Review of MOC-11
Kelly Lockhart
Yes, I went. Herewith is a rather lengthy review of my one day at MOC-11.
Mike Dillson had reserved a room at the con hotel and with the culinary
skills of his wife (who runs the excellent Consuite at Chattacon) decided
to put out a nice spread of food and hold a "Welcome to Atlanta" party for
MOC.
I got to the hotel around 3:00 in the afternoon and helped carry in
various boxes of foodstuffs to the room and then spent about half an
hour helping to set up before we were overwhelmed with eager volunteers.
Seeing that my services were no longer needed, and after having nearly
ruined the punch <wry grin>, I decided to go get a look at the con and see
who was there. So in the company of several people, we went in search of
the con.
To understand the situation, you first much picture a hotel with ten
stories and nearly 1,000 rooms. Centered inside the hotel is a very large
room with a retractable roof nearly foor stories above the sizeable
swimming pool that dominated the room.
One would think that with such an inviting setup, that there would be a
number of swimmers, especially since it was a lovely warm day today and
the pool was open. Surprisingly, I saw about ten people total in the
entire pool area. After walking around a bit, I quickly realized that
there was practically no one at the hotel, or if they were, they were
waiting for the evening to come out and be seen (which later proved
somewhat to be the truth).
Wandering back to the room we discovered the first "incident." Roland had
decided that all of our room party flyers, which said "Welcome to Atlanta,
MOC," should be torn down. Mike Dillson confronted Roland with this, and
I'll let him give the details of that conversation which I only heard
second-hand.
It was by far not the first incident with Roland.
The problem of advertising the party was solved in two rather humorous
ways. First of all, several of us (including a.f.c. poster Paul Cashman)
decided to go swimming and brought along a huge inflatable beach ball
which we had written "Dragon*Con Party - Room 379" all over in indelible
ink. The other solution was to tape party flyers to the backs of people
and have them walk around the hotel, like the sandwhich board men of the
past.
I spent the next several hours in the pool having a wonderful time and
getting some good exercise. With the aid of the beachball and a game of
"keep the ball in the air," we attracted a nice crowd of people. It was a
very enjoyable way to spend the afternoon in the company of some very nice
people. As a whole, I have to say that I enjoy spending time with fans
moreso than most any other group of people.
With the sun setting, it was time to change back into regular clothes and
see how the party was shaping up. I got back to the room to find it
jampacked with con people, all of whom seemed to be having a very good
time. We traded some really awful jokes and talked a lot about Dragon*Con
(which starts this Wednesday evening - egad!).
Feeling a bit restless and a bit crowded, I decided to head over to the
hotel bar and see who was there. Much to my delight, I ran into Fong
Dong, a good friend (and former Atlanta Fantasy Fair board member - an
important fact that will be of note later in this review). Fong was
buying, so we sat around for several hours catching up on things and
having a rather lengthy discussion of the state of fandom and things of
that nature. He had heard some of the background of what has been
happening here in this newsgroup and was curious (as many people were) to
see what Roland would do when he finally saw me there at the hotel.
Well, we found out very quickly. Another AFF borad member, Roger, came up
and invited us down to a room right off the pool area. Before we even
entered the room Roland, in the company of his partner (a women whose name
I have never learned, since we have never been introduced), confronted us
by screaming, "Get the fuck out of here!" and grabbing me by the arm.
I very quickly shook my arm loose and told him not to touch me again or I
would have him arrested. He then repeated his demand that I get the "fuck
out of here" while his partner added that "this is a private function."
He then repeated the same demand to Fong and Roger. I told them that they
had no legal right to kick me out of a private room and that as long as I
didn't attend any of their con functions in any of the rooms they had
rented, I was within my legal rights. With that, Fong, Roger and I
returned to the bar (having to wade through a large crowd of people who
had been attracted by Roland's screaming).
Now, remember how Roland has often accused Dragon*Con of "destroying"
other conventions and has mentioned Atlanta Fantasy Fair several times.
He claims to be a friend of the convention. Fong and Roger were both AFF
board members and people Roland knew. They were, needless to say, very
upset with his behaviour. Fong left shortly thereafter, in fact, and went
home.
It was at this time that I learned from the con security chief that
someone had reported seeing a person meeting my exact description (except
for hair color - the suspect was blond, I have reddish brown hair) going
around the hotel unscrewing lightbulbs. It was easily confirmed that I
had spent the last two hours in the bar and that whoever made the report
not only was not very honest, but colorblind as well. After this was
explained to the security chief, I heard nothing more about this incident.
The only other thing of interest to this newsgroup that happened was about
an hour latter while I was standing just outside the bar and talking
computers with several people. Out of the corner of my eye, I saw someone
pointing towards me from the top of a staircase. I then noticed Roland
and what I can only describe as his "posse" come up the stairs and proceed
to stand about five feet behind me and make all sorts of juvenile comments
like "There's the troublemaker," "Yeah, that's the passhole," and "Look
how tough he thinks he is with his arms folded like that." I later
learned that one of the people was happliy videotaping my back (which
brings an interesting observation from Roland's actions at ROC - Roland
does not like to be videotaped, but he seems to have no qualms about
videotaping anyone else, with or without their knowledge or consent).
I finally tired of his silly little game and walked back into the bar with
the group of people I was talking with, one of which interestingly enough
turned out to be a member of the con security staff. His reaction to the
whole incident was to tear off his wristband (MOC uses wristbands instead
of nametag badges) in disgust and resign from staff on the spot.
Finally, around 1:00 in the morning I had my last drink in the bar, said
goodbye to everyone I knew, and went home.
An interesting evening, to say the least.
Oh, and one final interesting note - I got to meet Ryan a/k/a "politico."
He is trying to get his plane reservation changed so he can stay here in
Atlanta through to Dragon*Con and asked me if I had any crash space at my
house. I gave him my phone number and told him I'd be happy to put him up
if his reservations could be changed. He looks to be an interesting
person, although I didn't get very much time to speak to him.
-- Kelly Lockhart
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| kel...@cris.com http://www.cris.com/~kellyl |
| k.loc...@genie.com Genie SFRT1 Category 38 Topic 4 |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Gary Farber
Kelly Lockhart (Kel...@cris.com) wrote:
<gulp>
: (MOC uses wristbands instead
: of nametag badges) in disgust and resign from staff on the spot.
How does anyone know who anyone is, then, save by personal familiarity?
Thanks for the report, of course.
--
-- Gary Farber gfa...@panix.com
Copyright (c) 1996 Brooklyn, NY, USA
John P. Miller
On 16 Jun 1996 07:38:07 GMT, Kel...@cris.com (Kelly Lockhart) wrote:
>Yes, I went. Herewith is a rather lengthy review of my one day at MOC-11.
>
[report snipped]
ROTFL!
And to think, I missed that! Maybe you'll get to return the favour if
Roland shows up at D*C next weekend.
0
0 0 Ladc...@ix.netcom.com
// John P. Miller T.I.K.K.
//_________________________________________________
<*>========< _________________________________________________>
\\ Shadow Players
\\ Stage Combat Group
0 0 "Potest esse nur unus"
0
John P. Miller
On Mon, 17 Jun 1996 18:18:33 -0500, poli...@wil.net wrote:
[snip]
>I have to ask you and everyone else to serious
>rethink the way you've been handling this and work to find a course of
>action that will bring this to a halt.
While I agree that work is needed to bring this to a halt, why should
one party over another be responsible for offering the olive branch?
I'm not trying to start anything here, but everyone involved has to
agree to cease hostilities or it's going to continue. You can't just
ask one side to blindly capitulate to the other or everything you've
ever said and believed in becomes null and void because you've
compromised yourself to end the conflict.
This is why peace talks take so long.
poli...@wil.net
Sadly, I wasn't able to get my reservation changed and couldn't get out of
work, so I'm back home, though I'm going to keep trying to get out of work
and try to make it. I sadly was off in another part of the hotel (probably
playing Duke Nukem upstairs in the Kompu Kombat(TM) room), so I missed the
initial fireworks that you described until I ran into everyone at the reg
area before I went up to the party. To say it's obvious that you were
asking for trouble just by showing up is an understatment, but it was good
to meet with you guys and with Ed. If you go on a fishing expidition, you
shouldn't complain about getting bitten. The whole posters on the back
thing and the beach ball did not make my job or Ed's apparent effort at
trying to call a truce (I learned that at least half the DCon directors
were under the understanding that the purpose of the party was to be an
olive branch, not a hickory stick). Please don't pretend that you weren't
trying to provoke Roland, as you know how charged this situation is and
how personally Roland is taking all this. Any other con would love to have
DragonCon people there promoting and giving out free food, but given this
situation, it seems not have not been the wisest set of choices. I don't
excuse Roland's actions in tearing down your posters in HIS convetion
(though he has the right to do that as a businessman) or in by laying a
hand on ANYONE (I really don't like violence) if such did indeed happen (I
didn't see it so I have to say that). If the intention of throwing the
party was indeed an olive branch on Ed's part, then I commend his
willingness to try and have told him as much, but you really have no
reason to cry foul about Roland's reaction as this has been going on
forever and it's obvious that it's known how to push Roland's buttons. I
enjoyed the chance to meet and speak with everyone, though Paul and Ed are
the only ones I spoke with long enough to match face to name, so I'm
blanking on just who are are and what I spoke with you about. I also told
Ed that I feel that the source of the problem here is misperceptions. As
long as Roland perceives you to be a threat, he is going to react that
way. As long as you perceive him to be paranoid and react to him that way,
then things are not going to change. I'm past trying to keep the puzzle of
the past together. I'm more interested in how both sides can work to bring
this situation to closure. Your group has the power to not further provoke
Roland by leaving him be and just not responding to anything else he
posts, because he's just saying the same stuff over and over. If there are
indeed outside players egging this thing on as Paul suggested, then it's
up to your group to find these people and put a stop to it. Roland wants
to let this go, but his beliefs and his pride will not allow him to ignore
anything he thinks is a jab or slight against MOC or the folks that
support him. If it were up to me, the fact that there have been 3 MOCs
held in less than 11 months would be enough for me to declare victory or
the "huge ugly DragonCon cash(man) machine" and move on. Both cons are
very different experiences, which I why I can support both and want to see
both events co-exist, but I have to ask you and everyone else to serious
rethink the way you've been handling this and work to find a course of
action that will bring this to a halt.
politico
Kelly Lockhart
John P. Miller (Ladc...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: >Yes, I went. Herewith is a rather lengthy review of my one day at MOC-11.
: >
: [report snipped]
: ROTFL!
: And to think, I missed that! Maybe you'll get to return the favour if
: Roland shows up at D*C next weekend.
If Roland shows up at Dragon*Con, I will extend to him the same courtesy
that I extend to any other person attending the convention.
Mark Fingerman
Politico
Your message is well written and thought out, but there are some comments I feel are
required.
poli...@wil.net wrote:
>
> Sadly, I wasn't able to get my reservation changed and couldn't get out of
> work, so I'm back home, though I'm going to keep trying to get out of work
> and try to make it. I sadly was off in another part of the hotel (probably
> playing Duke Nukem upstairs in the Kompu Kombat(TM) room), so I missed the
> initial fireworks that you described until I ran into everyone at the reg
> area before I went up to the party. To say it's obvious that you were
> asking for trouble just by showing up is an understatment, but it was good
> to meet with you guys and with Ed.
Actually, we do not feel it was obvious. The idea was to have a party and let people
know about Dragon*Con. If you had been able to see them, you would have noted all our
party announcements said first, "Welcome to MOC."
If you go on a fishing expidition, you
> shouldn't complain about getting bitten. The whole posters on the back
> thing and the beach ball did not make my job or Ed's apparent effort at
> trying to call a truce
Calling the effort apparent almost strikes me as damning with faint praise. I must
plead guilty to having had the idea of the posters-on-the-back. I was one of the
billboards. The idea came to me when we learned from several staff members that they
had been instructed to remove our flyers and no one elses. Was the response less than
concilliatory...maybe. But I, and I believe others, felt insulted. We went to the area
where registration was being held to promote the party as best we could. Tactful?
Maybe not. But when I was approached by convention security and asked to leave the
area, we did so. We were told that Mr. Castle had given us 15 minutes to see if we were
going to register. When I did not, I was told he considered it loitering and were asked
to leave. We did without argument.
>(I learned that at least half the DCon directors
> were under the understanding that the purpose of the party was to be an
> olive branch, not a hickory stick). Please don't pretend that you weren't
> trying to provoke Roland, as you know how charged this situation is and
> how personally Roland is taking all this.
The other directors understood correctly. That was the purpose of the party. No
pretense.
>Any other con would love to have
> DragonCon people there promoting and giving out free food, but given this
> situation, it seems not have not been the wisest set of choices.
>I don't excuse Roland's actions in tearing down your posters in HIS convetion
Thank you for the voice of reason
> (though he has the right to do that as a businessman)
Almost, but that is a question of ethics. Restraint of trade and all that stuff.
>or in by laying a
> hand on ANYONE (I really don't like violence) if such did indeed happen (I
> didn't see it so I have to say that).
I agree. Only heard about it second hand.
>If the intention of throwing the party was indeed an olive branch on Ed's part, then I commend his willingness to try and have told him as much, but you really have no
> reason to cry foul about Roland's reaction as this has been going on
> forever and it's obvious that it's known how to push Roland's buttons. I
> enjoyed the chance to meet and speak with everyone, though Paul and Ed are
> the only ones I spoke with long enough to match face to name, so I'm
> blanking on just who are are and what I spoke with you about. I also told
> Ed that I feel that the source of the problem here is misperceptions. As
> long as Roland perceives you to be a threat, he is going to react that
> way. As long as you perceive him to be paranoid and react to him that way,
> then things are not going to change. I'm past trying to keep the puzzle of
> the past together. I'm more interested in how both sides can work to bring
> this situation to closure. Your group has the power to not further provoke
> Roland by leaving him be and just not responding to anything else he
> posts, because he's just saying the same stuff over and over. If there are
> indeed outside players egging this thing on as Paul suggested, then it's
> up to your group to find these people and put a stop to it. Roland wants
> to let this go, but his beliefs and his pride will not allow him to ignore
> anything he thinks is a jab or slight against MOC or the folks that
> support him.
I met any number of people who said the spread of food was better than the one at Rock
of Ages. A LOT of time and money went into the preparation (hats off to Z lady).
