Roland CAsTle
Catwoman
I have never posted anything on this thing homo sapiens call "Internet" before
in my life, but I finally got an account and decided it was time to set the
record straight about Roland CAsTle.
I have been to MOC for the past 10 years, and I have been friends with Roland
for most of that time. I have worked very closely with him on his staff since
the beginning. Roland certainly has his moments of assholishness, but he is
by no means the monster that many of you people have made him out to be. If I
could say one thing about Roland that I deem to be universally true, I would
say that he is completely and totally dediCATed to Fandom. He works very hard
to give fans what they want, and he is almost always successful. MOC is, in
my humble opinion (and this is not the voice of a MOC staff member talking)
the absolute best, most fun, and entertaining convention around, and it would
be none of the above were it not for Mr. CAsTle.
Those of you who have met me before and who know me, should be cognisent of
the fact that I do not tell lies (most of the time) and that I am not afraid
to say what I think. Roland sometimes says things that come out sounding
harsh, and I'm sure he has his reasons for this, but think about the message
he is trying to get across. When has Roland ever told Fandom a blatant lie?
Be honest. He has never lied to Fandom in my opinion. When has Roland ever
done anything that would hurt Fandom in any way? Never. You guys out there
who are trying to bust his balls are only hurting Fandom by slagging him.
Give the guy a break and let him get on with the business of entertaining
Fandom.
Michael Dillson
Are you the Catwoman that Roland threatened us all with? Are you finally
appearing on the net in Roland's defense. Should we all be afraid, very
afraid? Answere to this, and many other questions to follow in subsequent
posts.
:>I have never posted anything on this thing homo sapiens call "Internet" before
:>in my life, but I finally got an account and decided it was time to set the
:>record straight about Roland CAsTle.
OK, at least you present yourself calmly, rationally, and without placing
insulting "p" words in every other sentence. This is a good start.
:>I have been to MOC for the past 10 years, and I have been friends with Roland
:>for most of that time. I have worked very closely with him on his staff since
:>the beginning. Roland certainly has his moments of assholishness, but he is
:>by no means the monster that many of you people have made him out to be.
Unfortunately, he is, to us, what his postings make him out to be. Until he
can calmly present himself here and apologize for all the insults he's flung
at everyone, we're not likely to take your word for it.
BTW, have you read any of the stuff that Mr. Castle has been dishing out
here? I'd be more than happy to send it to you if you haven't.
:>If I
:>could say one thing about Roland that I deem to be universally true, I would
:>say that he is completely and totally dediCATed to Fandom.
Curious habit, this CAT thing of yours. Do you search through your entire
post to look to see if the letter C A and T appear in a word, or do you have
a macro that does it for you?
:>He works very hard
:>to give fans what they want, and he is almost always successful. MOC is, in
:>my humble opinion (and this is not the voice of a MOC staff member talking)
:>the absolute best, most fun, and entertaining convention around, and it would
:>be none of the above were it not for Mr. CAsTle.
I think you have not read anything in this forum, Ms. Catwoman. We have not
taken Mr. Castle to task about MOC. In fact, the vast majority of comments
on MOC as a convention have been positive. And, since most of us haven't
been to a MOC at all, or haven't been to one in years, we don't feel
qualified to criticize the convention. What we have been raking Roland over
the coals for is his inability to hold a civil conversation with anyone
without insulting them or threatening them.
:>Those of you who have met me before and who know me, should be cognisent of
:>the fact that I do not tell lies (most of the time) and that I am not afraid
:>to say what I think.
I'm afraid I don't know you from Adam (or should that be Eve?), but I'm
willing to accept you as a nice person. I do know, however, that you are
very closely involved in MOC and with Roland, in particular. I am willing to
give you the benefit of the doubt.
:>Roland sometimes says things that come out sounding
:>harsh, and I'm sure he has his reasons for this, but think about the message
:>he is trying to get across.
What message is that? That there is an international conspiracy out to
destroy MOC? Of the fact that all the people on this forum are decended from
sheep?
:>When has Roland ever told Fandom a blatant lie?
Well, let's see. Where do I start. I don't know that he considers any of
the people on this forum as Fandom, so I shouldn't use the frequent
inconsistencies he has told here, but I will.
1. I have never banned anyone from MOC.
Numerous people, normally lurkers in this forum, have popped up to disprove
this statement, among them Mike Weaver, Jane Spaulding and Sean Patrick
Fannon. I guess this make is a lie, doesn't it?
2. Ed Kramer is guiding all the people on Usenet to post negative things
about MOC.
Boy, this is a paranoid delusional fantasy beyond anything I have ever seen.
I suppose I cannot call this a lie, since it is the result of a percieved
delusional situation.
There are numerous others, but the one that can be thoroughly documented and
*IS* to people that Roland definitely considers his idea of Fandom occured in
his own _FANDOM_ magazine (The Most Non Politically Correct Newsletter Under
the Sun). In Volume 11, Number 2, he specifically states that Ed Kramer had
contacted the Greenville Hyatt to try and throw a convention in Greenville
opposite MOC's dates. He says he was told this by the two people who are in
charge of his account.
Now, I have a WATS line, so I could not resist checking this one out. I
called and, guess what? No one at the Greenville Hyatt had ever heard of Ed
Kramer or Dragon Con! I called Ed. He called the Hyatt to get more
information. Same story.
This is what I define as a lie, plain and simple.
:>Be honest. He has never lied to Fandom in my opinion.
Wrong.
:>When has Roland ever
:>done anything that would hurt Fandom in any way?
This is purely a matter of opinion. Since Roland has a really narrow vision
of who is Fandom, and who is "psheep", I don't guess he has harmed his slice
of Fandom at all. He has, however, blackened his name in the eyes of the
rest of the Fandom pie. Even people who have no idea what the internet is
have an idea of what is happening on this forum.
:>Never.
Uh, OK.
:>You guys out there
:>who are trying to bust his balls are only hurting Fandom by slagging him.
No, we want an apology. Plain and simple.
:>Give the guy a break and let him get on with the business of entertaining
:>Fandom.
If he posts on the net, I, for one, will not be responding to him untill I
get an apology.
You better talk to him.
--------------------
Mike Dillson
Atlanta, GA
dil...@mindspring.com
All content copyright by writer and may not be reproduced without
his written permission.
User Support
:
: Wed, 03 Apr 1996 20:28:36 alt.fandom.cons Thread 19 of 19
: Lines 27 Roland CAsTle 2 Responses
: catw...@negia.net Catwoman at Magnum Opus Con, Inc.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I stopped reading when I got to this point.
Kelly Lockhart
:
: I have never posted anything on this thing homo sapiens call "Internet" before
: record straight about Roland CAsTle.
Did you by any chance read any of the messages Roland had posted to this
newsgroup before you decided to "set the record straight"?
: I have been to MOC for the past 10 years, and I have been friends with Roland
: for most of that time. I have worked very closely with him on his staff since
: the beginning. Roland certainly has his moments of assholishness, but he is
: by no means the monster that many of you people have made him out to be.
To be perfectly honest, Roland made himself out to be a monster without
anyone here needing to do anything at all - his unwarrented attacks on
many members of this newsgroup without any provocation were what started
the whole mess.
: If I could say one thing about Roland that I deem to be universally true,
: I would say that he is completely and totally dediCATed to Fandom. He
: works very hard to give fans what they want, and he is almost always
: successful.
The only way I could possibly agree with the above statement would be if
it were amended to read "MOC Fandom" instead of the fandom that they rest
of us enjoy. In my opinion, MOC Fandom and regular SF Fandom have very
little in common.
: Roland sometimes says things that come out sounding harsh, and I'm
: sure he has his reasons for this, but think about the message he is
: trying to get across.
To be bluntly honest, the only message I have seen Roland trying to get
across is that there is some all-powerful international conspiracy to
destroy MOC that is headed by Ed Kramer.
Since that is complete paranoia on Roland's part and has absolutely
nothing to do with the real world, maybe you were talking about some
other message?
: When has Roland ever told Fandom a blatant lie? Be honest. He has
: never lied to Fandom in my opinion.
It is quite obvious that you have never read any of Roland's previous
messages here in this newsgroup. Roland has lied directly to us so many
times that we have taken to completely ignoring any of his further
messages.
: When has Roland ever done anything that would hurt Fandom in any way?
Roland's actions here in alt.fandom.cons have done irreperable harm to
his own convention, which could be construed as "hurting fandom." His
attacks, his rants, his juvenile name-calling, his unethical advertising
practices, and his out-and-out lies have caused a large number of people
in fandom to swear off his convention entirerly.
A perfect example: David Webber is a successful author who has been a GoH
at many cons around the country. He is a popular guest who mingles well
(and often) with the fans. Almost any convention in the country would be
happy to have David as a guest.
But David will never attend MOC. Do you know why? Because Roland called
David's sister-in-law a "star-phucker" right here in this newsgroup.
This is not the sort of behavior that could be seen as benefiting fandom,
that's for sure.
: You guys out there who are trying to bust his balls are only hurting
: Fandom by slagging him.
Again, I repeat that you have obviously not read any of the previous
messages or you would understand that far from "trying to bust his balls"
we have bent over backwards trying to deal with him in a clear-minded
manner. Unfortunately, Roland continues to rant and rave without ever
once producing a _single_ piece of his so-called evidence. He is now
being ostracised because of his unrepentant behavior.
: Give the guy a break and let him get on with the business of entertaining
: Fandom.
Oh, he's been entertaining fandom for about six months now, but we are
tired of the same old routines and have moved on to more interesting
conversations. The only reason I am responding to you is that, since you
are obviously new to Usenet, I felt you should be aware of a few things
first.
-- Kelly Lockhart
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| kel...@cris.com http://www.cris.com/~kellyl |
| k.loc...@genie.com Genie SFRT1 Category 38 Topic 4 |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
michael weaver
ago. I never brought the subject up (save with a few close friends)
during the entire time.
I had been reading alt.fandom.cons for some time, and only perked up
with my tale of Roland banning me AFTER he declared that he had NEVER
banned anyone. In short he lied.
Here is my original post, enjoy.
> My name is Michael Weaver I am an artist, I have worked for (among >others ) Wizards of the Coast, TSR, FASA, Ral Partha, Chaos=
ium. I am >frequently a guest at various Science Fiction conventions (I have >attended over 40 by my last estimate).
> I wish to relate my experiences with Roland and the Moc convention. >I attended Moc for many years, both as a representative (=
and art >director ) for Ral Partha and a freelance illustrator.
> To put things in perspective, I had attending Moc for 4 years. Every >year I barely broke even in the art show (most other conv=
entions, I was >making a fairly tidy profit). As Ral Partha's art director, I repeatedly >brought the company down to Moc, ( Partha =
barely broke even there also) > and sponsored a large number of events, often at my own personal >expense.
> Some years ago, Roland decided to cancel the art show. Well, I >need not tell you that the art show is the main reason for me=
to got to >Moc. At the time I lived in Athens (same city as Roland ) and decided to >go over to his shop and tell him in person tha=
t I regretted that I could >not make it to Moc. I gave him my explanation in a very apologetic >manner and told him that my decision=
was a purely financal one. I was >still a student at the time, and I really could not afford to go to a >convention if there was no=
art show.
> Roland EXPLODED. He told me that not only could I not go to Moc >that year, but that I was BANNED from Moc forever, and that =
were I to >show up, that he would have me removed by the police. Further more, I >was no longer allowed into his store and that the =
same police removal >awaited me there.
> I was, to say the least, speechless.
> All my past participation meant nothing to Roland. Simply by >choosing to not personally attend one year, I went from loya=
l regular >supporting guest to just another someone who wants to f-ck Roland over, >in Roland's eyes.
I may add that Roland reply to this was a pile of lies, to which I sent
a long answer. He was unable to twist any of my words from my last reply
and has kept away from me since.
brian moore
your integrity next.
Michael Dillson
>Better watch it Catwoman,they'll be trying to attack
>your integrity next.
What kind of BS is this?
--------------------
Mike Dillson
Atlanta, GA
dil...@mindspring.com
The contents of this message are copyright by the poster
and may not be used without his expressed written permission.
scp...@ibm.net
>
>A perfect example: David Webber is a successful author who has been a GoH
>at many cons around the country. He is a popular guest who mingles well
>(and often) with the fans. Almost any convention in the country would be
>happy to have David as a guest.
Err, it's Weber with one "b"....
>
>But David will never attend MOC. Do you know why? Because Roland called
>David's sister-in-law a "star-phucker" right here in this newsgroup.
>This is not the sort of behavior that could be seen as benefiting fandom,
>that's for sure.
David has attended Moc; indeed, David is one of the reasons I attended it when
it was held in Greenville...he lived down the street from the hotel so I crashed at his
place. A lot cheaper than the hotel.
I don't know that' he'll ever attend again, though you should ask him about that.
Since he is not on the 'Net....
Or did you talk to him about it at Magic Carpet? <g>
Sue
_________________________________________________________________
"The Universe knows what it's doing." s.phil...@genie.com
Delenn
GEI and X-Phile
_________________________________________________________________
Kelly Lockhart
: Err, it's Weber with one "b"....
Sorry... <psheepish grin>
: >But David will never attend MOC. Do you know why? Because Roland called
: >David's sister-in-law a "star-phucker" right here in this newsgroup.
: >This is not the sort of behavior that could be seen as benefiting fandom,
: >that's for sure.
: I don't know that' he'll ever attend again, though you should ask him
: about that.
David made the statement that he will never attend another MOC because of
Roland's statements towards his sister-in-law while playing spades in
the Magic Carpet Con consuite with Uncle Timmy, Kerry, and Anne.
He was quite vehement in his statement.
brian moore
Since it wasn't written to you it shouldn't concern you.
P Nielsen Hayden
Clearly, the words of someone unclear on the concept of a "public forum."
-----
Patrick Nielsen Hayden : p...@tor.com : http://www.panix.com/~pnh
Kelly Lockhart
: >
: > >Better watch it Catwoman,they'll be trying to attack
: > >your integrity next.
: > Michael Dillson wrote:
: >
: > What kind of BS is this?
: brian moore <bmo...@vnet.net> wrote:
:
: Since it wasn't written to you it shouldn't concern you.
Brian, when you make a public post to a Usenet newsgroup, it _is_ written
to everyone. If you don't want people reading your messages, send them
via private email.
brian moore
> : >
> : > >Better watch it Catwoman,they'll be trying to attack
> : > >your integrity next.
> : >
> : > Mike Dillson
> : > Atlanta, GA
> : > dil...@mindspring.com
> : > The contents of this message are copyright by the poster
> : > and may not be used without his expressed written permission.
>
>
>
> -----
> Patrick Nielsen Hayden : p...@tor.com : http://www.panix.com/~pnh
Clearly,the words of someone CLEAR on the word 'ASSHOLE."
Catwoman
Lockhart) wrote:
>Did you by any chance read any of the messages Roland had posted to this
>newsgroup before you decided to "set the record straight"?
>
Yes.
>
>To be perfectly honest, Roland made himself out to be a monster without
>anyone here needing to do anything at all - his unwarrented attacks on
>many members of this newsgroup without any provocation were what started
>the whole mess.
>
I find that hard to believe. Roland doesn't start fights. But he isn't
afraid to partiCipATe in one once the opportunity presents itself.
>
>The only way I could possibly agree with the above statement would be if
>it were amended to read "MOC Fandom" instead of the fandom that they rest
>of us enjoy. In my opinion, MOC Fandom and regular SF Fandom have very
>little in common.
