organisers. Although they won TAFF on a joint candidacy, and thus
>shared the win, I still think they can be thought of as _two_ delegates.
>(Care to comment, Patrick? Were you and Teresa one TAFF delegate, or two?)
Worrying about whether being a former TAFF delegate gives Special Weight to
one's opinion on TAFF is a Normal Fannish Worry. Worrying about whether
each half of a join-win team has Full Special Weight is a Baroque Fannish
Worry.
-----
Patrick Nielsen Hayden : p...@tor.com : opinions mine
http://www.panix.com/~pnh : http://www.tor.com
P Nielsen Hayden
>Agreed. However, the number of people who do that (make large donations
>to TAFF without voting) is probably small. In addition, most such
>donations are listed in the TAFF administrator's reports, and since there
>are typically only a few names listed, it would further hint that the
>number is small.
Um, those lists usually don't include people who made "contributions" to
TAFF by buying materials at auction, or purchasing things sold to benefit
TAFF, such as old fanzines, special publications, T-shirts, etc. A rather
large number of whom, in our experience, don't vote. But as far as I'm
concerned they've got a stake in TAFF.
Gary Farber
: Worrying about whether being a former TAFF delegate gives Special Weight to
: one's opinion on TAFF is a Normal Fannish Worry. Worrying about whether
: each half of a join-win team has Full Special Weight is a Baroque Fannish
: Worry.
Well done. You may all now bombard Arnie Katz in Las Vegas with requests
for a reprint of THE FANNISH WORRY BOOK, circa 1971. *Or Maybe Not.*
I assume you don't want requests, rich, so I'm Not Mentioning your name.
-Gary Farber
P Nielsen Hayden
>We can go to Corflu any time the Worldcon decides we're no longer welcome
>there. But right now, let's not do that (and maybe just say that we did).
>LetM-^Rs wait and see if that actually IS what the Worldcon feels about the
>fan funds first.
Just so. Could we possibly be in _agreement_, Meyer?
By the way, turn your computer's "smart quotes" feature off; it's filling
your messages with bizarre strings, such as "LetM-^Rs" above. This is
because "pointed" apostrophes and quotation marks aren't part of the basic
character set shared by all the rest of us.
Dr Gafia
yb...@panix.com (Ben Yalow)
responds in <3tikkl$2...@panix3.panix.com>
to some of my comments:
Ben challenges my assertion that TAFF has been won by fanzine fans easily
95 percent of the time:
>I guess that means I need more than 2 fans not part of what you consider
>fanzine fandom. Of the first 15 (much less 42), try Madle, Shorter, and
>Bosnyak. (I know you can argue about Madle having done fanzines in his
>youth, but the entire argument over his election proves that "fanzine
>fandom" didn't think so.)
Madle was doing fanzine reviews for a US prozine when he was elected, and
of course was "known" to old time UK fans for the fanzine activity of his
youth; an extremely small element of the "protest" was over Eney's being a
better-known fanzine fan to what was then present day UK fanzine fandom,
but largely the dust up there was over vote buying (see Chuck Harris's
posting on the topic). And didn't Mario Bosnyak published MUNICH ROUNDUP
(one of the most popular fanzines in Germany)--or was that one of his
rivals in German fandom? Mind you, I thought he was a dud (he'd been to
the previous US worldcon on his own hook, spent more campaigning
attending European conventions handing out TAFF ballots to fans to whom he
was the only known quantity than he would if he'd paid his own way again,
and gave Peter Weston his third loss running for TAFF, ensuring that he
would never run again, although the majority of the US voters wanted to
meet him); I said this in _beardmuterings_ at the time. That brings it
down to one out of 15.
But whoa. Stop. Cease. Desist. I was so certain of how essentially
*right* I was, I walked out and calmly sawed off the limb I was standing
on.
(I've been known to make the same mistake playing Hearts rush out to a
truly
commanding lead, and through my play, at the very last minute, manage to
snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.) The vast majority of the time,
TAFF is won by fanzine fans; it's fanzine fandom's toy. But my claim of
95 percent is extreme, ridiculous and cannot be sustained, even quibbling
with Ben as I do above. He's cited one out of 15; ONE more would be a
hair short of 95 percent and I concede there are probably another three
or four.
Uncle! Uncle!
Further on, Ben continues:
>I'm not claiming that the noise you're making is, in and of itself,
>hurting TAFF. What I am claiming is that the *argument* you use (TAFF as
>fanzine fandom's toy) is hurting TAFF.
>A Worldcon committee is *required* to only use its surplus "for the
>benefit of WSFS as a whole". If TAFF doesn't fall under that rule, then
>donations to TAFF are barred. Fortunately, those of us arguing the other
>position (that TAFF is for all of fandom) have succeeded in making that
>case.
>If your viewpoint wins, of course, then I believe that the Worldcon would
>have no choice but to withdraw its support from TAFF. But since I
>believe that fandom has more wisdom than to succumb to your argument, I'm
>not that worried.
But it's only your fevered imagination, Ben, that puts our arguments at
odds.
By all means, if it gives you joy, continue to pound away at that straw
man to your heart's content; just don't complain if I sit back and watch
it all in wry amusement. "TAFF is fanzine fandom's toy," I have said.
Truthfully--but also tongue in cheek, wryly, with a full understanding of
how outrageous it sounds. Taken out of context, it's certainly open to
negative interpreta-tions, but, hey, _i_ haven't been quoting MYSELF out
of context here, have I? On the whole, in fact, I have explained my
meaning in lengthy detail not once but several times.
But I will try once more: TAFF is fanzine fandom's toy because fanzine
fans have generally won (been elected the delegates/administrators of)
TAFF. The reason fanzine fans tend to win TAFF is because fanzine fans
are already known to other fanzine fans on the other side of the ocean
through trading fanzines and thus (unless they've made the kind of
impression on them that I have made on you) have a body of potential
"supporters" and fans who really want to meet them to start out with
(which I think is inarguable as well).
But--pay attention, now--I have ALSO stated that (a) while TAFF is fanzine
fandom's toy, it's a toy which convention fandom, by sheer force of
numbers, can take away (and has taken away) from us any time it wants to
do so, besides which (b) TAFF benefits the Worldcon/WSFS/fandom as a whole
NO MATTER WHO WINS.
It is your construction to take "TAFF is fanzine fandom's toy" and depict
it
as meaning "TAFF only benefits fanzine fandom" when that is clearly
neither what I've said nor what I've meant. Thus, it's your problem, Ben,
not mine.
However, my curiosity being piqued yet again, just when WAS the last time
the Worldcon made a "donation" to TAFF out of "surplus"? I thought the
practice was generally abandoned when SCI FI was born and it was decided
to give a fixed amount to the funds instead but ONLY when the fan fund
winners published trip reports. (Fanzine fans were also disappointed that
fan fund winners were just going to the conventions and not publishing
trip reports afterwards but continued to support TAFF as they always had,
while convention fans put their foot down saying, in effect, that merely
attending the con is not enough, the delegate should publish a fanzine
about it--or forego their direct financial support until/unless they do.
I'm sorry if I'm the only one who finds this ironic.) ConFrancisco let
TAFF hold an auction; ConAdian allowed fanzine fans to maintain the Fan
Room and sell TAFF related materials from there, neither of which involved
any "surpluses" of the Worldcon. If a Worldcon committee can provide a
function room where episodes of Dr. Who are to be shown without pausing to
consider whether such a room would be "for the benefit of WSFS as a
whole," then it can provide a sleeping room for the TAFF delegate on the
same basis. That's even if I WERE arguing that TAFF only benefits fanzine
fandom--which, as I've said over and over, I'm not.
Further on, Ben challenges the only TAFF statistics I have right at hand,
Jeanne Bowman's "TAFF update!" for the most recent race (showing nearly
150
US voters casting ballots and coming up with $850 in accompanying voting
fees):
>... I would consider Lichtman/McGuff (165 votes total), or Bowman/Brandt
>(178 total), with about 125 votes from the US side, as far more typical
of >modern races. :: And if more than that number of people in fandom at
all >(much less fanzine fandom) believed it was worth more than $2, they
could >have voted. Some individuals in that group clearly believe it's
worth more >than $2, both by voting fees and donations. But if anybody
*else* believed >it was worth more than $2 (or, arguably, $2.32 or so),
then they would have >voted. So that it's worth a lot per person, but
only to a small group.
Only one thing is clear from that: I need a translator. Ben obviously has
SOME idea in mind but I haven't the least notion what it is. Sounds like
gibberish to me but maybe it's my receiver rather than his transmitter
that's faulty. "And if more than (125 voters on the US side)...believed
it was worth more than $2, they could have voted." Well, yeah, right
on--$2 IS the minimum voting fee all right, therefore anyone who believed
TAFF was worth $2 OR MORE could have voted provided they otherwise met
voting requirements (were known to the TAFF administrator or could cite
someone known to the administrator who could vouch for their activity in
fandom for the preceding year). I'm not sure what you think that means,
though. You try to explain further but it only gets more confusing (to
me; perhaps it's crystal clear to everyone else): "But if anybody *else*
believed it was worth more than $2 (or, arguably, $2.32 or so), then they
would have voted. So that it's worth a lot per person, but only to a
small group." I just don't see what you are trying to say here; you seem
to be asserting that if they believed TAFF was worth more than the minimum
voting fee, they "would have" voted whereas I fail to see any connection.