Holding a great party would seem to be an odd type of jab.
>If it were up to me, the fact that there have been 3 MOCs
> held in less than 11 months would be enough for me to declare victory or
> the "huge ugly DragonCon cash(man) machine" and move on. Both cons are
> very different experiences, which I why I can support both and want to see
> both events co-exist, but I have to ask you and everyone else to serious
> rethink the way you've been handling this and work to find a course of
> action that will bring this to a halt.
>
> politico
If I met you at the party, I was not introduced to you by your 'net name. There was one
concern I had at MOC. We were informed (by MOC staff) that there was to be a room party
contest. They went down to the registration area to sign up the D*C party. She was
told there was no contest.
If Mr. Castle were to hold a party at D*C, I firmly believe he would be welcomed. I
know for a fact that Mr. Kramer gives tables (free) to other conventions to promote
themselves. I am convinced that a table would be there for MOC if requested.
If MOC were to post party flyers, I know that Mr. Dillson would instruct everyone on his
security staff to make sure those flyers were left in tact and to report anyone removing
them the same as anyone causing damage to the premises.
I feel strongly the party was exactly what it seemed. An olive branch. I know that Mr.
Kramer would like to see all this come to an end. It is my fervent hope that Mr. Castle
and his advisors will see it that way as well.
I will add my compliments to the MOC staffers, the ones I met, for the courtesy they
extended me. I know some of them are on D*C staff and I know they had a difficult
position. They handled it well, trying to avoid any confrontation. Hats off to 'em.
Here is hoping for peace in our time,
Mark Fingerman
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The problem with people who have no vices is that generally you can be
pretty sure they're going to have some pretty annoying virtues.
- Elizabeth Taylor
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Paul W. Cashman
Kel...@cris.com (Kelly Lockhart) writes:
>Yes, I went. Herewith is a rather lengthy review of my one day at MOC-11.
I was there two days, kinda-sorta. I didn't really intend to stay
overnight, but, well, sometimes you hate to bug out on fascinating
conversations.....
>I got to the hotel around 3:00 in the afternoon and helped carry in
>various boxes of foodstuffs to the room and then spent about half an
>hour helping to set up before we were overwhelmed with eager volunteers.
At about this time I and a few others set out to post party flyers. I
was fairly certain that they wouldn't last long, and I was right; they
were torn down as soon as they were spied by MOC personnel (although I
learned later that at least two security folks declined to follow that
instruction). At one point on the way some guys noticed what we were
doing and said "We should tell Roland" and "We should take you out to
the parking lot and kneecap you." Charming. Since these comments
were said in a Schwartzenegger accent I interpreted them as a joke and
shouldered on.
>To understand the situation, you first much picture a hotel with ten
>stories and nearly 1,000 rooms. Centered inside the hotel is a very large
>room with a retractable roof nearly foor stories above the sizeable
>swimming pool that dominated the room.
"Ten feet deep! Cool!"
--me, upon seeing the pool. In truth it was closer to eleven feet.
>One would think that with such an inviting setup, that there would be a
>number of swimmers, especially since it was a lovely warm day today and
>the pool was open. Surprisingly, I saw about ten people total in the
>entire pool area. After walking around a bit, I quickly realized that
>there was practically no one at the hotel, or if they were, they were
>waiting for the evening to come out and be seen (which later proved
>somewhat to be the truth).
To be fair, at a busy con you wouldn't expect to see too many swimmers
since they'd hopefully be at panels.
>Wandering back to the room we discovered the first "incident." Roland had
>decided that all of our room party flyers, which said "Welcome to Atlanta,
>MOC," should be torn down. Mike Dillson confronted Roland with this, and
>I'll let him give the details of that conversation which I only heard
>second-hand.
I heard about that, but also secondhand, so I'll defer.
>The problem of advertising the party was solved in two rather humorous
>ways. First of all, several of us (including a.f.c. poster Paul Cashman)
>decided to go swimming and brought along a huge inflatable beach ball
>which we had written "Dragon*Con Party - Room 379" all over in indelible
>ink.
The idea may have been John Bunnell's. The beachball was.
> The other solution was to tape party flyers to the backs of people
>and have them walk around the hotel, like the sandwhich board men of the
>past.
"The end of the world is nigh!"
>I spent the next several hours in the pool having a wonderful time and
>getting some good exercise. With the aid of the beachball and a game of
>"keep the ball in the air," we attracted a nice crowd of people. It was a
>very enjoyable way to spend the afternoon in the company of some very nice
>people. As a whole, I have to say that I enjoy spending time with fans
>moreso than most any other group of people.
I've since been informed that Roland asked a security staffer 3 times
to take the ball away from us. Apparently, said staffer wisely
declined.
>With the sun setting, it was time to change back into regular clothes and
>see how the party was shaping up. I got back to the room to find it
>jampacked with con people, all of whom seemed to be having a very good
>time. We traded some really awful jokes and talked a lot about Dragon*Con
>(which starts this Wednesday evening - egad!).
Having the schedule large-printed and hanging on the wall was a Good
Thing.
>Feeling a bit restless and a bit crowded, I decided to head over to the
>hotel bar and see who was there. Much to my delight, I ran into Fong
>Dong, a good friend (and former Atlanta Fantasy Fair board member - an
>important fact that will be of note later in this review). Fong was
>buying,
Damn! Missed out on free hotel-bar soda!
>It was at this time that I learned from the con security chief that
>someone had reported seeing a person meeting my exact description (except
>for hair color - the suspect was blond, I have reddish brown hair) going
>around the hotel unscrewing lightbulbs. It was easily confirmed that I
>had spent the last two hours in the bar and that whoever made the report
>not only was not very honest, but colorblind as well. After this was
>explained to the security chief, I heard nothing more about this incident.
The hotel security camera (for such it was) footage was subsequently
examined. Nope, it wasn't Kelly. From the description, I have a
theory. Scratch that; make it a hypothesis. I'll let it incubate for
awhile.
>Oh, and one final interesting note - I got to meet Ryan a/k/a "politico."
>He is trying to get his plane reservation changed so he can stay here in
>Atlanta through to Dragon*Con and asked me if I had any crash space at my
>house. I gave him my phone number and told him I'd be happy to put him up
>if his reservations could be changed. He looks to be an interesting
>person, although I didn't get very much time to speak to him.
I did, actually, and I'll add that Dana/politico is a hoopy frood
indeed. He really knows where his towel is. I must conclude he was
unable to convince Delta to change his return ticket, and I'm really
sorry, because he was cool and fun to hang around with.
I was never messed with by Roland except for the later-discovered
Silent Battle of the Beach-Ball, but I can report two incidents.
The first one happened later in the evening when a friend of mine who
had been swimming and came back down to the pool to talk to us was
told that he couldn't talk to us without a convention wristband, and
that the pool area was off-limits. (!)
The second was in talking to a guy at the pool, Cole, who had traveled all
the way from Texas for the $1,000 Battletech tournament, which cost
$50 plus the $25 MOC attendance price. Apparently there were only 8
entries, and the prize was cancelled. I don't know if the tournament
was ever conducted for lower stakes or if the guy, who was 19 but
looked 17, got his money back. Whichever way the resolution -- if
there was one -- went, Cole was clearly not too happy, and was
basically making the best of it in a resigned way. "Yea, -I'll- be
back," he finally remarked, his voice dripping with sarcasm....
I felt really sorry for him, but there wasn't much I could do except
let him borrow a diving mask....
A couple of observations: If I'd been on the scene and if food hadn't
been cooking already for hours, I'd have probably called off the party
when I realized the con attendance wasn't more than 300.
Late in the weekend a multi-page flier appeared entitled "Fandumb,"
basically a parody of Roland's "Fandom" progress reports. None of us
D*C folks there had ever seen it before, and I'm positive it wasn't
done by anyone at director level or higher. At first we were wonderin
who'd done it with the thought of congratulating them (the way they
simulated Roland's old habit of sometimes changing point-size in
mid-sentence was pretty astute), but as the night wore on I realized
that whoever did this was no friend to either D*C or MOC, and was
serving only to drive an even deeper wedge between the two cons and
concomms.
An anti-Dragon*Con multi-page flier was also present (I've variously
heard it was on the freebie table and/or included in a new
registrant's packet). Not too humorous, and really, some if it was
plain silly. I think Roland could have done a better job, and the
style of humor didn't seem like his, in a subtle way. I begin to
wonder if there isn't a third force at work here, striving to further
fracture the two cons apart.
I know of one instance where someone attended the D*C room party,
spoke to Ed about arranging a comp. membership (and other
pleasantries), then went downstairs and promptly reported to Roland
"They're no friends of yours up there, Roland! They're backstabbing
you!" Although this is far from a confirmation, I can only regard
this as supporting data for my hypothesis mentioned earlier. It's not
a "theory" yet, else I'd publish it. :)
--
+---- Paul W. Cashman van...@crl.com www.crl.com/~vanyel ---+
| Publications Director Charter member, |
| Dragon*Con '96, June 20-23 T.I.K.K. |
+---- "Let the Light Surround You" Dream Theater ----------+
Ed Dravecky III
Kelly Lockhart (Kel...@cris.com) wrote:
> Before we even entered the room Roland, in the company of his
> partner (a women whose name I have never learned, since we have
> never been introduced), confronted us by screaming, "Get the fuck
> out of here!" and grabbing me by the arm.
Yet another reason for large, clearly readable nametags at cons...
I am just *dying* to hear Roland's d/e/l/u/s/i/o/n/a/l/ take on
these encounters.
NOTE TO SELF: Bring videocamera to all Southern cons as a form of
Roland-repellent. If it fails, use to tape "the truth" spilling
from his lips. <smirk>
--
Yet another message from Ed Dravecky III (dshe...@netcom.com)
Watch Due South! // Save MST! // Beef! It's What's For Dinner!
Stephen Stevers
r...@negia.net (Janine Bell) wrote:
>I wasn't planning on getting on this newsgroup and saying all this stuff until
>I read Paul Cashman's article. Keep in mind, I am just an observer, calling
>things like I see them.
Since she is declaring "observer" status it should be noted for
everyone reading her posting that the mail id she used "r...@negia.net"
is the net account that our dear friend Catwoman used for her web
page. Also if you browse //www/negia.net/~rgb you will see that a MOC
page is also on this account. So knowing the "neutrality" of this
"observer" please take her posting with the grain of salt that it
deserves.
>After getting over the initial shock of reading this "literature," I decided
>to try and find out who the "gentleman" who distributed them was. I came upon
>a friend named Roger Benson who pointed the man out to me. Roger identified
>him as Paul Cashman. I made a mental note, and here I am.
I'm sure that as well known as Paul is in Georgia convention circles
he would just walk up and distribute the flyer in question without
worrying about being recognized. Yea right... try again.
>Mr. Cashman, I am disgusted and sickened by your lack of tact. Your above
>statement that none of the Dragon Con people had ever seen "Fandumb" before
>was, in my opinion, a blatant lie since I saw you distributing them with my
>own two eyes. I think you have a lot of nerve broadcasting such bull to all
>of these people. It's unfortunate that many people are foolish enough to
>believe you.
Of course you are applying the same logic to Roland's postings and
attacks, etc against everyone else right??
>I have been to Dragon Con before, and as of now, I can promise that I will
>never attend it again, nor will I ever recommend that any of my friends or
>acqaintences attend. This feud with Roland has gotten out of hand, and your
>side is playing dirty pool.
>Janine Bell
And how are you connected to MOC?? Are you on staff or what??
Or are you just a "concerned citizen"?
James Morrow
>The problem of advertising the party was solved in two rather humorous
>ways. First of all, several of us (including a.f.c. poster Paul Cashman)
>decided to go swimming and brought along a huge inflatable beach ball
>which we had written "Dragon*Con Party - Room 379" all over in indelible
>ink. The other solution was to tape party flyers to the backs of people
>and have them walk around the hotel, like the sandwhich board men of the
>past.
On the surface this may be funny. You know how Roland feels about
Dragon Con. Why do this to the Man at His Con?
James Morrow
>
>
J. Andrew Parris
Aaaaarrrrggghhhh! I hate my server... Here it is just two days after
MOC, and I didn't get Kelly's original post about the con. Could
somebody repost it...? All I got was Gary's response... ;-(
-Az (If I'm going to DragonCon, does that make me a Kronie?)
Gary Farber (gfa...@panix.com) wrote:
: Kelly Lockhart (Kel...@cris.com) wrote:
: <gulp>
: : (MOC uses wristbands instead
: : of nametag badges) in disgust and resign from staff on the spot.
: <swallow>
: How does anyone know who anyone is, then, save by personal familiarity?
: Thanks for the report, of course.
: --
: -- Gary Farber gfa...@panix.com
: Copyright (c) 1996 Brooklyn, NY, USA
--
Remember...no matter where you go...there you are.
Michael Dillson
ach...@vnet.net (James Morrow) wrote:
:>
:>>The problem of advertising the party was solved in two rather humorous
:>>ways. First of all, several of us (including a.f.c. poster Paul Cashman)
:>>decided to go swimming and brought along a huge inflatable beach ball
:>>which we had written "Dragon*Con Party - Room 379" all over in indelible
:>>ink. The other solution was to tape party flyers to the backs of people
:>>and have them walk around the hotel, like the sandwhich board men of the
:>>past.
:> On the surface this may be funny. You know how Roland feels about
:>Dragon Con. Why do this to the Man at His Con?
:>
:>
:>James Morrow
:>>
:>
:>>
:>
Well, James, we'd spent a couple of hundred dollars on party stuff for
the party. Should we just pack it all up and go home? Roland wasn't
letting us post signs. I assume people at MOC couldn't telepathically
determine that there was a party.
What would you suggest we could have done?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Dillson Atlanta, GA dil...@mindspring.com
All content copyright by writer and may not used without permission.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Janine Bell
>Late in the weekend a multi-page flier appeared entitled "Fandumb,"
>basically a parody of Roland's "Fandom" progress reports. None of us
>D*C folks there had ever seen it before, and I'm positive it wasn't
>done by anyone at director level or higher. At first we were wonderin
>who'd done it with the thought of congratulating them (the way they
>simulated Roland's old habit of sometimes changing point-size in
>mid-sentence was pretty astute), but as the night wore on I realized
>that whoever did this was no friend to either D*C or MOC, and was
>serving only to drive an even deeper wedge between the two cons and
>concomms.