>
That's for sure. Maybe there should be two newsgroups for Fandom: One for
each side.
>
>To be bluntly honest, the only message I have seen Roland trying to get
>across is that there is some all-powerful international conspiracy to
>destroy MOC that is headed by Ed Kramer.
>
I'm not entirely sure that Roland is completely paranoid. I have it on good
authority from a high-up Dragon Con staffer (whose name will NOT be revealed)
that Ed Kramer does in fact have a purr-sonal vendetta against both MOC and
Roland. This source revealed that Kramer has on more than one occasion called
up prospective MOC hotels and warned them that MOC Fandom would destroy their
rooms and, get this, that we were Satan worshippers. Pretty cool, huh? All
hail Lucifer! (And in case your wondering, I did not get this info indirectly
from Roland. In fact he probably isn't even aware of it.)
>
>It is quite obvious that you have never read any of Roland's previous
>messages here in this newsgroup. Roland has lied directly to us so many
>times that we have taken to completely ignoring any of his further
>messages.
>
Everyone keeps talking about this elusive mountain of lies, but I've only
actually heard two "claims" of his treachery. GIVE ME HARD CORE PROOF other
than your word against his.
>
>Roland's actions here in alt.fandom.cons have done irreperable harm to
>his own convention, which could be construed as "hurting fandom." His
>attacks, his rants, his juvenile name-calling, his unethical advertising
>practices, and his out-and-out lies have caused a large number of people
>in fandom to swear off his convention entirerly.
>
Those are just the people that we would rather not attend MOC.
>A perfect example: David Webber is a successful author who has been a GoH
>at many cons around the country. He is a popular guest who mingles well
>(and often) with the fans. Almost any convention in the country would be
>happy to have David as a guest.
>
>But David will never attend MOC. Do you know why? Because Roland called
>David's sister-in-law a "star-phucker" right here in this newsgroup.
>This is not the sort of behavior that could be seen as benefiting fandom,
>that's for sure.
>
Did it occur to you that purr-haps Roland did not wish to invite Mr. Webber
for a purr-sonal reason that we aren't hearing about? Who is this David
Webber anyway?
>
>Again, I repeat that you have obviously not read any of the previous
>messages or you would understand that far from "trying to bust his balls"
>we have bent over backwards trying to deal with him in a clear-minded
>manner. Unfortunately, Roland continues to rant and rave without ever
>once producing a _single_ piece of his so-called evidence. He is now
>being ostracised because of his unrepentant behavior.
>
Roland enjoys being ostracized, so I'm sure your last deClAraTion just made
his day.
>
>Oh, he's been entertaining fandom for about six months now, but we are
>tired of the same old routines and have moved on to more interesting
>conversations. The only reason I am responding to you is that, since you
>are obviously new to Usenet, I felt you should be aware of a few things
>first.
>
Thank you for your kind advice. Here's some neophyte advice for you: If you
don't like the things that Roland has been posting on the net, then don't add
fuel to his fire.
P. S. By the way, aren't you the one who claims that Roland's body guard (ha,
ha) evicted you from his business premises? It's funny how you presented your
side of the encounter. First of all, if you have ever met Roland, you know
that he has absolutely no need for a security guard or a body guard. He is
QUITE capable of taking care of himself. Secondly, from where I was standing
(next to Roland, patiently awaiting your arrival), the story went a little
differently. Allow me to refresh your "memory". The Komix CAsTle which you
visited on that fateful day was obviously not the same Komix CAsTle that
Roland operates. I was there (along with several other witnesses) on the day
you said you were coming, and we all went home disappointed. Purr-haps you
got lost on your way to Athens and ended up at the former Komix CAsTle in
Macon. None of us saw you that day. However, I purr-sonally would be glad to
set up a meeting between you and Roland at your earliest convenience if you
still want to talk to him face to face. I look forward to meeting you.
Catwoman
wrote:
>Are you the Catwoman that Roland threatened us all with? Are you finally
>appearing on the net in Roland's defense. Should we all be afraid, very
>afraid? Answere to this, and many other questions to follow in subsequent
>posts.
>
Yes, yes, and yes.
>OK, at least you present yourself calmly, rationally, and without placing
>insulting "p" words in every other sentence. This is a good start.
>Unfortunately, he is, to us, what his postings make him out to be. Until he
>can calmly present himself here and apologize for all the insults he's flung
>at everyone, we're not likely to take your word for it.
>BTW, have you read any of the stuff that Mr. Castle has been dishing out
>here? I'd be more than happy to send it to you if you haven't.
>
Roland is simply calling things as he sees them, and he's well within his
rights if he wants to express his opinion just as you are free to express
yours. Nobody's forcing anyone else to listen.
>Curious habit, this CAT thing of yours. Do you search through your entire
>post to look to see if the letter C A and T appear in a word, or do you have
>a macro that does it for you?
>
I'm just damn good.
>
>I think you have not read anything in this forum, Ms. Catwoman. We have not
>taken Mr. Castle to task about MOC. In fact, the vast majority of comments
>on MOC as a convention have been positive. And, since most of us haven't
>been to a MOC at all, or haven't been to one in years, we don't feel
>qualified to criticize the convention. What we have been raking Roland over
>the coals for is his inability to hold a civil conversation with anyone
>without insulting them or threatening them.
>
At the risk of sounding haughty, I have to say that those who CAn'T take the
heat shouldn't be cooking in the kitchen.
>I'm afraid I don't know you from Adam (or should that be Eve?), but I'm
>willing to accept you as a nice person. I do know, however, that you are
>very closely involved in MOC and with Roland, in particular. I am willing to
>give you the benefit of the doubt.
>
And though you may be involved with Ed Kramer, I haven't exactly left any
sacrificed chickens on your doorstep. You seem nice enough.
>What message is that? That there is an international conspiracy out to
>destroy MOC? Of the fact that all the people on this forum are decended from
>sheep?
>
Now you're starting to sound paranoid.
>Well, let's see. Where do I start. I don't know that he considers any of
>the people on this forum as Fandom, so I shouldn't use the frequent
>inconsistencies he has told here, but I will.
>
>1. I have never banned anyone from MOC.
>
>Numerous people, normally lurkers in this forum, have popped up to disprove
>this statement, among them Mike Weaver, Jane Spaulding and Sean Patrick
>Fannon. I guess this make is a lie, doesn't it?
>
>2. Ed Kramer is guiding all the people on Usenet to post negative things
>about MOC.
>
>Boy, this is a paranoid delusional fantasy beyond anything I have ever seen.
>I suppose I cannot call this a lie, since it is the result of a percieved
>delusional situation.
>
That's what's so interesting. All I read about are people who hate Roland for
this reason or that. I don't think one has to have a phD in Conspiracy Theory
to start wondering if most of the people on the Anti-Roland Squad aren't
working together in SOME way... Oh let's go out on a limb... Could they be...
DRAGON CON staff members? Let's be reasonable here. It's clear that many of
you/them/whoever are on the Dragon Con staff. That's not paranoia. It's
merely an observation. Something for other people to ponder.
>There are numerous others, but the one that can be thoroughly documented and
>*IS* to people that Roland definitely considers his idea of Fandom occured in
>his own _FANDOM_ magazine (The Most Non Politically Correct Newsletter Under
>the Sun). In Volume 11, Number 2, he specifically states that Ed Kramer had
>contacted the Greenville Hyatt to try and throw a convention in Greenville
>opposite MOC's dates. He says he was told this by the two people who are in
>charge of his account.
>
Hold on there, partner. The Hyatt people don't know about it because it has
shed its entire management staff several times over since MOC was last held
there. Of course they've never heard of Ed Kramer.
>
>This is purely a matter of opinion. Since Roland has a really narrow vision
>of who is Fandom, and who is "psheep", I don't guess he has harmed his slice
>of Fandom at all. He has, however, blackened his name in the eyes of the
>rest of the Fandom pie. Even people who have no idea what the internet is
>have an idea of what is happening on this forum.
>
You're right. Our idea of Fandom is quite obviously not the same as yours.
The way I see it, you guys should stick with your vision, and we'll stick with
ours. Roland doesn't give a shit about offending people, as you well know.
People who are in it for Our Version of Fandom will come back every year, no
matter what you or me or Roland says. They don't care about this petty
internet bickering. They simply want to have a good time, and they do at
every MOC.
>No, we want an apology. Plain and simple.
>
You won't get one from him.
>If he posts on the net, I, for one, will not be responding to him untill I
>get an apology.
>
He probably appreCiATes that.
P. S. I just read your post dated April 5 regarding the possibility that you
might come to MOC 11. If you decide to come, I will be there (as always), so
e-mail me and I can give you more info. You will be guaranteed a great time.
Michael Dillson
>Clearly,the words of someone CLEAR on the word 'ASSHOLE."
Clear the decks, ffolks, them's fightin' words!! ;-)
Seriously, though, Brian, language like this is not apropriate in this topic
and should be avoided. I suggest you read on netiquette before continuing.
--------------------
Mike Dillson
Atlanta, GA
dil...@mindspring.com
Kelly Lockhart
: In article <4jvpoh$l...@tribune.concentric.net>, Kel...@cris.com (Kelly
: Lockhart) wrote:
: >Did you by any chance read any of the messages Roland had posted to this
: >newsgroup before you decided to "set the record straight"?
:
: Yes.
And you still support him? Amazing....
: >To be perfectly honest, Roland made himself out to be a monster without
: >anyone here needing to do anything at all - his unwarrented attacks on
: >many members of this newsgroup without any provocation were what started
: >the whole mess.
: >
: I find that hard to believe. Roland doesn't start fights. But he isn't
: afraid to partiCipATe in one once the opportunity presents itself.
Obviously, then, you haven't read the posts here or you would know that
Roland did start all the fights. Need proof? Go to http://www.deja.news
and look up the archives of this newsgroup for the past six months and
read the messages relating to m...@ix.netcom.com (Roland's email address).
: >To be bluntly honest, the only message I have seen Roland trying to get
: >across is that there is some all-powerful international conspiracy to
: >destroy MOC that is headed by Ed Kramer.
: >
: I'm not entirely sure that Roland is completely paranoid. I have it on good
: authority from a high-up Dragon Con staffer (whose name will NOT be revealed)
: that Ed Kramer does in fact have a purr-sonal vendetta against both MOC and
: Roland. This source revealed that Kramer has on more than one occasion called
: up prospective MOC hotels and warned them that MOC Fandom would destroy their
: rooms and, get this, that we were Satan worshippers. Pretty cool, huh? All
: hail Lucifer! (And in case your wondering, I did not get this info indirectly
: from Roland. In fact he probably isn't even aware of it.)
I find this very amusing, and very sad at the same time. I've known Ed
Kramer for eight years, and have known Roland for about five years. I
used to be a MOC supporter, which will probably surprise you considering
how Roland has treated me since he came on the net. While I could
readily believe that Roland would do something like that towards
Dragon*Con, the Ed Kramer that I know would never stoop as low as to do
what you claime he has done.
I'm just filing this little story under the heading of "no evidence"
until you can present me with something a little more credible.
: >It is quite obvious that you have never read any of Roland's previous
: >messages here in this newsgroup. Roland has lied directly to us so many
: >times that we have taken to completely ignoring any of his further
: >messages.
: >
: Everyone keeps talking about this elusive mountain of lies, but I've only
: actually heard two "claims" of his treachery. GIVE ME HARD CORE PROOF other
: than your word against his.
The hard core proof is in Roland's own messages and words that have been
posted right here. What more do you need?
: >Roland's actions here in alt.fandom.cons have done irreperable harm to
: >his own convention, which could be construed as "hurting fandom." His
: >attacks, his rants, his juvenile name-calling, his unethical advertising
: >practices, and his out-and-out lies have caused a large number of people
: >in fandom to swear off his convention entirerly.
: >
: Those are just the people that we would rather not attend MOC.
Anyone who dares to disagree with Roland seems to fall under that
category. That is fast becoming a very large group.
: >A perfect example: David Webber is a successful author who has been a GoH
: >at many cons around the country. He is a popular guest who mingles well
: >(and often) with the fans. Almost any convention in the country would be
: >happy to have David as a guest.
: >
: >But David will never attend MOC. Do you know why? Because Roland called
: >David's sister-in-law a "star-phucker" right here in this newsgroup.
: >This is not the sort of behavior that could be seen as benefiting fandom,
: >that's for sure.
: >
: Did it occur to you that purr-haps Roland did not wish to invite Mr. Webber
: for a purr-sonal reason that we aren't hearing about? Who is this David
: Webber anyway?
David Weber (sorry, only one B - I mistyped) was a guest at MOC before.
Maybe if you look back through your program books, you can refresh your
own memory. FWIW, he's an author, and a good one at that.
: >Again, I repeat that you have obviously not read any of the previous
: >messages or you would understand that far from "trying to bust his balls"
: >we have bent over backwards trying to deal with him in a clear-minded
: >manner. Unfortunately, Roland continues to rant and rave without ever
: >once producing a _single_ piece of his so-called evidence. He is now
: >being ostracised because of his unrepentant behavior.
: >
: Roland enjoys being ostracized, so I'm sure your last deClAraTion just made
: his day.
He enjoys being ostracized? That's really sad.
: >Oh, he's been entertaining fandom for about six months now, but we are
: >tired of the same old routines and have moved on to more interesting
: >conversations. The only reason I am responding to you is that, since you
: >are obviously new to Usenet, I felt you should be aware of a few things
: >first.
: >
: Thank you for your kind advice. Here's some neophyte advice for you: If you
: don't like the things that Roland has been posting on the net, then don't add
: fuel to his fire.
It's not his newsgroup to set the ground rules. It is a self-policing
entity that is a forum for all of fandom, not just one small part. Since
Roland refuses to abide by the standards of conversation set by the rest
of the particpants, namely not being offensives, threatening, or verball
abusive, he is now being ignored.
: P. S. By the way, aren't you the one who claims that Roland's body guard (ha,
: ha) evicted you from his business premises?
It was a person wearing a security guard uniform. He never claimed he
was employed or representing Roland, although all available evidence
points that direction.
: First of all, if you have ever met Roland, you know
: that he has absolutely no need for a security guard or a body guard.
I have met Roland, many times. We used to be on friendly terms until he
started posting lies about me here on the net.
: Secondly, from where I was standing
: (next to Roland, patiently awaiting your arrival), the story went a little
: differently. Allow me to refresh your "memory". The Komix CAsTle which you
: visited on that fateful day was obviously not the same Komix CAsTle that
: Roland operates. I was there (along with several other witnesses) on the day
: you said you were coming, and we all went home disappointed. Purr-haps you
: got lost on your way to Athens and ended up at the former Komix CAsTle in
: Macon.
I went to the Komix Kastle in Athens that sits next to the pizza place,
where it has been for several years, since he move from the Beechwood
Shopping Center. This smokescreen of my supposedly going to the wrong
location has already been dealt with in this newsgroup.
: None of us saw you that day. However, I purr-sonally would be glad to
: set up a meeting between you and Roland at your earliest convenience if you
: still want to talk to him face to face. I look forward to meeting you.
I am still awaiting Fred Grimm's reply to his offer to mediate a meeting
between Roland and I. He hasn't replied in about two weeks, but I am
still hoping.
You, I will not meet with. Frankly, I view you as part of the problem,
and not the solution. As long as Roland is surrounded by people that
feed his paranoia and supprt his violently antisocial behvaiour, he will
never get the help that he so urgently and obviously needs.
