Conventions that don't suck?
Psycho Dave
have jaded me. Various conventions started sucking about 15 years ago
for a variety of reasons, and it's been gradually getting worse over
time. What I've observed is this:
* Commercial conventions. Commercial for-profit conventions just suck.
They have too much control over the event, and not enough fan input.
Creation cons are a perfect example of everything that is wrong with
commercial cons. Their idea of a convention is a dealers' room where
everyone sells the same crap, and a couple of celebrities show up and
talk. Fan-run conventions tend to be better than purely commercial
ones, and have better atmospheres.
* Con-Nazis. Con-nazis are basically control freaks who run the
convention, and have to have everything under control, to the extent
that the fun gets sucked out of the convention. They freak out at the
slightest complaints, and often ban parties, groups, or activities.
Though not a problem at every con, this seems to be on the rise. The
last few conventions my friends and I have gone to were marred by
freak-out prone con-nazis who over-reacted to incidents and changed the
whole atmosphere of the various cons to crap by the time the con ended.
By far, the most enjoyable cons have tended to be the smaller, fan-run
ones, which had no connections to large organizations. Sure -- there
were some people from Nesfa, and other large organizations helping to
run it, but they were not put on by the organizations in particular.
I was wondering why so many large cons have freak-out problems -- why
so many people running them get jumpy and decide to crack down on
parties, attire, and caving in to random, un-substantiatiated
complaints and rumors. I heard that one convention in Boston recently
took a complaint from a patron seriously about an alleged pornogrpahic
pamphlet that was given to her 12-year-old daughter. When asked to show
the alleged pamphlet, or point out the person who distributed it to
them, the person was unable to prove their complaint that it was
pornographic, but that didn't stop the staff from banning parties, and
cracking down on women wearing scanty costumes.
There has to be a way to curb these problems without infringing on the
convention staff's right to govern their cons their own way. I mean, I
know that running a huge con can be stressful, but isn't it possible to
convince the more freak-out prone individuals that perhaps they should
give their coveted and fiercely guarded responsibilities to others, if
the stress gets to them?
Wilson Heydt
Psycho Dave <psy...@weirdcrap.com> wrote:
>I've been to a lot of New England area conventions, and a few trends
>have jaded me. Various conventions started sucking about 15 years ago
>for a variety of reasons, and it's been gradually getting worse over
>time. What I've observed is this:
[Various complaints elided.]
Are you sure that all of the problems are caused by the concom and not
by the hotel in some instances? (Or even fear of the hotels reaction,
whether justified or not?)
--
Hal Heydt
Albany, CA
My dime, my opinions.
Karl Johanson
news:1149607730.2...@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> I've been to a lot of New England area conventions, and a few trends
> have jaded me. Various conventions started sucking about 15 years ago
> for a variety of reasons, and it's been gradually getting worse over
> time. What I've observed is this:
>
> * Commercial conventions. Commercial for-profit conventions just suck.
> They have too much control over the event, and not enough fan input.
> Creation cons are a perfect example of everything that is wrong with
> commercial cons. Their idea of a convention is a dealers' room where
> everyone sells the same crap, and a couple of celebrities show up and
> talk. Fan-run conventions tend to be better than purely commercial
> ones, and have better atmospheres.
Some people like that type of con. Haven't been to one myself, but I
know some who enjoy them.
> * Con-Nazis. Con-nazis are basically control freaks who run the
> convention, and have to have everything under control, to the extent
> that the fun gets sucked out of the convention. They freak out at the
> slightest complaints, and often ban parties, groups, or activities.
Some parties get banned on floors which were listed as 'quiet'. Some
people have trouble sleeping, and get ill if they don't.
> Though not a problem at every con, this seems to be on the rise. The
> last few conventions my friends and I have gone to were marred by
> freak-out prone con-nazis who over-reacted to incidents and changed
> the
> whole atmosphere of the various cons to crap by the time the con
> ended.
Bummer.
> By far, the most enjoyable cons have tended to be the smaller, fan-run
> ones, which had no connections to large organizations. Sure -- there
> were some people from Nesfa, and other large organizations helping to
> run it, but they were not put on by the organizations in particular.
>
> I was wondering why so many large cons have freak-out problems -- why
> so many people running them get jumpy and decide to crack down on
> parties, attire, and caving in to random, un-substantiatiated
> complaints and rumors.
Because you aren't the con chair. You're in charge next time.
> I heard that one convention in Boston recently
> took a complaint from a patron seriously about an alleged pornogrpahic
> pamphlet that was given to her 12-year-old daughter. When asked to
> show
> the alleged pamphlet, or point out the person who distributed it to
> them, the person was unable to prove their complaint that it was
> pornographic, but that didn't stop the staff from banning parties, and
> cracking down on women wearing scanty costumes.
A friend of mine got told her costume was too revealing by the hotel
staff one Norwescon. I found it more tasteful than the chains & leash
motifs some wore.
> There has to be a way to curb these problems without infringing on the
> convention staff's right to govern their cons their own way. I mean, I
> know that running a huge con can be stressful, but isn't it possible
> to
> convince the more freak-out prone individuals that perhaps they should
> give their coveted and fiercely guarded responsibilities to others, if
> the stress gets to them?
Spell out the expected rules of behaviour ahead of time.
Karl Johanson
Nate Edel
> "Psycho Dave" <psy...@weirdcrap.com> wrote in message
> news:1149607730.2...@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > They have too much control over the event, and not enough fan input.
>
> know some who enjoy them.
The one that occasionally came to NYC used to be a really good source for
dropping in to buy anime bootlegs, if nothing else.
--
Nate Edel http://www.cubiclehermit.com/
"What's the use of yearning for Elysian Fields when you know you can't get
'em, and would only let 'em out on building leases if you had 'em?" (WSG)
Karl Johanson
news:gjkhl3x...@mail.sfchat.org...
> Karl Johanson <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>> "Psycho Dave" <psy...@weirdcrap.com> wrote in message
>> news:1149607730.2...@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> > * Commercial conventions. Commercial for-profit conventions just
>> > suck.
>> > They have too much control over the event, and not enough fan
>> > input.
>>
>> Some people like that type of con. Haven't been to one myself, but I
>> know some who enjoy them.
>
> The one that occasionally came to NYC used to be a really good source
> for
> dropping in to buy anime bootlegs, if nothing else.
I hear that Trogdorcon is a source for anime as well.
http://www.homestarrunner.com/trogdorcon.html
Karl Johanson
Keith F. Lynch
> Con-nazis are basically control freaks who run the convention, and
> have to have everything under control, to the extent that the fun
> gets sucked out of the convention. They freak out at the slightest
> complaints, and often ban parties, groups, or activities.
They may be simply trying to save the convention. Boskone lost its
hotel because of what was believed at the time to be misbehaving con
members. (Actually it was malfunctioning fire alarms.) Disclave
ceased to exist because of an idiot who broke a fire sprinkler.
Every con is just one idiot away from losing its hotel if not its
very existence.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
om...@e-kontor.dk
> I've been to a lot of New England area conventions, and a few trends
> have jaded me. Various conventions started sucking about 15 years ago
> for a variety of reasons, and it's been gradually getting worse over
> time. What I've observed is this:
[snip]
> By far, the most enjoyable cons have tended to be the smaller, fan-run
> ones, which had no connections to large organizations. Sure -- there
> were some people from Nesfa, and other large organizations helping to
> run it, but they were not put on by the organizations in particular.
>
Well, if you happen to get to Europe next year, why don't you try a
Eurocon?
Next year it's in Copenhagen, and I can guarantee you that it's
entirely run by fans. Check out the website at
http://www.eurocon2007.dk (not much yet - look out for updates over the
next few months).
Regards,
Olav, chair of Eurocon 2007
Psycho Dave
but to see if anyone had ideas on how to keep conventions from getting
to the point where they crack down on everyone because of a few people
(or because of mere rumor, IE the mom who complained about the penis on
the pary invitation, but who couldn't produce said invitation to prove
it).