I have been an observer of the goings-on at alt.fandom.cons for a while now,
and I finally decided to put in my two cents. First of all, for the record, I
was at MOC-11 and had a wonderful time. There were plenty of parties to go to
and a lot of fun people there. Friday night the Adventurers from Hell had an
awesome party with lots of booze. Practically everyone was there. The Smiley
Face party had a bartender to die for. As for Saturday, I didn't really go to
the parties. I was in the con suite where they were playing music and having
a butt shaking contest.
I wasn't planning on getting on this newsgroup and saying all this stuff until
I read Paul Cashman's article. Keep in mind, I am just an observer, calling
things like I see them.
Saturday when I went down to the flyer tables, I saw a man dressed in a
tie-dyed tee-shirt with scraggly hair who was putting some papers on the
table. These papers were actually a stapled imitation of MOC's magazine
Fandom. The eight page publication was called "Fandumb." I was able to pick
one up before the MOC staffers took them away. When I got it back to my room
and read it, I was absolutely shocked. The language and the blatant rudeness
in the publication were much worse than anything Roland has ever put out in
his Fandom magazine. It even contained pictures of actual MOC-goers
accompanied by belittling comments. Here are only two examples of some of the
"articles" in "Fandumb" (these are word for word):
"Slave Auction:
One of the many fun events (besides teenage drunkenness and rampant veneral
disease) that sets us apart from those other cons in town that do everything
better than we could ever hope to, is the Slave Auction! That's where creepy
guys who never EVER could convince a girl to even TALK to them are actually
allowed to buy one on our Auction Block! That's right, all chicks go to the
dork with the most money! And what do you think happens when they get back to
his hotel room? Well, JACK SHIT, that's what happens! These pathetic losers
wouldn't know to boink a girl if they OWNED HER! Oh yeah, we're supposed to
say that this is all in fun and nothing really is going to happen, but let's
face it, this entire event is about UNRELIEVED SEXUAL TENSION, and that's all
there is to it. So let's drop the false pretenses and just get down to
business, shall we? That's why we're changing the focus of the Slave Auction,
and instead are starting a new event: The MOCK BROTHEL. You don't want to
OWN these chicks, you just want to RENT them for awhile. So come on down to
the Brothel and get laid for once in your miserable, pathetic little excuse
for a life! Don't worry, all our girls are on the pill to prevent your
malformed GEEK GENES from further polluting the breeding stock, so fuck away!
By the way, we take all the money and KEEP IT!!!!! FUCK YOU!"
"BIMBO PAGEANT: BIMBOMANIA '96!
You know, I really think that the concept of stupide, silicone-injected cows
without a single redeeming feature except a willingness to wear revealing
clothes and act subservient to men is a concept that only SCIENCE FICTION can
promote to its fullest extent. I mean, that's why we're all into sci-fi,
isn't it? It sure works to take MY mind off the fact that I habn't even had a
meaningful hug from a girl since Nixon was in the White House. Anyway, we're
going to parade sum of MOCK's bevy of "beauties" before your very eyes this
year at "BIMBOMANIA '96". I think the very fact that one of MOCK's most
famous "BIMBOS" was actually a guy in drag points out the latent homoeroticism
in this event. That's right, you're all FAGS!! Anyway, this whole business
is really a "parody" of the idea of "bimos". That's how we justify our
pathetically juvenile objectification of vacuous Hollywood tramps and other
kinds of morally loose characters that we'll never meet in real life! Just
like Mr. Spock! So come on down, you Bimbos! You'll hab a fine old time."
After getting over the initial shock of reading this "literature," I decided
to try and find out who the "gentleman" who distributed them was. I came upon
a friend named Roger Benson who pointed the man out to me. Roger identified
him as Paul Cashman. I made a mental note, and here I am.
Mr. Cashman, I am disgusted and sickened by your lack of tact. Your above
statement that none of the Dragon Con people had ever seen "Fandumb" before
was, in my opinion, a blatant lie since I saw you distributing them with my
own two eyes. I think you have a lot of nerve broadcasting such bull to all
of these people. It's unfortunate that many people are foolish enough to
believe you.
I have been to Dragon Con before, and as of now, I can promise that I will
David E Romm
> A couple of observations: If I'd been on the scene and if food hadn't
> been cooking already for hours, I'd have probably called off the party
> when I realized the con attendance wasn't more than 300.
Attendence at MOC-11 was fewer than 300 people? That's down from 1000
last year (when it was on the same weekend as D*C) and 1400 the year
before. If I recall the figures right. A major meltdown. Without the
D*C people coming to throw a party, attendence would have been even less.
Roland owes D*C a big debt of gratitude for helping his con.
> Late in the weekend a multi-page flier appeared entitled "Fandumb,"
> basically a parody of Roland's "Fandom" progress reports.[....] I realized
> that whoever did this was no friend to either D*C or MOC, and was
> serving only to drive an even deeper wedge between the two cons and
> concomms.
Break out the tin foil hats! I haven't seen the flyer, but it's possible
that some people are perfectly willing to make fun of both cons even if
they like going to either, or both.
--
Shockwave radio: Science Fiction/Science Fact
http://www.winternet.com/~romm
FAQ, Distribution Tapes, Top 11 Lists, scripts, sound files, more
Michael Dillson
ro...@winternet.com (David E Romm) wrote:
:>In article <4q5er2$d...@crl14.crl.com>, van...@crl.com (Paul W. Cashman) wrote:
:>
:>> A couple of observations: If I'd been on the scene and if food hadn't
:>> been cooking already for hours, I'd have probably called off the party
:>> when I realized the con attendance wasn't more than 300.
:>
:>Attendence at MOC-11 was fewer than 300 people? That's down from 1000
:>last year (when it was on the same weekend as D*C) and 1400 the year
:>before. If I recall the figures right. A major meltdown. Without the
:>D*C people coming to throw a party, attendence would have been even less.
:>Roland owes D*C a big debt of gratitude for helping his con.
:>
Dave,
MOC's attendence last year was around 450.
Most of the D*C people did not choose to buy badges and steered clear
of the convention.
Ulrika O'Brien
Ladc...@ix.netcom.com (John P. Miller) wrote:
>While I agree that work is needed to bring this to a halt, why should
>one party over another be responsible for offering the olive branch?
I'm not sure that expecting grown adults not to go out of
their way not to provoke someone who is already feeling
antagonistic (and who is not known for rational responses
to the most placatory of gestures) is really a case of
expecting one party over the other to be responsible for
making peace. Asking people not to pour gasoline on the
fire seems reasonable, even if they aren't qualified fire
fighters...
--
"Zeno be damned; sooner or later you gotta get laid."
Ulrika O'Brien *** ulr...@aol.com
Ulrika O'Brien
r...@negia.net (Janine Bell) wrote:
>After getting over the initial shock of reading this "literature,"
>I decided to try and find out who the "gentleman" who distributed
>them was. I came upon a friend named Roger Benson who pointed
>the man out to me. Roger identified him as Paul Cashman. I made
>a mental note, and here I am.
Hmm. Well, I've met Paul Cashman, and I'm currently withholding
judgment. I don't suppose you could describe him...?
Ulrika O'Brien
Mark Fingerman <mar...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>poli...@wil.net wrote:
>> area before I went up to the party. To say it's obvious that you were
>> asking for trouble just by showing up is an understatment, but it was >> good to meet with you guys and with Ed.
>Actually, we do not feel it was obvious.
I can't believe any of you is dumb enough or oblivious
enough for this to be true. Frankly, this sort of implausible
disingenous protestation after the fact gives more credence
to Roland's paranoia than anything Roland himself has
posted to date.
Ulrika O'Brien
dil...@mindspring.com (Michael Dillson) wrote:
>Well, James, we'd spent a couple of hundred dollars on party stuff for
>the party. Should we just pack it all up and go home? Roland wasn't
>letting us post signs. I assume people at MOC couldn't telepathically
>determine that there was a party.
But, well, why did you spend a couple of hundred dollars on
party stuff for a party at a convention where you had good
reason to believe you would not be at all welcome? If you
went to provoke Roland (and I can't believe the possibility
was not alive in your minds) then at least cop to it. It's
not as if it came as any last minute surprise to you
that a Dragon*Con party would be unwelcome at MOC, so presumably
you bought your party supplies, and planned your party knowing
that you were adding fuel to the fire. To claim that
you had to throw the party because you'd already bought
the supplies doesn't answer the question, because it implies
that you didn't know when you planned the party that Roland
would have a problem with your being there, and that's
nonsense.
A more honest answer would be to say that you decided to
throw a party *knowing* you'd piss off Roland, and decided
to do it anyway. That answer doesn't reflect well on y'all
in other ways, but it is more honest.
Chris Malme
Mike Dillson wrote:
> Well, James, we'd spent a couple of hundred dollars on party stuff for
> the party. Should we just pack it all up and go home? Roland wasn't
> letting us post signs. I assume people at MOC couldn't telepathically
> determine that there was a party.
> What would you suggest we could have done?
Not gone in the first place? At the very least, ask Roland if he would
object to you holding a Welcome Party at MOC-11, in advance of buying
all that food?
After many months of having no sympathy for Roland at all, I'm beginning
to have a hard time seeing you guys as the wronged party in all of this.
Chris
--
| Fidonet: Chris Malme 2:441/104
| Internet: mins...@filklore.demon.co.uk
| via Minstrel's Wyrmhole
Paula Totter
In article <31c6abfb...@news.atl.mindspring.com>, dil...@mindspring.com
says...
>
>ach...@vnet.net (James Morrow) wrote:
>
Perhaps if you had let some of the people on MOC staff know about what you
wanted to do before hand, this would not have the appeareance of trying to
crash the con. Seems to me only one person had paid for admittance to the
con. If Kelly had paid for admittance and come to the Warhammer room he would
have gotten a more cordial welcome than otherwise. By the by, a 250$ cash
prize was paid to the winner of the 40K tourney.
A.S. (ANDY) Totter
Bernard Peek
In article <31c644e5...@news.vnet.net>
ach...@vnet.net "James Morrow" writes:
> >The problem of advertising the party was solved in two rather humorous
> >ways. First of all, several of us (including a.f.c. poster Paul Cashman)
> >decided to go swimming and brought along a huge inflatable beach ball
> >which we had written "Dragon*Con Party - Room 379" all over in indelible
> >ink. The other solution was to tape party flyers to the backs of people
> >and have them walk around the hotel, like the sandwhich board men of the
> >past.
> On the surface this may be funny. You know how Roland feels about
> Dragon Con. Why do this to the Man at His Con?
I second that. Up until now Dragoncon has come out of this whole
affair smelling of roses. This, however, was a stupid thing to do and
doesn't reflect well on Dragoncon or Ed Kramer at all.
--
Bernard Peek
I.T and Management Development Trainer to the Cognoscenti
b...@intersec.demon.co.uk
Paul W. Cashman
r...@negia.net (Janine Bell) writes:
>Saturday when I went down to the flyer tables, I saw a man dressed in a
>tie-dyed tee-shirt with scraggly hair who was putting some papers on the
>table.....
[ some excreta excised for brevity ]
>After getting over the initial shock of reading this "literature," I decided
>to try and find out who the "gentleman" who distributed them was. I came upon
>a friend named Roger Benson who pointed the man out to me. Roger identified
>him as Paul Cashman. I made a mental note, and here I am.
Sorry, I never picked up or dropped off anything at the freebie table,
never had more than two of those Fandumb things in my possession at
any one time, and had nothing whatsoever to do with its creation or
dissemination. I..e., You Are Lying.
>Mr. Cashman, I am disgusted and sickened by your lack of tact. Your above
>statement that none of the Dragon Con people had ever seen "Fandumb" before
>was, in my opinion, a blatant lie since I saw you distributing them with my
>own two eyes. I think you have a lot of nerve broadcasting such bull to all
>of these people. It's unfortunate that many people are foolish enough to
>believe you.
Again, this is utter fabrication. What time of day, pray tell, did I
allegedly dump off these "Fandumbs"? Mark well your answer: I was
with others the entire time I was at the Radisson except when I left.
On Sunday.
>I have been to Dragon Con before, and as of now, I can promise that I will
>never attend it again, nor will I ever recommend that any of my friends or
>acqaintences attend. This feud with Roland has gotten out of hand, and your
>side is playing dirty pool.
I agree about the feud getting out of hand, but I know just where the
clogged pool-filter is....and it isn't near us.
Ms. Bell, I'll take a lie-detector test on this if you'll do the
same. Simultaneous testing at the same facility; neutral parties to
administer or officiate. The only D*C 'literature' I ever carried
around was party fliers. Period.
(Folks, this might seem a bit extreme, but I'll take whatever action
is necessary to prove that I had nothing to do with "Fandumb." As for
who -did- do it, I am intensely curious.)
Paul W. Cashman
Ulrika O'Brien <Ulr...@aol.com> writes:
>r...@negia.net (Janine Bell) wrote:
>>After getting over the initial shock of reading this "literature,"
>>I decided to try and find out who the "gentleman" who distributed
>>them was. I came upon a friend named Roger Benson who pointed
>>the man out to me. Roger identified him as Paul Cashman. I made
>>a mental note, and here I am.
>Hmm. Well, I've met Paul Cashman, and I'm currently withholding
>judgment. I don't suppose you could describe him...?
Oh, I've no doubt Roger knows who I am; I've known him since c. 1982.
Not always on the same "side" convention-speaking, but Roger's a Good
Egg. Sure, I was wearing tie-dye and have "scraggly" hair
(especially when fresh from a pool without a handy brush). Ms. Bell's
description of me is fine, but the actions she ascribed to me are
completely fabricated.
Paul W. Cashman
poli...@wil.net writes:
>Sadly, I wasn't able to get my reservation changed and couldn't get out of
>work, so I'm back home, though I'm going to keep trying to get out of work
>and try to make it.
I'm really sorry you couldn't get it changed. Fie on Delta! :)
>I
>enjoyed the chance to meet and speak with everyone, though Paul and Ed are
>the only ones I spoke with long enough to match face to name,
Hint: Kelly's the one who didn't appear on the hotel security tape.
:)
>posts, because he's just saying the same stuff over and over. If there are
>indeed outside players egging this thing on as Paul suggested, then it's
>up to your group to find these people and put a stop to it. Roland wants
>to let this go, but his beliefs and his pride will not allow him to ignore
>anything he thinks is a jab or slight against MOC or the folks that
>support him. If it were up to me, the fact that there have been 3 MOCs
>held in less than 11 months would be enough for me to declare victory or
>the "huge ugly DragonCon cash(man) machine" and move on.