By the way, what is you name? "Catwoman" may be a nice nom de plume to
use in the FANDOM newsletter, but here in alt.fandom.cons, the way to
gain credibility is to use your real name.
Kelly Lockhart
: That's what's so interesting. All I read about are people who hate Roland for
: to start wondering if most of the people on the Anti-Roland Squad aren't
: working together in SOME way... Oh let's go out on a limb... Could they be...
: DRAGON CON staff members? Let's be reasonable here. It's clear that many of
: you/them/whoever are on the Dragon Con staff. That's not paranoia. It's
: merely an observation. Something for other people to ponder.
To date, the following Dragon*Con staff members have participated in this
ongoing debate:
Ed Kramer Chairman
Paul Cashman Publications Director
Kelly Lockhart Online Services Director
Alan Huskey Children's Programming
Mike Dillson Security/Medical Team Leader
A few other people have posted that have worked as volunteer staffers,
but they also pointed out that they have worked many other cons (severla
of them at MOC).
The rest of the people involved in the debate, notable among them Gary
Farber, David Romm, Ulrika O'Brian, Patrick Nielson Hayden, "Jedi
Squire", Fred Grimm, Michael Weaver, Stan Bruns, Sue Phillips, Dirk
Loedding, Jane Spaulding, and many, many more are not Dragon*Con
staffer. In fact, many of the above people have never even attended
Dragon*Con.
So much for your conspiracy rumors. As they say on the game shows,
"Bzzt! Next contestant! Thank you for playing."
michael weaver
suggest that you find an informational page on net behavior and read it.
michael weaver
> That's what's so interesting. All I read about are people who hate >Roland for
>this reason or that. I don't think one has to have a phD in Conspiracy >Theory
>to start wondering if most of the people on the Anti-Roland Squad aren't
>working together in SOME way... Oh let's go out on a limb... Could they >be...
>DRAGON CON staff members? Let's be reasonable here. It's clear that >many of
>you/them/whoever are on the Dragon Con staff. That's not paranoia. >It's
>merely an observation. Something for other people to ponder.
I have never been a staff member of any convention, I pay for my
display space at any convention that I go to. In the past that has
included Moc, Dragon Con, Gen Con, various World Cons, Necronomicon and
some 30 or 40 misc conventions. While I have also recieved a guest badge
from most of these convention, that is not staff work. I have never had
any convention require me to be "anti" anything ( except one time when
Roland gave a rather disturbing anti Dragon Con speech which I ignored
and exited from quickly). I may add that in the 7 years that I have
displayed at Dragon Con, I have never heard a negative word about Moc or
Roland from the staff. (they never heard of him at Gen Con)
Michael Dillson
:>>Are you the Catwoman that Roland threatened us all with? Are you finally
:>>appearing on the net in Roland's defense. Should we all be afraid, very
:>>afraid? Answere to this, and many other questions to follow in subsequent
:>>posts.
:>>
:>Yes, yes, and yes.
OK, I can see this is going to be a hoot. ;-)
<snip>
:>Roland is simply calling things as he sees them, and he's well within his
:>rights if he wants to express his opinion just as you are free to express
:>yours. Nobody's forcing anyone else to listen.
As it is our right to strenuously object to his postings. No one is forcing
him to be obscene and/or insulting, either.
<snip>
:>At the risk of sounding haughty, I have to say that those who CAn'T take the
:>heat shouldn't be cooking in the kitchen.
I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean here. Are you saying that all of
us should put our tails between our legs and run screaming from the room
whenever Roland or you comes on and posts?
In the words of our former president, "Not gonna happen".
<snip>
:>And though you may be involved with Ed Kramer, I haven't exactly left any
:>sacrificed chickens on your doorstep. You seem nice enough.
Well, you could. I _love_ fried chicken! ;-) Seriously, though, I do know
Ed and have worked with him for about five years on the convention.
<snip>
:>Now you're starting to sound paranoid.
What? Me? Who told you that? Was it Ed? Was it Kelly? Could it have been
the Gnomes? Oh, Lord, help me!!!
:>>Well, let's see. Where do I start. I don't know that he considers any of
You ever heard of records? You've obviously never worked in the sales
industry before. These people don't go to the bathroom without a paper trail
(sometimes, it's toilet paper, but I digress). There is no record of any
meeting between Ed Kramer and the Greenville Hyatt. Period. Roland is lying
through his teeth.
<snip>
:>You're right. Our idea of Fandom is quite obviously not the same as yours.
:>The way I see it, you guys should stick with your vision, and we'll stick with
:>ours. Roland doesn't give a shit about offending people, as you well know.
:>People who are in it for Our Version of Fandom will come back every year, no
:>matter what you or me or Roland says. They don't care about this petty
:>internet bickering. They simply want to have a good time, and they do at
:>every MOC.
But MOC IS NOT THE ISSUE! Roland's definition of fandom is not the issue.
Roland's behavior *is* the issue. If Roland doesn't like it, he can get out
of this forum. If he wants to behave according to accepted net rules and
behavior, he will be well received here. Otherwise...
:>>No, we want an apology. Plain and simple.
:>>
:>You won't get one from him.
I kind of figured that. But, hope springs eternal...
:>>If he posts on the net, I, for one, will not be responding to him untill I
:>>get an apology.
:>>
:>He probably appreCiATes that.
There's that CAT thing again. You know, it can get quite annoying.
:>P. S. I just read your post dated April 5 regarding the possibility that you
:>might come to MOC 11. If you decide to come, I will be there (as always), so
:>e-mail me and I can give you more info. You will be guaranteed a great time.
I'm sending you email.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Dillson Atlanta, GA dil...@mindspring.com
All content copyright by writer and may not used without permission.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
John P. Miller
> I have worked very closely with him on his staff since
>the beginning.
[snip]
>MOC is, in
>my humble opinion (and this is not the voice of a MOC staff member talking)
>the absolute best, most fun, and entertaining convention around, and it would
>be none of the above were it not for Mr. CAsTle.
You seem to be contradicting yourself here, Catwoman. If you have
"worked very closely with him on his staff" then your *is* the voice
of a MOC staff member.
>
>Those of you who have met me before and who know me, should be cognisent of
>the fact that I do not tell lies (most of the time) and that I am not afraid
>to say what I think.
I regret that I only know you in your Catwoman persona at MOC. I
don't know you personally enough to judge your veracity.
> Roland sometimes says things that come out sounding
>harsh, and I'm sure he has his reasons for this, but think about the message
>he is trying to get across.
Over and over, Roland's message has been that people are out to get
him and that he's always told the truth and will eventually be
vindicated. To justify his position, he has viciously attacked anyone
who would dare post an even remotely different point of view, myself
included.
> When has Roland ever told Fandom a blatant lie?
According to numerous posters on this forum, either Roland has lied
repeatedly, or everyone *is* out to get him. You be the judge.
>He has never lied to Fandom in my opinion.
Opinion has nothing to do with it. Something is either a lie or it
isn't. You may not have knowledge of him lying, but that isn't
opinion, that's personal experience.
> When has Roland ever
>done anything that would hurt Fandom in any way? Never.
There are those on this forum who would say his vehement attacks on
people who disagree with him are harming not only fandom, but MOC as
well. Many people have stated they intend to never attend MOC simply
because of how Roland has conducted himself here.
>You guys out there
>who are trying to bust his balls are only hurting Fandom by slagging him.
>Give the guy a break and let him get on with the business of entertaining
>Fandom.
No one here wants to break his balls. I'm sure everyone here would be
willing to listen to Roland if he would apologize for his past attacks
and conduct himself like a sane adult.
_
|------/X\------------------|-----------------------------------------|
| | |NASA-KSC | John P. Miller |
| | |STS-49 Endeavour | Ladc...@ix.netcom.com |
| | |First Flight | |
| | |Launch Team | "If the same amount of energy that was |
| / \ | spent studying the female bosom went |
| / I \ | into the space program, we would now |
| / OV I 105\ | be operating hot dog stands on the |
| |_____I_____| | moon." --J.P.M. |
|- '--'/_\'--' -------------|-----------------------------------------|
Jailbait
Kelly> By the way, what is you name? "Catwoman" may be a nice nom
Kelly> de plume to use in the FANDOM newsletter, but here in
Kelly> alt.fandom.cons, the way to gain credibility is to use your
Kelly> real name.
Kelly> -- Kelly Lockhart
Kelly - the rest of your response to Catwoman seemed very even handed
and well thought-out, but this one paragraph rankles a bit.
Unfortunately, I deleted your .sig block before noting where you're
located, but since cris.com is in Cupertino, I'll take a guess at
west-coast...I don't know about west-coast fandom, but I know that in
the north-east, at least, and other places I've traveled for cons,
it's not at all unusual to know people only by their chosen nickname.
I've been called Jailbait since Philcon 82.1 (Jan. 1983) and many of
my friends don't have any idea what my real name is.
I can think of numerous other people in the greater bos-wash fannish
corridor who have no identifiable name outside of the one they have
chosen for themselves - stregnthening, I think, the feeling many have
of Fandom as Chosen Family.
This has gone so far as to make it nearly impossible for people to
visit hospitalized fen because the hospital has insisted on tracking
only Legal Name, and noone KNOWS that name.
So, while Catwoman may have other problems with her arguments,
denegrating them because she chooses to not use a given name is not a
worthy reply.
IMHO.
JB - 28 Years Old, and Male. :) (Yes, my nickname was just Bar
Mitzvah'd)
(Oh - and the only con I've ever been to in GA was Confederation in
'86.) (Oh, and I'd have to agree with everyone that Roland seems
incapable of holding a rational argument on the net. Then again, maybe
he just enjoys seeming nuts.)
Ulrika O'Brien
>That's what's so interesting. All I read about are people who hate >Roland for this reason or that.
Then either you are reading some other newsgroup that the rest
of us don't have access, or you're suffering from some sort of
hallucination. Name even one person in this thread, let alone
multiple people, who claims to "hate" Roland. Good luck. What
you see, if you actually read what is written, is a great many
people who find Roland's posts here infantile, hostile, uncooperative,
and frankly, a little lame, and a few who worry about the state
of his mental health as demonstrated by his behaviour here. There
are additionally a few others who claim to have had unpleasant
encounters with the way Roland runs his convention or deals with
people generally. None of this is sufficient reason for hating
Roland, and it shows a Rolandesque talent for melodramatic
hyperbole to no purpose to suppose it does.
>I don't think one has to have a phD in Conspiracy Theory
>to start wondering if most of the people on the Anti-Roland Squad aren't
>working together in SOME way... Oh let's go out on a limb... Could they >be... DRAGON CON staff members? Let's be reasonable here.
That's fine. You start. Please show me what connection to Dragon*Con
Gary Farber has. Or Dave Romm. Or Kevin Standlee. Or Dave Weingart.
Or Seth Breidbart. Or rich brown. Or any of the British fen who
have posted to this thread. Or me. Or John Miller. I could go on, but
the point is that literally dozens of people have posted to the threads
that pertained to Roland, MOC, et cetera, many of them have taken
exception to Roland's net behavior, and of those dozens of people, maybe
five or six have any affiliation with the running of Dragon*Con. Hell,
many of those same people who criticised Roland also have criticised the
living blazes out of Dragon*Con for various fiascos at last year's NASFiC.
These people are united by nothing more than a common reaction to Roland's
irrational, rude, unproductive, illiterate, and childish behavior on this
newsgroup, and there isn't anything surprising about it, nor any
need to posit a conspiracy. Absolutely anyone who acted as much like
a complete obnoxious jerk and clueless ass as Roland has would get much
the same sort of response. No one questions Roland's right to make
an ass of himself here, but that doesn't mean its weird or conspiratorial
that a bunch of people are going to object to the way he chooses to
do it.
>It's clear that many of
>you/them/whoever are on the Dragon Con staff. That's not paranoia. It's
>merely an observation.
It's damned poor observation, then because it isn't "many," it's
a tiny minority of the total number of posters to these threads. Using
non-factual observations to base improbable conjectures is certainly
one form that paranoia may take.
>Something for other people to ponder.
Or not. Lunch sounds more productive.
--
On the other hand, the examined life isn't very lucrative.
Ulrika O'Brien * Philosopher without Portfolio * ulr...@aol.com
brian moore
>
> : > brian moore <bmo...@vnet.net> wrote:
> : >
> : > >Better watch it Catwoman,they'll be trying to attack
> : > >your integrity next.
>
> : >
> : > What kind of BS is this?
>
> :
> : Since it wasn't written to you it shouldn't concern you.
>
> to everyone. If you don't want people reading your messages, send them
> via private email.
>
> -- Kelly Lockhart
>
No,when I make a public post to a usenet group it is written so everyone can READ it.
I didn't say he shouldn't read it.I simply said it was not written to him.
Since Mr.Dillson does not even know what it represents,he shouldn't feel the need to
respond in the manner in which he did.How would YOU feel if I responded to something
you posted,not knowing the meaning of,calling it BS?
I probably could have responded more harshly,and would have felt justified in doing so.
You wouldn't ask someone in a crowded room that question if all you heard was one statement
would you?
And since I clearly specified who I wrote it to in the post I stand by my statement to Mr.
Dillson.
And Thank You all kindly but I don't need your advice on posting to newsgroups.
Never assume people.
Brian
Ulrika O'Brien
>> : >
>> : > brian moore <bmo...@vnet.net> wrote:
>> : >
>> : > >Better watch it Catwoman,they'll be trying to attack
>> : > >your integrity next.
>> : > What kind of BS is this?
[snip]
>> : Since it wasn't written to you it shouldn't concern you.
>>
>> Clearly, the words of someone unclear on the concept of a "public >> forum."
[snip]
>Clearly,the words of someone CLEAR on the word 'ASSHOLE."
You know, a clever, net savvy, verbally talented guy like you,
Brian, ought to check out the group alt.peeves. I think they'd
*really* appreciate you over there. Pick any old thread over
there, and post with this same witty, incisive, awe-inspiring
style you've shown us here, and I bet you would get a really
*warm* reception. They'll just love you to pieces. Little ones.
--Ulrika
Michael Dillson
:>No,when I make a public post to a usenet group it is written so everyone can READ it.
:>I didn't say he shouldn't read it.I simply said it was not written to him.
:>Since Mr.Dillson does not even know what it represents,he shouldn't feel the need to
:>respond in the manner in which he did.How would YOU feel if I responded to something
:>you posted,not knowing the meaning of,calling it BS?
My response, Mr. Moore, was to your implication that I was impugning, or
might impugne the reputation of the entity known as "Catwoman". I was very
insulted by what you posted and restrained my language in the post.
:>I probably could have responded more harshly,and would have felt justified in doing so.
What, saying that someone would libel another person on the net isn't harsh
enough?
:>You wouldn't ask someone in a crowded room that question if all you heard was one statement
:>would you?
Since all you've posted is *one* statement, what the hell else was I supposed
to respond to? The imaginary voices?
:>And since I clearly specified who I wrote it to in the post I stand by my statement to Mr.
:>Dillson.
What, the fact I shouldn't respond to your posts. Wrongo!
:>And Thank You all kindly but I don't need your advice on posting to newsgroups.
Perhaps you just need to be put over your mama's knee.
:>Never assume people.
I will never assume you are a person again.