I know that the Hotel staff, in many cases, can be just as paranoid and
panic-driven as the random freak-out prone con staff. I remember one
con I went to where the con staff lost our reservation for the dealer's
rooms, which we had paid for already, and their descision was to just
tell us "sorry, better luck next time." They didn't even offer to give
us our money back! They casually forgot that we spent considerable time
and money just to get there. So we set up in our Hotel room, and made
signs that said "more dealers here..." and the con staff freaked out,
and threatened to evict us. The con-nazi called the Hotel staff, and
the hotel manager mediated a good settlement -- the con let us share a
room with another dealer, who offered a table. The con staff also
apologized and offered a refund for our money.
It turned out to be okay, but I've been to some cons where an entire
subgenre of fans got banned just because some con-nazi didn't think
they were eligible to be called SF fans. It happend to Anime fans at a
couple of general scifi conventions, when Anime fandom was young and
new. It happend to Whovians at a convention that was not a Star Trek
Specific convention (A self-righteous con-chair considered all Scifi to
be star Trek!). It happened to the furries. It happened to the "Leather
and lace/goth/vampire/S&M" people, because their fashion was "too
risque" for kids (yeah, some of those kids got on the stage and
erotically grinded like Britney Spears during the Masquerade, no thanks
to seeing kinky leather!)
There has to be a way to check this stuff and keep it from happening in
the future.
Dan Kimmel
"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote in message
news:e65dh0$ivl$1...@panix1.panix.com...
> Psycho Dave <psy...@weirdcrap.com> wrote:
> > Con-nazis are basically control freaks who run the convention, and
> > have to have everything under control, to the extent that the fun
> > gets sucked out of the convention. They freak out at the slightest
> > complaints, and often ban parties, groups, or activities.
>
> They may be simply trying to save the convention. Boskone lost its
> hotel because of what was believed at the time to be misbehaving con
> members. (Actually it was malfunctioning fire alarms.) Disclave
> ceased to exist because of an idiot who broke a fire sprinkler.
> Every con is just one idiot away from losing its hotel if not its
> very existence.
Sometimes the idiot is in hotel management as opposed to attending the con.
I do not pretend to know why (so don't apply the previous sentence to this
one) but both Arisia and Boskone will be in different hotels next year. It
will be the fourth hotel I've attended for Arisia and the fourth for Boskone
as well.
Dan Kimmel
"Psycho Dave" <psy...@weirdcrap.com> wrote in message
news:1149607730.2...@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> have jaded me. Various conventions started sucking about 15 years ago
> for a variety of reasons, and it's been gradually getting worse over
> time.
I think you need to be specific. I attend three New England area cons --
Arisia, Boskone, and occasionally Readercon -- and I'm hardpressed to see
any of them reflected in your complaints.
Are you talking about other cons?
Dan Kimmel
>It happened to the furries. It happened to the "Leather
> and lace/goth/vampire/S&M" people, because their fashion was "too
> risque" for kids (yeah, some of those kids got on the stage and
> erotically grinded like Britney Spears during the Masquerade, no thanks
> to seeing kinky leather!)
>
> There has to be a way to check this stuff and keep it from happening in
> the future.
There is a way to be rational about this. We want kids at our conventions
(well, at most of them) because they are the future of fandom. On the other
hand, we don't want the convention to be reduced to solely what is
acceptable for children.
Discretion is the byword. What is acceptable at a private party may not be
acceptable in the hotel lobby. Panels or activities that are intended for
adults should ANOUNCE that, and parents who let their kids go to such things
(or sneak in) should be told that *they* are responsible for their children.
Doug Wickstrom
<psy...@weirdcrap.com> wrote:
>but I've been to some cons where an entire
>subgenre of fans got banned just because some con-nazi didn't think
>they were eligible to be called SF fans. It happend to Anime fans at a
>couple of general scifi conventions, when Anime fandom was young and
>new. It happend to Whovians at a convention that was not a Star Trek
>Specific convention (A self-righteous con-chair considered all Scifi to
>be star Trek!). It happened to the furries. It happened to the "Leather
>and lace/goth/vampire/S&M" people, because their fashion was "too
>risque" for kids
Can you actually names conventions, dates, and people who did the
banning?
Nancy Lebovitz
Psycho Dave <psy...@weirdcrap.com> wrote:
>
>It turned out to be okay, but I've been to some cons where an entire
>subgenre of fans got banned just because some con-nazi didn't think
>they were eligible to be called SF fans. It happend to Anime fans at a
>couple of general scifi conventions, when Anime fandom was young and
>new. It happend to Whovians at a convention that was not a Star Trek
>Specific convention (A self-righteous con-chair considered all Scifi to
>be star Trek!). It happened to the furries. It happened to the "Leather
>and lace/goth/vampire/S&M" people, because their fashion was "too
>risque" for kids (yeah, some of those kids got on the stage and
>erotically grinded like Britney Spears during the Masquerade, no thanks
>to seeing kinky leather!)
>
>There has to be a way to check this stuff and keep it from happening in
>the future.
I don't know if absolute prevention is possible, but talking in advance
about good responses to scary situations is a start. So, if possible,
is identifying people who are inclined to panic and not giving them
positions of responsibility.
--
Nancy Lebovitz http://www.nancybuttons.com
http://livejournal.com/users/nancylebov
My two favorite colors are "Oooooh" and "SHINY!".
Mark Atwood
>
> There is a way to be rational about this. We want kids at our conventions
> (well, at most of them) because they are the future of fandom.
But "we" must prevent them from doing and seeing the stuff that *we*
did and saw at cons (without our parents supervision, thankyouverymuch)
went *we* went to bandcamp/con/sca/etc/etc/etc when we were "kids".
It's a recurrent pattern. I call it "parents disease".
--
Mark Atwood When you do things right, people won't be sure
m...@mark.atwood.name you've done anything at all.
http://mark.atwood.name/ http://fallenpegasus.livejournal.com/
Psycho Dave
> (well, at most of them) because they are the future of fandom. On the other
> hand, we don't want the convention to be reduced to solely what is
> acceptable for children.
>
> Discretion is the byword. What is acceptable at a private party may not be
> acceptable in the hotel lobby. Panels or activities that are intended for
> adults should ANOUNCE that, and parents who let their kids go to such things
> (or sneak in) should be told that *they* are responsible for their children.
Sounds good to me. I think that a big nasty sign that simply states "If
you have an ADULT party, please SPECIFY "ADULT PARTY" on all of your
advertising" is good. So we have a sign at the entrance that everyone
has to walk past, and possibly an agreement that everyone must sign,
that will have things on it that resemble this:
* There are kids here (with parents). Please refrain from inappropriate
eroticism in public areas.
* No sex in public areas (This happened at the last Arisia!)
* When advertising ADULT parties (with alcohol or nudity), CLEARLY
STATE that it is an adult party in all advertising.
Etc., etc., etc...
That could be good, and the rules of the convention, which everyone is
made to sign, could be a good legal protection for the con. There's a
lot more than toy ray guns to be concerned about these days :)
Psycho Dave
Mark Atwood wrote:
> But "we" must prevent them from doing and seeing the stuff that *we*
> did and saw at cons (without our parents supervision, thankyouverymuch)
> went *we* went to bandcamp/con/sca/etc/etc/etc when we were "kids".
>
> It's a recurrent pattern. I call it "parents disease".
>
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Too true. My favorite one is the people who will complain that you used
profanity in front of their little darlings' "virgin ears", who then go
home and use the exact same profanity in front of those same little
darlings.
Psycho Dave
With research, yes!
I believe the furries were booted out of Philcon back in the mid-80's,
when some of the vendors had adult furry comics for sale, and several
of the artists put autographs on their furry-porn. They managed to get
space at a place across the street from the main con.
The others, though... I'd really have to dredge my memory, since
they're so long ago.
Most of them were in the new England area.
Psycho Dave
Nancy Lebovitz wrote:
>
> I don't know if absolute prevention is possible, but talking in advance
> about good responses to scary situations is a start. So, if possible,
> is identifying people who are inclined to panic and not giving them
> positions of responsibility.
> --
That would be great if everyone could self-police that well.
Ever know a person who you really wanted to give a job to because they
did it better than everyone else, but couldn't bring yourself to give
it to them because of what they do when one tiny little thing doesn't
go their way?
Jette Goldie
"Karl Johanson" <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Kxmhg.248126$P01.10579@pd7tw3no...