I mean, there have been years when _I_ haven't voted and on none of those
occasions has it been an inability to pay the voting fee which prevented
me from doing so. Further, since you don't provide any corresponding
information about the years you consider more "typical" specifically, the
total amount that accompanied the ballots it's not possible to calculate
how much the "average" voter actually sent in.
Jeanne Bowman lists (I just carefully counted) 128 US voters and adds that
money accompanying the ballots "exceed $850". That total is exclusive of
a
three digit "donation" by Terry Hughes and funds collected from three
auctions and running a Fan Room which brought the total close to $3,600.
Dividing 128 into $850 shows that the average ballot came in with a
contribution of a bit more than $6.60 so for everyone who contributed
only
$2, someone else had to donate $11.20 to make up the difference. I don't
at
all believe that this is atypical.
Ben was willing to accept my numbers regarding mainstream fanzine fandom,
but
then insists:
>>... So, using your new numbers, it still seems clear that "mainstream
>>fanzine fandom", in general, is voting at least 2:1 that TAFF isn't
worth
>>$2.
Only if you assume that a failure to vote means the person(s) not voting
are
doing so because they don't think TAFF is worth $2. If that is what you
mean
when YOU don't vote for TAFF, Ben, well, fine, you're speaking for
yourself
and entitled to that opinion even though I don't agree with it. When I
fail
to vote, it's an oversight and I still wind up thinking that TAFF is as
invaluable as it has always been. Fortunately, casting a ballot is not
the
only way to support TAFF; I've contributed much more to the fan funds
through the dozens of fanzines I've donated over the years for auction
(which I have seen sell for between $20 and $50 apiece) and in the
fanzines I have bid for and won in direct TAFF auctions and TAFF/DUFF
auctions at Corflu (my average has been about $100/year for most of the
past 10 years and I have plenty of people bidding against me, so in this
instance I'm certain I am not alone).
In response to my comment that, whether we're talking about the 150 who
cast
ballots or all the attendees at the largest Worldcon sf fandom has held to
date, in no case are we talking "all" of fandom, we are only talking about
*a
representative portion* Ben replies:
>In fact, since the typical Worldcon committee is selected by about
>1500 2500 people, then my only claim is that it's picked by a much larger
>group. And since voting fees are $20+, it's people willing to spend a
>lot more on their opinions.
Is that how it's done these days? It used to be the Worldcon members who
showed up at the proper time at the business meeting got to vote for the
next site selection. I've been noting a "Worldcon Voting fee" thread here
on rec.arts.sf.fandom but I've been avoiding it (along with the one on
"Smoking"); I guess now that I should have paid more attention.
Now you've gone and made me curious again. I have to admit, if convention
fandom is getting between 1500 and 2500 members of any given Worldcon to
cough up $20 each, independent of their membership fee, just for the
privilege of voting to pick a future Worldcon committee, I AM impressed.
Are they paying that to vote on the makeup of the committee or JUST to
vote on where the Worldcon will be held? I mean, if they don't like
someone who's been chosen head of Security or Ops or something like that,
do they get to vote him/her out and someone else in? Or are they just
voting for the site and being forced to take the entire committee that is
bidding for the site? I ask because in that case the voters only choose
the site; they get the committee by default. Since you say voting fees
are "$20+", does that mean some people send in more (arguably $20.32,
say)? Why? Where does the $30,000 to $50,000 raised by this procedure
go--what is the money used for?
Ben quotes me:
>>But there I go again, making the same error, over and again out of old
>>habit. When I talk about the Worldcon, I make the presumption and am
>>guilty of the oversight of continuing to say we. As if, you know, the
>>Worldcon were just as much my Worldcon as anyone elses in fandom as if
>>the entire sf community was still just one community and we were all
>>still combining our celebration of Roscoes birthday with our adopted
>>family reunion.
He responds:
>But it *is* your Worldcon. And mine. And that of every fan who has
>become a part of the community. We are all a part of fandom, and TAFF,
>and the Worldcon, are all owned by active fandom.
You are more than generous, tactful AND true in the general sense, Ben.
But, thank’s just the same, not in this specific case as it applies to
moi. I realize that for you and Patrick and Moshe Feder and Gary Farber
and a host of other very nice, extremely sincere people, it’s either
precisely what you want it to be or close enough that you can “put up”
with the rest. I’ve been to only two Worldcons in the past 10 years and I
have to say I enjoyed myself at both of them IN SPITE of the fact that
they were Worldcons--in the first case (Baltimore) because I was in love
and in the second (Magicon) because it had a
convention-within-a-convention feeling that made me want to give it a
half-Corflu number.
Now, no matter how I might try to dress it up, that’s a bias of mine. I
really don’t like Worldcons. I “put up” with them only when I felt I had
to because they were the one place where I stood the greatest chance of
running into a great number of my friends from all across the country.
Now, FOR ME (I want to emphasize that), Corflu serves that function much
better. Granted, there are people I miss whom I’d like to see and can’t
because they don’t go to Corflu and I don’t go to Worldcons, but by and
large I pay less, meet more of my friends and get more time to spend
talking with them than I ever have done at the Worldcon. And I don’t
have to shoulder my way through 2,000 people wearing Spock ears to get to
them.
However, having “sat out” the discussion for a few days, I’ve reached the
conclusion that my biases have served me badly here, and I was too quick
to perceive a disregard for the traditions of the fan funds on the part of
the Worldcon and its membership.
Because, really, what p...@tor.com (P Nielsen Hayden) said in
<3teh0i$p...@panix2.panix.com> to Bernard Peek<b...@intersec.demon.co.uk>
makes a lot of sense:
>This flap notwithstanding, Worldcons have by and large been very generous
to
>TAFF. Simply giving the institution the cut direct would not seem, to
me,
>entirely in keeping with the whole TAFF ideal of cosmopolitan generosity.
I have to say that it was my perception, no doubt based in my biases, that
it was the Worldcon, in this flap, which was giving TAFF the cut direct.
If that were actually the case, it would make sense for us to simply walk
away. Go somewhere else and perhaps rethink things, if we were no longer
welcome at what was once our own party.
But my perceptions of these events were in error; the fan funds were
simply overlooked by an inexperienced Worldcon committee, who were first
apologetic and then have come together to try to make right their mistake.
Along the way, I misperceived Patrick's on line comments to me as being
reflective of an attitude he did not, in fact, hold. A few sneering
comments from the cheap seats helped convince me there was genuine
animosity toward the fan funds on the part of many or perhaps even most
Worldcon attendees, when in actuality the comments were probably just
expressing annoyance at me.
Patrick adds:
>That's really what bothers me about this whole fuss: the selfish
peevishness
>of it all. For cripes' sake. We can go to our little elite conventions
any
>time. Being a TAFF delegate is supposed to involve being accessible to a
>broader range of fans. It's a good gig; it hardly seems a lot to ask.
We can go to Corflu any time the Worldcon decides we're no longer welcome
there. But right now, let's not do that (and maybe just say that we did).
Let’s wait and see if that actually IS what the Worldcon feels about the
fan funds first.
rich brown a.k.a. Dr. Gafia
Gary Farber
reminded me of the HEAP speech:
saying about contemporary Worldcons:
I realize that for you and Patrick and Moshe Feder and Gary Farber
: with the rest.
No.
Mr John Bray
no desire to subsidise the travel costs of people I've never heard of.
I've flown to the West Coast to induge one of my SF hobbies (Contact),
but expect no subsidy. If fanzine fans want to help people fine, but
why use my convention membership money?
Let fanzine fans follow the lead of UK filk fans, who have raised the
money to get Bob Kanefsky over. He gets subsidy from the programme
budget for his contribution to the programme, but does he get free
accomodation provided by the Worldcon?
Fanzine fans are one facet of fandom, not its elite.
John
Richard Newsome
>In article <3tsbd9$4...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> rich wrote a posting that
>reminded me of the HEAP speech:
Worldcon?
P Nielsen Hayden
>In article <3tsbd9$4...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> rich wrote a posting that
>reminded me of the HEAP speech:
>
>saying about contemporary Worldcons:
>
> I realize that for you and Patrick and Moshe Feder and Gary Farber
>: and a host of other very nice, extremely sincere people, its either
>: precisely what you want it to be or close enough that you can put up
>: with the rest.
>No.
Ditto. Rich, please stop realizing I think things that I don't think.
Sharon L Sbarsky
>
>>In fact, since the typical Worldcon committee is selected by about
>>1500 2500 people, then my only claim is that it's picked by a much larger
>
>>group. And since voting fees are $20+, it's people willing to spend a
>>lot more on their opinions.
>
>Is that how it's done these days? It used to be the Worldcon members who
>showed up at the proper time at the business meeting got to vote for the
>next site selection. I've been noting a "Worldcon Voting fee" thread here
>on rec.arts.sf.fandom but I've been avoiding it (along with the one on
>"Smoking"); I guess now that I should have paid more attention.
>Yes, there is now a voting fee to go along with the Site-selection vote.
Voters also have the option of voting by mail, or at an at-con "voting"
site. Or they can find a friend to carry their ballot (and fee to the
Worldcon for them.) In any case the voter *must* be a member of the
administrating Worldcon.
The voting fee automatically turns into a Supporting Membership of the
Winning Worldcon. There are also limits on how much the Winning Site can
charge to convert the Supporting (voting) membership to an Attending
Membership. (for at least the first 90 days, some Worldcons have extended
that period.)
>Now you've gone and made me curious again. I have to admit, if convention
>fandom is getting between 1500 and 2500 members of any given Worldcon to
>cough up $20 each, independent of their membership fee, just for the
>privilege of voting to pick a future Worldcon committee, I AM impressed.