Michael Dillson
:>That's fine. You start. Please show me what connection to Dragon*Con
:>Gary Farber has. Or Dave Romm. Or Kevin Standlee. Or Dave Weingart.
:>Or Seth Breidbart. Or rich brown. Or any of the British fen who
:>have posted to this thread. Or me. Or John Miller. I could go on, but
:>the point is that literally dozens of people have posted to the threads
:>that pertained to Roland, MOC, et cetera, many of them have taken
:>exception to Roland's net behavior, and of those dozens of people, maybe
:>five or six have any affiliation with the running of Dragon*Con. Hell,
:>many of those same people who criticised Roland also have criticised the
:>living blazes out of Dragon*Con for various fiascos at last year's NASFiC.
:>These people are united by nothing more than a common reaction to Roland's
:>irrational, rude, unproductive, illiterate, and childish behavior on this
:>newsgroup, and there isn't anything surprising about it, nor any
:>need to posit a conspiracy. Absolutely anyone who acted as much like
:>a complete obnoxious jerk and clueless ass as Roland has would get much
:>the same sort of response. No one questions Roland's right to make
:>an ass of himself here, but that doesn't mean its weird or conspiratorial
:>that a bunch of people are going to object to the way he chooses to
:>do it.
You know, Ulrika, this post of yours set me thinking. Perhaps we are looking
at this conspiracy thing all wrong. Did you know that most, if not all, or
_Roland's_ supporters come from two areas? The area around Charlotte, NC and
Athens, GA.
Catwoman, had you noticed that no one from any other area has defended what
Roland has to say?
Just a thought.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Dillson Atlanta, GA dil...@mindspring.com
All content copyright by writer and may not used without permission.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Dillson
:>No,when I make a public post to a usenet group it is written so everyone can READ it.
:>I didn't say he shouldn't read it.I simply said it was not written to him.
:>Since Mr.Dillson does not even know what it represents,he shouldn't feel the need to
:>respond in the manner in which he did.How would YOU feel if I responded to something
:>you posted,not knowing the meaning of,calling it BS?
My response, Mr. Moore, was to your implication that I was impugning, or
might impugne the reputation of the entity known as "Catwoman". I was very
insulted by what you posted and restrained my language in the post.
:>I probably could have responded more harshly,and would have felt justified in doing so.
What, saying that someone would libel another person on the net isn't harsh
enough?
:>You wouldn't ask someone in a crowded room that question if all you heard was one statement
:>would you?
Since all you've posted is *one* statement, what the hell else was I supposed
to respond to? The imaginary voices?
:>And since I clearly specified who I wrote it to in the post I stand by my statement to Mr.
:>Dillson.
What, the fact I shouldn't respond to your posts. Wrongo!
:>And Thank You all kindly but I don't need your advice on posting to newsgroups.
Well, since you only appeared on the net beginning on March 21st, we thought,
maybe, you needed some advise. Look how fast mama's little boy has learned
how to work his little computer-wooter. ;-)
:>Never assume people.
I will never assume you are a person again.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stuart C. Hellinger
: I'm not entirely sure that Roland is completely paranoid. I have it on good
: authority from a high-up Dragon Con staffer (whose name will NOT be revealed)
: that Ed Kramer does in fact have a purr-sonal vendetta against both MOC and
: Roland. This source revealed that Kramer has on more than one occasion called
: up prospective MOC hotels and warned them that MOC Fandom would destroy their
: rooms and, get this, that we were Satan worshippers. Pretty cool, huh? All
: hail Lucifer! (And in case your wondering, I did not get this info indirectly
: from Roland. In fact he probably isn't even aware of it.)
Time to call your bluff. Don't supply the supposed "Dragon*Con Staffer"'s
name, but if there is any truth to your story, please provide when this
occurred and with what hotels.
Something like this, the hotel would not only remember, ut would keep a
recod of, in case there is a problem.
You see, this can be easily be verified, if true, no matter how many
changes of personnel has occurred.
Considering that the supposed Hyatt incident can be proven false by a
similar independant means, I'm sure that if there is in veracity to your
statement, you'll provide enough information to either prove or disprove it.
-SCH! (Stuart C. Hellinger s...@panix.com)
brian moore
> My response, Mr. Moore, was to your implication that I was impugning, or
> might impugne the reputation of the entity known as "Catwoman". I was very
> insulted by what you posted and restrained my language in the post.
What are you like...12 years old?
Did I say anything about you or mention your name?
You were insulted.Whats the matter did your ego deflat a little?
Whats so funny is this is going to turn into something it shouldn't just because YOU felt
insulted.The world doesn't revolve around you.Show me one statement in my first post
where it says anything about you.
You restrained your language?Is that type of language always your first response to posts
that don't concern you.Did you feel left out?
WoW,you know a big word and everything.
> :>I probably could have responded more harshly,and would have felt justified in doing so.
>
> What, saying that someone would libel another person on the net isn't harsh
> enough?
I didn't say that someone would libel someone on the net MORON.
For all you know my post didn't even concern the net.If you are going to make statements
about something I have posted be so kind as to get them right.
> :>You wouldn't ask someone in a crowded room that question if all you heard was one statement
> :>would you?
>
> Since all you've posted is *one* statement, what the hell else was I supposed
> to respond to? The imaginary voices?
My point exactly.Now you feel damaged in front of your
friends so you are going to save face by prolonging this farce.
Do your fingers itch when you are on a newsgroup? Do you get that urge to
respond at the first opportunity to things that don't concern you?
Felt the need to just JUMP right in did you?
I guess you answered my previous question.You would offend people in a crowed room.
> :>And since I clearly specified who I wrote it to in the post I stand by my statement to Mr.
> :>Dillson.
>
> What, the fact I shouldn't respond to your posts. Wrongo!
Wrongo? Boy thats telling me.I hurt.Please....stop.
I never said you shouldn't respond.I said IT DIDN'T CONCERN YOU!IT DIDN'T.STILL DOESN'T!
> :>And Thank You all kindly but I don't need your advice on posting to newsgroups.
>
> Perhaps you just need to be put over your mama's knee.(I could think DOWN to your level here and say something really juvenile that you would
no doubt get the meaning of,but I won't.You make it easy though.)
Perhaps you might find someone MAN enough to do it for you.Since you are obviously a
CHILD who has wrested control of his fathers computer from him.
Are you related to Roland? No offense Roland.
> :>Never assume people.
>
> I will never assume you are a person again.
OH Please???? Please consider me a person???? Please? Please? Please?
I'll lose sleep and cry uncontrollably if you don't.Please? Please?
I won't have an existence if you don't assume I am a person.Please???
I'm sorry.Correct me if I'm wrong.
Did I RANT and RAVE about a statement you made or did the reverse happen?
Do you get up in the morning and just feel the need to attack people verbally?
Brian
Ulrika O'Brien
>No,when I make a public post to a usenet group it is written so everyone >can READ it. I didn't say he shouldn't read it.I simply s=
aid it was not >written to him.
Nonetheless, he's perfectly within his rights to respond to it. If
you don't want people reacting to your statements as if they are
public, and general, then you shouldn't post them publicly, you
should use e-mail. If you didn't *mean* to antagonize a whole
bunch of people by libelously accusing them of character assasination,
then you shouldn't have made that accusation as a public post.
Frankly, I think you're being rather uncharmingly disingenuous.
If you aren't willing to stand by your own Usenet posts, don't make
them.
>Since Mr.Dillson does not even know what it represents,he shouldn't feel >the need to respond in the manner in which he did.
None of us, of course, are privy to exact access to each other's
thoughts. Nonetheless, what you wrote did in fact have the
tenor of attempting to imply that anyone posting on Roland's
behalf will be unfairly subjected to character assassination.
Since this is demonstrably untrue, I'd say Dillson's assessment
of, and response to, your post to be not an unreasonable one.
If you *meant* something else, you are, of course, welcome to
clarify. Again, if you didn't mean someone besides the intended
object to read it, you shouldn't have posted it publicly.
>How would YOU feel if I responded to something
>you posted,not knowing the meaning of,calling it BS?
Well, let's see, if I'd posted something that was deliberately
provoking and patently untrue, I certainly wouldn't be *surprised*
if someone called it BS. If I thought the response was unfair,
or due to a misunderstanding of what I meant, I'd clarify, or try to
get the other person to clarify what they thought I was saying, and
why they thought it was BS.
>And since I clearly specified who I wrote it to in the post I stand by my >statement to Mr.Dillson.
Since your post very much seemed on the surface to be an oblique
slam of everyone who might find fault in Roland, and seemed quite
deliberate, I'm equally happy to stand by Mike's response.
>And Thank You all kindly but I don't need your advice on posting to >newsgroups.
Well, you might not *think* you need advice...
>Never assume people.
Is it okay if we assume rocks, then?
michael weaver
You are really looking silly.
Fiona Anderson
> That's what's so interesting. All I read about are people who hate Roland for
> this reason or that. I don't think one has to have a phD in Conspiracy Theory
> to start wondering if most of the people on the Anti-Roland Squad aren't
> working together in SOME way... Oh let's go out on a limb... Could they be...
> DRAGON CON staff members? Let's be reasonable here. It's clear that many of
> you/them/whoever are on the Dragon Con staff. That's not paranoia. It's
> merely an observation. Something for other people to ponder.
Ok, I'll give into the overwhelming temptation here...as the person
who made the original (tatty) Anti-Roland Conspiracy badges, it may
interest you to know not only have I never been to DragonCon, I have
never been to the States either. Thus it is *impossible* for me to be
a DCon staffer - likewise many of the people I gave those badges to at
Novacon last year in Birmingham here in the UK.
Perhaps you should yourself ponder how anyone can possibly respect
your "observations" when they are so easily shown to be untrue.
--
Fiona Anderson
*WARNING* You have entered a Tact Free Zone.
brian moore
> My response, Mr. Moore, was to your implication that I was impugning, or
> might impugne the reputation of the entity known as "Catwoman". I was very
> insulted by what you posted and restrained my language in the post.
Whats the matter...feel the need to repeat yourself?
> Well, since you only appeared on the net beginning on March 21st, we thought,
> maybe, you needed some advise.
WoW again.Appeared on the net on March 21st.And look now its,"we thought."
What did you do consult your crystal ball?You might want to ask it if it could be
wrong.I will give you a hint...it is.
You might want to also ask your more knowledgeable friends how this could be so.
You need a "we" if there is any thinking to be done.
Look how fast mama's little boy has learned
> how to work his little computer-wooter. ;-)
You know thats a really thought provoking statement.Who would have thunk it.
Just more evidence that you are a child.
Is a computer-wooter anything like a heeby-jeeby?
Give your computer back to your father,your getting dirt all over it.
Brian
brian moore
> No one questions Roland's right to make
> :>an ass of himself here, but that doesn't mean its weird or conspiratorial
> :>that a bunch of people are going to object to the way he chooses to
> :>do it.
Or Michael Dillson's.
> You know, Ulrika, this post of yours set me thinking. Perhaps we are looking
> at this conspiracy thing all wrong. Did you know that most, if not all, or
> _Roland's_ supporters come from two areas? The area around Charlotte, NC and
> Athens, GA.
>
> Catwoman, had you noticed that no one from any other area has defended what
> Roland has to say?
>
> Just a thought.
You finally had one...unfortunately its wrong again.
Are you refering to Roc Of Ages which reserves its right to have Roland as Guest?
Or you refering to me?
I am not Rolands supporter.I do however support his right to say what he wants here.
Just as I support your right to say whatever YOU want here.However asinine.
Don't you live in Georgia?
Why are you so bitter?
Did your mother not suckle you as much as she did your siblings?
Brian
brian moore
>
> brian moore (bmo...@vnet.net) wrote:
> : Michael Dillson wrote:
> : >
> : > brian moore <bmo...@vnet.net> wrote:
> : >
> : > >Better watch it Catwoman,they'll be trying to attack
> : > >your integrity next.
> : >
> : > What kind of BS is this?
> : > Mike Dillson
> : > Atlanta, GA
> : > dil...@mindspring.com
> : > The contents of this message are copyright by the poster
> : > and may not be used without his expressed written permission.
>
>
> Clearly, the words of someone unclear on the concept of a "public forum."
>
I am going to apologize to Patrick Hayden for my statement in answer to the one above.
I am going to apologize because I hope that it was ignorance on his part and not his need to
be snide that forced him to write the above post.
It seems I am going to have to explain why I told Dillson not to concern himself since several
of you ASSUME I don't know this is a public forum.
That will be in a post that follows.
I am sorry Patrick for saying,"Clearly,the words of somone CLEAR on concept of 'Asshole."
Please accept my apology,it is sincere.
Brian
Ulrika O'Brien
>If I could say one thing about Roland that I deem to be universally true, >I would say that he is completely and totally dediCATed =
to Fandom.
Let's be a little more precise with our terms, shall we? Roland
may, or may not, be dedicated to MOC attendees, but he has said
himself that he doesn't really care about fans who are not MOC
fans, so when you make these grandiose claims about Roland's
dedication, can we limit it to MOC fandom? Fandom at large,
Roland appears to have very little interest in, or knowledge of,
and certainly no dedication to whatsoever.
>works very hard to give fans what they want, and he is almost always >successful.
This is almost tautological, because whenever he is not successful,
i.e. he displeases someone, if they complain about it, they cease
to be people he wants at MOC or counts in terms of who he is dedicated
to, by his own admission. If they *don't* complain about it,
then Roland doesn't know that he didn't succeed, and again he
can claim success. Therefore, since Roland is only interested
in pleasing the fans who are in fact pleased by what he chooses to
do anyway, there's not much trick to always being successful. It's
a little like a target shooter picking his target after he hits
something -- 100% accuracy is really easy in 20/20 hindsight.
>MOC is, in my humble opinion (and this is not the voice of a MOC staff >member talking) the absolute best, most fun, and entertaini=
ng convention >around, and it would be none of the above were it not for Mr. CAsTle.
That's nice. It seems pretty irrelevant to most of what's been
discussed here, but fun conventions are usually a good thing.
>Those of you who have met me before and who know me, should be cognisent >of the fact that I do not tell lies (most of the time)
So, er, by dint of what reason are we supposed to be able to
tell whether this is most of the time, or not?
>and that I am not afraid to say what I think.
That's nice. And...?
>Roland sometimes says things that come out sounding
>harsh, and I'm sure he has his reasons for this,
I'm sure Roland has reasons for what he does to. I do not,
however, have any hope of their being *good* reasons, or
*rational* reasons, or reasons I would agree with, or find
justified. Having reasons doesn't, in itself, mean much, so
I'm left wondering why you bring this up at all.
>but think about the message he is trying to get across.
Which is what, precisely? Roland is not exactly known for
his clarity of expression, or even his consistency of assertion.
He frequently contradicts his own previous claims.
>When has Roland ever told Fandom a blatant lie?
Well, presumably at *least* every time he's directly contradicted
one of his own previous claims; either that, or the previous claim
so contradicted is a lie. Possibly both are. Also, when he said he does
not ban people from MOC. Also, when he claimed that there were bunches
of Dragon*Con folks dissing MOC on this newsgroup before Roland
got here.
>Be honest. He has never lied to Fandom in my opinion.
Okay, honestly, *in* *your* *opinion* Roland has never lied to
Fandom. That's nice. Your opinion doesn't have much established weight
around here, and given the appearance of bias in observation that
you have exhibited so far, and your subsequent posts indicating a
willingness to discount examples of Roland's lying, I'd say that
opinion is unlikely to gain in standing, either.