> "Psycho Dave" <psy...@weirdcrap.com> wrote in message
> news:1149607730.2...@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> I heard that one convention in Boston recently
>> took a complaint from a patron seriously about an alleged pornogrpahic
>> pamphlet that was given to her 12-year-old daughter. When asked to show
>> the alleged pamphlet, or point out the person who distributed it to
>> them, the person was unable to prove their complaint that it was
>> pornographic, but that didn't stop the staff from banning parties, and
>> cracking down on women wearing scanty costumes.
>
> A friend of mine got told her costume was too revealing by the hotel staff
> one Norwescon. I found it more tasteful than the chains & leash motifs
> some wore.
Quote from a certain Glasgow convention hotel
manager many years back
"Madam may dress as Batman, if Madam wishes, so long
as she wears SHOES!!"
(I was fully clothed but barefoot)
--
Jette Goldie
je...@blueyonder.co.uk
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
("reply to" is spamblocked)
Dorothy J Heydt
And none of the words will be new to the kids, who have been
hearing them in school since second grade.
Back in my day (1950s), I first heard a lot of the standard
cusswords on the school bus as a high-school freshman. I
mentioned to my mother e.g. that Lonnie Bentley had called me 'a
girl dog' and my mother had hysterics and wanted to get him
expelled. She had never heard such language till she was an
adult, if then.
Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djh...@kithrup.com
David G. Bell
<1149708722....@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
psy...@weirdcrap.com "Psycho Dave" wrote:
> Doug Wickstrom wrote:
> > On 7 Jun 2006 06:23:39 -0700, "Psycho Dave"
> > <psy...@weirdcrap.com> wrote:
> >
> > >but I've been to some cons where an entire
> > >subgenre of fans got banned just because some con-nazi didn't think
> > >they were eligible to be called SF fans. It happend to Anime fans at a
> > >couple of general scifi conventions, when Anime fandom was young and
> > >new. It happend to Whovians at a convention that was not a Star Trek
> > >Specific convention (A self-righteous con-chair considered all Scifi to
> > >be star Trek!). It happened to the furries. It happened to the "Leather
> > >and lace/goth/vampire/S&M" people, because their fashion was "too
> > >risque" for kids
> >
> > Can you actually names conventions, dates, and people who did the
> > banning?
>
> With research, yes!
>
> I believe the furries were booted out of Philcon back in the mid-80's,
> when some of the vendors had adult furry comics for sale, and several
> of the artists put autographs on their furry-porn. They managed to get
> space at a place across the street from the main con.
I have a vague recollection of reading of this in newsgroups as a
contemporary event, which would make it mid-90s rather than mid-80s,
because I didn't have the newsgroup access any earlier.
> The others, though... I'd really have to dredge my memory, since
> they're so long ago.
> Most of them were in the new England area.
Be careful about memory.
--
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
"I am Number Two," said Penfold. "You are Number Six."
Karl Johanson
news:vZFhg.342588$xt.6...@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
But you weren't dressed as Batman?
Karl Johanson
Karl Johanson
Good advice.
The only nude events I've been at at cons happened after midnight.
Karl Johanson
Marilee J. Layman
Would they let you wear slippers? I usually wear slippers at cons
because I have gout and slippers hurt less than shoes.
--
Marilee J. Layman
http://mjlayman.livejournal.com/
Wilson Heydt
Hmmm... Hotel stories...
Clint Bigglestone was attending a con in LA. Since he had a bad knee, he walked with a
cane. He also habitually wore a six-inch belt knife. The hotel assistant manager took
exception to the knife, which Clint refused to surrender. After a certain amount of
verbal exchange, a police officer arrived. The first thing the cop did was ask Clint
to hand over that dangerous weapon...and pointed to his cane.
In the mean time, word got around. Larry Niven went to the hotel manager and gently
explained that he didn't own the *hotel*, but it was built on land that was leased
from him, and he really didn't like his friends getting hassled. There were Words
spoken between the hotel manager and the assistant manager.
There were no further problems with Clint wearing his belt knife.
Seth Breidbart
>
>> But "we" must prevent them from doing and seeing the stuff that *we*
>> did and saw at cons (without our parents supervision, thankyouverymuch)
>> went *we* went to bandcamp/con/sca/etc/etc/etc when we were "kids".
>>
>> It's a recurrent pattern. I call it "parents disease".
>
>profanity in front of their little darlings' "virgin ears", who then go
>home and use the exact same profanity in front of those same little
>darlings.
Mine is the people who whined about the "costume malfunction",
decrying how awful it would be were an infant to see a nipple.
Seth
Keith F. Lynch
> I don't know if absolute prevention is possible, but talking in
> advance about good responses to scary situations is a start.
People can do more than talk. There's a simulation game called "If
I Ran the Z/o/o/ Worldcon" that lets people experience lots of con
disasters.
There's also an annual con, called SMOFcon, that's just for
con-runners to get together and compare notes.
Paul Ciszek
In article <m2verdt...@amsu.fallenpegasus.com>,
Mark Atwood <m...@mark.atwood.name> wrote:
>"Dan Kimmel" <daniel...@rcn.com> writes:
>>
>> There is a way to be rational about this. We want kids at our conventions
>> (well, at most of them) because they are the future of fandom.
>
>But "we" must prevent them from doing and seeing the stuff that *we*
>did and saw at cons (without our parents supervision, thankyouverymuch)
>went *we* went to bandcamp/con/sca/etc/etc/etc when we were "kids".
>
>It's a recurrent pattern. I call it "parents disease".
I don't think it is a disease. Some examples, taken from life:
1) A woman related how, as a teenager, she would often ride in a car
that was being operated by somone who was seriously chemically
impared. It was the only ride to the party, you see, and what's
a little chance of death or mutilation compared to missing the
party? Now that she is a parent, she doesn't want her daughter
doing the same thing, not because she is a killjoy, but because
she doesn't want her daughter to die.
2) Any parent who smoked, managed to quit, and doesn't want their
kids to start.
3) Any parent who went to jail, but doesn't want their kids to.
4) Any parent who dropped out of school, worked menial jobs for
years, eventually got their diploma and decided based on their
own experience that it is much, much, better to just finish
school the first time around.
--
Please reply to: | "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is
pciszek at panix dot com | indistinguishable from malice."
Autoreply is disabled |
Paul Ciszek
In article <e67tm4$d7e$1...@reader2.panix.com>,
Seth Breidbart <se...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>Mine is the people who whined about the "costume malfunction",
>decrying how awful it would be were an infant to see a nipple.
I think that "wardrobe malfuntion" is one of the most excellent
and useful phrases to enter common usage in the last few years.
Who among us has not had an embarrassing or profoundly inconvenient
"wardrobe malfunction"?
Mary Kay
> I think that "wardrobe malfuntion" is one of the most excellent
> and useful phrases to enter common usage in the last few years.
> Who among us has not had an embarrassing or profoundly inconvenient
> "wardrobe malfunction"?
>
Ladies, never ever ever wear a strapless evening gown when on crutches.
MKK
Dorothy J Heydt
Mary Kay <mar...@kare.ws> wrote:
>Paul Ciszek wrote:
>
>> I think that "wardrobe malfuntion" is one of the most excellent
>> and useful phrases to enter common usage in the last few years.
>> Who among us has not had an embarrassing or profoundly inconvenient
>> "wardrobe malfunction"?
I haven't, not that I can recall, but then I've never gone in for
really far-out wardrobes that are likely to malfunction.
I have been noted to go out wearing a plain T-tunic dress that
was inside-out, but since no one noticed but me before I could
get to a ladies' room and invert it, no harm was done.
>>
>Ladies, never ever ever wear a strapless evening gown when on crutches.
Or in the presence of your small child who likes to get your
attention by tugging on your skirt. There was a cartoon about
that once, probably in the New Yorker.
Alan Braggins
>"Jette Goldie" <boss...@scotlandmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> as she wears SHOES!!"
>>
>> (I was fully clothed but barefoot)
>
>But you weren't dressed as Batman?
I have difficulty in imagining Jette in a costume which looks more like
Batman than Batwoman/Batgirl.
Jette Goldie
Actually, no, not that time. I was in what I'd call "street clothes"
(semi-smart trousers and top) but my new shoes were hurting
my feet, so I'd gone into breakfast minus shoes.
Later on that day I was dressed as Phoenix though!
Jette Goldie
"Mary Kay" <mar...@kare.ws> wrote in message
news:e5ednUra0--GEhrZ...@zhonka.net...