>Are they paying that to vote on the makeup of the committee or JUST to
>vote on where the Worldcon will be held? I mean, if they don't like
>someone who's been chosen head of Security or Ops or something like that,
>do they get to vote him/her out and someone else in? Or are they just
>voting for the site and being forced to take the entire committee that is
>bidding for the site? I ask because in that case the voters only choose
>the site; they get the committee by default.
It's actually the organizing committee as a whole that is chosen,
individual areas or departments are chosen by the Worldcon Chairman
and/or the Board of Directors, however the Committee is made up. In most
cases the site selected will be the site where the Worldcon is held, but
on occasion there have been some changes. There are also (unfortunately,
usually) some changes in the make up of the committee
> Since you say voting fees
>are "$20+", does that mean some people send in more (arguably $20.32,
>say)? Why? Where does the $30,000 to $50,000 raised by this procedure
>go--what is the money used for?
No, $20 is now the default voting fee. If all the bidders and the
administrating Convention agree to a different fee, it could be more (or
less) than $20. This year the voting fee is $25.
As I said above, the voting fee becomes the Supporting membership of the
voter. The money is used to pay for the publications (PRs through
Souvenir Book) printing and mailing, membership badge production, and
lots of overhead expenses, such as computer disks, paper, rental space
fees, storage space fees, etc., etc., etc. Also, $1 per voter is given to
the Treasury of the Mark Protection Committee, for its expenses.
Sharon
Sharon L Sbarsky
message by rich brown. (In case anyone couldn't figure that out. :-)
Sharon
Gary Farber
: In article <3tsotb$c...@panix2.panix.com> gfa...@panix.com (Gary Farber)
: >In article <3tsbd9$4...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> rich wrote a posting that
: >reminded me of the HEAP speech:
: Surely you mean Philip Jose Farmer's interminable REAP speech at the 1968
: Worldcon?
Just so. Thank you. I apparently had my brain function set on "EC,"
when I typoed that. I only read the speech, and the accounts, of course.
I remember the banquet at DISCON II (1974), which ran interminably, but
which I was determined not to leave until it was All Over, no matter how
badly I needed to pee.
The instant it ended, I teleported to the bathroom, and imitated Niagara.
Ten minutes later, I looked up, and realized that the guy next to me,
doing the same thing, was Roger Zelazny.
People wonder why I've been jaded about famous writers since I was a wee lad.
-gfa...@panix.com
Kevin Standlee
> >
> >>lot more on their opinions.
> >
> >Is that how it's done these days? It used to be the Worldcon members who
> >showed up at the proper time at the business meeting got to vote for the
> >next site selection. I've been noting a "Worldcon Voting fee" thread here
> >on rec.arts.sf.fandom but I've been avoiding it (along with the one on
> >"Smoking"); I guess now that I should have paid more attention.
The mail ballot (and the voting fee) have been the method by which sites
are selected for more than twenty years. I'm sure someone here can tell
us the exact year. I seem to remember that when we went to a two-year
lead time in (?) 1969, we also made the ballot the only way by which
sites were selected. During a certain period, I think you could vote by
mail, but votes AT the Business Meeting were included as well.
Now, the voting is administered semi-autonomously from the Business
Meeting. This year, balloting closes at 18.00 local time on the Saturday
of Intersection. Later that evening, we will count the ballots, and the
following morning at the business meeting we will formally announce the
winner. (However, the unofficial results will be announced as soon as we
are done counting.)
The voting fee money does not go to the administering convention
(Intersection, in this case). The administrators merely hold the money
in a separate trust account and turn the collected voting fees over to te
...er... to the winning Worldcon committee. Remember that the voting fee
is a supporting membership in that Worldcon, and because of the
escalating cost of paper and postage, most committees at best break even
on the supporting memberships.
Kevin Standlee
1998 Worldcon Site Selection Administrator
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just a thought from Kevin Standlee -> (stan...@LunaCity.com)
LunaCity BBS - Mountain View, CA - 415 968 8140
Jerry Kaufman
> But
> at the most recent Corflu someone paid over $100 for two rocks Rotsler had
> drawn some cartoons on.
If memory serves me well (I was one of the auctioneers), those hundred
smackers for the Rotsler rocks were paid during an auction supporting
Corflu itself, not TAFF/DUFF. (Lots of other rocks were sold during
that auction, and the later TAFF/DUFF one, but at lower prices.)
Pam Wells
> In order to bid, a Worldcon committee files two documents. [...]
> The second is the name of the Chairman,
> and the procedures which can remove or replace him.
This may be mischievousness on my part, for which I apologise, but I fell
over the word 'him' here. Have there been no women chairs of Worldcon?
(And no, let no one assume from this question that I shall ever volunteer
to chair a Worldcon myself!)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pam Wells 'She was the best of tarts, she was the worst of tarts'
Pam Wells
> Not to be too argumentive or to speak for current TAFF administrators, but
> $50 from any source is, generally speaking, an insult which TAFF will gladly
> accept.
>
> For another $50 you can insult us twice! Step right up, don't crowd. :)
And anyone who wants to insult TAFF Europe can do so in pounds sterling.
I will happily bear the cash, and the insults, and personally pass them
over to the current administrator. C'mon now, roll up, roll up. Pass right
along, there....
Leah Zeldes Smith
>Obviously, in today's bloated fandom, 90% of the people attending Worldcon
>probably don't know what TAFF is, but I would guess that there are at
>least 1000 people out there who do want it.
Ninety percent of the people who attend Worldcon probably don't know who
the Fan Guest of Honor is either, but that's no reason not to have one.
--
Leah Smith le...@smith.chi.il.us
Gary Farber
: In general, almost every Worldcon since 1984 which was financially
: able (about 1/4 or so of all Worldcons lose money, or aren't able to make
: the standard reimbursement of staff/program participants), has made a
: one-time donation to TAFF out of its surplus (this is beyond the room and
: membership that most of them also donate, in advance - and the rooms are
: usually a bidgeted item like everything else you spend money on). These
: donations are generally about $3-500 or so, but the amounts vary.
: LAcon (1984) made enough money so that SCIFI has not only made a one-time
: donation, but, in addition, has for many years donated an additional $500
: every time any of the fan funds produce a new report. MCFI, from the
: Noreascon II surplus, did the same thing, but $50, until it ran out of
: Noreascon surplus funds.
In the modern context, I have always felt that this was a cheapsake
approach for those worldcons that do come out in the black. There is no
way to approach this issue except as a purely subjective opinion of
priorities, but as a rule of thumb, I think $1000 per year would be a more
appropriate bottom line cash donation.
As rich has repeated in other contexts, it's an utterly trivial amount for
most worldcon surplus'. Turning some of your argument around, giving so
little lessens the reason and obligation for TAFF to remain tied to the
worldcon.
$50 is close to an insult. Not to be ungrateful, but IMHO.
: Far more of the latter than the former. I like the Worldcon; I'll be at
: my 25th in a row next month. But it isn't what I would make it if I were
: able.
If you were better acquainted with Ben, rich, you would certainly know
that he hardly takes the "this is the best of all possible worlds,"
attitude. Though you mutually retain numerous different perspectives and
opinions on many matters, you would find that on a number of areas as to
what he would like to see the worldcon emphasize, you are in agreement.
He makes the case for his preferences wherever he can. The policy level
of the worldcon is, of course, different in every year. Contrary to some
popular impression, Ben's hypnotic revolving bow-tie must be retained for
use only in Cosmic Crisis.
Its power is great, and with great power, comes clean white shirts.
: Each fan may concentrate more on some aspect of fandom (you on fanzines,
: me on conventions), but I still see fandom as a single institution.
: There may be fans who spend more time in some activities rather than
: others, but, for me at least, there is still a unity of fandom to which
: we all belong.
I agree with this. I'm one of the rare individuals who know both of
you. You share more idealism, tinged with cynicism, than either of you
may entirely know.
Ben knows that he is stating an ideal that is, in reality, a patch job.
But you understand what crusading for an ideal vision of fandom is like,
don't you, Dr. Gafia?
And Ben should know, as I've told him at fair length, of the depth of
your commitment towards your ideal of fandom.
All the rest is commentary.
Gary Farber
: In general, almost every Worldcon since 1984 which was financially
: able (about 1/4 or so of all Worldcons lose money, or aren't able to make
: the standard reimbursement of staff/program participants), has made a
: one-time donation to TAFF out of its surplus (this is beyond the room and
: membership that most of them also donate, in advance - and the rooms are
: usually a bidgeted item like everything else you spend money on). These
: donations are generally about $3-500 or so, but the amounts vary.
: LAcon (1984) made enough money so that SCIFI has not only made a one-time
: donation, but, in addition, has for many years donated an additional $500
: every time any of the fan funds produce a new report. MCFI, from the
: Noreascon II surplus, did the same thing, but $50, until it ran out of
: Noreascon surplus funds.
In the modern context, I have always felt that this was a cheapsake
approach for those worldcons that do come out in the black. There is no
way to approach this issue except as a purely subjective opinion of
priorities, but as a rule of thumb, I think $1000 per year would be a more
appropriate bottom line cash donation.
As rich has repeated in other contexts, it's an utterly trivial amount in
many years. Turning some of your argument around, giving so little
Gary Farber
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.fandom
References: <3tikkl$2...@panix3.panix.com> <3tsbd9$4...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <3tvtrr$q...@panix3.panix.com>
Organization: what me quibble?