*sniff* I prefer the appellations "size-enhanced" and "beauty-
challenged." :)
Paula Totter
In article <4q5er2$d...@crl14.crl.com>, van...@crl.com says...
>
>>The problem of advertising the party was solved in two rather humorous
>>ways. First of all, several of us (including a.f.c. poster Paul Cashman)
>>decided to go swimming and brought along a huge inflatable beach ball
> The second was in talking to a guy at the pool, Cole, who had traveled all
>the way from Texas for the $1,000 Battletech tournament, which cost
>$50 plus the $25 MOC attendance price. Apparently there were only 8
>entries, and the prize was cancelled. I don't know if the tournament
>was ever conducted for lower stakes or if the guy, who was 19 but
>looked 17, got his money back. Whichever way the resolution -- if
>there was one -- went, Cole was clearly not too happy, and was
>basically making the best of it in a resigned way. "Yea, -I'll- be
>back," he finally remarked, his voice dripping with sarcasm....
>I felt really sorry for him, but there wasn't much I could do except
>let him borrow a diving mask....
The entrance fees were combined and were awarded to the winner. Same
for the 40K.
A.S. (Andy) Totter
Michael Dillson
I'm not gonna debate this right now. I've got way too much to do to
get ready for Dragon*Con.
Talk to you next week.
Pam Wells
In article <31c6ebd2...@news.atl.mindspring.com>
dil...@mindspring.com "Michael Dillson" writes:
> Most of the D*C people did not choose to buy badges and steered clear
> of the convention.
This seems -- um -- a little unfair, and such behaviour would certainly be
frowned on over here. In fact, it *was* frowned on when I turned up to one
of the 'asm' cons in Leeds a few years ago, just to hang out in the (public)
hotel bar and chat to convention members as they came through, not to go to
any of the con's programming or use any of their private space/facilities.
It was pointed out to me that, although the area I was occupying was public
space, the con committee had arranged for their event to be at that hotel
over that weekend, and I wouldn't be there at all other than to hang out
with people who were members of their convention.
I thought about this afterwards, and decided that even though I hadn't
participated in the convention itself, it *was* the reason I was in that
hotel on that day, and since I knew that they had made a slight loss on
the weekend, I sent a cheque (for about half the membership fee, IIRC) to
one of the committee. This felt like the Right Thing to do.
But maybe it's different in America.
--
Pam Wells Vacuou...@bitch.demon.co.uk
Kelly Lockhart
poli...@wil.net wrote:
A lot of your comments make sense, but there is one part that I disagree
strongly with:
: Please don't pretend that you weren't trying to provoke Roland, as you
: know how charged this situation is and how personally Roland is taking
: all this.
You are assuming motive and implying intenet here without any basis in
fact. Did you ever consider _asking_ me why I attended, instead of
blindly assuming that my sole purpose was to provoke Roland?
I would have been completely happy to have not seen Roland at all, and I
likely wouldn't have if he hadn't sought me out. The reason I went is I
wanted to see MOC with my own two eyes. What I saw helped me to
understand some of the appeal and much of the reason why certain people
defend the convention so vehemently, even with the actions of it's
Chairman.
Oh, and the reason several of the Dragon*Con people wore posters taped to
their shirts was because Roland directed his staff to tear down all the
party flyers. It was the only way to advertise the party, and I thought a
clever idea.
Ed Kramer
In article <31c644e5...@news.vnet.net>, ach...@vnet.net (James
Morrow) writes:
> On the surface this may be funny. You know how Roland feels about
>Dragon Con. Why do this to the Man at His Con?
James,
Roland has stated many times that he does MOC "for Fandom." Are you
implying that MOC is solely for the ego-gratification of Roland?
If not, then it should be fine to throw a party there for the fans.
We followed all the rules. And then Roland changed them. Mike Dillson
asked Roland why other party flyers could remain but ours couldn't. He
told Dillson that it's his convention and that he could do what he damn
well pleased. (See paragraph 1.)
We threw this party to welcome MOC to Atlanta. Nothing negative was
intended or implied. We encouraged our directors to be present -- to
support our desire to see Roland's War come to an end. We notified MOC
security weeks before the con with our party plans and intentions to
assure everything would be peaceful. We honestly expected Roland to be
civil -- especially at his own convention.
The beachball and walking signs were a last resort after we tried
EVERYTHING to follow all the rules. We did not intend to just pick up all
the food and simply go home. We came there to throw a party in honor of
MOC.
Ed
Ed Kramer
In article <politico-170...@politico.wil.net>, poli...@wil.net
writes:
>Your group has the power to not further provoke
>Roland by leaving him be and just not responding to anything else he
>posts, because he's just saying the same stuff over and over. If there
are
>indeed outside players egging this thing on as Paul suggested, then it's
>up to your group to find these people and put a stop to it. Roland wants
>to let this go, but his beliefs and his pride will not allow him to
ignore
>anything he thinks is a jab or slight against MOC or the folks that
>support him.
>
>politico
Ryan,
I will not allow someone to libel myself or a convention I am
associated with. If responding in a calm, truthful, and appropriate
manner "provokes" Roland, then maybe he should rethink his posts.
One of MOC's Guests, a local game designer, came up to our party and
we chatted for a few moments about the industry. Nothing pertaining to
Roland or MOC was mentioned. Moments later, when one of our directors was
registering for the con, the same Guest went down to Roland and told him
that we were not his friends and that we were saying bad things about him
and MOC. A complete and utter fabrication. Now we have proof that others
are trying to fuel Roland's War. Will it change anything?
Ed
Ed Kramer
In article <romm-18069...@ppp-66-133.dialup.winternet.com>,
ro...@winternet.com (David E Romm) writes:
>> Late in the weekend a multi-page flier appeared entitled "Fandumb,"
>> basically a parody of Roland's "Fandom" progress reports.[....] I
realized
>> that whoever did this was no friend to either D*C or MOC, and was
>> serving only to drive an even deeper wedge between the two cons and
>> concomms.
>
>Break out the tin foil hats! I haven't seen the flyer, but it's possible
>that some people are perfectly willing to make fun of both cons even if
>they like going to either, or both.
I haven't seen the flyer either, but when you have a contest for flyers
that are awarded for content of humor / satire -- expect to be parodied.
I understand that Roland was upset, considering his contest is called,
strangely enough, the "Drag On Con" flyer contest so that everyone would
parody our convention.
Ed
P Nielsen Hayden
It suddenly strikes me, apropos of nothing in particular and yet apropos of
it all, that this entire affair, with its charges and countercharges, its
overheated manifestos and vicious parodies, its loyalties and rivalries, its
exclusions and expulsions and excommunications, its controversial and
strangely unbalanced personalities, and ultimately, its World-War-II-in-
a-sandlot feel, reminds me of nothing so much as the narratives in Harry
Warner Jr.'s ALL OUR YESTERDAYS, his very wonderful history of fandom in the
1940s.
Certainly Roland was born in the wrong decade. Tragically, he exists in a
fandom where we more or less expect fannish leaders to be grownups -- or, at
least, expect them not to be _overtly_ psychopathic.
I think the final straw was reading the descriptions of this publication
"Fandumb," which caused me to suddenly flash on the greeting card sent by
the Futurians to Will Sykora. It all makes sense now. This is an epic fan
feud from another time...
-----
Patrick Nielsen Hayden : p...@tor.com : http://www.panix.com/~pnh
senior editor, manager of science fiction, Tor Books : http://www.tor.com
Ulrika
In article <835146...@bitch.demon.co.uk>, Pam Wells
<Vacuou...@bitch.demon.co.uk> writes:
>But maybe it's different in America.
No. Going to a convention and not buying a membership, even
if one doesn't attend program items, is definitely crashing, and
not exactly polite. If the party at MOC were supposed to be
a peace gesture, crashing the con seems to be a poor way
to demonstrate that fact.
Ulrika O'Brien, Philosopher Without Portfolio
***ulr...@aol.com***
Paula Totter
I really couldn't have said it better if I had tried. If this were a
peace thing, I would have (and still am) happy to take the olive
branch.It would have been better to let everyone know what you wanted to
do before hand.
A.S.(Andy) Totter
Ed Kramer
In article <835130...@intersec.demon.co.uk>, Bernard Peek
<b...@intersec.demon.co.uk> writes:
>I second that. Up until now Dragoncon has come out of this whole
>affair smelling of roses. This, however, was a stupid thing to do and
>doesn't reflect well on Dragoncon or Ed Kramer at all.
Sorry, Bernard, but I don't think you quite get it. For months,
people that only knew about Dragon Con and MOC from a.f.c. have tried to
tell us that we should make up and be friends DESPITE Roland's continual
lies, slander, and profanity towards us -- for no reason that any rational
human being would accept as being valid. I have personally tried to sit
down and talk with Roland, to no avail. This party was another attempt at
peace. It wasn't "stupid' and anyone that attended knew that we were
trying to show Roland and the MOC community that we were taking the high
road, so to speak, by throwing a "Welcome to Atlanta MOC" party.
We notified MOC security over a week before the convention that we
would be throwing the party to make sure that we would abide by all
convention rules. We spent several hundred dollars on home-cooked food
and treats and made up a dozen posters. We set up the room, then Mike
Dillson and Tim Farley when down to purchase badges -- they can tell you
more about that experience. If Roland saw no problem in taking their
money, then he is expected to treat them with the same respect as any
other policy-abiding member. This was not the case. Our posters being
torn down at Roland's demand was just the start.
We could have either packed up and gone home -- or stuck it out and
thrown the best damn party we could anyway. We chose the latter of the
two. After our initial confrontation with Roland, no one else really
wanted to register for a badge. Can you blame them? Many of the
directors got disgusted with Roland and MOC at that point and simply left.
The beach ball and walking signs weren't planned -- but were a result of
ultimate frustration in our attempt to throw a peace-making party. If
Roland could not understand out attempt at peace, we wanted the fans at
MOC to see that all of Roland's lies were indeed unfounded.
Obviously, the party could have been more successful. But when we
left at the end, we honestly thought that we had done some GOOD. We still
believe that the fans that attended our party learned that we STILL held
no animosity toward Roland, and hoped that his War would soon come to an
end.
Ed
Ulrika
In article <4q7tm1$6...@liberator.concentric.net>, Kel...@cris.com (Kelly
Lockhart) writes:
>
>Oh, and the reason several of the Dragon*Con people wore posters taped to
>their shirts was because Roland directed his staff to tear down all the
>party flyers. It was the only way to advertise the party, and I thought
a
>clever idea.
Uh huh. And why did Dragon*Con people, knowing full well that
Roland considers them the enemy, feel compelled to tweak his
nose by throwing a party at his convention?
Moreover, I've seen how gleeful you appeared when talking about
bearding Roland by just being in his hotel during his con. I
don't think your motives are completely innocent, and if you
do, I think you may be deceiving yourself. It's a cute gig
when we're amusing *ourselves* in the face of patent insanity.
It's a lot less cute when you get into acts of active baiting.
IFO am sorely disappointed.
Ulrika
In article <31c6ebd2...@news.atl.mindspring.com>,
dil...@mindspring.com (Michael Dillson) writes:
>Most of the D*C people did not choose to buy badges and steered clear
>of the convention.
This seems a bit of a confession of unethical behavior on the
part of Dragon*Con folks.
Ulrika
In article <4q8cj5$3...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, edkr...@aol.com (Ed
Kramer) writes:
> Roland has stated many times that he does MOC "for Fandom." Are you
>implying that MOC is solely for the ego-gratification of Roland?
>
> If not, then it should be fine to throw a party there for the fans.
Ed, you are not this dumb, and you are not this naive. You surely
knew what you were doing would piss Roland off pointlessly, and
presumably did it anyway as an exercise in counting coup. Frankly,
I think it reflects amazingly poorly on you and the convention.
--Ulrika
Ulrika O'Brien
edkr...@aol.com (Ed Kramer) wrote:
> Obviously, the party could have been more successful. But when we
>left at the end, we honestly thought that we had done some GOOD.
I don't see how. If the point was, as you claim, to extend
the olive branch to Roland, then the party was obviously
completely un-bloody-successful. Not surprisingly. Since
making peace with MOC *means* making peace with Roland,
I can't imagine what else you were thinking of.
>We still
>believe that the fans that attended our party learned that we STILL held
>no animosity toward Roland, and hoped that his War would soon come to an
>end.
Yes, so it was essentially a PR move to make yourself look
good at Roland's expense, and clearly you didn't and don't
care that it upset him. Some olive branch.
EMS Division
Well, Dragon*Con starts tomorrow... I wonder if there's going to be
any "retaliation" from the MOC guys...
Should be interesting.
Reece
Ulrika O'Brien
edkr...@aol.com (Ed Kramer) wrote:
> Roland has stated many times that he does MOC "for Fandom." Are you
>implying that MOC is solely for the ego-gratification of Roland?
Ed, Roland has stated all sorts of things that are patently
false. Why conveniently "believe" him on one issue just to
show him up? Why does it matter to you whether a tiny 300 person
convention is for the ego gratification of its runner or not?
>
> If not, then it should be fine to throw a party there for the fans.
>We followed all the rules. And then Roland changed them. Mike Dillson
>asked Roland why other party flyers could remain but ours couldn't. He
>told Dillson that it's his convention and that he could do what he damn
>well pleased. (See paragraph 1.)
Surprise! Boy, you sure proved Roland was an egomaniac. Boy,
we sure didn't know that before. Boy, this sure is a fine
example of taking the argumentative high ground and sticking
to it.
Ed, we don't need any further proof of Roland's
personality. It has been amply demonstrated. His reactions
to you could easily have been predicted with a moments
contemplation by *anyone* who's followed this group since last
July. Going ahead and acting anyway sure looks like you were
deliberately provoking him, just to see him twitch and be
able to say "See, see how irrational Roland is!" afterwards.
Frankly, it's not all that irrational to react poorly to
people who crash your convention, who have been told that
they are regarded as enemies of that convention, showing up
and throwing a party. Bait the bear, the bear growls. Surprise!
> We threw this party to welcome MOC to Atlanta. Nothing negative was
>intended or implied. We encouraged our directors to be present -- to
>support our desire to see Roland's War come to an end. We notified MOC
>security weeks before the con with our party plans and intentions to
>assure everything would be peaceful. We honestly expected Roland to be
>civil -- especially at his own convention.