>When has Roland ever
>done anything that would hurt Fandom in any way? Never.
Oh, deliberately moving MOC to the same city and week as
Dragon*Con didn't hurt MOC fandom? Really? What about the
ones who wanted to be able to attend both conventions and can't
afford the time in the same week? What about the ones who lived
closer to the old site and can't travel to the new? Or do they
not count, because of their lack of sufficient loyalty to MOC?
This sounds, potentially, like a version of the same old tautology I
alluded to above -- Roland has never hurt MOC Fandom, because anyone
who feels hurt by anything Roland's done wasn't ever *really* part
of MOC fandom to begin with. Awfully convenient, don't you think?
>You guys out there
>who are trying to bust his balls are only hurting Fandom by slagging him.
Snookums, who's slagging him? Who is trying to break his balls?
And how, exactly would it hurt MOC Fandom anyway? I've asked that
question of Roland, of politico, and now you. Am I finally going to
get a coherent answer? Moreover, the claim you make is that *real* MOC
fans don't care about any of this Usenet stuff anyway, don't pay any
attention, will go to MOC no matter what anyone (including Roland) says,
so how on earth is *anything* said here hurting them? You can only have
one claim. Either posts about Roland hurt MOC fans, or they don't, but not
both.
>Give the guy a break and let him get on with the business of entertaining
>Fandom.
As has been asked before, how does anything said on Usenet prevent
Roland doing whatever he does for MOC? If he chooses to spend time
and energy on reading or reacting to this group, that's his choice
and he's free to make it, or not. If he finds alt.fandom.cons interferes
with his free time, he needs to reassess his priorities and act
accordingly, right? And finally, even if the people posting to this
group did have some inexplicable magic powers over Roland,what on earth
has Roland done to deserve *anyone* here giving him a break? He's
gone out of his way to antagonize everyone he comes in contact with;
he has negative social credit at this point, not merely none. If
he wants breaks, he might try starting by behaving civilly towards
others. In the meantime, IFO have very little sympathy for him --
he's made his own bed.
--Ulrika
brian moore
> :>I have never posted anything on this thing homo sapiens call "Internet" before
> :>in my life, but I finally got an account and decided it was time to set the
> :>record straight about Roland CAsTle.
> OK, at least you present yourself calmly, rationally, and without placing
> insulting "p" words in every other sentence. This is a good start.
Wouldn't hurt to take your own advice. Forget that nasty old "p" part.
>
> Unfortunately, he is, to us, what his postings make him out to be. Until he
> can calmly present himself here and apologize for all the insults he's flung
> at everyone, we're not likely to take your word for it.
> But it is amazing how you ignore your own advice.Flawed individual or Flawed advice?
Hhmmmm...no it SOUNDS like good advice.
> I think you have not read anything in this forum, Ms. Catwoman. We have not
> taken Mr. Castle to task about MOC. In fact, the vast majority of comments
> on MOC as a convention have been positive. And, since most of us haven't
> been to a MOC at all, or haven't been to one in years, we don't feel
> qualified to criticize the convention. What we have been raking Roland over
> the coals for is his inability to hold a civil conversation with anyone
> without insulting them or threatening them.
Uh...Mickey I don't mean to be rude but,would ya' mind reading that last sentence above.
> :>Roland sometimes says things that come out sounding
> :>harsh, and I'm sure he has his reasons for this, but think about the message
> :>he is trying to get across.
> What message is that? That there is an international conspiracy out to
> destroy MOC? Of the fact that all the people on this forum are decended from
> sheep?
You ever stop to think that he might come on here and BAIT you?
Your last statement would tend to imply that Roland is also descended from sheep.
> 2. Ed Kramer is guiding all the people on Usenet to post negative things
> about MOC.
>
> Boy, this is a paranoid delusional fantasy beyond anything I have ever seen.
> I suppose I cannot call this a lie, since it is the result of a percieved
> delusional situation.
Um...Mr.Kettle,you are black.
> There are numerous others, but the one that can be thoroughly documented and
> *IS* to people that Roland definitely considers his idea of Fandom occured in
> his own _FANDOM_ magazine (The Most Non Politically Correct Newsletter Under
> the Sun). In Volume 11, Number 2, he specifically states that Ed Kramer had
> contacted the Greenville Hyatt to try and throw a convention in Greenville
> opposite MOC's dates. He says he was told this by the two people who are in
> charge of his account.
>
> Now, I have a WATS line, so I could not resist checking this one out. I
> called and, guess what? No one at the Greenville Hyatt had ever heard of Ed
> Kramer or Dragon Con!
I guess you couldn't...stems from that paranoid habit of having to know EVERYTHING.
Course you could be wrong.People do change jobs.
> This is what I define as a lie, plain and simple.
Why because the Hyatt didn't remember? Try that "proof" in court.
> :>Be honest. He has never lied to Fandom in my opinion.
> Wrong.
Man you are so emphatic in your beliefs.(Look it up I'll wait)
Right or wrong you gotta believe.
> :>When has Roland ever
> :>done anything that would hurt Fandom in any way?
>
> This is purely a matter of opinion. Since Roland has a really narrow vision
> of who is Fandom, and who is "psheep", I don't guess he has harmed his slice
> of Fandom at all. He has, however, blackened his name in the eyes of the
> rest of the Fandom pie.
WoW.Not only are you emphatic in your beliefs but you know how Roland really feels himself.
Your my hero.I didn't think anyone could know how others TRULY feel...I mean there are so
many songs about it and all.
> No, we want an apology. Plain and simple.
We,we,we.Everything is we.Goes back to that, not enough attention in the family, syndrom.
> If he posts on the net, I, for one, will not be responding to him untill I
> get an apology.
Finally you say something you honestly know.
> You better talk to him.
Like Roland cares?
Please CATwoman?? Please talk to Roland??? Please???
Tell him Mickael will talk to him now if he apologizes.On a stool...naked...in front of MOC...
...wearing a...wearing a...funny hat.Yeah.Thpppppt!
> --------------------
> Mike Dillson
> Atlanta, GA
> dil...@mindspring.com
> All content copyright by writer and may not be reproduced without
> his written permission.
Opps I'm sorry did I use some of your content without written permission?
Can I have permission to use your content in a Public Forum?
Please???
P Nielsen Hayden
> Why are you so bitter?
> Did your mother not suckle you as much as she did your siblings?
This is the same guy who said to Mike Dillson:
> Perhaps you might find someone MAN enough to do it for you.Since you are
> obvious
> ly a
> CHILD who has wrested control of his fathers computer from him.
I have a note from this fellow apologizing for calling me an "asshole," an
apology I certainly accept. Like most people, I _am_ an asshole sometimes;
for instance, occasionally I get angry and say things I later regret.
What strikes me about Mr. Moore is the conceptual problem he appears to
share with Roland Castle. Both he and Roland appear to feel that, when they
feel insulted by things other people say, that conveys upon them a license
to respond by saying _anything whatsoever_. Joe Blotz said he didn't like
my convention -- ouch! I'm insulted! I'll show him; I'll make insulting
remarks about his personal life! Which we've seen Roland do, of course.
And which we now see Mr. Moore do, as well. I mean, what on earth did
Ulrika say to merit this kind of abuse? (Not that I expect her to stay up
nights worrying about this, you understand.)
I have to wonder, really, whether we aren't dealing with genuine disability,
with people who literally don't know the difference between the world of
their internal experience and the world of other people.
David E Romm
In article <4kceqk$6...@peach.negia.net>, catw...@negia.net (Catwoman) wrote:
> In article <4k0h75$1h...@mule2.mindspring.com>, dil...@atl.mindspring.com
> wrote:
> >BTW, have you read any of the stuff that Mr. Castle has been dishing out
> >here? I'd be more than happy to send it to you if you haven't.
> >
> Roland is simply calling things as he sees them, and he's well within his
> rights if he wants to express his opinion just as you are free to express
> yours.
Expressing opinions is one thing, making physical threats is another.
> Nobody's forcing anyone else to listen.
Of course, no one's forcing Roland (or you) to listen to any of these posts...
> >Curious habit, this CAT thing of yours. Do you search through your entire
> >post to look to see if the letter C A and T appear in a word, or do you have
> >a macro that does it for you?
> >
> I'm just damn good.
Then why is the 'R' in 'Roland' capitalized?
> At the risk of sounding haughty, I have to say that those who CAn'T take the
> heat shouldn't be cooking in the kitchen.
Hmm... so you're saying Roland shouldn't complain about Dragon*Con because
HE moved MOC to THEIR weekend...
> >Boy, this is a paranoid delusional fantasy beyond anything I have ever seen.
> >I suppose I cannot call this a lie, since it is the result of a percieved
> >delusional situation.
> >
> That's what's so interesting.
True.
> All I read about are people who hate Roland for
> this reason or that.
And where do you read that? Not in this newsgroup. No one 'hates'
Roland, though there are many who are legitimately pissed off and a few
who are legitimately concerned about his physical threats against them.
Can you identify anyone here who has expressed hate?
> I don't think one has to have a phD in Conspiracy Theory
...um...never mind...
> to start wondering if most of the people on the Anti-Roland Squad aren't
> working together in SOME way...
What Anti-Roland Squad? So far, everyone here is relating personal
interactions or responding to his posts in this neswgroup. That's the
commonality.
> Oh let's go out on a limb... Could they be...
> DRAGON CON staff members?
In your coursework for your phD in Conspiracy Theory, did you ever
encounter a precept known as Occam's Razor?
> Let's be reasonable here. It's clear that many of
> you/them/whoever are on the Dragon Con staff. That's not paranoia. It's
> merely an observation. Something for other people to ponder.
It is not reasonable. It is not clear. It is not true. It is paranoia.
It is less than an observation. No one should give it a second thought.
(I have never met any of the D*C or MOC people who've posted here, never
been to either convention, D*C never appeared on the radar until this
summer, and I had never heard of MOC or Roland until a few months later.
And yet all of a sudden Roland and you accuse me of being on the D*C
staff. Perhaps you need to ponder this a bit.)
> >There are numerous others, but the one that can be thoroughly documented and
> >*IS* to people that Roland definitely considers his idea of Fandom occured in
> >his own _FANDOM_ magazine (The Most Non Politically Correct Newsletter Under
> >the Sun). In Volume 11, Number 2, he specifically states that Ed Kramer had
> >contacted the Greenville Hyatt to try and throw a convention in Greenville
> >opposite MOC's dates. He says he was told this by the two people who are in
> >charge of his account.
> >
> Hold on there, partner. The Hyatt people don't know about it because it has
> shed its entire management staff several times over since MOC was last held
> there. Of course they've never heard of Ed Kramer.
Of course, if Ed never contacted them, they would never have heard of Ed
Kramer either. Cf Occam's Razor.
> >
> > Since Roland has a really narrow vision
> >of who is Fandom, and who is "psheep", I don't guess he has harmed his slice
> >of Fandom at all.
> >
> You're right. Our idea of Fandom is quite obviously not the same as yours.
This is fine. But please realize that the reverse is true: Our idea of
Fandom is quite obviously not the same as yours. And yours is the
variant; 'fandom' has a reasonably traditional meaning (however
ambiguously held), and MOC does not fall squarely within it. Again, you
can use the term to mean however you like and this is all right for you,
but you need to be aware that most people do not use the term that way.
If you stuck with "MOC Fandom", you (and Roland) would be a lot clearer.
> >No, we want an apology. Plain and simple.
> >
> You won't get one from him.
Then why are you defending him when he is so clearly wrong, abusive and
threatening?
--
Shockwave radio: Science Fiction/Science Fact
http://www.winternet.com/~romm
"It's a bunch of fruit."
"But... they're all rotten."
"Yeah. I've got to learn to paint faster."
-- Third Rock from the Sun.
brian moore
>
> I am afraid that you are wrong here Brian, these posts are public. I
> suggest that you find an informational page on net behavior and read it.
Why?
So I can be more like you?
I'll make a deal...leave me alone and I'll leave you alone.
Deal?
brian
brian moore
> You know, a clever, net savvy, verbally talented guy like you,
> Brian, ought to check out the group alt.peeves. I think they'd
> *really* appreciate you over there. Pick any old thread over
> there, and post with this same witty, incisive, awe-inspiring
> style you've shown us here, and I bet you would get a really
> *warm* reception. They'll just love you to pieces. Little ones.
>
> --Ulrika
>
> --
> On the other hand, the examined life isn't very lucrative.
> Ulrika O'Brien * Philosopher without Portfolio * ulr...@aol.com
You know someone told me the best way to deal with you was to ignore you,but I gotta know.
Are you responding to me because you know Michael Dillson or because YOU feel wronged.
I haven't ATTACKED anyone here,except maybe Patrick Hayden,and I have apologized to him.
So,what exactly is your problem?
I get it...you were PATRONIZING me.
Good for you.I have simply responded in a like manner.Is that something you don't agree with?
I do notice how quick you are to jump to conclusions.Makes me SAD to see the word
Philosopher attached to you in any way.
I am also curious about this...if it had been someone YOU didn't know would you still have felt
the need to SHOW your support.
Now are you trying to say I'm a BIG fish in a little pond,or a LITTLE fish in a big pond?
And besides...I don't have a peeve.
And even if I did,I'm sure I could find someone a LITTLE more talented that you.
You haven't been paying attention have you?
Do you think Michael needs YOU to take up for him?
Or will this give you two something to share and be PROUD of?
Brian
brian moore
>
> Brian,
> You are really looking silly.
Coming from you I take that as a compliment.
Why don't you just admit you made a hot-headed post and let it go.
You are doing the VERY things you accused Roland of.
How does it feel?
Elisabeth Kovar Burgess
>
> brian moore (bmo...@vnet.net) wrote, addressing Ulrika O'Brien:
>
> > Why are you so bitter?
> > Did your mother not suckle you as much as she did your siblings?
> I have to wonder, really, whether we aren't dealing with genuine disability,
> with people who literally don't know the difference between the world of
> their internal experience and the world of other people.
No, you're dealing with people in a state of arrested development. And,
to be honest, I've been wondering for a while now why you continue to
concern yourselves with them.
We have all encountered people who have gotten caught up in an
'alternate' form of reality - role-playing games, fandom, the SCA,
whatever. They gradually find it harder and harder to interact with the
rest of the world. Often this is because they had difficulty dealing
with the rest of the world in the first place. This is one part of what
you're experiencing: if you don't behave within their paramaters, you are
not in the real world. At best you are negligible, at worst you are
wrong or evil. Or both.
The other part of their behavour - vulgarity, name calling, blind
loyality to their 'tribe' or social group, ignoring that which doesn't
fit their set of beliefs - is pre-adolescent and early adolescent. When
people continue this behavour long past the onset of puberty, it is
considered arrested development. Unfortunately, some form of this is
usually part of the make-up of a person likely to lose themselves in
another or 'sub' reality.
There are numerous studies and papers which back this up, but at the
moment I am working from memory.
For what it's worth, while I know of the conventions involved, and may
have heard Mr. Castle's name before, I have never attended either one or
even heard of the rest of you. I've just been checking in now and then
to see if this is done yet, waiting for a chance to learn more about
running conventions. In view of the "Mr. Ed Rules!" theory, I will state
what I have learned from the postings of Mr. Castle, Mr. Moore, and
Catwoman, NOT from the other members of the group:
1) Mr. Castle is a highly unstable individual. He is quick to take
offence, almost quicker to loose his temper. He runs a convention which
is considered 'his' convention, which is, unlike most, dependent on one
personality, namely his. He has a large ego, and appears to find it
difficult if not impossible to see any side of a situation other than his
own. He is more to be pitied than loathed as, from his point of view,
the world is a cruel and dangerous place and he must constantly guard
against it. Not a very happy place to be.