Distribution:
Ben Yalow (yb...@panix.com) wrote:
: In general, almost every Worldcon since 1984 which was financially
: able (about 1/4 or so of all Worldcons lose money, or aren't able to make
: the standard reimbursement of staff/program participants), has made a
: one-time donation to TAFF out of its surplus (this is beyond the room and
: membership that most of them also donate, in advance - and the rooms are
: usually a bidgeted item like everything else you spend money on). These
: donations are generally about $3-500 or so, but the amounts vary.
: LAcon (1984) made enough money so that SCIFI has not only made a one-time
: donation, but, in addition, has for many years donated an additional $500
: every time any of the fan funds produce a new report. MCFI, from the
: Noreascon II surplus, did the same thing, but $50, until it ran out of
: Noreascon surplus funds.
In the modern context, I have always felt that this was a fairly
Gary Farber
Ben Yalow (yb...@panix.com) wrote:
: In general, almost every Worldcon since 1984 which was financially
: able (about 1/4 or so of all Worldcons lose money, or aren't able to make
: the standard reimbursement of staff/program participants), has made a
: one-time donation to TAFF out of its surplus (this is beyond the room and
: membership that most of them also donate, in advance - and the rooms are
: usually a bidgeted item like everything else you spend money on). These
: donations are generally about $3-500 or so, but the amounts vary.
: LAcon (1984) made enough money so that SCIFI has not only made a one-time
: donation, but, in addition, has for many years donated an additional $500
: every time any of the fan funds produce a new report. MCFI, from the
: Noreascon II surplus, did the same thing, but $50, until it ran out of
: Noreascon surplus funds.
In the modern context, I have always felt that this was a cheapsake
approach for those worldcons that do come out in the black. There is no
way to approach this issue except as a purely subjective opinion of
priorities, but as a rule of thumb, I think $1000 per year would be a more
appropriate bottom line cash donation.
As rich has repeated in other contexts, it's an utterly trivial amount in
many years. Turning some of your argument around, giving so little
lessens the reason and obligation for TAFF to remain tied to the worldcon.
$50 is closer to an insult. Not to be ungrateful, but IMHO.
Gary Farber
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.fandom
References: <3tikkl$2...@panix3.panix.com> <3tsbd9$4...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <3tvtrr$q...@panix3.panix.com>
Organization: what me quibble?
Distribution:
Ben Yalow (yb...@panix.com) wrote:
: In general, almost every Worldcon since 1984 which was financially
: able (about 1/4 or so of all Worldcons lose money, or aren't able to make
: the standard reimbursement of staff/program participants), has made a
: one-time donation to TAFF out of its surplus (this is beyond the room and
: membership that most of them also donate, in advance - and the rooms are
: usually a bidgeted item like everything else you spend money on). These
: donations are generally about $3-500 or so, but the amounts vary.
: LAcon (1984) made enough money so that SCIFI has not only made a one-time
: donation, but, in addition, has for many years donated an additional $500
: every time any of the fan funds produce a new report. MCFI, from the
: Noreascon II surplus, did the same thing, but $50, until it ran out of
: Noreascon surplus funds.
In the modern context, I have always felt that this was a cheapsake
approach for those worldcons that do come out in the black. There is no
way to approach this issue except as a purely subjective opinion of
priorities, but as a rule of thumb, I think $1000 per year would be a more
appropriate bottom line cash donation.
As rich has repeated in other contexts, it's a trivial amount in many
years. Turning some of your argument around, giving so little lessens the
reason and obligation for TAFF to remain tied to the worldcon.
$50 is close to an insult. Not to be ungrateful, but IMHO.
Gary Farber
: As usual, I won't quote all of rich's response.
: I do, in part, agree with some of his quibblings on my quibblings on past
: TAFF delegates. But, as we've all agreed, most of the time the TAFF
: delegate will be a fanzine fan.
: Continuing, he asks:
: >However, my curiosity being piqued yet again, just when WAS the last time
: >the Worldcon made a "donation" to TAFF out of "surplus"? I thought the
: >practice was generally abandoned when SCI FI was born and it was decided
: >to give a fixed amount to the funds instead but ONLY when the fan fund
: >winners published trip reports. (Fanzine fans were also disappointed that
: >fan fund winners were just going to the conventions and not publishing
: >trip reports afterwards but continued to support TAFF as they always had,
: >while convention fans put their foot down saying, in effect, that merely
: >attending the con is not enough, the delegate should publish a fanzine
: >about it--or forego their direct financial support until/unless they do.
: >I'm sorry if I'm the only one who finds this ironic.) ConFrancisco let
: >TAFF hold an auction; ConAdian allowed fanzine fans to maintain the Fan
: >Room and sell TAFF related materials from there, neither of which involved
: >any "surpluses" of the Worldcon. If a Worldcon committee can provide a
: >function room where episodes of Dr. Who are to be shown without pausing to
: >consider whether such a room would be "for the benefit of WSFS as a
: >whole," then it can provide a sleeping room for the TAFF delegate on the
: >same basis. That's even if I WERE arguing that TAFF only benefits fanzine
: >fandom--which, as I've said over and over, I'm not.
: I think you may have been misinformed as to what current practice has
: been. In general, almost every Worldcon since 1984 which was financially
: able (about 1/4 or so of all Worldcons lose money, or aren't able to make
: the standard reimbursement of staff/program participants), has made a
: one-time donation to TAFF out of its surplus (this is beyond the room and
: membership that most of them also donate, in advance - and the rooms are
: usually a bidgeted item like everything else you spend money on). These
: donations are generally about $3-500 or so, but the amounts vary.
: LAcon (1984) made enough money so that SCIFI has not only made a one-time
: donation, but, in addition, has for many years donated an additional $500
: every time any of the fan funds produce a new report. MCFI, from the
: Noreascon II surplus, did the same thing, but $50, until it ran out of
: Noreascon surplus funds.
: So the fan funds typically get about $500/year worth of rooms, and, in
: most cases, about the same amount as a contribution from surplus, if
: any. At least, it's usually true for TAFF/DUFF here, but I'm not
: counting the minor or one-shot funds.
: Later on, rich continues:
: >Now you've gone and made me curious again. I have to admit, if convention
: >fandom is getting between 1500 and 2500 members of any given Worldcon to
: >cough up $20 each, independent of their membership fee, just for the
: >privilege of voting to pick a future Worldcon committee, I AM impressed.
: >Are they paying that to vote on the makeup of the committee or JUST to
: >vote on where the Worldcon will be held? I mean, if they don't like
: >someone who's been chosen head of Security or Ops or something like that,
: >do they get to vote him/her out and someone else in? Or are they just
: >voting for the site and being forced to take the entire committee that is
: >bidding for the site? I ask because in that case the voters only choose
: >the site; they get the committee by default. Since you say voting fees
: >are "$20+", does that mean some people send in more (arguably $20.32,
: >say)? Why? Where does the $30,000 to $50,000 raised by this procedure
: >go--what is the money used for?
: Most Worldcon bidders know the rules, but many other people don't.
: People who know can skip the explanation.
: In order to bid, a Worldcon committee files two documents. The first is
: a facility agreement (obviously, a conditional one is acceptable, since
: they don't know if they'll win). The second is the name of the Chairman,
: and the procedures which can remove or replace him. For a corporation,
: this usually means the corporate bylaws. So while you don't get to vote
: on the committee members directly, you do know who (at least) the
: Chairman is, and what the site is. It is certainly legal for there to
: more than one committee bidding the same site. In fact (although it
: wasn't covered by the same rules at the time), the first NASFiC election
: was held between two LA committees.
: You can vote either by mail, or on site. Since you can vote by mail, you
: don't need to be an attending member - supporting members of the
: administering Worldcon can vote. With your vote, you enclose a voting
: fee. The Constitution sets the amount at $20, but it can be changed by
: agreement among the committees involved for that year (if they can't
: agree, it's $20).
: The voting fees all go to the winning bid. Each voter is required to
: then be given a supporting membership, with the right to convert to a
: full attending membership for no more than twice the voting fee. So a
: Worldcon starts out with 1500-2500 members (although most of them are
: supportings, most of whom convert later). As a bid committee, you really
: hope for a light vote (with everybody voting for you, of course - you'd
: love to win 1-0), since you will almost certainly lose money on any
: attending memberships sold to voters, since a typical Worldcon spends
: $70+ per member.
: So if a voter really only wants to go if a certain candidate wins, he may
: be out the voting fee. But, if you've got a committment to the WOrldcon,
: no matter who wins, then voting is reasonable.
: Later, rich says:
: >I realize that for you and Patrick and Moshe Feder and Gary Farber
: >and a host of other very nice, extremely sincere people, its either
: >precisely what you want it to be or close enough that you can put up
: >with the rest.
: Far more of the latter than the former. I like the Worldcon; I'll be at
: my 25th in a row next month. But it isn't what I would make it if I were
: able.
: But, in general, it is what "fandom" seems to want. So I work on them
: (I've worked on all but 4 out of those 25), and try to make them as good
: as they can be. Because fandom is what we put into it, and I need to pay
: forward for the people who made sure fandom would be there for me. And
: besides, working on a Worldcon means you get to spend lots of time with
: other active fans; it's a marvelous selection mechanism. Like a fan
: lounge, but different.
: Each fan may concentrate more on some aspect of fandom (you on fanzines,
: me on conventions), but I still see fandom as a single institution.