You honestly expected him to take an insult well? Is this because
of his long history of taking even tiny perceived slights well,
let alone blatant ones?
> The beachball and walking signs were a last resort after we tried
>EVERYTHING to follow all the rules. We did not intend to just pick up >all
>the food and simply go home. We came there to throw a party in honor of
>MOC.
Not much of an honor, when you crash the convention you're supposedly
honoring. That's downright tacky, wouldn't you say?
Seth Breidbart
In article <4q93bb$a...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, Ulrika <ulr...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <31c6ebd2...@news.atl.mindspring.com>,
>dil...@mindspring.com (Michael Dillson) writes:
>
>>Most of the D*C people did not choose to buy badges and steered clear
>>of the convention.
>
>This seems a bit of a confession of unethical behavior on the
>part of Dragon*Con folks.
Ulrika, it seems to me that _you_ did not choose to buy a badge for
MOC, and also steered clear of it.
Although I think it would have been more interesting for them to buy
badges (nb: not memberships). Would Roland have let them?
Seth
Ulrika O'Brien
se...@panix.com (Seth Breidbart) wrote:
>Ulrika, it seems to me that _you_ did not choose to buy a badge for
>MOC, and also steered clear of it.
Um, Seth, I was not at the MOC hotel, throwing a party.
Ulrika O'Brien
stan...@LunaCity.com (Kevin Standlee) wrote:
>I tend to agree that if you're attending the convention, even if only in
>the "common" areas, that you should buy a membership. I've broken this
>rule myself, once, when I came by a con one afternoon and went to lunch
>with a friend of mine who I hadn't seen for several years. But after
>lunch I didn't hang around and I left.
>
>OTOH, in this case, it appears that most of the people who "ghosted" the
>convention were people who _would_ have purchased memberships if they had
>been allowed to do so. They've been "Banned from Magnum Opus Con"
>(remember, it scans into "Banned from Argo") mainly because Roland
>doesn't like them, not for any other reasonable cause like "writes bad
>checks to con," or "destroys hotel furniture."
As with many things, Roland has been inconsistent in his statements
about whether or not these folks are individually or collectively
banned from MOC. It is not clear to me that the DragonCon
contingent even tried to buy memberships.
Especially in a case where another convention
is using the con they're visiting as a PR opportunity, it seems
to me that The Right Thing To Do is pay for memberships for the
folks throwing the party. If the point was a gesture of
reconcilliation with Roland and MOC, I don't see how crashing
the con is supposed to be a good start.
Finally, if the party participants all *were* banned from
MOC and this was tested, then this seems further proof,
to me, that they knew that they were not welcome there,
in which case the pose of the offered peace gesture seems
even more tenuous.
Kevin Standlee
ulr...@aol.com (Ulrika) writes:
> In article <835146...@bitch.demon.co.uk>, Pam Wells
> <Vacuou...@bitch.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
> >But maybe it's different in America.
>
> No. Going to a convention and not buying a membership, even
> if one doesn't attend program items, is definitely crashing, and
> not exactly polite. If the party at MOC were supposed to be
> a peace gesture, crashing the con seems to be a poor way
> to demonstrate that fact.
>
This is a really tricky situation; a veritable minefield.
I tend to agree that if you're attending the convention, even if only in
the "common" areas, that you should buy a membership. I've broken this
rule myself, once, when I came by a con one afternoon and went to lunch
with a friend of mine who I hadn't seen for several years. But after
lunch I didn't hang around and I left.
OTOH, in this case, it appears that most of the people who "ghosted" the
convention were people who _would_ have purchased memberships if they had
been allowed to do so. They've been "Banned from Magnum Opus Con"
(remember, it scans into "Banned from Argo") mainly because Roland
doesn't like them, not for any other reasonable cause like "writes bad
checks to con," or "destroys hotel furniture."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just a thought from Kevin Standlee -> (stan...@LunaCity.com)
LunaCity BBS - Mountain View, CA - 415 968 8140
EMS Division
Ulrika O'Brien <Ulr...@aol.com> wrote:
>> The beachball and walking signs were a last resort after we tried
>>EVERYTHING to follow all the rules. We did not intend to just pick up >all
>>the food and simply go home. We came there to throw a party in honor of
>>MOC.
>Not much of an honor, when you crash the convention you're supposedly
>honoring. That's downright tacky, wouldn't you say?
As much as I'd never thought I'd see myself say this, Ulrika is right.
I could have possibly accepted the premise that the party was an olive
branch up until I found out that only two of the DC people even tried
to pay for admission to MOC. Now it would seem that there could be
more to Roland's claims than purporters of the currently prevailing
opinion around here can sweep under the rug...
Reece Watkins
Chris Krolczyk
Ed Dravecky III (dshe...@netcom.com) wrote:
: I am just *dying* to hear Roland's d/e/l/u/s/i/o/n/a/l/ take on
: these encounters.
I'm not. That has to do with my perception that his take will
be a helluva lot more than just "delusional", but to each his own.
--
Chris Krolczyk krol...@mcs.com
Bernard Peek
In article <4q8tc6$9...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
edkr...@aol.com "Ed Kramer" writes:
> In article <835130...@intersec.demon.co.uk>, Bernard Peek
> <b...@intersec.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
> >I second that. Up until now Dragoncon has come out of this whole
> >affair smelling of roses. This, however, was a stupid thing to do and
> >doesn't reflect well on Dragoncon or Ed Kramer at all.
>
> Sorry, Bernard, but I don't think you quite get it. For months,
> people that only knew about Dragon Con and MOC from a.f.c. have tried to
> tell us that we should make up and be friends DESPITE Roland's continual
> lies, slander, and profanity towards us -- for no reason that any rational
> human being would accept as being valid. I have personally tried to sit
> down and talk with Roland, to no avail. This party was another attempt at
> peace. It wasn't "stupid' and anyone that attended knew that we were
> trying to show Roland and the MOC community that we were taking the high
> road, so to speak, by throwing a "Welcome to Atlanta MOC" party.
I repeat, for the hard of thinking. The party idea was really dumb. It
never had the remotest chance of promoting peace and I'm not yet
convinced that it was intended to.
The whole MOC/Dragoncon "debate" has now turned full circle and now
*both* sides are taking turns to shoot themselves in the foot. This is
the closest I've yet seen to someone snatching defeat from the jaws
of victory.
--
Bernard Peek
I.T and Management Development Trainer to the Cognoscenti
b...@intersec.demon.co.uk
Bernard Peek
In article <T48RPD...@LunaCity.com>
stan...@LunaCity.com "Kevin Standlee" writes:
>
> This is a really tricky situation; a veritable minefield.
>
[...]
> OTOH, in this case, it appears that most of the people who "ghosted" the
> convention were people who _would_ have purchased memberships if they had
> been allowed to do so. They've been "Banned from Magnum Opus Con"
> (remember, it scans into "Banned from Argo") mainly because Roland
> doesn't like them, not for any other reasonable cause like "writes bad
> checks to con," or "destroys hotel furniture."
Those people who "ghosted" at MOC could always consider making an
equivalent donation to some suitable good cause -- perhaps a
scholarship fund somewhere?
David E Romm
> The beachball and walking signs were a last resort after we tried
> EVERYTHING to follow all the rules. We did not intend to just pick up all
> the food and simply go home. We came there to throw a party in honor of
> MOC.
I'd like to believe you, honest. But I never figured you in Forrest Gump
Emulation Mode. C'mon... you saved his convention by showing up when 'MOC
Fandom' is deserting him in droves... can't you admit to a _little_ desire
to gloat?
--
Shockwave radio: Science Fiction/Science Fact
http://www.winternet.com/~romm
And how much did you go for in the Slave Auction?
David E Romm
In article <4q8l8f$6...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, edkr...@aol.com (Ed
Kramer) wrote:
That's right, he mentioned the name of the flyer contest a while back.
Who'd a thunk he would be telling the truth about _that_. If anyone from
MOC was upset, it proves they can dish it out but can't take it.
--
Shockwave radio: Science Fiction/Science Fact
http://www.winternet.com/~romm
"Fishing for compliments does not count as an aerobic exercise." -- Aladdin
David E Romm
In article <4q6g43$p...@okra.negia.net>, r...@negia.net (Janine Bell) wrote:
> In article <4q5er2$d...@crl14.crl.com>, van...@crl.com (Paul W. Cashman) wrote:
>
> >Late in the weekend a multi-page flier appeared entitled "Fandumb,"
> >basically a parody of Roland's "Fandom" progress reports. [....]
> Here are only two examples of some of the
> "articles" in "Fandumb" (these are word for word):
>
> "Slave Auction:
> One of the many fun events (besides teenage drunkenness and rampant veneral
> disease) that sets us apart from those other cons in town that do everything
> better than we could ever hope to, is the Slave Auction! That's where creepy
> guys who never EVER could convince a girl to even TALK to them are actually
> allowed to buy one on our Auction Block! [....]
>
> "BIMBO PAGEANT: BIMBOMANIA '96!
>
> You know, I really think that the concept of stupide, silicone-injected cows
> without a single redeeming feature except a willingness to wear revealing
> clothes and act subservient to men is a concept that only SCIENCE FICTION can
> promote to its fullest extent. I mean, that's why we're all into sci-fi,
> isn't it? It sure works to take MY mind off the fact that I habn't even
had a
> meaningful hug from a girl since Nixon was in the White House. [....]
As parodies go, this is pretty funny. Congrats to whoever wrote it! (We
know it wasn't Cashman because the TIKK Budget Committee did not approve
publication costs.)
--
Shockwave radio: Science Fiction/Science Fact
http://www.winternet.com/~romm
"Al D'Amato is a waste of an apostrophe."
-- Dennis Miller 5/3/96
David E Romm
In article <31c6ebd2...@news.atl.mindspring.com>,
dil...@mindspring.com wrote:
> ro...@winternet.com (David E Romm) wrote:
>
> :>Attendence at MOC-11 was fewer than 300 people? That's down from 1000
> :>last year (when it was on the same weekend as D*C) and 1400 the year
> :>before. If I recall the figures right. A major meltdown. Without the
> :>D*C people coming to throw a party, attendence would have been even less.
> :>Roland owes D*C a big debt of gratitude for helping his con.
> :>
> MOC's attendence last year was around 450.
Hmmm. I got the 1000 figure from Mr. Reliable Source Castle Hisself, in
his posts about awarding the Magic Tourney money. That's what I get for
believing him. That's still down by a third. And if Roland's claim that
the average MOC attendence 1-10 was 1400 is true (and you raise doubt),
then Roland's terrible business decisions are coming back to haunt him.
Come to think of it, he's also the only one who's said that the $25,000
was actually awarded... and given the games he plays with his
scholarships, 'awarded by MOC' and 'received by somone' are very different
concepts.
> Most of the D*C people did not choose to buy badges and steered clear
> of the convention.
If you mean they didn't go, okay. If you mean they only went to the D*C
party, that's vagually okay but iffier.
--
Shockwave radio: Science Fiction/Science Fact
http://www.winternet.com/~romm
"It is better to have loved and lost then never to have seen Lost In Space at all." -- Married with Children
J. Andrew Parris
Ulrika O'Brien (Ulr...@aol.com) wrote:
: Not much of an honor, when you crash the convention you're supposedly
: honoring. That's downright tacky, wouldn't you say?
I was under the impression that:
1. Dillson and someone else DID purchase badges...
2. That the ones who DIDN'T buy them, didn't attend con functions.
3. They were free to stay in ANY hotel, unless it is "bought out" by
the con in question.
Of course...I'm just a bystander... Seeya at Dragon!
-Az
--
Remember...no matter where you go...there you are.
James
Hello,
Coming in late so see if I understand this right....
You go to MOC to throw a Dragon Con Party, which you've had problems
with in the past, and don't contact the organizer?
Contacted Security a week before - Why not organizer, Roland,
directly?
Is your convention open to any group (think very carefully about
this, because this is the south)?
All they have to do is show up and start posting posters?
As for memberships, why didn't you get those first? Why didn't you
check in about your party first?
As for people in the pool, I usually go to events. Having been to
DC many years ago, There are times when nothing is going on, but MOC
is better about that.
Thanks,
James
Paula Totter
In article <4q8tc6$9...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, edkr...@aol.com says...Um, Ed if you had notified MOC security in advance about your party, I
sure didn't hear about it.
A.S.(Andy)Totter
Douglas E. Berry
In article <24b_960...@filklore.demon.co.uk>,
Chris Malme <mins...@filklore.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Mike Dillson wrote:
>
> > Well, James, we'd spent a couple of hundred dollars on party stuff for
> > the party. Should we just pack it all up and go home? Roland wasn't
> > letting us post signs. I assume people at MOC couldn't telepathically
> > determine that there was a party.
>
> > What would you suggest we could have done?
>
>Not gone in the first place? At the very least, ask Roland if he would
>object to you holding a Welcome Party at MOC-11, in advance of buying
>all that food?
>
>After many months of having no sympathy for Roland at all, I'm beginning
>to have a hard time seeing you guys as the wronged party in all of this.
I have never heard of a con refusing to allow another con to have a party.
Also, since the room is rented from the hotel, it is the hotels decision on if
parties occur.
Roland's crew would let you post party notices? That's mature... I wish I
had been there in my herald's outfit..
# ------------------------------------------------- #
# Douglas E. Berry dbe...@hooked.net #
# Writer, Professional Driver, Traveller Guru #
# #
# "I'm still standing, better than I ever did, #
# Lookin' like a true survivor, #
# Feeling like a little kid" -Elton John #
# 1st Anniversary of my ongoing battle with #
# Hodgkin's Disease -- 7 June, 1996 #
# ------------------------------------------------- #
Gary Farber
: >Ulrika, it seems to me that _you_ did not choose to buy a badge for
: >MOC, and also steered clear of it.
: Um, Seth, I was not at the MOC hotel, throwing a party.
How is it immoral or unethical to be in the same hotel as a con? Where
do you draw the border? Same building? Same block? Same floor?
--
-- Gary Farber gfa...@panix.com
Copyright (c) 1996 Brooklyn, NY, USA
Ulrika
In article <4q8tc6$9...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, edkr...@aol.com (Ed
Kramer) writes:
>Sorry, Bernard, but I don't think you quite get it. For months,
>people that only knew about Dragon Con and MOC from a.f.c. have tried to
>tell us that we should make up and be friends DESPITE Roland's continual
>lies, slander, and profanity towards us
Okay, and if a bunch of people who only know about Dragon Con
from a.f.c. tell you you should cancel Dragon Con, would you do that?