2) His followers, or rather, those who have posted here, are strongly
loyal to him, perhaps more to him than to the convention. They share at
least some of his major personality traits, and appear to have a chunk of
their ego invested in his. They also think highly of their own
cleverness, and tend to pay more attention to that than to logic.
Living, like Mr. Castle, in their own world, they are more proud than
anything else to offend those not of their world. It proves to them that
they are 'special' and allows them to feel superior. Like Mr. Castle,
they deserve and need pity and support.
3) MOC is a good, entertaining convention, certainly on par with a number
of other, well-known events. It is highly likely that most of the
attendees avoid or are unaware of the, for lack of a better term,
political/personality situation, spending their time and energy on having
a good time instead. And a good convention is always in order.
Elspeth
Kelly Lockhart
: >>>>> "Kelly" == Kelly Lockhart <Kel...@cris.com> writes:
: Kelly> By the way, what is you name? "Catwoman" may be a nice nom
: Kelly> de plume to use in the FANDOM newsletter, but here in
: Kelly> alt.fandom.cons, the way to gain credibility is to use your
: Kelly> real name.
: Kelly> -- Kelly Lockhart
: Kelly - the rest of your response to Catwoman seemed very even handed
: and well thought-out, but this one paragraph rankles a bit.
: Unfortunately, I deleted your .sig block before noting where you're
: located, but since cris.com is in Cupertino, I'll take a guess at
: west-coast...I don't know about west-coast fandom, but I know that in
: the north-east, at least, and other places I've traveled for cons,
: it's not at all unusual to know people only by their chosen nickname.
While I lived in Cupertino in the late 80's, I have resided in Georgia
since 1989, currently living in Stone Mountain (a suburb of Atlanta).
I am fully aware of using nicknames at cons. I've used them myself at a
few cons over the years ("Wondermouse" - don't ask). This is all fine
and dandy when at a con.
However, when making all sorts of accusations about conspiracies and so
forth, there is a certain lack of credibility to not using a real name.
That was my point, and I feel it is a valid request to someone who has
accused me of lying to supply their real name.
-- Kelly Lockhart
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| kel...@cris.com http://www.cris.com/~kellyl |
| k.loc...@genie.com Genie SFRT1 Category 38 Topic 4 |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
brian moore
If you didn't *mean* to antagonize a whole
> bunch of people by libelously accusing them of character assasination,
> then you shouldn't have made that accusation as a public post.
Tell me please, oh all knowing, these "people" I have libelously accused?
Name one person I have mentioned.
And I do stand behind what I post, unlike you.
It isn't Michael Dillson business.NEVER WAS. NEVER WILL BE.
Once more its not yours either.It doesn't concern either of you.
But I can see you have appointed yourself Righteous Speaker.
> None of us, of course, are privy to exact access to each other's
> thoughts. Nonetheless, what you wrote did in fact have the
> tenor of attempting to imply that anyone posting on Roland's
> behalf will be unfairly subjected to character assassination.
Okay which is it? Did I libelously accuse or did I have the tenor of attempting to imply?
> If you *meant* something else, you are, of course, welcome to
> clarify. Again, if you didn't mean someone besides the intended
> object to read it, you shouldn't have posted it publicly.
I ask you again Ulrika,who did I MEAN?
> >How would YOU feel if I responded to something
> >you posted,not knowing the meaning of,calling it BS?
>
> Well, let's see, if I'd posted something that was deliberately
> provoking and patently untrue, I certainly wouldn't be *surprised*
> if someone called it BS. If I thought the response was unfair,
> or due to a misunderstanding of what I meant, I'd clarify, or try to
> get the other person to clarify what they thought I was saying, and
> why they thought it was BS.
I wasn't surprised.It fit perfectly.
How do YOU know it was deliberately provoking? Could have been made in an offhand manner.
It wasn't.And what makes you think its patently untrue?
Let me get this straight now.I made a post that someone thought was BS,and yet I am supposed
to say,"What did you mean by that Michael?" Rather than Michael saying,"What did you mean
by that Brian?"
Its not up to ME to clarify.Its up to the person who does not understand to ask why.Then I might
clarify.
>
> >And since I clearly specified who I wrote it to in the post I stand by my >statement to Mr.Dillson.
>
> Since your post very much seemed on the surface to be an oblique
> slam of everyone who might find fault in Roland, and seemed quite
> deliberate, I'm equally happy to stand by Mike's response.
You get SO MUCH information out of a very short post Ulrika,I'm surprised your not psychic.
Of course I don't know.YOU may THINK you are.
Once again did I SAY any of that or are you speculating?
And how did it get to be a slam of everyone who might find fault in Roland?
I myself have found fault in Roland.Does the above include me as well?
Thats cute.Stand by a response that asks,"What is this BS?"
> >And Thank You all kindly but I don't need your advice on posting to >newsgroups.
>
> Well, you might not *think* you need advice...
If I did need advice,I would get it from someone who is capable of giving it.Unlike yourself
when I need it I ask for it.Also unlike you,I don't misconstrue my words.I mean exactly what
I say and I don't read more into words than is there.I don't take sentences and twist them
to mean what I WANT them to mean.if Michael Dillson wanted to know all he had to do was ASK
in a responsible manner.
>
> >Never assume people.
>
> Is it okay if we assume rocks, then?
Thats cute too.Thats like a micro-slam right.Your so GOOD at innuendo.
> --
> On the other hand, the examined life isn't very lucrative.
> Ulrika O'Brien * Philosopher without Portfolio * ulr...@aol.com
Its still SAD that you call yourself a Philosopher.You have NO respect for what the
word means.Of course this is the USA and you can call yourself whatever you like,however
inaccurate.
brian moore
>
> I am afraid that you are wrong here Brian, these posts are public. I
> suggest that you find an informational page on net behavior and read it.
What exactly am I wrong about?
Are you jumping in not knowing what is going on?
Do you think I don't know this is a public forum?
What makes you think I haven't read an informational page on net behavior? Because
I don't post the way most of you do?
Thats what I like about some of you.You make assumptions.Even if the words are contradictory
half of you will turn them to your advantage to make a point,right or wrong.
most of you never know the facts but you jump in anyway when you feel an acquaintance is
under fire.Will one of you ever admit you are wrong?
Welcome to the fray.
Brian
michael weaver
>What exactly am I wrong about?
Your rude, if I need to explain the importanats of manners to you, then
you have far more problems than I can address
>Are you jumping in not knowing what is going on?
No, you just plpain rude
>Do you think I don't know this is a public forum?
You responce to mie D indicates that you do not
>What makes you think I haven't read an informational page on net >behavior? Because
>I don't post the way most of you do?
Yes
>Thats what I like about some of you.You make assumptions.Even if the >words are contradictory
>half of you will turn them to your advantage to make a point,right or >wrong.
>most of you never know the facts but you jump in anyway when you feel an >acquaintance is
>under fire.
Thats a mountain out of a molehill, your just plain rude. Rude behavior
will ALWAYS draw fire around here. To use you analogy of a party, If you
had spoken to Mike Dillson at a live party the way you did here in your
post, most hosts would have asked you to leave.
>Will one of you ever admit you are wrong?
Will you?
michael weaver
P Nielsen Hayden
: Ulrika O'Brien wrote:
: If you didn't *mean* to antagonize a whole
: > bunch of people by libelously accusing them of character assasination,
: > then you shouldn't have made that accusation as a public post.
: Tell me please, oh all knowing, these "people" I have libelously accused?
: Name one person I have mentioned.
: And I do stand behind what I post, unlike you.
: It isn't Michael Dillson business.NEVER WAS. NEVER WILL BE.
: Once more its not yours either.It doesn't concern either of you.
: But I can see you have appointed yourself Righteous Speaker.
Well, here we simply disagree. I think that how conventions are run, and
the public behavior of those who run them, are the legitimate business of
fandom in general, and that alt.fandom.cons is one of the legitimate places
for the discussion of that.
I daresay most of the habitues of alt.fandom.cons would agree with that.
Certainly, this group is frequented by people who run rather larger and more
important conventions than Magnum Opus Con, and they don't seem to be in the
habit of answering criticism by saying of the critic, "It isn't [his]
business. NEVER WAS. NEVER WILL BE."
But I imagine Mr. Moore will regard this as another instance of someone
twisting his words unfairly. I'm sorry that dealing with argument is so
rough for him.
In other news, I have heated mail from the abovenamed Brian Moore, pointing
out that in my previous post I inaccurately said that certain insulting
remarks of his were directed toward Ulrika O'Brien. As Mr. Moore says, they
were in fact directed toward Mike Dillson. I certainly apologize for the
error. However, I don't really see how it changes my point, which is that
Mr. Moore, like Roland Castle, seems to have difficulty responding to
criticism in anything short of an abusive, over-the-top fashion. Certainly
his letter, peppered with exclamations like "MORON", doesn't do a lot to
change this view.
-----
Patrick Nielsen Hayden : p...@tor.com : http://www.panix.com/~pnh
: > None of us, of course, are privy to exact access to each other's
poli...@wil.net
I don't live in Charlotte or Athens. Perhaps I simply don't exist?
Michael Dillson
:>I don't live in Charlotte or Athens. Perhaps I simply don't exist?
Okay, you live in Wilmington, NC, or nearby. Thats about, what, 100 miles
down the road?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Dillson Atlanta, GA dil...@mindspring.com
All content copyright by writer and may not used without permission.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Ulrika O'Brien
>Michael Dillson wrote:
Actually, Brian, no he didn't. I did. For someone who
wants to claim he knows what he's doing, net-wise, you
sure don't seem to be able even to keep up with quoting
conventions.
>> No one questions Roland's right to make
>> :>an ass of himself here, but that doesn't mean its weird or
>> :>conspiratorial
>> :>that a bunch of people are going to object to the way he chooses to
>> :>do it.
[big snip]
>Why are you so bitter?
>Did your mother not suckle you as much as she did your siblings?
Brian, are you sure you aren't really Roland under a new
handle? This kind of non sequitur, grade school level,
bolt from the blue in left field type of ad hominem crap
is very much in his style. So is your clueless stance of
claiming to defend his right to say what he does, as if
*anyone* here is contesting that.
Gary Farber
: michael weaver wrote:
: >
: > I am afraid that you are wrong here Brian, these posts are public. I
: Why?
: So I can be more like you?
: I'll make a deal...leave me alone and I'll leave you alone.
: Deal?
Interestingly, this is a primary concept that Roland Castle displays
trouble with: inability to understand Usenet as a *public* forum.
Peculiarly, the idea that they are publishing their words for reading by,
and possible feedback from, thousands of people seems to go right past
them -- as do other useful distinctions and mannerisms such as courtesy
and appropriate behavior.
Curious.
--
-- Gary Farber Middlemiss gfa...@panix.com
Copyright 1996 for DUFF Brooklyn, NY, USA
Gary Farber
: Tell me please, oh all knowing, these "people" I have libelously accused?
: Name one person I have mentioned.
: And I do stand behind what I post, unlike you.
: It isn't Michael Dillson business.NEVER WAS. NEVER WILL BE.
: Once more its not yours either.It doesn't concern either of you.
: But I can see you have appointed yourself Righteous Speaker.
<various utterances crunched>
Here's the question: is this guy Roland, or is the Roland-meme so
powerful that sufficient reading of his style produces Roland-clones?
Gary Farber
: I can think of numerous other people in the greater bos-wash fannish
: corridor who have no identifiable name outside of the one they have
: chosen for themselves - stregnthening, I think, the feeling many have
: of Fandom as Chosen Family.
Strangely, in all of the families I know, born and chosen, everyone knows
everyone's name. Have you had the reverse experience, then?
: This has gone so far as to make it nearly impossible for people to
: visit hospitalized fen because the hospital has insisted on tracking
: only Legal Name, and noone KNOWS that name.
This is a sort of problem that might be cause for questioning one's
premise. Perhaps.
brian moore
>
> Clear the decks, ffolks, them's fightin' words!! ;-)
>
> Seriously, though, Brian, language like this is not apropriate in this topic
> and should be avoided. I suggest you read on netiquette before continuing.
> and may not be used without his expressed written permission.
Is it my language Michael,or your perception of it?
And I ask you again,why do you ASSume so many things about me?
You don't know me.I suggest you find out about people before you
make your suggestions.
Brian
brian moore
>
> Well, here we simply disagree. I think that how conventions are run, and
> the public behavior of those who run them, are the legitimate business of
> fandom in general, and that alt.fandom.cons is one of the legitimate places
> for the discussion of that.
I would like to know how YOU stretched to this meaning from what was
being discussed.Your statement is true but has NOTHING to do with my point.
> I daresay most of the habitues of alt.fandom.cons would agree with that.
> Certainly, this group is frequented by people who run rather larger and more
> important conventions than Magnum Opus Con, and they don't seem to be in the
> habit of answering criticism by saying of the critic, "It isn't [his]
> business. NEVER WAS. NEVER WILL BE."
ALL hail the GREAT CONVENTION RUNNERS.When was Magnum Opus Con ever mentioned?
What are you trying to say,that I don't have the right to tell someone its none
of their business about a post I made?
> But I imagine Mr. Moore will regard this as another instance of someone
> twisting his words unfairly. I'm sorry that dealing with argument is so
> rough for him.
Absolutely this is instance of twisting words unfairly.You've jumped to an entirely
different subject.Dealing with argument is no problem,finding an appropriate(for you)
one is.
However, I don't really see how it changes my point, which is that
> Mr. Moore, like Roland Castle, seems to have difficulty responding to
> criticism in anything short of an abusive, over-the-top fashion. Certainly
> his letter, peppered with exclamations like "MORON", doesn't do a lot to
> change this view.
I will say this for you Patrick.You are NOTHING if not unoriginal.Roland seems to be
your favorite crutch.Tell me when I have been abusive other than Michael Dillson,when I
responded to his tirade or you when you made a blatant lie.Be the big man Patrick.
I also find it FUNNY that you think calling you a MORON once,gets turned into peppered.
Why don't you take my previous advice,since you are fond of giving it,and go back and READ
what has been going on.I didn't say about Ulrika what you said I said,so you obviously
don't know what is happening.
Tell you what Patrick,why don't you also give up this UNHEALTHY obsession you have
with Roland Castle.Your having too many thoughts about him.
Brian
Ulrika O'Brien
>Interestingly, this is a primary concept that Roland Castle displays
>trouble with: inability to understand Usenet as a *public* forum.
>
>Peculiarly, the idea that they are publishing their words for reading by,
>and possible feedback from, thousands of people seems to go right past
>them -- as do other useful distinctions and mannerisms such as courtesy
>and appropriate behavior.
>
>Curious.
My initial working hypothesis, based on similarity of net behavior to
date, is that Brian is an alias for Roland himself.
brian moore
> In other news, I have heated mail from the abovenamed Brian Moore, pointing
> out that in my previous post I inaccurately said that certain insulting
> remarks of his were directed toward Ulrika O'Brien. As Mr. Moore says, they
> were in fact directed toward Mike Dillson. I certainly apologize for the
> error. However, I don't really see how it changes my point, which is that
> Mr. Moore, like Roland Castle, seems to have difficulty responding to
> criticism in anything short of an abusive, over-the-top fashion. Certainly
> his letter, peppered with exclamations like "MORON", doesn't do a lot to
> change this view.