: There may be fans who spend more time in some activities rather than
: others, but, for me at least, there is still a unity of fandom to which
: we all belong.
: Ben
: --
: Ben Yalow yb...@panix.com
: Not speaking for anybody
Gary Farber
Almost the same thing over and over. Sorry. Obviously, I screwed up;
it's a long story, but the bottom line is I thought I had a personal
misunderstanding with Tin, and the file structure, and didn't realize
that my message variants were being spooled.
The fact that the "message" flashed on my screen for about a microsecond
has a lot to do with that. I read damn fast, but not that fast.
Apologies from a newbie, again. Wish "D" would delete these. Also:
"cheapskate" was the insult I was going for, not "cheapsake." We return
to the next enthralling posting. Me too. Meeptoot. Metootie. Meparoni.
Sharon L Sbarsky
Noreascon (no number).
Sharon
Sharon L Sbarsky
Gary, I believe that there was also a flat doantion to TAFF & DUFF. The
$50 per con trip report probably could have been added to the flat
donations, but if this way it encouraged a few more trip reports to be
published, what was the harm (or insult) in that?
If one fund or another produced more reports, they would have gotten more
money. :-)
And except for some storage fees and other low maintenance fees, this was
the only distribution of the remaining funds.
L.A.con II was able to distribute more money because they had a greater
surplus than Noreascon Two.
Sharon
Ben Yalow
I do, in part, agree with some of his quibblings on my quibblings on past
TAFF delegates. But, as we've all agreed, most of the time the TAFF
delegate will be a fanzine fan.
Continuing, he asks:
>However, my curiosity being piqued yet again, just when WAS the last time
>the Worldcon made a "donation" to TAFF out of "surplus"? I thought the
>practice was generally abandoned when SCI FI was born and it was decided
>to give a fixed amount to the funds instead but ONLY when the fan fund
>winners published trip reports. (Fanzine fans were also disappointed that
>fan fund winners were just going to the conventions and not publishing
>trip reports afterwards but continued to support TAFF as they always had,
>while convention fans put their foot down saying, in effect, that merely
>attending the con is not enough, the delegate should publish a fanzine
>about it--or forego their direct financial support until/unless they do.
>I'm sorry if I'm the only one who finds this ironic.) ConFrancisco let
>TAFF hold an auction; ConAdian allowed fanzine fans to maintain the Fan
>Room and sell TAFF related materials from there, neither of which involved
>any "surpluses" of the Worldcon. If a Worldcon committee can provide a
>function room where episodes of Dr. Who are to be shown without pausing to
>consider whether such a room would be "for the benefit of WSFS as a
>whole," then it can provide a sleeping room for the TAFF delegate on the
>same basis. That's even if I WERE arguing that TAFF only benefits fanzine
>fandom--which, as I've said over and over, I'm not.
I think you may have been misinformed as to what current practice has
been. In general, almost every Worldcon since 1984 which was financially
able (about 1/4 or so of all Worldcons lose money, or aren't able to make
the standard reimbursement of staff/program participants), has made a
one-time donation to TAFF out of its surplus (this is beyond the room and
membership that most of them also donate, in advance - and the rooms are
usually a bidgeted item like everything else you spend money on). These
donations are generally about $3-500 or so, but the amounts vary.
LAcon (1984) made enough money so that SCIFI has not only made a one-time
donation, but, in addition, has for many years donated an additional $500
every time any of the fan funds produce a new report. MCFI, from the
Noreascon II surplus, did the same thing, but $50, until it ran out of
Noreascon surplus funds.
So the fan funds typically get about $500/year worth of rooms, and, in
most cases, about the same amount as a contribution from surplus, if
any. At least, it's usually true for TAFF/DUFF here, but I'm not
counting the minor or one-shot funds.
Later on, rich continues:
>Now you've gone and made me curious again. I have to admit, if convention
>fandom is getting between 1500 and 2500 members of any given Worldcon to
>cough up $20 each, independent of their membership fee, just for the
>privilege of voting to pick a future Worldcon committee, I AM impressed.
>Are they paying that to vote on the makeup of the committee or JUST to
>vote on where the Worldcon will be held? I mean, if they don't like
>someone who's been chosen head of Security or Ops or something like that,
>do they get to vote him/her out and someone else in? Or are they just
>voting for the site and being forced to take the entire committee that is
>bidding for the site? I ask because in that case the voters only choose
>the site; they get the committee by default. Since you say voting fees
>are "$20+", does that mean some people send in more (arguably $20.32,
>say)? Why? Where does the $30,000 to $50,000 raised by this procedure
>go--what is the money used for?
Later, rich says:
>I realize that for you and Patrick and Moshe Feder and Gary Farber
>and a host of other very nice, extremely sincere people, its either
>precisely what you want it to be or close enough that you can put up
>with the rest.
Far more of the latter than the former. I like the Worldcon; I'll be at
Dan Hoey
: I do not feel that fanzines are part of my fannish involvement, and feel
: no desire to subsidise the travel costs of people I've never heard of....
I am shocked--shocked!--to hear that Mr John Bray is having his
admission monies hijacked to support an activity in which he is not
personally involved. I will be right over to eject those freeloading
faneds, once I solve a slightly more pressing problem (some dealers,
it seems, have taken to supplementing their incomes by selling--you
guessed it--books! And in the Huxter Room, no less!)
P Nielsen Hayden
>$50 is close to an insult. Not to be ungrateful, but IMHO.
Not to be too argumentive or to speak for current TAFF administrators, but
$50 from any source is, generally speaking, an insult which TAFF will gladly
accept.
For another $50 you can insult us twice! Step right up, don't crowd. :)
-----
Gary Farber
donations:
: And except for some storage fees and other low maintenance fees, this was
: the only distribution of the remaining funds.
I withdraw the word insult; begorra, I Did Not Know This.
--
-- Gary Farber Brooklyn, New York City
gfa...@panix.com I is another, and I am that other. -- Rimbaud
Gary Farber
: Not to be too argumentive or to speak for current TAFF administrators, but
: $50 from any source is, generally speaking, an insult which TAFF will gladly
: accept.
: For another $50 you can insult us twice! Step right up, don't crowd. :)
O Lord, God of our fathers and mothers, I beseech thee, grant me strength.
Gary Farber
Ain't it a shame that our time-travel machines are down for maintenance
this week, so we can't go back and eliminate all those pesky parasites on
the body of sf from doing fanzines: Don Wolheim, Forry Ackerman, James
Blish, Fred Pohl, Wilson "Bob" Tucker, Richard Wilson, Milt Rothman, Ray
Palmer, Bob Shaw, Walt Willis, Chuch Harris, Julius Schwartz, Robert
Lowndes, Jack Speer, Art Widner, damon knight, Ted White, Richard Lupoff,
Lee Hoffman, Roger Ebert, Willis Conover, James White, C.S. Youd (John
Christopher), Terry Carr, Marion Bradley, William F. Temple, F. M. Busby,
William Rotsler, Charles Platt, Lester del Rey, Robert Silverberg, Lenny
Kaye, Bjo Trimble, Andy Porter, Alva Rogers, Harlan Ellison, Hannes Bok,
Gordon Eklund, Greg Benford, Bill Gibson, David Hartwell, Paul Williams,
Ginjer Buchanan, John Jarrold, Dave Langford, Mike Hinge, George Scithers,
Peter Weston, John Brosnan, Eddie Jones, Ed Bryant, Arthur C. Clarke, Joe
Haldeman, Jay Haldeman, Janet Kagan, T. Nielsen Hayden, P. Nielsen Hayden,
Bruce Coville, Diane Duane, Reed Waller, Jim Young, Jack Chalker, Debbie
Notkin, Nancy Collins, Malcolm Edwards, Moshe Feder, Jim Frenkel, John
Douglas, Charles Burbee, Susan Wood, among so many other nobodies.
Sfdom would be so much healthier if we could discourage this sort of
activity from people of their ilk, in favor of true contributions to
science fiction such as. . . .um, er, ah, something or other else.
If we're lucky, Mr. Bray will be able to use his time machine to alter
the present field more to his liking, and
Dr Gafia
gfa...@panix.com (Gary Farber) replies to what
Ben Yalow (yb...@panix.com) wrote:
<large snip>
: I guess that means I need more than 2 fans not part of what you consider
: fanzine fandom. Of the first 15 (much less 42), try Madle, Shorter, and
: Bosnyak. (I know you can argue about Madle having done fanzines in his
: youth, but the entire argument over his election proves that "fanzine
: fandom" didn't think so.)
>Please, Ben. In that parenthetical remark, you are committing the same
>error as rich: no one speaks for "fanzine fandom," or "con fandom." Not
>then, not now.
Good point--up to a point. Nonetheless, one may speak of a consensus
within
the two. Not everyone in fanzine fandom believes QUANDRY is one of the
finest fanzines of all time--but the consensus is that it was.
I'm responding to the rest of this elsewhere and at length.
--rich brown a.k.a. Dr. Gafia
Dr Gafia
in response to what rich brown writes:
>>We can go to Corflu any time the Worldcon decides we're no longer
>>welcome there. But right now, let's not do that (and maybe just say
that we >>did). Let's wait and see if that actually IS what the Worldcon
feels about the
>>fan funds first.
>Just so. Could we possibly be in _agreement_, Meyer?