LOL
and always wear underwear under a slashed gown on a windy day
in Liverpool
;-)
Psycho Dave
Karl Johanson wrote:
> Good advice.
>
> The only nude events I've been at at cons happened after midnight.
>
> Karl Johanson
And knowing the body-shape of average convention goers, that is a
trully frightening thought... :)
Dorothy J Heydt
So, it seems we can all agree that little children shouldn't be
exposed to such awful sights. :)
Psycho Dave
Dan Kimmel wrote:
> "Psycho Dave" <psy...@weirdcrap.com> wrote in message
> news:1149607730.2...@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > have jaded me. Various conventions started sucking about 15 years ago
> > for a variety of reasons, and it's been gradually getting worse over
> > time.
>
> I think you need to be specific. I attend three New England area cons --
> Arisia, Boskone, and occasionally Readercon -- and I'm hardpressed to see
> any of them reflected in your complaints.
>
> Are you talking about other cons?
Those are hardly the only cons in New England.
Didn't Boskone used to have a bug up their ass concerning media fandom?
I remember back in the 80's, there was the schizm that created Arisia.
Didn't Arisia get created because some of the Boskone people were
thinking of banning media fandom (film, TV, etc) activities, or at
least downplaying it significantly? I'm not sure about the whole story,
but I was at the first Arisia, and know plenty of people on the staff
who told me this. It had something to do with "security" incidents, and
putting the blame on the unwashed "costume and toy raygun wielders".
I also recall at least one Arisia where someone tried to ban the ASB
society. It didn't get banned, but the attempt to ban them was pretty
public.
There was a Boston area "Bash" or something... I forget the actual
name, where an over-zealous security person (or volunteer) told
non-Trek costumed people to go away (this was not the official policy
of the bash).
I will not talk about Mr. Agassi's banning, because that had nothing to
do with his fandom, as much as his lecherousness... but that was funny
as hell to watch :)
Seth Breidbart
Dan Kimmel <daniel...@rcn.com> wrote:
>I do not pretend to know why (so don't apply the previous sentence to this
>one) but both Arisia and Boskone will be in different hotels next year. It
>will be the fourth hotel I've attended for Arisia and the fourth for Boskone
>as well.
Boskone knew several years ago that the hotel was already booked for
next year.
Seth
Seth Breidbart
With the exception of the first, all the others are seen by the
parents to have _hurt_ them, and the first had a risk of killing them.
How many people think they were hurt (or risked being killed) when
_they_ watched dirty movies?
Seth
Psycho Dave
Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>
> So, it seems we can all agree that little children shouldn't be
> exposed to such awful sights. :)
>
> Dorothy J. Heydt
> Albany, California
> djh...@kithrup.com
Not neccesarily. I believe kids should be frightened on a regular basis!
Kay Shapero
> In article <1149789737.9...@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> Psycho Dave <psy...@weirdcrap.com> wrote:
> >
> >Karl Johanson wrote:
> >
> >> Good advice.
> >>
> >> The only nude events I've been at at cons happened after midnight.
> >>
> >> Karl Johanson
> >
> >And knowing the body-shape of average convention goers, that is a
> >trully frightening thought... :)
>
> So, it seems we can all agree that little children shouldn't be
> exposed to such awful sights. :)
>
Though actually an indoors mass skinnydipping I once observed (I was
asked to come in and show off my costume) at at a convention looked
rather better than many a fully clothed gathering I've seen. No
tight/garish/grungy anything, variable colors but only the natural range
of human skin. And of course everybody was CLEAN...
--
Kay Shapero
http://www.kayshapero.net
Address munged - use my first name plus everything after the www. on my
website address if you want to email me.
Tom Galloway
Psycho Dave <psy...@weirdcrap.com> wrote:
>Didn't Boskone used to have a bug up their ass concerning media fandom?
No.
>I remember back in the 80's, there was the schizm that created Arisia.
>Didn't Arisia get created because some of the Boskone people were
>thinking of banning media fandom (film, TV, etc) activities, or at
>least downplaying it significantly? I'm not sure about the whole story,
>but I was at the first Arisia, and know plenty of people on the staff
>who told me this. It had something to do with "security" incidents, and
>putting the blame on the unwashed "costume and toy raygun wielders".
Boy, that's accurate...
Short version; Boskone during the 80s had grown into what was being called
the "Winter Worldcon" with attendance peaking at around 4,000 and growing
every year. At said peak attendance, there were a lot of problems with
folk such as non-fans who'd picked up that every President's Day weekend
in Boston there was this thing with lotsa parties and booze and the like.
Note: *not* media fen. There were a sufficient number of incidents, as
perceived by the hotel, that the hotel refused to let Boskone return...and
they were telling the very few other hotels in Boston that could handle
a 4,000 person con about this.
So, NESFA's got a small problem. There's nowhere in the city of Boston
where they can hold a 4,000+ person Boskone. Secondary problem; a lot of
people on the concom were getting burned out by putting on that big a
con each and every year.
The solution ended up being moving Boskone to Springfield, circa 75-100
miles from Boston. However, those facilities would not accomodate
4,000 people. So, figuring they had to make sure that only around 1/3rd of
the folk who attended the last Boskone attended the next one, they sent
out a letter...which at least a number of NESFen have since admitted
could've been better phrased.
Y'see, the other conclusion they'd come to was that there were things
being done at Boskone that were being done either because someone at one
time had wanted to do them, or due to a feeling of satisfying demand. Due
to the combo of needing to shrink the con and concom burnout, a decision
was made to focus Boskone on things the concom was particularly interested
in. Which was stated in the letter, just not in the best way.
And there's the key point that seems to me to be an undercurrent in your
posts. If a concom, the folk doing the work of putting on the con, aren't
interested in catering to a particular subfandom, they're under no
obligation to do so (although if it's a notable change from previous
versions of that con, it's the responsible and courteous thing to make that
change well-known in advance of the con). They're the ones doing the
volunteer work, and they're under no obligation to run the con the way you
want it run. If you don't like the way it's being run, you can always do what
the Arisia folk did; start up your own con.
tyg t...@Panix.com
--
--Yes, the .sig has changed
Dan Kimmel
"Seth Breidbart" <se...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:e6a0cu$3dg$1...@reader2.panix.com...
> How many people think they were hurt (or risked being killed) when
> _they_ watched dirty movies?
John Ashcoft
Dan Kimmel
>
> Dan Kimmel wrote:
> > "Psycho Dave" <psy...@weirdcrap.com> wrote in message
> > news:1149607730.2...@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > > I've been to a lot of New England area conventions, and a few trends
> > > have jaded me. Various conventions started sucking about 15 years ago
> > > for a variety of reasons, and it's been gradually getting worse over
> > > time.
> >
> > I think you need to be specific. I attend three New England area
cons --
> > Arisia, Boskone, and occasionally Readercon -- and I'm hardpressed to
see
> > any of them reflected in your complaints.
> >
> > Are you talking about other cons?
>
> Those are hardly the only cons in New England.
Didn't say they were.
> Didn't Boskone used to have a bug up their ass concerning media fandom?
> I remember back in the 80's, there was the schizm that created Arisia.
> Didn't Arisia get created because some of the Boskone people were
> thinking of banning media fandom (film, TV, etc) activities, or at
> least downplaying it significantly? I'm not sure about the whole story,
> but I was at the first Arisia, and know plenty of people on the staff
> who told me this. It had something to do with "security" incidents, and
> putting the blame on the unwashed "costume and toy raygun wielders".
That's before I got active. My first con as a panelist was Boskone -- in
Springfield! I can say that in some fifteen or so years of attending and
participating at Boskones I have never known them to be unfriendly to media
fans. Perhaps that's because, as a professional movie critic, I tend to be
on media-related panels.
> I also recall at least one Arisia where someone tried to ban the ASB
> society. It didn't get banned, but the attempt to ban them was pretty
> public.
Don't know what "ASB" stands for.
> There was a Boston area "Bash" or something... I forget the actual
> name, where an over-zealous security person (or volunteer) told
> non-Trek costumed people to go away (this was not the official policy
> of the bash).
Well, IIRC, the Bashes are -- or were -- Star Trek conventions, put on by a
local Star Trek fan group. At least you note this was one person acting out
of turn, and not officially.