I also would like to know hypocrite,why it is that you feel the need to use your e-mail
as your sounding board.I guess private e-mail doesn't mean the same thing to you
as it does to your friends since two of them suggested I use it if I didn't want to post
publicly.The only difference here being that I knew you would use it this time since
you used it the first time.Please be a little more original.I know you can.
> : > None of us, of course, are privy to exact access to each other's
> : > thoughts. Nonetheless, what you wrote did in fact have the
> : > tenor of attempting to imply that anyone posting on Roland's
> : > behalf will be unfairly subjected to character assassination.
>
> : Okay which is it? Did I libelously accuse or did I have the tenor of attempting to imply?
Your point here being? Yes I said it.She said TWO different things in two different sentences.
It was an honest question on my part.Ulrika is so caught up in trying to impress SOMEONE
with her vocabulary her meaning overlapped.It happens.
> : > If you *meant* something else, you are, of course, welcome to
> : > clarify. Again, if you didn't mean someone besides the intended
> : > object to read it, you shouldn't have posted it publicly.
Do you follow your friends advice Patrick?That last sentence there.
Never assume people.
> : > Is it okay if we assume rocks, then?
With some of the responses from some of you it probably would be wise to assume rocks.
> : Thats cute too.Thats like a micro-slam right.Your so GOOD at innuendo.
> : > --
> : > On the other hand, the examined life isn't very lucrative.
> : > Ulrika O'Brien * Philosopher without Portfolio * ulr...@aol.com
>
> : Its still SAD that you call yourself a Philosopher.You have NO respect for what the
> : word means.Of course this is the USA and you can call yourself whatever you like,however
> : inaccurate.
I find it even more curious that you feel the need to quote the entire response to Ulrika.
And that last sentence,that one about Philosopher,I mean it.I tell the truth Patrick.You
might want to try it sometime it feels good.
At least you haven't gotten petty enough yet to say the word shouldn't be capitalized.
And answer me this Patrick,why does Ulrika feel the need the stand up for Michael Dillson?
Or why do you feel the need? You have turned one statement from me into something its not.
In fact why didn't you just post the e-mail I sent you.People would see it wasn't as bad
as you made it to be.And since it doesn't matter to you whether its e-mail or not I might
as well post anything I have to say to you here.
At least next time BE CREATIVE and stop using Roland as a shield for your answers.Or
can the two be mutually exclusive?
brian
Bernard Peek
>
> I have to wonder, really, whether we aren't dealing with genuine disability,
> with people who literally don't know the difference between the world of
> their internal experience and the world of other people.
I noticed a comment by Catwoman about there being "sides" in this
affair. The two sides being inside and outside, the border between
them entirely surrounding Roland, Catwoman and Brain Moore. Outside
this impenetrable perimeter lies the rest of humanity.
It reminds me of the famous British newspaper headline earlier this
century "Channel fogbound, continent isolated" or words to that
effect.
--
Bernard Peek
I.T and Management Development Trainer to the Cognoscenti
b...@intersec.demon.co.uk
Seth Breidbart
Ulrika O'Brien <Ulr...@aol.com> wrote:
>That's fine. You start. Please show me what connection to Dragon*Con
>Gary Farber has. Or Dave Romm. Or Kevin Standlee. Or Dave Weingart.
>Or Seth Breidbart.
I voted against it for NASFIC.
As a result of that vote, I had a membership in last year's Dragoncon.
I didn't go.
Seth
Dirk A. Loedding
Catwoman wrote:
>record straight about Roland CAsTle.
[snip]
Before you get too carried away with defending Roland...I suggest you go
read the exchange of e-mail that occurred on my mailing list...10 months
ago. Try http://www.america.net/~judge
Then...spend a little time reading some of what Roland has been writing
here in this newsgroup.
And, finally...a word of advice. Roland would appear to have this nasty
habit of turning on his supporters. I've noticed several people here
who were, at first, stalwart Roland supporters. But, they made the
mistake of saying something that wasn't 120% complimentary about Roland.
And, Roland being Roland, he attacked them, with little reason other
than his apparent lack of reading comprehension skills. Now, many of
his former supporters appear to be more than a little disenchanted with
him. With good reason, I might add. I'm sure someone has the original
post some poor innocent made, and Roland's fiery response to it... Maybe
they'll be kind enough to repost. Judge for yourself whether Roland has
gone off the deep end. But, be careful...you never know when you'll get
your head bitten off.
--
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Dirk A. Loedding <*> ju...@america.net |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
David E Romm
> I don't live in Charlotte or Athens. Perhaps I simply don't exist?
True, Michael's comment didn't include you. However, you got laid at MOC,
and that's likely to affect your perception of things. It would mine.
And, of course, you're entitled to your opinion under any circumstances.
Nonetheless, it seems the only people who have defended Roland (as opposed
to defending his con) are those who make unsubstantiated claims, don't
respond to questions, take every comment personally and respond in a
juvenile/Limbaugh manner. Further, they are vastly outnumbered by the
people who have worked with/known Roland who he has managed to piss off.
You're post(s), if I'm reading them correctly, have basically said, 'I
didn't see Roland behave badly at MOC and he's always been nice to me, so
I don't believe all these complaints.' Is that a fair precis?
I'm happy to see you posting; you're one of the few people with Conspiracy
Theory PhDs that I'm certain isn't Roland Castle. I do wish that you'd
read more of the people who interacted with him and take their experiences
as legitimately as you're asking us to take yours.
--
Shockwave radio: Science Fiction/Science Fact
http://www.winternet.com/~romm
"Knowledge is a process of piling up facts; wisdom lies in their simplification." -- Martin H. Fischer
Seth Breidbart
>P Nielsen Hayden wrote:
>What are you trying to say,that I don't have the right to tell someone its none
>of their business about a post I made?
To start with, anything you post to a newsgroup is the business of
anybody who reads that newsgroup. You have the right to say
otherwise, of course, but You're Wrong.
You also can't count. Try setting your margins around 70 characters.
>> But I imagine Mr. Moore will regard this as another instance of someone
>> twisting his words unfairly. I'm sorry that dealing with argument is so
>> rough for him.
>
>Absolutely this is instance of twisting words unfairly.You've jumped to an entirely
>different subject.
So? That's quite common on Usenet. If you don't like the way we
converse, go somewhere else.
> However, I don't really see how it changes my point, which is that
>> Mr. Moore, like Roland Castle, seems to have difficulty responding to
>> criticism in anything short of an abusive, over-the-top fashion. Certainly
>> his letter, peppered with exclamations like "MORON", doesn't do a lot to
>> change this view.
>
>I will say this for you Patrick.You are NOTHING if not unoriginal.
You mean lots of other people have made that same observation about
you in the past? Color me unsurprised.
Seth
Mean Green Dancing Machine
Jailbait <jail...@apocalypse.org> wrote:
>>>>>> "Kelly" == Kelly Lockhart <Kel...@cris.com> writes:
>
> Kelly> By the way, what is you name? "Catwoman" may be a nice nom
> Kelly> de plume to use in the FANDOM newsletter, but here in
> Kelly> alt.fandom.cons, the way to gain credibility is to use your
> Kelly> real name.
>
>and well thought-out, but this one paragraph rankles a bit.
>
>Unfortunately, I deleted your .sig block before noting where you're
>located, but since cris.com is in Cupertino, I'll take a guess at
>west-coast...I don't know about west-coast fandom, but I know that in
>the north-east, at least, and other places I've traveled for cons,
>it's not at all unusual to know people only by their chosen nickname.
Well, this guess is wrong, since I'm known only as 'Aahz' to pretty much
everyone I've met socially in the last five years, and I'm in San Jose.
OTOH, I've run into enough flack over the years that I'm preparing to
make it my legal name.
(I'm giving Bob Asprin 'til the end of this week to make an objection.)
--
--- Aahz (@netcom.com)
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6
Androgynous kinky vanilla queer het
Why is this newsgroup different from all other newsgroups?
brian moore
> Interestingly, this is a primary concept that Roland Castle displays
> trouble with: inability to understand Usenet as a *public* forum.
Yeah I thought you were going to be late but you finally got here.
I am curious how YOU could latch on the idea that I don't think this is a public
forum?
Was it also because I told Michael Dillson my statement shouldn't concern him?
> Peculiarly, the idea that they are publishing their words for reading by,
> and possible feedback from, thousands of people seems to go right past
> them -- as do other useful distinctions and mannerisms such as courtesy
> and appropriate behavior.
I understand perfectly well that my words might elicit feedback.This is feedback,"What kind
of BS is this?" written by one Michael Dillson.This is also feedback,"Since it wasn't written
to you,it shouldn't concern you."
So from that YOU jump to the conclusion that I don't know this is a public forum?
And this has been several peoples basis for argument?
I also find it amusing that my RESPONSE to Michael Dillsons attack on me isn't considered
courtesy but his attack is.Way to have some DOUBLE stands there guys.
Roland you should win an award for the way these people bandy your name around.
The primary concept here is that you people can't accept that Dillsons reply was unwarranted
and I responded.Since he couldn't handle it Ulrika had to step in.Then Patrick Hayden.
Then Gary Farber.Then Michael Weaver.
Can't you people take any RESPONSIBILITY for yourselves?
Its funny how MY posts are considered uncourteous and any of yours are not.
You practice the same FAULTS you found in Roland.How poetic.
Look in a mirror sometime.Of course you would have to face REALITY to do that.
Way to stick together.Go team.
Brian
brian moore
>
> gfa...@panix.com (Gary Farber) wrote:
>
> >Interestingly, this is a primary concept that Roland Castle displays
> >trouble with: inability to understand Usenet as a *public* forum.
> >
> >and possible feedback from, thousands of people seems to go right past
> >them -- as do other useful distinctions and mannerisms such as courtesy
> >and appropriate behavior.
It would help things greatly if several of you would practice what you preach.
>
> My initial working hypothesis, based on similarity of net behavior to
> date, is that Brian is an alias for Roland himself.
Wow...and Roland must have come up with it himself.The problem is you take YOU seriously.
Are you speaking of the fact that anyone who disagrees with YOU has similarity of
net behavior?
I see that several of you are going to latch on to understanding Usenet as a
public forum for lack of anything better.How pathetic.
You can't answer the real questions.You can't face the fact that YOU were wrong.
Tell me Ulrika why did you take up for Michael Dillson?
> On the other hand, the examined life isn't very lucrative.
> Ulrika O'Brien * Philosopher without Portfolio * ulr...@aol.com
God I hope you NEVER become a Philosphy professor.The tripe you hand out
will confuse people for most of their lives.
Brian
brian moore
>
> Brian Wrote:
>
> >What exactly am I wrong about?
>
> Your rude, if I need to explain the importanats of manners to you, then
> you have far more problems than I can address
I know the importance of manners.Its your friends that don't.Especially Mike D.
and his hot headed posts.
I have manners.If you would pay attention from beginning to end you would see that.
Now think about it this time...What exactly am I wrong about?
The fact that I RESPONDED to Michael Dillsons slam on me or the fact I wasn't
nice and agreeable when he asked what is this BS?
>
> >Are you jumping in not knowing what is going on?
>
> No, you just plpain rude
I think you are just jumping in.I am RUDE because I was attacked first.
Is that hard to understand? Go back and read in order.
No one ask me anything nicely.I was attacked,I responded.That makes me rude.
You got some great people here.
>
> >Do you think I don't know this is a public forum?
>
> You responce to mie D indicates that you do not
My response was,"Since it wasn't written to you,it shouldn't concern you."
You think thats an indication I don't know this is a public forum?
Then that is your perception not truth.
But I would like to know,is it the since it wasn't written to you part,or the it shouldn't
concern you part,you have a problem with?
>
> >What makes you think I haven't read an informational page on net >behavior? Because
> >I don't post the way most of you do?
>
> Yes
That makes me an INDIVIDUAL.I get it.People can be RUDE to me but I can't be rude back.
What a concept.I might try it sometime.
You hear that Michael Dillson,maybe we should try this again so I can bow before
you greatness and answer you with respect even though you didn't ask it that way.
And since I don't agree with any of you that means I need net etiquette.
Easy way out.Save face people at all costs.
> >Thats what I like about some of you.You make assumptions.Even if the >words are contradictory
> >half of you will turn them to your advantage to make a point,right or >wrong.
> >most of you never know the facts but you jump in anyway when you feel an >acquaintance is
> >under fire.
>
> Thats a mountain out of a molehill, your just plain rude. Rude behavior
> will ALWAYS draw fire around here. To use you analogy of a party, If you
> had spoken to Mike Dillson at a live party the way you did here in your
> post, most hosts would have asked you to leave.
And I suppose Michael Dillson would have received praise for telling me I need to be
put over my mothers knee?Which he did FIRST.So anything Mike D. does is good?Is that it?
Again, indication you don't know whats going on.
>
> >Will one of you ever admit you are wrong?
No,one of you won't.Your egos are too big for that.Especially Ulrika.
>
>
> Will you?
The minute I realize I am wrong I will admit it.I am not.
Most of you are attacking me for the sake of attacking me.
Of course if the exact same instances were reversed you would be on the other side.
Tell you what people,SHOW me where I have been any more RUDE than the people I was
rude to other than MAYBE,Patrick Hayden.
Drop all your rhetoric and PROVE it.Stop hiding behind Roland.
Brian
brian moore
> >Thats what I like about some of you.You make assumptions.Even if the >words are contradictory
> >half of you will turn them to your advantage to make a point,right or >wrong.
> >most of you never know the facts but you jump in anyway when you feel an >acquaintance is
> >under fire.
Actions speak far louder that words.Its happening isn't it.
> Thats a mountain out of a molehill, your just plain rude. Rude behavior
> will ALWAYS draw fire around here. To use you analogy of a party, If you
> had spoken to Mike Dillson at a live party the way you did here in your
> post, most hosts would have asked you to leave.
Answer this for me Mr.Weaver.If I am at a party and I make a statement to someone I
am talking to is it anyones right to butt in and be vulgar? (What kind of BS is this?)
Ulrika keeps spouting clarify,but that was not Mr.Dillsons attitude.
Is it not my RIGHT to say it didn't concern him?
He can make what ever response he wants its a free country.
But if he had said that I needed to be put over my mothers knee,we would have been
outside settling the matter.It would have been OVER.
But you people can hide behind your keyboards and say whatever you want,right or wrong,
and pat yourselves on the back after you do it.
Of course you have to play favorites.
Brian
P Nielsen Hayden
: Is it my language Michael,or your perception of it?
: And I ask you again,why do you ASSume so many things about me?
: You don't know me.I suggest you find out about people before you
: make your suggestions.
Actually, we know quite a lot about you. We know, for instance, that you
are easily angered, and that you feel yourself surrounded by people who
argue unfairly. We also know that you have a relatively limited repertoire
of responses.
Text is powerful. In the hands of a Shakespeare or a Chaucer, text
encompasses all human experience. In the hands of the rest of us, text is
far more revealing than we usually intend. To pretend that we don't reveal
a great deal about ourselves when we post is to make a very grave error. We
certainly do.