Wouldn't want to put words in your mouth but...could be! Life is short,
but I'm sure we'll find plenty of other things to disagree about. I've
never been suggesting that this is something we should do immediately in
response to a mere oversight. And even then, Corflu would be a
stop-gap--we'd probably want to find some nice readercon with maybe a
thousand to two thousand attendees to send to TAFF/DUFF representatives
to; Corflu has been nearly as generous as the Worldcons in terms of
auction returns but it's too small to be able to afford (get this!)
comping the rooms for very long!!
--rich brown
Dr Gafia
p...@tor.com (P Nielsen Hayden) makes yet another Good Point:
>gfa...@panix.com (Gary Farber) writes:
>>In article <3tsbd9$4...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> rich wrote a posting that
>>reminded me of the HEAP speech:
>
>>saying about contemporary Worldcons:
>
>>: I realize that for you and Patrick and Moshe Feder and Gary Farber
>>: and a host of other very nice, extremely sincere people, its either
>>: precisely what you want it to be or close enough that you can put up
>>: with the rest.
>>No.
>Ditto. Rich, please stop realizing I think things that I don't think.
My apologies; all I was trying to say was that you obviously don't agree
with me that the Worldcon is no longer worth the effort; I thought I'd
covered all the bases, but of course I can see other possibilities (e.g.,
you like the Worldcon well enough but there are a number of things you'd
change about it if you could) that my supposed catch-all didn't cover.
--rich brown
Dr Gafia
reply to Ben Yalow (yb...@panix.com) got repeated FOUR times;
I double-checked and it wasn't anyone quoting all and replying, or
not that I could tell.
Anything you say three time is true. But four??
--rich brown
Richard Newsome
>Apologies from a newbie, again. Wish "D" would delete these. Also:
You might try "C" for cancel.
Dr Gafia
Jerry Kaufman <JerryK...@medio.net> responds to
I stand corrected; it's sometimes hard to tell which auctions are which.
Nonetheless, Corflu over the years has made a disproportionately HUGE
amount for TAFF and DUFF, given its relatively small size.
--rich brown
Dr Gafia
I have nothing more to say regarding your latest response to my latest
response, except thanks again for answering my questions.
Be well.
Ben Yalow
>This may be mischievousness on my part, for which I apologise, but I fell
>over the word 'him' here. Have there been no women chairs of Worldcon?
>(And no, let no one assume from this question that I shall ever volunteer
>to chair a Worldcon myself!)
There have been a number. The most recently selected (and I don't know
what tense to use here) will be Karen Meschke (LonestarCon 2 - 1997).
The most recent really past one was Kathleen Meyer (Chicon V - 1991).
Gary Farber
: This may be mischievousness on my part, for which I apologise, but I fell
: over the word 'him' here. Have there been no women chairs of Worldcon?
: (And no, let no one assume from this question that I shall ever volunteer
: to chair a Worldcon myself!)
Judy May - 1952 Chicon II (technically the TASFiC, but who ever calls
it that?); now better known as author Julian May.
Noreen Falasca, co-chair with husband Nick, 1955 Clevention, Cleveland.
Anna Moffat, Solacon, South Gate in '58 (L.A., really), banged the gavel of
doom on WSFS, Inc.
Dirce Archer, 1960 Pittcon, Pittsburgh, Pa.
Ella Parker, 1965 Loncon (you really should know at least this one).
Joyce Fisher, co-chair with husband, 1967 St.Louiscon, St.Louis, Mo.
Leslie Turek, 1980 Noreascon II, Boston
Suzanne Carnival, co-chair (and the untitled operating chair; Don C.
Thompson, bless him, was the better-known, but more of a ceremonial
figure), 1981 Denvention II.
Penny Frierson, 1986 Confederation in Atlanta, Ga.
Kathleen Meyer, Chicon V, Chicago.
Haven't you ever looked at your worldcon program book, Pam?
Most of these women are still active in fandom, y'know. Joyce (since not
that long after the con, Katz) is publishing zines as we speak. Anna
Moffat is in apas. The more recent ones putter about. Leslie has done
numerous fanzines, as well as her conac, and was editor of a
Hugo-nominated fanzine a few years ago, although it was entirely on
con-running, to be sure. I suspect that Penny Frierson is in apas, though
that's just a guess (anyone in SFPA may report in here). And so on.
I expect that Ben was consciously using him as the inclusive; I try not
to, but that is my choice; Ben's does remain proper Standard English. I
have no problem with your objecting, though. I dislike that usage.
Someone else can do the statistical analysis. Next?
Dr Gafia
gfa...@panix.com (Gary Farber) offers well-meaning
advice in <3tiu4m$c...@panix2.panix.com>:
: Further on, rich continues:
: >Now whether were talking about the 150 who cast ballots, the even
larger
: >number of fans who serve on todays convention committees....[on
through]
: >.....all the attendees at the largest
: >Worldcon sf fandom has had to date, in no case are we talking about all
: >of fandom. In all these instances, were talking about a representative
: >portion. Whether the fans who cast ballots in the fan funds are more
: >representative than fans who make up a Worldcon committee I dont think
: >anyone can say; but Im not prepared, as Ben appears to be, to say they
: >are less. Besides, its really not necessary to expose the mean spirited
: >to all of fandom.
>I think you may want to reconsider the numeric argument, rich. I think
>you lose.
Only because you didn't understand it, Gary, as you show when you go on:
:>Further: "Whether the fans who cast ballots in the fan funds are more
:>representative than fans who make up a Worldcon committee I don't think
:>anyone can say. . ."
>Representative of what, rich? This is key.
Representative of "all of fandom", Gary--go back and reread it carefully
and
you'll see that's what it actually says. It is, as you say, what is "key"
here.
:>". . .but I'm not prepared, as Ben appears to be, to say they are less."
>I love English. Ben did not say or imply that fans who vote in the Fan
>Fund races are less. He did imply or say that they are fewer. This is
>inarguable, yes? You are a fine writer when you take time, rich; I know
>you know the difference. I think your faintly veiled accusation there
>against Ben is untrue, unfair, and descending into an unnecessary
personal
>attack.
English is also my language of choice and I am delighted to hear you
confirm,
even if only implicitly, that we both love it with a passion that bounds
like
a lithe and tawny gazelle chased but uncaught by a lean and hungry lioness
on
the vast verdant veldt of Africa at 2:00 p.m. of a golden Autumn afternoon
as
the pollen in the air takes on the husky odor of a kind of scratchy honey
perfume and the sky clamps down its bright bluegold helmet on the hills of
the encircling horizon.
However that all may be, you have apparently not been following the
discussion we've been conducting in that very language. To recap:
Patrick
made a statement indicating his concern that some fan on some Worldcon
committee might, possibly, look at what I've said and decide to take it
out
on TAFF (or the fan funds generally). ...Ah, since I keep getting trashed
for putting my words in other peoples mouths, let me be more specific:
Patrick responded with thanks to the message posted here a short while
back
indicating that LACon will be comping the rooms of the TAFF and DUFF
winners
but indicated that he felt some convention committee members might not be
so
generous if they read some of the things being posted to
rec.arts.sf.fandom,
such as that TAFF is fanzine fandom's toy. From this I have inferred that
Patrick had, or has, a concern that some Worldcon committee member might
read
what I had said (i.e., that TAFF is fanzine fandom's toy) and be less
generous than the LACon appears to be willing to be. I could be wrong.
Perhaps Patrick's concern is only in the abstract, with nothing concrete
to
be inferred.
Anyway, whether I erred in my inference or not, my response was to say I
felt
the best thing to do with such a mean-spirited individual was to expose
their
pettiness to all of fandom (assuming they didn't do it hiding behind
committee anonymity). Ben replied that he was "bothered by the numbers"
because only "about" 150 fans cast TAFF ballots, which is certainly not
"all
of fandom". Ben added, just as if he thought it might Mean Something,
that
there were more fans on the committee of the average Worldcon today--and
they
pay a lot more than a "mere" $2 voting fee to get there besides. If Ben's
statement is not a complete non sequitur, he's saying the convention
committee outnumbers the fan fund voters and therefore can outvote them in
any given dispute. There's nothing pernicious in this; it's both true and
democratic. My point was simply that while the concom may “outnumber” the
fan fund voters, the concom certainly isn't "all of fandom" either--which
I
also believe is beyond dispute. Both groups are, rather, representative
of
all fandom. I'm not certain that the largest group is the "most"
representative or the "best" cross-section of all of fandom (while at the
same time not claiming that the smallest group is, either); Ben appears
willing to add the groups together and accept majority rule. This doesn't
make me a hero or Ben a villain. It means we view the situation
differently.
<<snip>>
>You are one of my fannish heros, rich, and I don't mean a sandwich. You
>truly are. I hope you will hear the following calmly, and that I'm not
>pushing your temper button. I continue to hope that this can be a
>friendly exploration of differing views. (Caveat: if these sorts of
>views define me into Ted's "New Fandom" category for someone, bite me.)
I refuse to use those "smiley" faces to indicate when I'm in
tongue-in-cheek
mode but, honestly, I haven't gotten angry at anyone in this discussion
yet,
so of course I will continue to listen to you (and everyone else) calmly,
Gary. Even though it's all becoming increasingly clear to me that
everyone
who disagrees with me is The Enemy because, as I'm sure any right-thinking
well brought up 100 percent fannish fanzine fan can see, they are
systematically working to destroy everything I hold dear. It's a war of
values; rational discussion is hopeless and compromise unthinkable!
Fandom's
only hope lies in pushing these antagonisms to the limit. It may be
unpleasant for a while, but once we've rid the microcosm of all these
Wrong
Thinkers and Trouble-makers...
...but you were saying?