Psycho Dave
> >
> > ...Boskone vs. Arisia
>
> That's before I got active. My first con as a panelist was Boskone -- in
> Springfield! I can say that in some fifteen or so years of attending and
> participating at Boskones I have never known them to be unfriendly to media
> fans. Perhaps that's because, as a professional movie critic, I tend to be
> on media-related panels.
>
As a previous poster explained, the perception that Boskone was
unfriendly towards media fans was due to a letter that was sent out
which was phrased in a way that gave a lot of people the perception
that they were not friendly towards media fandom. This was merely a
perception, though, brought on by perhaps some thoughtlessly phrased
paragraphs in the letter. A lot of people got that perception, so it
had to be the author's fault.
> > I also recall at least one Arisia where someone tried to ban the ASB
> > society. It didn't get banned, but the attempt to ban them was pretty
> > public.
>
> Don't know what "ASB" stands for.
>
They're the alt.sex.bondage people who put on a sex & Bondage party at
every convention. They never were very contraversial, until one or two
individuals complained about advertising for their parties.
> > There was a Boston area "Bash" or something... I forget the actual
> > name, where an over-zealous security person (or volunteer) told
> > non-Trek costumed people to go away (this was not the official policy
> > of the bash).
>
> Well, IIRC, the Bashes are -- or were -- Star Trek conventions, put on by a
> local Star Trek fan group. At least you note this was one person acting out
> of turn, and not officially.
That's all it takes to start a fire, though -- one match. This one kid
caused a big stink that instigated a "kerfuffle". That, in turn, left a
sour taste in the mouths of many people who attended.
I'll never forget all the crap people gave about toy ray guns when I
first started going to cons. It was comically annoying to the point
that I used to cruelly sass the security people if they gave me any
shit about my obviously fake guns. Of course, nobody ever really
complained much about all those hideously overweight people weaing
clothing that was meant for much smaller people. Seeing that is more
frightening than the prospect of being zapped by a martian ray gun :)
Paul Ciszek
In article <1149858829....@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>,
Psycho Dave <psy...@weirdcrap.com> wrote:
>
>I'll never forget all the crap people gave about toy ray guns when I
>first started going to cons. It was comically annoying to the point
>that I used to cruelly sass the security people if they gave me any
>shit about my obviously fake guns. Of course, nobody ever really
>complained much about all those hideously overweight people weaing
>clothing that was meant for much smaller people. Seeing that is more
>frightening than the prospect of being zapped by a martian ray gun :)
Rather than you making rules about who can wear what at an SF con,
why don't you just quit attending SF cons? I suspect that both you
and the cons will be happier.
BTW, some of us *like* fat chicks in revealing clothing. Go to hell.
Doug Wickstrom
<psy...@weirdcrap.com> wrote:
>Doug Wickstrom wrote:
>> On 7 Jun 2006 06:23:39 -0700, "Psycho Dave"
>> <psy...@weirdcrap.com> wrote:
>>
>> >but I've been to some cons where an entire
>> >subgenre of fans got banned just because some con-nazi didn't think
>> >they were eligible to be called SF fans. It happend to Anime fans at a
>> >couple of general scifi conventions, when Anime fandom was young and
>> >new. It happend to Whovians at a convention that was not a Star Trek
>> >Specific convention (A self-righteous con-chair considered all Scifi to
>> >be star Trek!). It happened to the furries. It happened to the "Leather
>> >and lace/goth/vampire/S&M" people, because their fashion was "too
>> >risque" for kids
>>
>> Can you actually names conventions, dates, and people who did the
>> banning?
>
>With research, yes!
>
>I believe the furries were booted out of Philcon back in the mid-80's,
>when some of the vendors had adult furry comics for sale, and several
>of the artists put autographs on their furry-porn. They managed to get
>space at a place across the street from the main con.
Furries banned, or certain activities prohibited in Conventions
Space?
There is a very large difference.
I recall a convention which recently, for some values of recent,
which announced that due to the expense in time, money, and
volunteer points, they would not, for the next three years,
sponsor a costume show/competition, but that costumers were
encouraged to wear their costumes if they wished.
The response from a large number of costumers was "why are you
banning us/kicking us out?"
Psycho Dave
Paul Ciszek wrote:
> In article <1149858829....@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Rather than you making rules about who can wear what at an SF con,
> why don't you just quit attending SF cons? I suspect that both you
> and the cons will be happier.
>
Oh, grow up, it's just a joke! :)
> BTW, some of us *like* fat chicks in revealing clothing. Go to hell.
What makes you think I was talking only about "fat chicks"?
BTW -- there is no hell. It's a common human delusion.
Doug Wickstrom
<psy...@weirdcrap.com> wrote:
>Paul Ciszek wrote:
>> In article <1149858829....@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> Rather than you making rules about who can wear what at an SF con,
>> why don't you just quit attending SF cons? I suspect that both you
>> and the cons will be happier.
>>
>
>Oh, grow up, it's just a joke! :)
No, jokes are funny.
>> BTW, some of us *like* fat chicks in revealing clothing. Go to hell.
>
>What makes you think I was talking only about "fat chicks"?
You said so.
>BTW -- there is no hell. It's a common human delusion.
Hell is very real to those who've been there.
Psycho Dave
Doug Wickstrom wrote:
> There is a very large difference.
>
> I recall a convention which recently, for some values of recent,
> which announced that due to the expense in time, money, and
> volunteer points, they would not, for the next three years,
> sponsor a costume show/competition, but that costumers were
> encouraged to wear their costumes if they wished.
>
> The response from a large number of costumers was "why are you
> banning us/kicking us out?"
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!
I guess not all fans have superior reading abilities!
Dorothy J Heydt
Doug Wickstrom <nims...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On 9 Jun 2006 07:46:52 -0700, "Psycho Dave"
><psy...@weirdcrap.com> wrote:
>
>>> BTW, some of us *like* fat chicks in revealing clothing. Go to hell.
>>
>>What makes you think I was talking only about "fat chicks"?
>
>You said so.
No, he only said "people".
>>>>Of course, nobody ever really
>>>>complained much about all those hideously overweight people weaing
>>>>clothing that was meant for much smaller people.
"People," last time I looked, included females, males, None of
the Above, and in-betweens, not to mention those who are too
young, skinny, or weird for onlookers to tell the difference.
Paul Ciszek
In article <J0Ln4...@kithrup.com>,
Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>
>"People," last time I looked, included females, males, None of
>the Above, and in-betweens, not to mention those who are too
>young, skinny, or weird for onlookers to tell the difference.
Right, and I said "some of us *like* fat chicks in revealing
clothing" because that can be proven both by the existance of several
commercial magazines occupying that particular region of pornospace,
and by the personal accounts of some overweight women who get hit on
a lot. If there are people who like fat males or hermaphrodites, I
have no evidence available.
Dorothy J Heydt
Paul Ciszek <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>In article <J0Ln4...@kithrup.com>,
>Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>>
>>"People," last time I looked, included females, males, None of
>>the Above, and in-betweens, not to mention those who are too
>>young, skinny, or weird for onlookers to tell the difference.
>
>Right, and I said "some of us *like* fat chicks in revealing
>clothing" because that can be proven both by the existance of several
>commercial magazines occupying that particular region of pornospace,
>and by the personal accounts of some overweight women who get hit on
>a lot. If there are people who like fat males or hermaphrodites, I
>have no evidence available.
Me neither, but, on analogy with all the other things I've
learned (by reading USENET) that other people like that would
never have occurred to me -- including a predilection for fat
females -- I bet there are some who like fat males and/or fat
what-have-yous and/or other things that none of us have
envisioned until the moment that someone posts and declares for
them.
Mark Atwood
Which is a personification of, or panderer to (probably both), of
Parents Disease.
--
Mark Atwood When you do things right, people won't be sure
m...@mark.atwood.name you've done anything at all.
http://mark.atwood.name/ http://fallenpegasus.livejournal.com/
David Friedman
nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
> In article <J0Ln4...@kithrup.com>,
> Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
> >
> >"People," last time I looked, included females, males, None of
> >the Above, and in-betweens, not to mention those who are too
> >young, skinny, or weird for onlookers to tell the difference.