You're an adult, Ed, responsible for your own decisions. You have
more facts than the people who know you only from a.f.c. and
you could surely see that showing up at Roland's convention,
without his consent, without paying for memberships, without
actually reaching out to *Roland* at all, was surely going to piss
him off. If he gives you the cut direct, why do you suppose that
sneaking around behind his back is more likely to succeed.
It smells bad, Ed.
Bernard Peek
> How is it immoral or unethical to be in the same hotel as a con? Where
> do you draw the border? Same building? Same block? Same floor?
It isn't, of itself, immoral or unethical to be in the same space. In
this specific context I'd say it's certainly both. Interestingly
enough English law concurs, in that behaviour like that of the
Dragoncon committee could have been construed as an offence over here.
The specific offence would be "behaviour likely to cause a breach of
the peace". If the hypothetical "reasonable man" could expect an
action (of itself quite legal) to provoke someone else into an affray,
an offence has taken place. The provocation would be an offence even if
the expected affray never occurred.
Geri Sullivan
Gary Farber wrote:
>
> Ulrika O'Brien (Ulr...@aol.com) wrote:
> : se...@panix.com (Seth Breidbart) wrote:
>
> : >Ulrika, it seems to me that _you_ did not choose to buy a badge for
> : >MOC, and also steered clear of it.
>
> : Um, Seth, I was not at the MOC hotel, throwing a party.
>
> do you draw the border? Same building? Same block? Same floor?
Throwing an open party for convention members without being members
of (or necessarily welcome at) the convention itself? That crosses
all the lines for me.
Was there a convention rate for the room? Did the Dragon*Con group
pay the convention rate, rack rate, or something other amount?
I'm trying to imagine how I'd feel if Madison fandom came to
ReinCONation, got a suite, and threw a big open party for
ReinCONation members without joining the convention. It would piss
me off. And I harbor *no* ill feeling toward Madison fandom. Of
course, after such a stunt, I would. (Well, *probably* -- I would
talk with them about their motivations and take it from there.)
Granted, there aren't any situations parallel to MOC/D*C elsewhere
in fandom. At least in this timeline. Thank ghu.
--
Geri Sullivan <g...@toad-hall.com>
=================================
"It's the time you waste for them that makes a friend a friend
unique in all the world until the end." -- Ted Sherman (Safe
journey, Will & Emma!)
James Morrow
On Wed, 19 Jun 1996 19:33:39 -0600, ro...@winternet.com (David E Romm)
wrote:
>In article <31c6ebd2...@news.atl.mindspring.com>,
>dil...@mindspring.com wrote:
>> MOC's attendence last year was around 450.
>
>Hmmm. I got the 1000 figure from Mr. Reliable Source Castle Hisself, in
>his posts about awarding the Magic Tourney money. That's what I get for
>believing him. That's still down by a third. And if Roland's claim that
>the average MOC attendence 1-10 was 1400 is true (and you raise doubt),
>then Roland's terrible business decisions are coming back to haunt him.
A Young lady from Rock Hill, SC has told me that less than 300
people were at MOC. If 1000 people were there, she sure as Hell
didn't see them.
The Con would fair much better if it was returned to Greenville, SC.
Roland knows his business better than I know it. He told me to my
face in the past why he didn't want the Con there anymore. His
experiments in other Places aren't working as he would like to see
things work. I would love to see the Con moved to Charlotte and kept
here. The con was well received here despite the Low advertisement.
I wish the Best for MOC.
I hope there is a MOC 12. 300 people at The Last MOC does not look
promising. I hope Like Hell I am wrong. It would be a shame to see
Magnum Opus Con end like this.
James Morrow
poli...@wil.net
Ooooooooo, I must have hit an organ...
P Nielsen Hayden
In article <31C93B...@toad-hall.com>,
Geri Sullivan <g...@toad-hall.com> wrote:
>
>Throwing an open party for convention members without being members
>of (or necessarily welcome at) the convention itself? That crosses
>all the lines for me.
Jesus, we certainly are straining at gnats and swallowing camels, aren't we?
This is a group of people who have been repeatedly attacked by this Castle
guy in the publications he sends to his con members--called all sorts of
outrageous names, accused (baselessly) of the most criminal sorts of
behavior, abused and libelled over a period of years.
They are repeatedly told--by Castle's defenders!--that Castle is a nut case,
but that the regulars at his con are good sorts and shouldn't be written off
just because of Castle's behavior.
So when Castle throws a con in their home town, they show up and throw a
"Welcome to Atlanta" party.
And, delighted with the opportunity to wreath ourselves in the appearance of
dispassionate fair-mindedness, we rush to condemn them. Gosh, we say, it
looks like you didn't all buy memberships. Tsk tsk, we say, it sounds like
in your heart of hearts you were being a little provocative. Oh dear, we
say, it seems your hearts might not be 99 & 44/100% pure.
What a lot of more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger posturing!
What a game of Gotcha!
What a load of crap!
May those of you who have rushed to judge walk a mile in their shoes.
May you be the victim of a sustained campaign of public harassment and abuse
by an indefatigable crazy person.
May you spent months and years of your life having to defend yourselves
against the most outrageous libel and innuendo, spread far and wide in print
and phosphor.
May you have to endlessly tell yourselves "it doesn't matter, no one takes X
seriously anyway" ... and still find yourself awake at 3 am, wondering how
many perfectly nice people in the world have been forever turned away from
you because they heard the lies about you in their third- and fourth- and
fifth-generation form.
May you have great joy of it.
I'm sure your every action, your every word, your every step under those
circumstances will be perfect.
-----
Patrick Nielsen Hayden : p...@tor.com : http://www.panix.com/~pnh
senior editor, manager of science fiction, Tor Books : http://www.tor.com
James
Hello,
So are saying that ANY group can just drop in and throw a party at
a convention without checking with the organizers (Think carefully,
this is the south)?
Just move into the hotel, post signs, and see what happens.
As for memberships, is it alright to go to a convention, stay in
common areas, and promote your convention? Cheap yes, but why are you
there in the first place? Moooching Maybe? Trying to start fights
maybe?
Then this common area thing. Is it alright for people to wait for
guests and convention people to come by and mug them in the elevators?
Pool? Bathrooms? The hotels and organizers have a responsibility to
provide a safe environment for them.
If you want to promote something, you should try to work with the
organizers of the convention. If they don't want you, you should
accept that. If you can't, you are being childish.
Thanks,
James
Ulrika O'Brien
dbe...@hooked.net (Douglas E. Berry) wrote:
>I have never heard of a con refusing to allow another con
>to have a party.
I've never heard of representatives of one con showing up at
another con to throw a party and not all buying memberships.
Ulrika O'Brien
>: honoring. That's downright tacky, wouldn't you say?
>
>I was under the impression that:
>1. Dillson and someone else DID purchase badges...
>2. That the ones who DIDN'T buy them, didn't attend con functions.
>3. They were free to stay in ANY hotel, unless it is "bought out" by
> the con in question.
Yes, nobody is contesting their legal right to be at the
MOC hotel, however the point is that as a gesture of
reconcilliation, crashing a convention sorta leaves much
to be desired. And yes, I think attending a convention
for the purpose of throwing a promotional party at it
qualifies as crashing the convention. Seems to me
if one is trying to be concilliatory, one goes out of
one's way to meet the social forms. Others may have
other standards.
Ulrika O'Brien
>
>: >Ulrika, it seems to me that _you_ did not choose to buy a badge for
>: >MOC, and also steered clear of it.
>
>: Um, Seth, I was not at the MOC hotel, throwing a party.
>
>How is it immoral or unethical to be in the same hotel as a con? Where
>do you draw the border? Same building? Same block? Same floor?
Throwing parties. Or attending parties. Or being there
for the purpose of interacting with the con and its
members. Seems pretty simple, really. If you're there
*for* *the* *con* (to include the people it attracts, and
the functions it serves, which include evening parties)
then not buying a membership is crashing. How hard is that?
Ulrika O'Brien
p...@panix.com (P Nielsen Hayden) wrote:
>Jesus, we certainly are straining at gnats and swallowing
>camels, aren't we?
Something which you, happily, have not succumbed to. :)
[snip]
>May those of you who have rushed to judge walk a mile in their shoes.
>
>May you be the victim of a sustained campaign of public harassment and >abuse by an indefatigable crazy person.
Ah, yes, now I see your point of about the amazing usefulness
of accurate summarizing.
Aside from issues that perhaps some of us are doing the
teensiest bit of projection out of old wounds over an
entirely different tempest in a pisspot, did it escape
your notice that several of the people criticizing
DragonCon's comportment have themselves been subject
to Roland's shit slinging? "Walk a mile in their
shoes," forsooth.
Seth Breidbart
>> Ulrika O'Brien (Ulr...@aol.com) wrote:
>> : se...@panix.com (Seth Breidbart) wrote:
>>
>> : >Ulrika, it seems to me that _you_ did not choose to buy a badge for
>> : >MOC, and also steered clear of it.
>>
>> : Um, Seth, I was not at the MOC hotel, throwing a party.
>>
>> How is it immoral or unethical to be in the same hotel as a con? Where
>> do you draw the border? Same building? Same block? Same floor?
>
>of (or necessarily welcome at) the convention itself? That crosses
>all the lines for me.
Suppose I go to a convention to throw a party. I buy a membership.
Since throwing a party is more work than I care to take on by myself,
I ask some of my friends to help. Those friends are only there to
help me with the party, they are not attending the convention. Do
they need to buy memberships?
>Was there a convention rate for the room? Did the Dragon*Con group
>pay the convention rate, rack rate, or something other amount?
I was under the impression that some of the party-throwers bought
memberships in MOC. (If the person who rented the room wasn't a
member, then the room shouldn't have been at the convention rate. Of
course, for all we know, the hotel gave it to them free because of
other business they'd done there.)
Seth
P Nielsen Hayden
In article <4qbovn$4...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
James <james...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Hello,
> So are saying that ANY group can just drop in and throw a party at
>a convention without checking with the organizers (Think carefully,
>this is the south)?
I repeat: I've thrown dozens of parties at conventions, and I don't recall
ever asking permission. Sometimes I've dealt with the concom when I
needed something from them, or (more frequently) had leftover supplies to
offer to them. (Many a case of Tor-bought soda and beer has wound up in con
suites this way.)
I'm trying to parse your ominous admonition to "think carefully, this is the
south." What are we to make of this? That Southern fans are belligerent
and intolerant, so we'd better watch our step? I'm sorry you think that of
your fellow southerners. It isn't my experience of them, though.
Gary Farber
David E Romm (ro...@winternet.com) wrote:
<clip>
: Come to think of it, he's also the only one who's said that the $25,000
: was actually awarded... and given the games he plays with his
: scholarships, 'awarded by MOC' and 'received by somone' are very different
: concepts.
No, I believe several independent people have testified to this; I believe
some have told me this privately, as well. I haven't seen "proof," but
I'm happy to accept that the money was dispensed until given more reason
to doubt it besides the fact that Roland *also* claimed it happened. :-)
Pam Wells
> Ulrika O'Brien (Ulr...@aol.com) wrote:
> : se...@panix.com (Seth Breidbart) wrote:
>
> : >Ulrika, it seems to me that _you_ did not choose to buy a badge for
> : >MOC, and also steered clear of it.
>
> : Um, Seth, I was not at the MOC hotel, throwing a party.
>
> How is it immoral or unethical to be in the same hotel as a con? Where
> do you draw the border? Same building? Same block? Same floor?
It is immoral or unethical to be in the same hotel as a con if the reason
you are there is in order to interact with the members of that con. (If I
were the one drawing the line, it would be 'same building' on that basis.)
--
Pam Wells Vacuou...@bitch.demon.co.uk
Douglas E. Berry
>Okay, and if a bunch of people who only know about Dragon Con
>from a.f.c. tell you you should cancel Dragon Con, would you do that?
>You're an adult, Ed, responsible for your own decisions. You have
>more facts than the people who know you only from a.f.c. and
>you could surely see that showing up at Roland's convention,
>without his consent, without paying for memberships, without
>actually reaching out to *Roland* at all, was surely going to piss
>him off. If he gives you the cut direct, why do you suppose that
>sneaking around behind his back is more likely to succeed.
I'm sorry, but after everything Ed has endured from Roland here, I'm not
suprised one bit that he struck back.
Roland Castle's paranoid ravings have included accuastions of pedeophilia,
criminal conspiracy, illegal business practices, etc, ad naseum. Ed Kramer
has borne the brunt of this assult, since in Roland's little world, there is
only one person behind everything: Ed Kramer.
Do you really believe that Roland would have sold memberships to Dragon*Con
staffers? Allowed a D*C party? Since MOC-11 didn't come close to filling its
hotel, the hotel went right on renting rooms to whomever had the money. Ed
saw an opportunity to both get some publicity for D*C and tweak the jerk who
has been making false claims.
What could Roland do? Nothing. Technically he was right to remove D*C party
fliers from con spaces, but he couldn't do anything about the "walking
billboards or the beachbll in the pool.
Most importantly, this act shattered yet another of Roland's cherished
delusions. That Dragon*Con is somehow afraid of him and MOC.
300 congoers.... out here, we call that a party, not a convention.
>
>It smells bad, Ed.
>
>Ulrika O'Brien, Philosopher Without Portfolio
>
>***ulr...@aol.com***
# ------------------------------------------------- #
Chris Krolczyk
David E Romm (ro...@winternet.com) wrote:
: As parodies go, this is pretty funny. Congrats to whoever wrote it! (We
: know it wasn't Cashman because the TIKK Budget Committee did not approve
: publication costs.)
Hey, I paid _good money_ to the Budget Committee to see that plan realized,
and I want my 9 cents refunded _immediately_! >:)
--
Chris Krolczyk krol...@mcs.com
Chris Krolczyk
Douglas E. Berry (dbe...@hooked.net) wrote:
: I have never heard of a con refusing to allow another con to have a party.