>In essence, I'm not sure you've gotten out and around fandom in a majorly
>surveying way, rich, in the last twenty years. We live in an entirely
>different fannish meta universe than when the Fanoclasts made the Great
>Trek to Westercon in 1965.
>It's very easy to go to Disclave, Corflu, and a handful of other cons,
>keep in touch with the same old fans, getting only a few new zines per
>year, seeing a handful of new apas, and look at the con listings in SF
>CHRONICLE, and think that there are tens of thousands of ignorant folk
>out there who delude themselves that they are fans, but we know better.
>We know that they can't discuss the history of the Vanguard APA, or
>whether Shelby Vick's CONFUSION was a better zine than the dittoed
>PSYCHOTIC, trace how the weekly apa was started by APA F, and
>ever onwards. The thing is, when we think that, when we make that
sweeping
>generalization, we're very often wrong.
((Gary continues on in the same vein, making some really excellent points,
explaining--for the benefit of those who may not know--how "tens, and
possibly hundreds of thousands" of fans in the larger fannish
meta-universe
come by this knowledge--not just the usual fanhistorical tomes but the
autobiographies of the fannish pro's, the local fanzines and apas that he
and
I do not see, the oral conveyance of knowledge/tradition/funny stories and
even the Net itself. We might know more about the "core" thread but at
clubs
and cons across the country, "amid the misconceptions, confusions,
indifference, fuggheadery, and mistakes...there is an ever spreading
knowledge of the history of fandom rippling outwards from all those who
genuinely care about the field."))
>Correct me if I'm inserting words in your mouth again, but I believe that
>you have long used the "if you and your fanac are known to me, and I
>believe it connects with my tradition of fandom, than you are a fan"
>definition. This is also known as the "identify the following names:"
>definition. :: This has always been the easiest definition of "who is a
>trufan," as it is a subset of the Potter Stewart default. :: A currently
>prominent faned used it within the last few months. I've used it in the
>past. :: I long ago decided, though, that the "fandom, c'est moi"
definition
>can no longer be used. You may continue to disagree.
But I *don't* disagree, Gary; I'm sitting here, stunned, croggled in fact,
trying very hard not to feel insulted, because I find it difficult to
imagine
what there is in my fanac that would lead you to believe otherwise.
I mean, I know I sent you the first two issues of _beardmutterings_--but
did
you ever read them? The second issue (1972) has a cartoon by Joe Staton
that's a devastatingly satirical put down of such attitudes ("*I* am a
fan.
Are YOU a fan? *I* am a REAL fan! Are YOU a REAL fan? Hey--see those
guys
over there? THEY think they're fans! But they're not REAL fans...").
That's also the issue where I first made the point that "fan" is a word
that
has multiple meanings, just like New York (or Roger Zelazny's Megapei in
ISLE
OF THE DEAD), and you have to pay attention to context to determine what
the
user means by it. If I just say, "I'm going to New York next week," you
don't know if I mean New York City (Manhattan), somewhere in the City of
New
York (Queens, e.g.) or Albany (in the state of New York). (In ISLE OF THE
DEAD, Zelazny goes it one better--Megapei is the name of a city on a
continent know as Megapei on a world called Megapei; instead of New York,
New
York, you have Megapei, Megapei, Megapei.) "Fan" in the smallest possible
sense is "me and my special group of similarly situated/interest friends";
in
the largest, the few million people who read and watch that Crazy Buck
Rogers
Stuff.
Not long back, I offered up the following Q&A:
Q: What do "fan," "trufan" and "member, fwa" have in common?
A: The ONLY thing you "have" to do to call yourself any one of them is to
call yourself any one of them.
I admit I've done schtick on "trufan"--because far too many people get
bent
out of shape because they think OTHER people take it seriously, or more
seriously than they should (although I've yet to meeting anyone who does).
So I've explained, many times, just how it is that I "know" I'm a
trufan--because I can pass the few simple tests which are known, simply
enough, as "The Few Simple Tests of Trufannishness". First, I can tell
whether or not someone else is a trufan from a distance of 60 yards,
simply
by their "aura." Second, I can tell whether or not a fanzine contains a
mention of my name (egoboo) either by touching or smelling the front
cover.
Third, and most important, I can turn any reasonably attractive femmefan
into
a "trufan" by a simple laying-on of hands; of course, this has to take
place
in private, and sometimes, in extreme circumstances, the laying-on of
hands
is but the beginning of a long and esoteric process....
But, yeah, I consider it a presumption for anyone to tell anyone else that
they are or are not a "real" fan. I mean, really, who died and elected
them
God?
...and after saying that, I realize there are a few people here on the Net
who might be reading it and preparing to scourge me as a hypocrite. After
all, it's been just a couple of months since, in a couple of short related
essays, I said LAN'S LANTERN was not a "real" fanzine and one of its
contributors (whose name I've gone and forgotten again) was not a "real"
fan.
So thanx, Gary, for bringing me this chance to set the record straight.
It is perfectly within reason for me to say, "LAN'S LANTERN is not part of
mainstream fannish fanzine fandom." I don't think Lan, or Maia, or any of
LL's supporters, would disagree with me, except possibly to demand an
explanation from me as to why I might even presume that LL WANTED to be
part
of it. But it would be wrong for me to say, "LAN'S LANTERN is not part of
mainstream fanzine fandom" or "LAN'S LANTERN is not a `real' fanzine"; I
would not only be wrong, I'd be inviting having the above question (`who
died
and elected ME God?’) asked of me. It would be every bit as wrong, rude
and
presumptuous for me to declare that someone who wrote primarily or only
for
LL was not a `real' fanzine fan because they didn't write for a `real'
fanzine.
Nonetheless, I did both of these things, just a few months back. Have I
undergone a metamorphosis in that period? No. I’ve just had some
misinformation obliterated. It was my understanding, based on things I
had
heard other people say, that LL was (a) primarily distributed at
conventions
to Lan’s “convention fan” friends and (b) that Lan himself had indicated
that
he didn’t feel LL was a part of regular fanzine fandom. This made a kind
of
“sense” to me; it appeared to explain why LL was viewed with animosity
when
it won a Hugo, why it struck me as being so mediocre compared to other
fanzines (because it was, as I saw it then, trying to reinvent the wheel
without being “influenced” by any of the wheels that surrounded it), why
Lan
would probably prefer to remain where he is (where people are inclined to
praise LL rather than criticize it). In my philosophy of fandom as an
anarachistic meritocracy, individual personal choice RULES; no one can
force
anyone else to do anything they don’t want to do, and you do what you do
because you, personally, elect to do it. Thus, while I feel it would be
presumptuous of ME to point an outflang fingerbone of scorn at LL and
declare
that it was not a “real” fanzine, I think it is perfectly within Lan’s
rights
to do so with regard to his own publication. In essence, I thought I was
AGREEING with Lan that LL wasn’t a “regular” or “real” fanzine in the
traditional sense.
Maia Cowan told me otherwise. She tracked down what Lan had actually
said,
which was something fairly innocuous about being “glad” that LL didn’t
have
to be just like every other fanzine--not a declaration of independence
from
mainstream fanzine fandom. That should be understandable enough--there’s
a
party game for 15 or more people where one person writes down a fairly
well-known phrase and whispers it to the person beside him, who whispers
it
to the next, who whispers it to the next, &c., until it gets to the last
person, who writes it down--and then the two are compared. “A stitch in
time
saves nine” can become, at the end of the line, anything from “There’s a
witch in the wine” to “I had one once but the wheels fell off”. And Lan
has
an extensive mailing list; perhaps he saves a few bucks postage by
bringing
copies to people he knows will be at a convention but this is certainly
not
rare among fanzine editors.
Maia didn’t convince me of everything she set out to convince me of, but
she
did succeed in giving me a better perspective on LL (which makes it
possible
for me to appreciate it in the abstract without changing my opinion
regarding
its overall quality). Since Lan said nothing of the sort, I did and do
disavow my statements declaring LL not to be a “real” fanzine.
Thanx, Gary, for the chance to set the record straight.
Gary Farber
: gfa...@panix.com (Gary Farber) offers well-meaning
: advice in <3tiu4m$c...@panix2.panix.com>:
: : Further on, rich continues:
: ...but you were saying?
Gary Farber
Dr Gafia (drg...@aol.com)'s margins stagger, but his logic doesn't:
Agreement continues to break out all over r.a.sf.f. Whatever shall we do
for sport?
(Though it would have been nice if you had acknowledged my immediate mea
culpa and apology for misunderstanding a paragraph of yours, which I not
only posted seconds after the offending posting, but e-mailed you; as
this was days ago, and we've communicated since, I assume you had to see it.)
That trifle aside, I am, of course, happy unto near ectasy to provide you
with a suitable opportunity to clarify all these dreadful
misunderstandings. My heart pounds, my breathing quickens, and I become
all aflutter, and, dare I say, a bit aroused.
: My point was simply that while the concom may “outnumbe t”he fan fud
: voters, the concom certainly isn't "all of fandom" either--which I
: also believe is beyond dispute. Both groups are, rather, representative
: of all fandom. I'm not certain that the largest group is the "most"
: representative or the "best" cross-section of all of fandom (while at the
: same time not claiming that the smallest group is, either); Ben appears
: willing to add the groups together and accept majority rule. This
: doesn't make me a hero or Ben a villain. It means we view the situation
: differently.
I'm not quite sure that this is Ben's view, though it is a reasonable
interpretation of what he wrote. Obviously I agree with your position here.