>
> Right, and I said "some of us *like* fat chicks in revealing
> clothing" because that can be proven both by the existance of several
> commercial magazines occupying that particular region of pornospace,
> and by the personal accounts of some overweight women who get hit on
> a lot. If there are people who like fat males or hermaphrodites, I
> have no evidence available.
Doug, however, wrote:
(Quoting Dave)
> >What makes you think I was talking only about "fat chicks"?
(And responding)
> You said so.
Which was false, as Doug could easily have determined if he had gone to
the trouble of rereading the post he had responded to.
And Dorothy was responding to Doug.
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
Published by Baen, in bookstores now
Psycho Dave
Doug Wickstrom wrote:
> On 9 Jun 2006 07:46:52 -0700, "Psycho Dave"
> <psy...@weirdcrap.com> wrote:
> >
> >What makes you think I was talking only about "fat chicks"?
>
> You said so.
>
Uh, no I didn't. I said "People". Go back and read what I actually
wrote.
Hehehehe -- remember how you were recounting how fans misunderstood a
letter?
> >BTW -- there is no hell. It's a common human delusion.
>
> Hell is very real to those who've been there.
You aren't talking about furry conventions, are you? :)
Psycho Dave
Paul Ciszek wrote:
> Right, and I said "some of us *like* fat chicks in revealing
> clothing" because that can be proven both by the existance of several
> commercial magazines occupying that particular region of pornospace,
> and by the personal accounts of some overweight women who get hit on
> a lot. If there are people who like fat males or hermaphrodites, I
> have no evidence available.
Ever hear of "bears"? It's a movement of big, fat, hairy gay guys, and
they have their own magazines.
Dorothy J Heydt
See, now, I had never heard of those, and here somebody is
posting about them.
We'll probably hear from those who like big fat None-of-the-Aboves
before the day is out.
I have learned, over the decades, that it's better just to assume
that whatEVER it is, there is SOMEbody who likes it. Even if I
cannot get into their mental space at all, which I can't.
Alan Winston - SSRL Central Computing
>
>I'll never forget all the crap people gave about toy ray guns when I
>first started going to cons. It was comically annoying to the point
>that I used to cruelly sass the security people if they gave me any
>shit about my obviously fake guns. Of course, nobody ever really
>complained much about all those hideously overweight people weaing
>clothing that was meant for much smaller people. Seeing that is more
>frightening than the prospect of being zapped by a martian ray gun :)
>
First, please be aware that some of us on the newsgroup (me, anyway) think
that it's not automatically funny to make fun of fat people. Second, some
of us (me, anyway) support the right of people to wear what they want,
whether or not we think it's aesthetically pleasing.
That said, I doubt there have been any incidents when hotel staff mistook a fat
person's too-small clothing for a real deadly weapon and called in a SWAT
team, or two fat people suddenly staged a duel in the lobby using too-small
clothing as weapons without regard to the safety of bystanders.
-- Alan
Alan Winston - SSRL Central Computing
>On 9 Jun 2006 07:46:52 -0700, "Psycho Dave"
><psy...@weirdcrap.com> wrote:
>
>>Paul Ciszek wrote:
>>> In article <1149858829....@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>,
>>>
>>> Rather than you making rules about who can wear what at an SF con,
>>> why don't you just quit attending SF cons? I suspect that both you
>>> and the cons will be happier.
>>>
>>
>>Oh, grow up, it's just a joke! :)
>
>No, jokes are funny.
>
>>> BTW, some of us *like* fat chicks in revealing clothing. Go to hell.
>>
>>What makes you think I was talking only about "fat chicks"?
>
>You said so.
Actually, his phrasing was gender-neutral.
-- Alan
Alan Winston - SSRL Central Computing
More relevantly (a) there are non-bears who like bears - the existence of
the movement wouldn't have proved that people like them, only that they
exist - and (b) as I understand it, you can be a bear while being big _or_
fat, you don't need both.
(Incidentally, a couple of years ago my girlfriend and I were walking from
where we'd parked to the Orpheum Theatre in San Francisco, which involved
walking past the front of a hotel. There were a whole lot of people standing
around on the sidewalk, chatting in small groups; quite a lot of them were big
and/or fat and bearded, in assorted variations of casual dress. I had just
enough time to think "Huh, is this the big fat hairy men convention?" when I
noticed that the banner on the bus parked in front of the hotel said "San
Francisco Welcomes Bears", so apparently it _was_ the big fat hairy men
convention. As a big fat hairy man myself, I was amused.)
-- Alan
Psycho Dave
Dude, don't you get it? It was A JOKE. Sheesh, some people are so
sensitive!
Alan Winston - SSRL Central Computing
It's only a funny joke, no harm no foul, if it's okay to make fun of fat people
for being fat. Your joke betrays your underlying attitude. If you meant it to
be be an edgy offensive joke, then you have no business telling people who are
offended to lighten up.
The "it's just a joke" argument really doesn't fly with me. (You don't have
to care what I think, of course.) "It's just a joke" is supposed to excuse
Ann Coulter's suggestion that she wishes Tim McVeigh had blown up the New York
Times building instead of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City; it's an excuse
used by people who don't want to be called on their bullshit. Maybe that's not
what you're doing, but it looks like it to me.
Meantime, want to engage my argument (which you quoted above) about how toy
weapons (in the hands of people behaving stupidly) have in fact caused
dangerous trouble?
-- Alan
Dorothy J Heydt
Psycho Dave <psy...@weirdcrap.com> wrote:
>
>
>Dude, don't you get it? It was A JOKE. Sheesh, some people are so
>sensitive!
No, you don't get it. Jokes about fat aren't funny.
David Dyer-Bennet
> Dude, don't you get it? It was A JOKE. Sheesh, some people are so
> sensitive!
Many people don't think putting others down is funny.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd...@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
Doug Wickstrom
<psy...@weirdcrap.com> wrote:
>Doug Wickstrom wrote:
>> On 9 Jun 2006 07:46:52 -0700, "Psycho Dave"
>> <psy...@weirdcrap.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >What makes you think I was talking only about "fat chicks"?
>>
>> You said so.
>>
>
>Uh, no I didn't. I said "People". Go back and read what I actually
>wrote.
>
>Hehehehe -- remember how you were recounting how fans misunderstood a
>letter?
I didn't say anything about a letter.
Doug Wickstrom
<psy...@weirdcrap.com> wrote:
You still don't get it. Jokes are funny.
Mark Atwood
How many feminists does it take to screw in a lightbulb...
Mark Atwood
> "Psycho Dave" <psy...@weirdcrap.com> writes:
>
> > Dude, don't you get it? It was A JOKE. Sheesh, some people are so
> > sensitive!
>
> Many people don't think putting others down is funny.
Do you have the same reaction to the standard hall costume rule
"Spandex is a privilage, not a right."?
It typically goes right after "No costume is not a costume."...
David Friedman
djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
> In article <1149884095.8...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> Psycho Dave <psy...@weirdcrap.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Dude, don't you get it? It was A JOKE. Sheesh, some people are so
> >sensitive!
>
> No, you don't get it. Jokes about fat aren't funny.
I don't think that's right. Offensive jokes offend--but that doesn't
mean they aren't funny.
At any given time and place, there are some offensive jokes that people
accept--lawyers, for instance, are fair game in America at present--and
others that are not. It seems to be almost as much a matter of fashion
as of principle.
I'm fond of a joke about the difference between tact and courtesy.
Telling it right requires a recognizably negro accent, since the context
of the story is a senior black hotel employee explaining things to a
junior one. I would be reluctant to tell it that way--aside from not
being good at accents--in most current environments. But that doesn't
mean it isn't funny.
David Friedman
Mark Atwood <m...@mark.atwood.name> wrote:
> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
> >
> > No, you don't get it. Jokes about fat aren't funny.
>
> How many feminists does it take to screw in a lightbulb...
Feminists don't?
Nancy Lebovitz
Mark Atwood <m...@mark.atwood.name> wrote:
>David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> writes:
>> "Psycho Dave" <psy...@weirdcrap.com> writes:
>>
>> > Dude, don't you get it? It was A JOKE. Sheesh, some people are so
>> > sensitive!
>>
>> Many people don't think putting others down is funny.
>
>Do you have the same reaction to the standard hall costume rule
>"Spandex is a privilage, not a right."?
Yes. In fact, that rule sparked fat acceptance getting started in fandom.