Case in point: up here in Chicago, Windycon and Capricon have supposedly
never seen eye to eye about much of anything after a dispute between their
respective concoms concerning Worldcon 1990 and the way things were run
(staffers from both cons worked at Chicon that year). However, even though
my sources-who run the Capricon anime room-claim that this is the reason
why Windycon won't add an anime room to their film track, that's not the
same thing as banning a Capricon _room party_ from their convention. If
memory serves, Capricon held one at Windy XXII just last year.
--
Chris Krolczyk krol...@mcs.com
Geri Sullivan
P Nielsen Hayden wrote:
>
> In article <31C93B...@toad-hall.com>,
> Geri Sullivan <g...@toad-hall.com> wrote:
> >
> >Throwing an open party for convention members without being members
> >of (or necessarily welcome at) the convention itself? That crosses
> >all the lines for me.
>
You may be. I was attempting to respond to Gary's question about the
moral and ethical boundaries of fannish behavior:
:> How is it immoral or unethical to be in the same hotel
:> as a con? Where do you draw the border? Same building?
:> Same block? Same floor?
<snip>
> And, delighted with the opportunity to wreath ourselves in the appearance of
> dispassionate fair-mindedness, we rush to condemn them. Gosh, we say, it
> looks like you didn't all buy memberships. Tsk tsk, we say, it sounds like
> in your heart of hearts you were being a little provocative. Oh dear, we
> say, it seems your hearts might not be 99 & 44/100% pure.
>
> What a lot of more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger posturing!
That wasn't what I set out to do; I'm sorry my message read that way
to you and thus served as the launching pad for your "reading the
riot act" to me and the rest of the group.
> May those of you who have rushed to judge walk a mile in their shoes.
>
> May you be the victim of a sustained campaign of public harassment and abuse
> by an indefatigable crazy person.
Been there, done that...25 years ago. It was a smaller community --
my family and my hometown -- but equally ugly in its own way. I was
lucky to have one sane parent and a court system that provided a
sense of protection (not that I believe there's such a thing as real
protection against anyone, crazy or not).
> I'm sure your every action, your every word, your every step under those
> circumstances will be perfect.
Since my everyday actions, words, and steps are far from perfect, I
have no reason to believe they would be in response to a situation
similiar to the one Dragon*Con is dealing with.
Patrick, in the past, you have eloquently argued the importance of
clearly communicating fannish values and publicly standing up for
our believes. I was attempting to communicate mine; I'm sorry I did
such a poor job that I set you off again. The fault appears to rest
in the fact that I attempted to respond to the more general question
of convention crashing and hostly behavior in an arena so heavily
weighted to the Roland Castle/MOC/D*C debate. I don't believe our
opinions on the general question are as far apart as they currently
appear to be.
Ulrika O'Brien
se...@panix.com (Seth Breidbart) wrote:
>Suppose I go to a convention to throw a party. I buy a membership.
>Since throwing a party is more work than I care to take on by myself,
>I ask some of my friends to help. Those friends are only there to
>help me with the party, they are not attending the convention. Do
>they need to buy memberships?
When I plan a party at a convention I am attending, I generally
expect to draw all of my help with running the party from
people who are also planning on attending the convention.
If I am going to send a whole bunch of people out to put
flyers out and otherwise advertise my party, I certainly
would expect those people to be members of the con they're
helping me advertise at.
When I am trying to placate someone, I generally try to
avoid even the appearance of trying to take advantage of
that person. Context matters. We aren't talking about any
party at any con, we are talking about an alleged gesture
of peace between uneasy neighbors. I
Gary Farber
Pam Wells (Vacuou...@bitch.demon.co.uk) wrote:
<snip>
: It is immoral or unethical to be in the same hotel as a con if the reason
: you are there is in order to interact with the members of that con. (If I
: were the one drawing the line, it would be 'same building' on that basis.)
What moral and ethical rules are violated? (Hint: I don't buy this for a
second, and will expand upon this when time allows. See references in fan
history to "Exclusion Acts" with a concentration upon "Futurians" and
"Boondogle." )
What do you propose as the proper minimum distance?
David E Romm
In article <4qbjtv$p...@panix2.panix.com>, p...@panix.com (P Nielsen Hayden)
wrote:
> This is a group of people who have been repeatedly attacked by this Castle
> guy in the publications he sends to his con members--called all sorts of
> outrageous names, accused (baselessly) of the most criminal sorts of
> behavior, abused and libelled over a period of years.
After mulling this over for a day or so, I'm closer to Ulrika's position
than yours.
I agree that as feud-bait, throwing an open party seems more like
reconciliation than exacerbation. But consider, the feud has been almost
completely one-sided in vituperative vitriol. Roland has refused to talk
to any of the D*C people. And it's not just D*C, it's how he handles
anyone, even his friends. Roland goes up in flames when a loyal MOC
huckster goes to his shop to apologize for not being able to attend one
year.
The question is not whether a good will gesture will be accepted by most
people, it's whether the gesture will be accepted by the the person being
reached out to. And it's painfully obvious that this particular gesture
would not be seen as reconciliation, but feud-bait.
Try looking at this from Roland's point of view, however alien that may
be. There's no way that he would take this as anything but 'proof' of a
conspiracy. And Ed & co. are smart enough to know this.
I don't ascribe quite the deviousness that Ulrika implies, but at best it
was poor judgment and at worst it was a rather slimey bit of politicking,
which error was compounded by refusing to admit *any* base motivation.
You are right to place this in perspective: An open party is basically a
good thing, and far batter than some other responses could have been, and
far better than Roland deserves. Unfortunately, there are ways of taking
the high road that don't quite reach the high ground.
--
Shockwave radio: Science Fiction/Science Fact
http://www.winternet.com/~romm
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example."
-- Mark Twain
P Nielsen Hayden
In article <romm-20069...@ppp-66-137.dialup.winternet.com>,
David E Romm <ro...@winternet.com> wrote:
>
>I agree that as feud-bait, throwing an open party seems more like
>reconciliation than exacerbation. But consider, the feud has been almost
>completely one-sided in vituperative vitriol. Roland has refused to talk
>to any of the D*C people. And it's not just D*C, it's how he handles
>anyone, even his friends. Roland goes up in flames when a loyal MOC
>huckster goes to his shop to apologize for not being able to attend one
>year.
>
>The question is not whether a good will gesture will be accepted by most
>people, it's whether the gesture will be accepted by the the person being
>reached out to. And it's painfully obvious that this particular gesture
>would not be seen as reconciliation, but feud-bait.
I think this particular argument hinges on the idea that Roland is the
person they were primarily trying to "reconcile" with. I can't speak for
these people, but frankly, throwing a Dragoncon party at MOC seems to me
like an unexceptionable gesture, not as a means of promoting
"reconciliation" with Roland, but as outreach to his regular attendees.
It's obvious that Roland is permanently short a burrito from his combination
plate. But presumably this doesn't apply to everyone at MOC. Indeed, from
the refusal of some of his "security" people to actually carry out his
ridiculous orders, we can adduce that this is very likely the case.
Seth Breidbart
In article <4qc544$p...@panix2.panix.com>,
P Nielsen Hayden <p...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <4qbovn$4...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>James <james...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> So are saying that ANY group can just drop in and throw a party at
>>a convention without checking with the organizers (Think carefully,
>>this is the south)?
>I'm trying to parse your ominous admonition to "think carefully, this is the
>south." What are we to make of this?
I took it to mean that there are some groups in the south (the KKK
comes to mind) that people are likely not to want at conventions.
Still, I'd have to agree with Patrick. Boston and Philadelphia are
bidding against each other for the 2001 Worldcon; yet Philly has
bidding parties at Boskone and Arisia, and Boston has bidding parties
at Philcon, and nobody thinks this is wrong.
Seth
P Nielsen Hayden
In article <4qd3bj$a...@panix3.panix.com>,
Seth Breidbart <se...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <4qc544$p...@panix2.panix.com>,
>P Nielsen Hayden <p...@panix.com> wrote:
>>In article <4qbovn$4...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>>James <james...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>> So are saying that ANY group can just drop in and throw a party at
>>>a convention without checking with the organizers (Think carefully,
>>>this is the south)?
>
>>I'm trying to parse your ominous admonition to "think carefully, this is the
>>south." What are we to make of this?
>
>I took it to mean that there are some groups in the south (the KKK
>comes to mind) that people are likely not to want at conventions.
And, for that matter, there are people in the north likewise. Last I heard,
the militia movement was healthy and active north of the Mason-Dixon line,
and has a lot more crossover with the fringes of SF fandom than I believe
the Klan ever did...
(I was struck by this when, in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing, the TV
newsthings rushed to grind out some documentaries about the militia types.
Hearing them speak for themselves on camera, I had the disconcerting sense
that I was hearing the voices one hears in the con suite, except that
instead of coming from pasty-faced overweight people wearing button-covered
vests, they were coming from pasty-faced overweight people in Army-Navy
surplus fatigues...)
Ruth Brazell
I am also am observer and it seems that you are being falsely accused. I
respect your wish for a lie-detector to prove your innocence. I just
wish everyone involved would remember both D*C and MOC people contain bad
eggs, just like every other group.
Ruth Brazell
P.S. I am missing D*C this year for the same reason I missed MOC, I have
to work. Have some fun for me.
Ruth Brazell
Excuse me. Are we all suposed to live our lives checking ourselves and
our actions to be sure they won't upset Mr. Castle. I always thought
Cons and parties go hand and hand, I never even pay attention to what
"name" a party goes by. All groups have some bad eggs or this thing
would be over by now. Everyone GET OVER IT.
Ruth Brazell
Chris Krolczyk
Paula Totter (pa...@negia.net) wrote:
: Um, Ed if you had notified MOC security in advance about your party, I
: sure didn't hear about it.
Through a lack of a grapevine, perhaps? At Windycon XXII, the party I'm
a part of (the Inquisition) had an ongoing vandalism problem with our
posters. We informed Ops, of course, but just as one shift of Ops
came up and removed those posters, helped us put up suitable replace-
ments and talked to us about the problem in our room (and partied
there later, to boot), the shift that replaced them had _no_ idea
what we were talking about. If sharing info about such same-day incidents
doesn't automatically follow, then what about a phone call or letter
from a week before a convention?
--
Chris Krolczyk krol...@mcs.com
Dirk A. Loedding
In article <4qcjdm$k...@news.service.uci.edu>,
Ulrika O'Brien wrote:
[snip]
>When I am trying to placate someone, I generally try to
>avoid even the appearance of trying to take advantage of
>that person. Context matters. We aren't talking about any
>party at any con, we are talking about an alleged gesture
>of peace between uneasy neighbors. I
From what I've read here over the last few days, it would appear that
things went to hell well before anyone had even determined whether or
not the DC folks had bought memberships. While I agree that anyone in
the convention space should have a membership, that's not really the
issue here.
Yes, Ed & co. might have made a questionable decision to throw this
party. Yes, that decision might have even been made in a deliberate
attempt to bait Roland. Yes, maybe it's not the most mature thing ever
done. And, maybe, just maybe, they were there in a genuine attempt to
make a genuine gesture of peace. I don't know. I wasn't there, and I
am not capable of reading the minds of the party planners to determine
just what their true motives were. My sense is that they were actually
trying to do the right thing, and misjudged the degree of the eventual
unpleasantness of the resulting incidents. In other words, they didn't
guess there would be quite that much shit hitting quite that large and
powerful a fan.
However...the issue of who bought memberships (badges) and who didn't is
*not* the bone of contention here, IMHO. The issue is Roland going
ballistic when he saw DC people at his convention, without determining
why they were there, without making any attempt at talking before going
nuts about it. From the reports I've read, there was no mention from
Roland or any of his people about whether or not the "crashers" all had
badges or not. All mention of who bought badges and who didn't appears
to come from the DC people. And, from what I read, at least two people
did buy badges, and the rest of them planned to, until things went
downhill in such a precipituous manner.
From all reports, he flew off the handle when he discovered that his
nemesis was at the convention, <sarcasm> no doubt there to finish the
job of destroying him, his convention and his livelihood. </sarcasm> He
had their party flyers torn down. He laid hands on a DC staffer...an
action that might well have wound up with him getting assault charges
filed against him.
--
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Dirk A. Loedding <*> ju...@america.net |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Paula Totter
In article <4qf4a9$p...@Mercury.mcs.com>, krol...@MCS.COM says...
>
>Paula Totter (pa...@negia.net) wrote:
>
In hope of a straight answer, who then in MOC security was notified? The
usual "To shield them from retaliation" won't do here.
A.S.(Andy) Totter
David E Romm
In article <4qcupo$9...@panix2.panix.com>, p...@panix.com (P Nielsen Hayden)
wrote:
> In article <romm-20069...@ppp-66-137.dialup.winternet.com>,
> David E Romm <ro...@winternet.com> wrote:
> >The question is not whether a good will gesture will be accepted by most
> >people, it's whether the gesture will be accepted by the the person being
> >reached out to. And it's painfully obvious that this particular gesture
> >would not be seen as reconciliation, but feud-bait.
>
> I think this particular argument hinges on the idea that Roland is the
> person they were primarily trying to "reconcile" with. I can't speak for
> these people, but frankly, throwing a Dragoncon party at MOC seems to me
> like an unexceptionable gesture, not as a means of promoting
> "reconciliation" with Roland, but as outreach to his regular attendees.
(Raises Vulcan eyebrow) In another thread you say that a convention
having the same name as a previous convention is morally reprehensible,
even if said previous con was a decade ago on a different continent. Here
you say that going out of your way to piss off the chair of a convention
is okay if said conchair is a jerk.
> It's obvious that Roland is permanently short a burrito from his combination
> plate. But presumably this doesn't apply to everyone at MOC. Indeed, from
> the refusal of some of his "security" people to actually carry out his
> ridiculous orders, we can adduce that this is very likely the case.
I agree that D*C is the wronged party in this one-sided 'feud'. And that
throwing a party in revenge is a marvelous idea: "Roland's been saying
nasty things about us, so we're going to go to his convention and throw a
party and _not talk about Roland_."
In-Your-Face Partying! Wouldn't it be great if more fannish feuds were
fought in this manner!
But the D*C party didn't cop to any revenge motivation. They claim that
they went with only pure intentions, with the full expectation that Roland
would take it as a peace offering. This, I don't buy.
--
Shockwave radio: Science Fiction/Science Fact
http://www.winternet.com/~romm
"The rest is taxidermy." -- Morticia Addams
P Nielsen Hayden
In article <4qbuvm$6...@news.service.uci.edu>,
>>
>>May you be the victim of a sustained campaign of public harassment and
>>abuse by an indefatigable crazy person.