GF: >Correct me if I'm inserting words in your mouth again, but I believe
GF: >that you have long used the "if you and your fanac are known to me,
GF: >and I believe it connects with my tradition of fandom, than you are
GF: >a fan" definition. This is also known as the "identify the following
GF: >names:" definition. This has always been the easiest definition of
GF: >"who is a trufan," as it is a subset of the Potter Stewart default.
GF: >A currently prominent faned used it within the last few months.
GF: >I've used it in the past. I long ago decided, though, that the
GF: >"fandom, c'est moi" definition can no longer be used. You may continue
GF: >to disagree.
: But I *don't* disagree, Gary; I'm sitting here, stunned, croggled in fact,
: trying very hard not to feel insulted, because I find it difficult to
: imagine
: what there is in my fanac that would lead you to believe otherwise.
: I mean, I know I sent you the first two issues of _beardmutterings_--but
: did
: you ever read them? The second issue (1972) has a cartoon by Joe Staton
: that's a devastatingly satirical put down of such attitudes ("*I* am a
: fan.
: Are YOU a fan? *I* am a REAL fan! Are YOU a REAL fan? Hey--see those
: guys
: over there? THEY think they're fans! But they're not REAL fans...").
: That's also the issue where I <GF snips elaboration of this point>
Okay, then I absolutely apologize to you. I was making the 'ol Group
Mind error, I imagine, and working from other statements of yours
including the ones you refer to later: so I did have some basis in your
previous statements for thinking this. It is problematic to try to
figure out what someone thinks from what they say when they have as much
to say as you and I sometimes do.
I was also without doubt influenced by Andy Hooper's having used a
variant of this definition recently, which has absolutely nothing to do
with you, of course.
I certainly do remember those _beardmutterings_, as you might not recall
my having told you in years past what an influence they were upon me as a
young fan. I loved that Joe Staton cartoon so much that I photo-copied
it, and used it for some nefarious purpose I no longer clearly recall.
I adored that cartoon. It was on my bedroom door at the house we hosted
the Vanguard Party at for years, after Denys Howard, his housemates, and I
founded the group.
However, I haven't reread, or seen those issues in over a decade, so, much
as I was influenced and impressed by them, I hope you will forgive my not
having memorized them.
<many fine, and wonderfully entertaining paragraphs of rich's snipped;
buy the paperback at your nearby thread outlet; look for the foil-embossed
artwork of Jophan on the cover: "In the Universe of The Enchanted
Duplicator," packaged by Byron Preiss VP>
: But, yeah, I consider it a presumption for anyone to tell anyone else that
: they are or are not a "real" fan. I mean, really, who died and elected
: them God?
: ...and after saying that, I realize there are a few people here on the Net
: who might be reading it and preparing to scourge me as a hypocrite. After
: all, it's been just a couple of months since, in a couple of short related
: essays, I said LAN'S LANTERN was not a "real" fanzine and one of its
: contributors (whose name I've gone and forgotten again) was not a "real"
: fan.
Evelyn Leeper, I expect, who is also vastly better known in this medium
than the two of us put together multiplied by every page we've ever
published in any form.
: So thanx, Gary, for bringing me this chance to set the record straight.
: It is perfectly within reason for me to say, "LAN'S LANTERN is not part of
: mainstream fannish fanzine fandom." I don't think Lan, or Maia, or any of
: LL's supporters, would disagree with me, except possibly to demand an
: explanation from me as to why I might even presume that LL WANTED to be
: part of it. But it would be wrong for me to say, "LAN'S LANTERN is not
: part of mainstream fanzine fandom" or "LAN'S LANTERN is not a `real'
: fanzine"; I would not only be wrong, I'd be inviting having the above
: question (`who died and elected ME God?’) asked of me.
Elmer Perdue?
: It would be every bit as wrong, rude and presumptuous for me to
: declare that someone who wrote primarily or only for LL was not a
: `real' fanzine fan because they didn't write for a `real' fanzine.
: Nonetheless, I did both of these things, just a few months back. Have I
: undergone a metamorphosis in that period? No. I'’ve just had some
: misinformation obliterated.
<rich explains how aliens with big eyes and anal probes did terrible
things to him, traumatizing him for life, as well as scrambling his
engrams; look for the movie, starring Christopher Walken as rich, coming
soon; but remember, rich did _not_ turn into a jiant insect -- his office
denies this in its entirety, and has no further comment on the subject>
: Thanx, Gary, for the chance to set the record straight.
Hey, it's my job, isn't it? If some of us didn't offer ourselves up as
big, fat, wet, ripe as a peach oozing just that little bit of juice yet
smelling so sweetly in the heavy humid summer air, type of targets,
brimming with arrogance, surety, and presumption, why, we might have to
stick to facts, or something. I have always been eager to sacrifice
myself to the great god of Ski-fi fandom.
Fandom doth not live by lurkers alone. Nay, we suffer the slings and
arrows of outraged fellow skiffyites.
If only the perks and pension were better.
Dan Hoey
> Pam Wells <Vacuou...@bitch.demon.co.uk> writes:
> >Have there been no women chairs of Worldcon?
> There have been a number. The most recently selected (and I don't know
> what tense to use here) will be Karen Meschke (LonestarCon 2 - 1997).
> The most recent really past one was Kathleen Meyer (Chicon V - 1991).
And for anyone who wants an unambiguous future tense, the next
possible future chairpersons-of-the-feminine-persuasion could be
Peggy Rae Pavlat (if Baltimore in 98 wins) or Jill Eastlake (co-
chair with Donald Eastlake III, if Boston in 98 wins). If Atlanta
or Niagara Falls wins you get chairmales Bill Ritch or Joe
Maraglino, respectively. One-and-a-co out of four ain't bad.
Gary Farber
: And for anyone who wants an unambiguous future tense, the next
: possible future chairpersons-of-the-feminine-persuasion could be
: Peggy Rae Pavlat (if Baltimore in 98 wins) or Jill Eastlake (co-
: chair with Donald Eastlake III, if Boston in 98 wins). If Atlanta
: or Niagara Falls wins you get chairmales Bill Ritch or Joe
: Maraglino, respectively. One-and-a-co out of four ain't bad.
To knit a pick: a significant percentage of final worldcon chairs have
not been the person initially with the title. That's without even
getting into distinguishing the chair of the bid from the actual con chair.
I don't believe I'll be amplifying the varied history of this.
ly...@access2.digex.net
>In <805568...@bitch.demon.co.uk> Pam Wells <Vacuou...@bitch.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>>(And no, let no one assume from this question that I shall ever volunteer
>>to chair a Worldcon myself!)
>
>
>what tense to use here) will be Karen Meschke (LonestarCon 2 - 1997).
>The most recent really past one was Kathleen Meyer (Chicon V - 1991).
>
A more complete listing:
1952 (Chicon II) Julian May (then she was known as Judy May)
1954 (SF Con) Esther Cole (co-chair, though she is sometimes not credited)
1955 (Clevention) Noreen Falasca (now Noreen Shaw)
1958 (Solacon) Anna Moffatt
1960 (Pittcon) Dirce Archer
1965 (Loncon II) Ella Parker
1969 (St. Louiscon) Joyce Fisher (co-chair; now she is Joyce Katz)
1980 (Noreascon Two) Leslie Turek
1981 (Denvention Two) Suzanne Carnival (co-chair)
1986 (ConFederation) Penny Frierson (co-chair)
1991 (Chicon V) Kathleen Meyer
1997 (LoneStarCon) Karen Meschke
If Baltimore wins for 1998, the chair will be Peggy Rae Pavlat. That
would be 13 women as chair or co-chair in the 55 worldcons that will have
been held through 1998. Just about 25 percent.
RWL
Joseph W. Casey
> gfa...@panix.com (Gary Farber) wrote:
>
>>$50 is close to an insult. Not to be ungrateful, but IMHO.
>
> $50 from any source is, generally speaking, an insult which TAFF will gladly
> accept.
>
> For another $50 you can insult us twice! Step right up, don't crowd. :)
You know, Patrick, I have been thinking how to answer that statement of
Mr. Farber's. I could not have said it better, but them I'm just a writer
not an editor. ;-)
Should TAFF, as Mr Farber, consider itself insulted by a mere $50
donation, I can think of a dozen fanish and about a hundred non-fanish
organizations that would be glad to accept the money. (My two personal
favorites being St Joseph's foodbank and Womans shelter in Ottawa and
Casey House, an AIDS Hostel in Toronto. Wonder why?)
--
Major Makin vestai-Cheghjihtah-Kasara
may'ghom la', may' tengchaH Morath
ra'wI', Assault Squadron, Central Quadrant
Steel Fist Fleet KAG/KANADA
Seth Breidbart
Gary Farber <gfa...@panix.com> wrote:
>Ben Yalow (yb...@panix.com) wrote:
>
>: LAcon (1984) made enough money so that SCIFI has not only made a one-time
>: every time any of the fan funds produce a new report. MCFI, from the
>: Noreascon II surplus, did the same thing, but $50, until it ran out of
>: Noreascon surplus funds.
>
>approach for those worldcons that do come out in the black. There is no
>way to approach this issue except as a purely subjective opinion of
>priorities, but as a rule of thumb, I think $1000 per year would be a more
>appropriate bottom line cash donation.
Are there 20 overdue reports?
In any event, you feel that the same donation is appropriate from a
worldcon with $500 surplus as from one with $50,000? Do you really
feel that the former should go bankrupt in order to make the donation?
Seth