--
Nancy Lebovitz http://www.nancybuttons.com
http://livejournal.com/users/nancylebov
My two favorite colors are "Oooooh" and "SHINY!".
Seth Breidbart
Dan Kimmel <daniel...@rcn.com> wrote:
>"Seth Breidbart" <se...@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:e6a0cu$3dg$1...@reader2.panix.com...
>> How many people think they were hurt (or risked being killed) when
>> _they_ watched dirty movies?
>
>John Ashcoft
He admits it?
Seth
David Dyer-Bennet
> In article <J0M0y...@kithrup.com>,
> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>
> > In article <1149884095.8...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> > Psycho Dave <psy...@weirdcrap.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >Dude, don't you get it? It was A JOKE. Sheesh, some people are so
> > >sensitive!
> >
> > No, you don't get it. Jokes about fat aren't funny.
>
> I don't think that's right. Offensive jokes offend--but that doesn't
> mean they aren't funny.
That class of joke exists. But I have actually never heard a funny
joke about being fat. And in this particular case, there *was* no
joke -- he just referred to people as fat, and then tried to excuse it
as a joke.
> At any given time and place, there are some offensive jokes that
> people accept--lawyers, for instance, are fair game in America at
> present--and others that are not. It seems to be almost as much a
> matter of fashion as of principle.
Well, lawyers aren't a repressed minority. (I get most of my good
lawyer jokes from my lawyer friends.)
> I'm fond of a joke about the difference between tact and courtesy.
> Telling it right requires a recognizably negro accent, since the context
> of the story is a senior black hotel employee explaining things to a
> junior one. I would be reluctant to tell it that way--aside from not
> being good at accents--in most current environments. But that doesn't
> mean it isn't funny.
Yep. The feminism lightbulb joke is funny, if somewhat edgy in some
environments. I know a funny Polish joke, too.
David Dyer-Bennet
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> writes:
> > "Psycho Dave" <psy...@weirdcrap.com> writes:
> >
> > > Dude, don't you get it? It was A JOKE. Sheesh, some people are so
> > > sensitive!
> >
> > Many people don't think putting others down is funny.
>
> Do you have the same reaction to the standard hall costume rule
> "Spandex is a privilage, not a right."?
I've never seen it expressed as a rule; more as a wish. I've got
personal hot-button issues with dress codes, so I'd find it offensive
as a rule.
Also, costuming is a question of working with a particular body as an
art form. Some combinations don't actually work very well. (But I
can imagine costumes that work very well by playing against the
"rule".)
I don't think that looking ugly is at all a serious imposition on
others, especially since it's a matter of personal taste rather than
an absolute. Dressing up in a ridiculous outfit is its own
punishment.
> It typically goes right after "No costume is not a costume."...
Next thing you know you get people saying "this is a family
convention!", a sentiment I react extremely negatively to.
Jette Goldie
"Dorothy J Heydt" <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote in message
news:J0M0y...@kithrup.com...
> In article <1149884095.8...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> Psycho Dave <psy...@weirdcrap.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>Dude, don't you get it? It was A JOKE. Sheesh, some people are so
>>sensitive!
>
> No, you don't get it. Jokes about fat aren't funny.
>
Neither are jokes about blondes.
--
Jette Goldie
je...@blueyonder.co.uk
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
("reply to" is spamblocked)
Seth Breidbart
Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>In article <1149884095.8...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
>Psycho Dave <psy...@weirdcrap.com> wrote:
>>
>>Dude, don't you get it? It was A JOKE. Sheesh, some people are so
>>sensitive!
>
>No, you don't get it. Jokes about fat aren't funny.
No, you don't get it. Some jokes about anything are funny to some
people. Other jokes are funny to other people.
You can say that _you_ don't find some category of jokes funny. That
doesn't prevent others from finding them funny.
Unless, of course, you claim to be the arbiter of funniness.
Which I find funny.
Seth
Nate Edel
> BTW, some of us *like* fat chicks in revealing clothing. Go to hell.
AOL.
--
Nate Edel http://www.cubiclehermit.com/
"What's the use of yearning for Elysian Fields when you know you can't get
'em, and would only let 'em out on building leases if you had 'em?" (WSG)
Nate Edel
> Doug Wickstrom <nims...@comcast.net> writes:
> >>Paul Ciszek wrote:
> >>> Rather than you making rules about who can wear what at an SF con,
> >>> why don't you just quit attending SF cons? I suspect that both you
> >>> and the cons will be happier.
> >>
> >>Oh, grow up, it's just a joke! :)
> >
> >No, jokes are funny.
> >
> >>> BTW, some of us *like* fat chicks in revealing clothing. Go to hell.
> >>
> >>What makes you think I was talking only about "fat chicks"?
> >
> >You said so.
>
> Actually, his phrasing was gender-neutral.
Which is inclusive of fat chicks/women, in the specific sense that if one
bans or discourages the grossly overweight people in revealing clothing,
that includes the women.
Paul Ciszek
In article <m2wtbqa...@amsu.fallenpegasus.com>,
Mark Atwood <m...@mark.atwood.name> wrote:
>djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>>
>> No, you don't get it. Jokes about fat aren't funny.
>
>How many feminists does it take to screw in a lightbulb...
One.
--
Please reply to: | "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is
pciszek at panix dot com | indistinguishable from malice."
Autoreply is disabled |
Aaron Denney
> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>>
>> No, you don't get it. Jokes about fat aren't funny.
>
> How many feminists does it take to screw in a lightbulb...
Only two, but they have to be rather small.
--
Aaron Denney
-><-
Paul Ciszek
In article <m2slmea...@amsu.fallenpegasus.com>,
Mark Atwood <m...@mark.atwood.name> wrote:
>David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> writes:
>> "Psycho Dave" <psy...@weirdcrap.com> writes:
>>
>> > Dude, don't you get it? It was A JOKE. Sheesh, some people are so
>> > sensitive!
>>
>> Many people don't think putting others down is funny.
>
>Do you have the same reaction to the standard hall costume rule
>"Spandex is a privilage, not a right."?
If that's from the same list of costume rules I saw at my first
Bubonicon, I did find someone on the concom to bitch to about it.
Dorothy J Heydt
Mark Atwood <m...@mark.atwood.name> wrote:
>djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>>
>> No, you don't get it. Jokes about fat aren't funny.
>
>How many feminists does it take to screw in a lightbulb...
Alan Dundes asked that in his folklore class once, and I was the
first among several students to give the canonical answer:
"THAT'S NOT FUNNY!"
My favorite lightbulb joke, however, is the Marxist one, which
even Marxists appear to find funny.*
"How many Marxist revolutionaries does it take to screw in a
proletarian lightbulb?"
"None. A proletarian lightbulb contains the seeds of its own
revolution."
*Ideally, the Marxist will recognize the phrase along about the
time you say "seeds," and groan as you finish the line.
Dorothy J Heydt
David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>
>Also, costuming is a question of working with a particular body as an
>art form. Some combinations don't actually work very well. (But I
>can imagine costumes that work very well by playing against the
>"rule".)
>
>I don't think that looking ugly is at all a serious imposition on
>others, especially since it's a matter of personal taste rather than
>an absolute. Dressing up in a ridiculous outfit is its own
>punishment.
Personally, I think Spandex looks ugly on *everyone,* fat slim
emaciated or muscular. It is an ugly fabric. It looks least
ugly on those with the minimum of bumps (whether fleshy or bony),
but it doesn't make anyone look good.
Nate Edel
> Do you have the same reaction to the standard hall costume rule
> "Spandex is a privilage, not a right."?
>
> It typically goes right after "No costume is not a costume."...
It would seem the two are very different; some might find someone who
exposes exposeable-but-unsightly-to-some fat bits ugly, and ditto do those
same bits covered with spandex, but barring clothing optional places, one
keeps the genitalia (and breasts, if female covered) in public no matter how
sightly or unsightly those bits.
Sea Wasp
> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> writes:
>
>
>>In article <J0M0y...@kithrup.com>,
>> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <1149884095.8...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
>>>Psycho Dave <psy...@weirdcrap.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Dude, don't you get it? It was A JOKE. Sheesh, some people are so
>>>>sensitive!
>>>
>>>No, you don't get it. Jokes about fat aren't funny.
>>
>>I don't think that's right. Offensive jokes offend--but that doesn't
>>mean they aren't funny.