>
>teensiest bit of projection out of old wounds over an
>entirely different tempest in a pisspot, did it escape
>your notice that several of the people criticizing
>DragonCon's comportment have themselves been subject
>to Roland's shit slinging? "Walk a mile in their
>shoes," forsooth.
"Projection"? I don't think I'm "projecting" anything; I'm telling you flat
out that I have been a victim of this kind of thing, and that it makes me
inclined to cut the Atlanta crowd some slack in respect to their behavior
here. And I am telling you flat out that I think you have suffered a drastic
failure of imagination in this regard, and that it has made you suddenly
deficient in humane sympathy.
I don't think the slings and arrows that you, Ulrika, have taken in this
newsgroup compare at all. In fact, I think the comparison is absurd. This
Usenet fuss has lasted just a few months, not years. You have immediately
known about essentially everything bad being said about you, and had the
opportunity to reply to it. Most critically, you've had very little
personally or professionally at stake. It has been a fish-in-a-barrel
exercise for you, for me, for Gary. Which doesn't mean it's been a bad
thing to do. But it's had very little resemblance to the experience I'm
talking about, the experience that these Dragoncon people have been through.
It's striking, though, that you think the experiences _are_ comparable.
If I'm committing an intellectual sin, it isn't "projection," it's
speculating beyond the data -- and to the extent that I've done that, I've
done that because I have a high regard for you and would like to let you off
the hook. I am speculating that your startling failure of sympathy here
comes entirely from ignorance, from a life happily free of comparable
experiences. I would hate to believe otherwise of you.
Ulrika
In article <4qc9cr$bgc...@ppp.hooked.net>, dbe...@hooked.net (Douglas E.
Berry) writes:
>
>I'm sorry, but after everything Ed has endured from Roland here, I'm not
>suprised one bit that he struck back.
That's a different issue. I wouldn't be surprised, either, though
disappointed given Ed's purported claim on the high moral
ground here. Ed, however is claiming that he didn't "strike back".
A bit different, innit? He's not claiming that he was justified,
he's claiming he didn't do it. Do you see the difference?
Seth Breidbart
In article <4qbp8b$6...@news.service.uci.edu>,>gfa...@panix.com (Gary Farber) wrote:
>>How is it immoral or unethical to be in the same hotel as a con? Where
>>do you draw the border? Same building? Same block? Same floor?
>
>Throwing parties. Or attending parties. Or being there
>for the purpose of interacting with the con and its
>members. Seems pretty simple, really. If you're there
>*for* *the* *con* (to include the people it attracts, and
>the functions it serves, which include evening parties)
>then not buying a membership is crashing. How hard is that?
How do you feel about the action taken by some CA fans a number of
years ago, renting a function room in the hotel used by one of Doug
Wright(sp?)'s cons, in order to hand out fliers and promote other
conventions? I don't think they had memberships (or would have been
allowed to buy them). (Ask Mike Glyer about this.)
Seth
Ulrika
In article <4qgmev$o...@panix2.panix.com>, p...@panix.com (P Nielsen Hayden)
writes:
>"Projection"? I don't think I'm "projecting" anything;
>I'm telling you flat
>out that I have been a victim of this kind of thing, and that it makes me
>inclined to cut the Atlanta crowd some slack in respect to their behavior
>here.
Actually, the most you can tell me is that you have the victim of
something you perceive as sufficiently similar to what the Dragon*
Con folk have experienced to warrant projecting
your responses to your situation onto them. I am not convinced
the situations are sufficiently similar, not that the experiences
of Kelly Lockheart, Mike Dillson, et alia, particularly mirror yours.
I am willing to be dissuaded in this if Mike, Kelly, or whoever
wants to pipe up and explain how they have indeed been haunted,
loosing sleep, generally experiencing horror over the whole thing.
If so, mea culpa. What I saw in them when I met them more
nearly approached schoolboy glee. Perhaps they were masking
well.
>And I am telling you flat out that I think you have suffered a drastic
>failure of imagination in this regard, and that it has made you suddenly
>deficient in humane sympathy.
Oh, bull, Patrick. I have never, ever claimed not to sympathize with
what they were experiencing, and I have outright said that it would
indeed be understandable that they want to retaliate, though inconsistent
with their usual stance of claiming the high ground. What I don't
sympathize
with is this both ways defense that you and others are springing for.
You can have the "It's perfectly natural to want revenge" defense, and I
will give it to you; I always have. Or you can have the "The party was
a perfectly innocent gesture, and I would have done the same."
defense (less plausible, but possible, I grant you). But you can't
have both. The two are not compatible.
Either they acted innocently, in which case there is
nothing to sympathize with, or they didn't, in which case why are
they telling me they were? If you want both, you essentially want me
to have sympathy for their going in expressly to bait Roland and
then lying to me about it afterwards. In which case you're right,
Patrick, my "human sympathy" does not extend that far.
>I don't think the slings and arrows that you, Ulrika, have taken in this
>newsgroup compare at all. In fact, I think the comparison is absurd.
No more so than your comparison between the Dragon*Con/MOC
thing and your experience of the TAFF wars seems to me. Which
comparison is most absurd actually depends on where the actual
experience of the DragonCon folks lies between the two. Which
neither of us can actually know, but which my experience of the
folks in question so far suggests is likelier to lie closer to me than
thee. Just my call based on what I've seen of them, which I
admit is limited. But I've met these guys, and aside, possibly,
for John Miller, they sure as heck didn't look haunted. They
looked like they were having a good time and wouldn't mind keeping
up with it. The TIKK badges were hardly an indication of a bunch
worn out on bickering and recrimination, imho.
See, at least one point of disanalogy between your experience and
theirs is that they have each other to vet one another and do constant
reality checks, to comisserate about the whole thing. Also, because
there are lots of folks involved, nobody is getting all the shit, and
they can look around and see how absurd the shit directed at their
friends is, which goes a long way to securing them against their
own "slings and arrows." And of course, a lot of the crap isn't
directed at anyone in particular. It's a bit more work to get really
deeply personally offended at stuff directed at a mysterious they,
or at a con in general, rather than onesself. Perhaps I'm not the
only one suffering a failure of imagination.
>thing to do. But it's had very little resemblance to the experience I'm
>talking about, the experience that these Dragoncon people have been
through.
>It's striking, though, that you think the experiences _are_ comparable.
This is why I think you're projecting, Patrick. You're assuming their
experience is like yours, and projecting your reactions onto them.
Insofar as I can tell, you have insufficient evidence to suppose that
their experience is anything like yours, but you assume your own
reactions are most natural. This is what projection is.
>If I'm committing an intellectual sin, it isn't "projection," it's
>speculating beyond the data --
Yes, you have, but we disagree about which data, so it seems.
>and to the extent that I've done that, I've
>done that because I have a high regard for you and would like to let you
off
>the hook. I am speculating that your startling failure of sympathy here
>comes entirely from ignorance, from a life happily free of comparable
>experiences. I would hate to believe otherwise of you.
Ah, I don't know what *you've* been through, so I should sympathize
more with them? This is the gist of what you're claiming. The unproven
component is that what you've been through is sufficiently like their
experience to be relevant. Moreover, I don't see, even if this wing
lamed duck would fly, how my sympathizing with their experience would
help me sympathize with their lying to me about their motives in
order to win my sympathy, which is my primary concern here.
(And indeed it may not be the case, but it looks dodgy to me.)
I'm afraid I wouldn't have much sympathy for the latter regardless of
what they've been through.
Carl Zwanzig
In article James <james...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Hello,
> Coming in late so see if I understand this right....
>
> You go to MOC to throw a Dragon Con Party, which you've had problems
>with in the past, and don't contact the organizer?
>
> Contacted Security a week before - Why not organizer, Roland,
>directly?
Since conventions are *generally* run by committee, contacting one
member or branch of the committee SHOULD be enough. Especially if that
branch is security. They should be able to determine that there MAY be a
problem, and pass the info to other parties. Expecting someone to
know all of the parties that must be informed is a little much.
> As for memberships, why didn't you get those first?
If the people in question HAD sent pre-reg's, what would have happened
to them? By registering at-the-door, they avoid the lost mail problem, and
MOC gets more money. Besides, in some places, publicly offering something
and the refusing to sell it to someone is unlawful.
z!
Carl Zwanzig
Shoeshine Boy
Kelly Lockhart wrote:
>
> Yes, I went. Herewith is a rather lengthy review of my one day at MOC-11.
(and all else is snipped)
[After finally recovering from the LATEST problem with my server (not the
problem of the day, but more like the problem of the week), I finally get
the postings about MOC...a week after its over. Oh well, here's what I
would have said back then, if my server had done its' job...]
Let's see...I post here only occasionally, when I see something that
actually catches my eye, and this caught my eye (but I do read the
postings). I have been reading all the posts about D*C and MOC, and find
the entire idea that anyone from D*C would think they have the blessing of
Roland to go and throw a party at MOC laughable.
It seems to me that it is far more realistic to think this was just a
*slight* to Roland. Even if you had the best of intentions, and say that no
one should have mis-interpreted your actions, you *had* to be aware of
Roland's feelings towards D*C & his perceptions of your attitudes towards
him. I'm not saying his perceptions are right or wrong, but you cannot
pretend to be unaware of them and say 'we were innocent and had no idea
Roland would get upset' - that is untrue. You didn't really think Roland
would welcome you with open arms, did you?
If you go somewhere looking for a fight, you'll probably find one. I
know, I know, "we weren't looking for a fight, it was all Roland; if he
didn't act so irrational..." - after you *dropped* into his convention
(crashed), and know him from his posts and meeting him at ROC, you are not
entitled to feign surprise at Roland's reaction. Also, there have been
numerous postings saying (in essence) that Roland is irrational, but now you
want to say he wasn't behaving rationally, and you were surprised? Come on.
What do you expect after you try to embarass him at his convention?
Although I don't really care about D*C or MOC, I don't think actions like
this do anything but diminish the credibility of D*C. Although MOC may have
diminished its own credibility through its postings here, D*C has always
said they were trying to take the (moral) high road, and denied they had
ever done anything to undermine MOC. I don't think I can believe that w/o
reservation any longer.
Unde...@vnet.net
Jedi Squire #385 @10
R 34 06/23 02:01 Usenet ->10
RE: Re: Review of MOC-11
BY: Geri Sullivan <gfs#toad-hall.com> #4637 @30
>>:se...@panix.com (Seth Breidbart) wrote:
>>
>>How is it immoral or unethical to be in the same hotel as a con? Where do
>>you draw the border? Same building? Same block? Same floor?
>
>Throwing an open party for convention members without being members of (or
>necessarily welcome at) the convention itself? That crosses all the lines
>for me.
>
>Was there a convention rate for the room? Did the Dragon*Con group pay the
>convention rate, rack rate, or something other amount?
Of course, if they paid a MOC convention rate, then they contributed to
Roland making his room guarentee and therefore quite possibly helped save
him quite a bit of money, although I confess I doubt he'd ever admit they
had, even if it were true....
******************************************************************************
The header address above is a Usenet gateway =only=. E-Mail replies should be
addressed to 263-...@tnet.bluethun.com. Thank you. Neep-neep. Plergb.
******************************************************************************
Jedi Squire #385 @10
R 34 06/22 20:58 Usenet ->10
RE: Re: Review of MOC-11
>In article <31c6ebd2...@news.atl.mindspring.com>,
>dil...@mindspring.com (Michael Dillson) writes:
>
>>Most of the D*C people did not choose to buy badges and steered clear of
>>the convention.
>
>This seems a bit of a confession of unethical behavior on the part of
>Dragon*Con folks.
You're assuming that Michael is referring entirely to D*C staffers who
were at the hotel to host the party but who otherwise stayed out of the
convention-exclusive function areas of the hotel (of which there seem to
have been a few, if I have read correctly), but it strikes me as a possible
interpretation that Michael is instead referring to the bulk of D*C staffers
simply not attending MOC at all, avoiding both the hotel and the convention.
If he would please clarify this...?
(N.B.: in the above, I used the word "staffers" as a generic term to
refer to anybody involved in the running of DragonCon, regardless of their
actual place on the D*C organizational chart as Directors, Committee
Members, or Convention Staff.)
Another question worth asking, it seems to me, is how many of the
hotel-attendees-but-not-con-members, if any, were already blacklisted and so
would have been denied membership even if they came to Registration with
cash in hand?
A while back I wrote of the old Doug Wright vs. Every Other ConCom In
Los Angeles feud. One of the early battles in that war had to do with
Wright banning All The Others from attending his cons and promoting theirs
in standard fannish fashion. One of the other con chairs (not a LASFSian,
the one with GalactiCon), had some sort of connection with a record
distribution company, and rented a function room Wright wasn't using in the
name of that company at the same time as Wright's 1978 Thanksgiving Weekend
con at the L. A. Airport Hyatt, at which all the other concoms gave away
flyers and sold memberships without intruding into Wright's rented space.
In-Your-Face and meant to irritate? Undoubtedly. But also quite legal,
and a not-unreasonable response to Wright's breaking of the traditions of a
subculture of which he was never really a part and never understood in the
first place, but was nonetheless trying to financially exploit while
claiming to be a great champion of and for.
Does this sound like someone else of recent note, Patrick's allusions to
similarities to situations in ALL OUR YESTERDAYS notwithstanding?
P Nielsen Hayden
In article <4qhajh$j...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, Ulrika <ulr...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>I don't think the slings and arrows that you, Ulrika, have taken in this
>>newsgroup compare at all. In fact, I think the comparison is absurd.
>
>No more so than your comparison between the Dragon*Con/MOC
>thing and your experience of the TAFF wars seems to me.
TAFF wars? Speaking of "projection," Ulrika. I never said word one about
the so-called "TAFF wars," nor were any of my comments made with them in
mind.
I think you are becoming just a touch overconfident in your ability to parse
people's lives from afar. Which was my point in the first place. You want
to argue the particulars of whether the Dragoncon people were sufficiently
pure in heart. I am saying that I don't know and neither do you, and that
therefore a little slack is called for.
It's easy to judge Roland Castle based on concrete data: his posts here are
self-indicting. It's a bit more of a stretch to pass such immediate
judgment on this other crowd. You may be right and their behavior may well
be as wicked as you say it is. But I don't think the evidence is by any
means as clear-cut.
Remember, rhetorician, thou art mortal.
-----