>
>
> That class of joke exists. But I have actually never heard a funny
> joke about being fat.
Not even Wierd Al Yankovic's "FAT"?
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/seawasp/
Dorothy J Heydt
Nate Edel <arch...@sfchat.org> wrote:
>Mark Atwood <m...@mark.atwood.name> wrote:
>> Do you have the same reaction to the standard hall costume rule
>> "Spandex is a privilage, not a right."?
>>
>> It typically goes right after "No costume is not a costume."...
>
>It would seem the two are very different; some might find someone who
>exposes exposeable-but-unsightly-to-some fat bits ugly, and ditto do those
>same bits covered with spandex, but barring clothing optional places, one
>sightly or unsightly those bits.
And whether or not one admits the (even theoretical) possibility
of a sightly breast or genital.
"Is there anything in the Cosmos sillier-looking than an
undressed male? I wonder what the Creatrix was thinking of."
-- Adrienne Martine-Barnes, _The Dragon Rises_
Nancy Lebovitz
Just to be fair, how many libertarians does it take to screw in a
lightbulb?
None. The market will take care of it.
Alan Winston - SSRL Central Computing
>David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> writes:
>>
>> > Dude, don't you get it? It was A JOKE. Sheesh, some people are so
>> > sensitive!
>>
>> Many people don't think putting others down is funny.
>
>"Spandex is a privilage, not a right."?
>
>It typically goes right after "No costume is not a costume."...
(Those are, incidentally, "Rotsler's Rules", and were originated for
masquerade costumes, not hall costumes. And are better taken, I think,
as guidelines or hints for what's likely to please audiences than as
statements of law. 'Coz, darn it, Spandex _is_ a right, but it isn't
a right that everybody's gonna like it.)
-- Alan
Alan Winston - SSRL Central Computing
>In article <J0M0y...@kithrup.com>,
> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>
>> In article <1149884095.8...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
>> Psycho Dave <psy...@weirdcrap.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >Dude, don't you get it? It was A JOKE. Sheesh, some people are so
>> >sensitive!
>>
>> No, you don't get it. Jokes about fat aren't funny.
>
>I don't think that's right. Offensive jokes offend--but that doesn't
>mean they aren't funny.
(And it doesn't mean they _are_. You can be offensive and not funny, offensive
and funny, funny and not offensive, not funny and not offensive.)
And the truth table works out that way, too. "That was a joke", or even "that
was funny" doesn't mean "that wasn't offensive" and that's one of the
reasons why "that was a joke, lighten up already" isn't a valid defense.
>
>At any given time and place, there are some offensive jokes that people
>accept--lawyers, for instance, are fair game in America at present--and
>others that are not. It seems to be almost as much a matter of fashion
>as of principle.
True. Although I'm actually kind of cranky about lawyer jokes, and pnh, back
when he still posted here, would usually jump immediately on jokes based on
the idea that all politicians necessarily suck.
But jokes of this kind - jokes where you simply identify the members of a class
it's okay to shit on and shit on them, in ways that can be
interchangeable - "What do you call 7 [members of disfavored class] at the
bottom of the sea? A good start" - aren't witty or clever, and are fairly
unlikely to be funny.
-- Alan
Alan Winston - SSRL Central Computing
>In article <m2wtbqa...@amsu.fallenpegasus.com>,
> Mark Atwood <m...@mark.atwood.name> wrote:
>
>> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>> >
>> > No, you don't get it. Jokes about fat aren't funny.
>>
>> How many feminists does it take to screw in a lightbulb...
>
>Feminists don't?
No, that's "how many celibates ..."
Or "How many Northern Californians."
The answer to the joke Mark is referring to is "That's not funny!"
-- Alan
Alan Winston - SSRL Central Computing
That is your right as an individual.
I have seen some actual people, in person, who looked pretty darn good to me
in Spandex/Lycra blends.
-- Alan
Alan Winston - SSRL Central Computing
>Alan Winston - SSRL Central Computing <win...@ssrl.slac.stanford.edu> wrote:
>> Doug Wickstrom <nims...@comcast.net> writes:
>> >On 9 Jun 2006 07:46:52 -0700, "Psycho Dave" wrote:
>> >>Paul Ciszek wrote:
>> >>> Rather than you making rules about who can wear what at an SF con,
>> >>> why don't you just quit attending SF cons? I suspect that both you
>> >>> and the cons will be happier.
>> >>
>> >>Oh, grow up, it's just a joke! :)
>> >
>> >No, jokes are funny.
>> >
>> >>> BTW, some of us *like* fat chicks in revealing clothing. Go to hell.
>> >>
>> >>What makes you think I was talking only about "fat chicks"?
>> >
>> >You said so.
>>
>> Actually, his phrasing was gender-neutral.
>
>Which is inclusive of fat chicks/women, in the specific sense that if one
>bans or discourages the grossly overweight people in revealing clothing,
>that includes the women.
Your argument is correct in that PD's position gores your ox even if you
only care about looking at fat women. However, the actual dialogue:
"What makes you think I was talking only about 'fat chicks'?"
"You said so".
No, he wasn't talking _only_ about 'fat chicks', and he didn't say so.
(He's still wrong, he's just not wrong in this exact way.)
-- Alan
David Friedman
arch...@sfchat.org (Nate Edel) wrote:
> Alan Winston - SSRL Central Computing <win...@ssrl.slac.stanford.edu> wrote:
> > Doug Wickstrom <nims...@comcast.net> writes:
> > >On 9 Jun 2006 07:46:52 -0700, "Psycho Dave" wrote:
> > >>Paul Ciszek wrote:
> > >>> Rather than you making rules about who can wear what at an SF con,
> > >>> why don't you just quit attending SF cons? I suspect that both you
> > >>> and the cons will be happier.
> > >>
> > >>Oh, grow up, it's just a joke! :)
> > >
> > >No, jokes are funny.
> > >
> > >>> BTW, some of us *like* fat chicks in revealing clothing. Go to hell.
> > >>
> > >>What makes you think I was talking only about "fat chicks"?
> > >
> > >You said so.
> >
> > Actually, his phrasing was gender-neutral.
>
> Which is inclusive of fat chicks/women, in the specific sense that if one
> bans or discourages the grossly overweight people in revealing clothing,
> that includes the women.
But "You said so" was a response to "What makes you think I was talking
only about "fat chicks"."
And it was a false statement, as you can see by looking at the text
above. So far as I can tell--I might have missed it--Doug hasn't yet
conceded that what he said wasn't true.
Dorothy J Heydt
Bill Rotsler himself, after all, was not what you'd call skinny.
And I never saw him in Spandex, thank heaven.
Alan Winston - SSRL Central Computing
>Mark Atwood <m...@mark.atwood.name> wrote:
>> Do you have the same reaction to the standard hall costume rule
>> "Spandex is a privilage, not a right."?
>>
>> It typically goes right after "No costume is not a costume."...
>
>exposes exposeable-but-unsightly-to-some fat bits ugly, and ditto do those
>same bits covered with spandex, but barring clothing optional places, one
>sightly or unsightly those bits.
It happens that at my first Worldcon (LAcon, 1972), the Masquerade included at
least one woman whose costume consisted entirely of blue paint and a wig, and
I seem to recall a Black Queen from Barbarella who flashed breasts at the
audience. I was 12. This made a powerful impression on me.
(At one point there was some discussion of having a "Most Naked Lady" award.)
These points are different, I acknowledge, but both arose in response to
stuff that was unlikely to win awards in masquerades.
-- Alan
Nate Edel
> Just to be fair, how many libertarians does it take to screw in a
> lightbulb?
>
> None. The market will take care of it.
I've heard that joke about economists, rather than libertarians.
Dorothy J Heydt
And the relevant phrase in your statement is "to me." As the
relevant phrase in mine was "Personally, I think."
Alan Winston - SSRL Central Computing
Okay, so he wasn't a hypocrite.
We've been around this block about a million times before. I saw Bill Rotsler
in swim trunks; that exposed rather more than all-over Spandex would. I
somehow managed to bear up under the strain.
-- Alan
Alan Winston - SSRL Central Computing
Okey-doke. (We might be in vehement agreement after all; I was reading the
"Personally, I think" as applying to the sentence it was in rather than to
everything in the whole paragraph.)
-- Alan