P Nielsen Hayden
: P Nielsen Hayden wrote:
: > In other news, I have heated mail from the abovenamed Brian Moore, pointing
: > out that in my previous post I inaccurately said that certain insulting
: > remarks of his were directed toward Ulrika O'Brien. As Mr. Moore says, they
: > were in fact directed toward Mike Dillson. I certainly apologize for the
: > error. However, I don't really see how it changes my point, which is that
: > Mr. Moore, like Roland Castle, seems to have difficulty responding to
: > criticism in anything short of an abusive, over-the-top fashion. Certainly
: > his letter, peppered with exclamations like "MORON", doesn't do a lot to
: > change this view.
: I also would like to know hypocrite,why it is that you feel the need to use your e-mail
: as your sounding board.I guess private e-mail doesn't mean the same thing to you
: as it does to your friends since two of them suggested I use it if I didn't want to post
: publicly.The only difference here being that I knew you would use it this time since
: you used it the first time.Please be a little more original.I know you can.
Tsk. I never asked you to send me email, and if you're going to do so and
be insulting in the process, I'm very liable to find it worth mentioning in
this group.
P Nielsen Hayden
: Its funny how MY posts are considered uncourteous and any of yours are not.
Yes, it's funny, isn't it?
Jim_P
(Gary Farber)' wrote:
>is the Roland-meme so
>powerful that sufficient reading of his style produces Roland-clones?
Pat Mccormack
PNH> I daresay most of the habitues of alt.fandom.cons would agree with
PNH> that. Certainly, this group is frequented by people who run rather
PNH> larger and more important conventions than Magnum Opus Con, and they
PNH> don't seem to be in the habit of answering criticism by saying of the
PNH> critic, "It isn't [his] business. NEVER WAS. NEVER WILL BE."
Just a small thought here, can any con truly be called "more important"
than any other con? I don't think attempting to make distinctions like
that are going to serve the best interests of fandom. I have a list of
cons that I attend, and you have a different list. What makes the ones
on my list more important than those on yours, or vice versa? I would
argue that a Worldcon is no more important than the smallest local con.
The importance of any con is a personal definition. Trying to impose
those personal definitions at any greater level would not be helpful to
fandom.
... New Mail not found. Start whine-pout sequence? (Y/N)
--
> I turned my back for a moment, and they made me con chair!
Fidonet: Pat Mccormack 1:101/175 Internet: con....@vader.com
Sharon L Sbarsky
>date, is that Brian is an alias for Roland himself.
I don't think so. Roland never seemed to be able to successfully reply to
a message in the same thread, which Brian is clearly able to do. OTOH,
Roland may be suggesting what Brian is posting.
Hmmmm, are there Castle Cronies now? :-) :-)
Sharon
Michael Dillson
:>Whats the matter...feel the need to repeat yourself?
Nope, made some changes to my original post and cancelled it. You got it
before the cancel order got to your server.
:>> Well, since you only appeared on the net beginning on March 21st, we thought,
:>> maybe, you needed some advise.
:>WoW again.Appeared on the net on March 21st.And look now its,"we thought."
:>What did you do consult your crystal ball?You might want to ask it if it could be
:>wrong.I will give you a hint...it is.
Your first post, at least under this net address, was on March 21st. It was
in response to the thread "Roland responds to Kelly". Before that, there is
no record of bmoore.vnet.net posting on Usenet. In fact, the only references
I could find to Brian Moore was a string on the Usenet forum on musical
instruments talking about Brian Moore guitars.
So, unless you were posting under another name and account, March 21st was
your first post.
As far as the "we" kimosabee, I think it's pretty obvious that many people on
this forum have taken offense at your, shall we say, abrasive form of
responses to any question put to you. I read the messages that are posted
before I start formulating my responses. I wasn't the only person suggesting
this, hence the "we".
:>You might want to also ask your more knowledgeable friends how this could be so.
:>You need a "we" if there is any thinking to be done.
Huh? What the heck are you talking about? Ask my more knowledgeable friends
about what?
:> Look how fast mama's little boy has learned
:>> how to work his little computer-wooter. ;-)
:>You know thats a really thought provoking statement.Who would have thunk it.
:>Just more evidence that you are a child.
Yep, it was somewhat childish of me. Posted in anger and I regret it. But
that's about how I felt like talking to you after reading your posts.
:>Is a computer-wooter anything like a heeby-jeeby?
Only if you're giving me one 'cause your surely giving me the other. ;-)
:>Give your computer back to your father, your getting dirt all over it.
Sure, right, uh-huh. This from a man who was complaining about my posts.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Dillson Atlanta, GA dil...@mindspring.com
Michael Dillson
you. :-0
Gary Farber
: Just a small thought here, can any con truly be called "more important"
: than any other con?
In a specific context, sure.
: I don't think attempting to make distinctions like
: that are going to serve the best interests of fandom. I have a list of
: cons that I attend, and you have a different list. What makes the ones
: on my list more important than those on yours, or vice versa?
Our respective lists of which cons we attend are important only to
ourselves (and those who plan to see us).
But if, say, you come to me and say you are interesting in bidding for a
Worldcon in eight years and want my advice on which cons you should start
planning bid parties for, I would lay you out an analysis of which cons
are "important" as defined by overlapping factors including region,
attendence, influence upon other cons, reputation, timing, which cons
attract the large number of other con-runners or "opinion leaders," and so
on. If you were a new editor/publicity person for a publishing house and
you wanted advice about an ad or party schedule, I could give similar
advice.
There are priorities, and the flowing history and culture of sf fandom
shape what they presently are.
: I would
: argue that a Worldcon is no more important than the smallest local con.
I would argue that absent a context, arguments about "importance" are
meaningless. What is personally important to you is subjective. What is
important to accomplishing a goal is not. I'm sure your confusion over
the distinction is quite momentary. :-)
: The importance of any con is a personal definition. Trying to impose
: those personal definitions at any greater level would not be helpful to
: fandom.
I'm not sure what you're concerned about here: has someone recently
composed a list of Top Ten Important Cons that slighted your favorite?
Ulrika O'Brien
>Ulrika O'Brien wrote:
>>
>> gfa...@panix.com (Gary Farber) wrote:
>>
>> >Interestingly, this is a primary concept that Roland Castle displays
>> >trouble with: inability to understand Usenet as a *public* forum.
>> >
>> >Peculiarly, the idea that they are publishing their words for reading
>> >by,
>> >and possible feedback from, thousands of people seems to go right past
>> >them -- as do other useful distinctions and mannerisms such as
>> >courtesy
>> >and appropriate behavior.
>
>It would help things greatly if several of you would practice what you >preach.
I'm sure we try to. Gary, in particular, is usually quite good
about it. Do you have something particular in mind?
>> My initial working hypothesis, based on similarity of net behavior to
>> date, is that Brian is an alias for Roland himself.
>
>Wow...and Roland must have come up with it himself.The problem is you >take YOU seriously.
This is a non sequitur, as far as I can tell. What are you
talking about, please?
>Are you speaking of the fact that anyone who disagrees with YOU has >similarity of net behavior?
This is a pretty funny suggestion. No. I have disagreed,
sometimes quite vehemently, with Gary Farber, Patrick Nielsen Hayden,
Seth Breidbart, Dave Romm, Fiona Anderson, Ed Kramer, and many others,
in degrees small and large, without for a moment supposing any of
them might be Roland Castle. What I'm actually talking about is:
tendency to take cheap, infantile personal insults as an appropriate
response to argument; tendency to make skew, irrelevant, or
incomprehensible replies in discussion, and other similarities
which I've alluded to elsewhere. If I'm mistaken, I do apologize,
but it must be said that you share a number of stylistic traits
with Roland.
>I see that several of you are going to latch on to understanding Usenet >as a public forum for lack of anything better.How pathetic.
>You can't answer the real questions.You can't face the fact that YOU were >wrong.
Which real questions did you have in mind? About what am I
wrong?
>Tell me Ulrika why did you take up for Michael Dillson?
Er, huh? This, again, is very much in the style of Roland.
Complete misunderstanding of the common motivations in this
kind of forum. I didn't take up *for* Michael Dillson, whatever
that means, I objected to *your* supposition that something
you said in this newsgroup was somehow not his business to
react to.
[snip]
>God I hope you NEVER become a Philosphy professor.The tripe you hand out
>will confuse people for most of their lives.
Again, very Roland-like. This is a personal attack on a
topic irrelevant to the one being discussed, based on laughably
limited information and poor understanding. Next, why don't
you insult my sexual habits and ancestry?
--
Ulrika O'Brien
>Look in a mirror sometime.Of course you would have to face REALITY to do >that.
Oh, so you've at least *heard* of reality, have you? Well, there's
comfort...
Paul W. Cashman
>What strikes me about Mr. Moore is the conceptual problem he appears to
>share with Roland Castle. Both he and Roland appear to feel that, when they
>feel insulted by things other people say, that conveys upon them a license
>to respond by saying _anything whatsoever_. Joe Blotz said he didn't like
>my convention -- ouch! I'm insulted! I'll show him; I'll make insulting
>remarks about his personal life! Which we've seen Roland do, of course.
>And which we now see Mr. Moore do, as well.
"Your post has the *ringer* of truth to it, Mr. Moore; yes, it
*ringers* true."
--with apologies to a certain Istari :)
--
+--- Paul W. Cashman van...@crl.com http://www.crl.com/~vanyel ---+
| Rush * Robert Jordan * Bonedance * Michael Moorcock * Metallica |
| James P. Hogan * Dream Theater * Robert Heinlein * NIN * Dead |
| Can Dance * Mercedes Lackey * Mutha's Day Out * Raymond Feist....|
Ulrika O'Brien
>Better watch it Catwoman,they'll be trying to attack
>your integrity next.
So, Brian, if this isn't supposed to be a vaguely worded
insult aimed at some participants in this group, what is
it? If you were innocent of all initial wrong-doing, what exactly
is this post supposed to mean? Who is it you think is likely
to attack Catwoman's integrity next? What evidence do you
have that they would do so? In an ongoing thread where
the defenders of Roland are prone to making some remarkably
assinine assertions against those who criticise him, how
were we supposed to take this? Please, feel free to provide
context as to how you meant it. I'll be ecstatic to apologize
to you if I was mistaken -- please show me in what way I was.
Ulrika O'Brien
>Answer this for me Mr.Weaver.If I am at a party and I make a statement to >someone I am talking to is it anyones right to butt in and be vulgar?
>(What kind of BS is this?)
A poor analogy. Usenet newsgroups are not like parties, because
at a party, private conversations are possible and recognized --
if two or more people step away from others and speak in lowered
tones, these are social signals that the conversation is not for
everyone. There are no private conversations on Usenet newsgroups.
All statements here are effectively *for* everyone. A better analogy
would be if you were standing at a party facing one person, but
deliberately talking in a loud voice, so everyone can hear, and
making statements that sound insulting to some subset of the people
within earshot. If someone within earshot objected, I'd say it
was as least as much within his/her right as it was for you to
stand around insulting people in the first place. To then claim
that it wasn't his business because you weren't talking to him
would seem to me a very dishonest, cowardly tactic, since pretty
clearly the original intent was to insult people without being
called to account for it.
>Ulrika keeps spouting clarify,but that was not Mr.Dillsons attitude.
>
>Is it not my RIGHT to say it didn't concern him?
It's your right to say whatever you like. That doesn't, however,
guarantee that the *content* of what you say will be true.
In this case, it wasn't.
--Ulrika
John P. Miller
>MD>BTW, have you read any of the stuff that Mr. Castle has been dishing out
>MD>here? I'd be more than happy to send it to you if you haven't.
>>
>Roland is simply calling things as he sees them, and he's well within his
>rights if he wants to express his opinion just as you are free to express
>yours. Nobody's forcing anyone else to listen.
Actually, when Dave Weingart suggested that Roland publish a Men of
MOC for the female fen, and also post the GOM pics on the Net to piss
of Sen. Exon, Roland went off, saying he didn't know Roland or MOC,
but feels he has to "mean-mouth" his convention. Roland went on to
suggest that if Dave likes men, to go to a bookstore because Roland
doesn't get into that. That's an example of Roland calling things as
he see's them.
>At the risk of sounding haughty, I have to say that those who CAn'T take the
>heat shouldn't be cooking in the kitchen.
Nice point, except that this is alt.Roland.flame.flame.flame
Flame wars have no place on this group, although they can be
interesting in small doses, the tirade that has been stirred up by all
concerned over Roland has at times been funny, witty, and utterly
frightening.
>MD>What message is that? That there is an international conspiracy out to
>MD>destroy MOC? Of the fact that all the people on this forum are decended from
>MD>sheep?
>>
>Now you're starting to sound paranoid.
No he's not. Roland has alluded to those facts himself. This
suggests to me that you haven't read nearly as much of the past posts
has you claim.
>That's what's so interesting. All I read about are people who hate Roland for
>this reason or that. I don't think one has to have a phD in Conspiracy Theory
>to start wondering if most of the people on the Anti-Roland Squad aren't
>working together in SOME way... Oh let's go out on a limb... Could they be...
>DRAGON CON staff members? Let's be reasonable here. It's clear that many of
>you/them/whoever are on the Dragon Con staff. That's not paranoia. It's
>merely an observation. Something for other people to ponder.
Well, before I get labeled a D*C staffer, let me tell you who I am.
I began attending MOC at MOC 7. I have NEVER attended D*C. I have
offered my services to MOC free of charge at MOC's 9 and 10 in working
with and performing with the Shadow Players Stage Combat Group. I am
a recipient of the Harty Koeller Scholarship. I was also told by
Roland not to attend MOC-10A because I was working against MOC. After
I talked to him in person, we worked out this disagreement and I
attended MOC 10A, even congratulating Roland on how good 10A was.
Shortly after that, I posted that while I was a scholarship recipient,
I hadn't received any monies from Roland, and that while I knew he
wouldn't try to get out of paying it, I wish I had known in advance
what to expect and when to expect it. Roland replied that I had
disgraced the scholarship and defamed his sister's memory. Up until
that point, anyone here would tell you that I was a MOC fan and
supporter of MOC. He then told me that "If I had any decency, I will
not attend MOC 11."
Now it appears, to Roland, that I'm out to get him. Well, that's not
true. I just relay my experiences as truthfully as I can, and while I
have been an ardent supporter of MOC in the past, and even defended
Roland on this forum, I will not kiss his ass and call it ice cream.
Apparently, if you don't defend Roland exactly the way he wants, and
without any disparaging comments whatsoever, you're a Kramer Kronie
and out to kill MOC.
>Hold on there, partner. The Hyatt people don't know about it because it has
>shed its entire management staff several times over since MOC was last held
>there. Of course they've never heard of Ed Kramer.
Let's see, MOC 9 was in '94. It's '96 now. So the Hyatt has shed its
entire management staff several times in 2 years. Damn, they need to
work on turnover!
>You're right. Our idea of Fandom is quite obviously not the same as yours.
>The way I see it, you guys should stick with your vision, and we'll stick with
>ours. Roland doesn't give a shit about offending people, as you well know.
>People who are in it for Our Version of Fandom will come back every year, no
>matter what you or me or Roland says. They don't care about this petty
>internet bickering. They simply want to have a good time, and they do at
>every MOC.
Because if they say otherwise, Roland will go off. Like he did to me
after I said I thought "MOC 10 sucked." That was my personal opinion,
but it made Roland believe I was out to destroy MOC.
Perhaps everyone can meet face to face at ROC of AGEs and solve some
differences. Since ROC should be neutral territory, it shouldn't give
any one person a "home team advantage." I hope to see you there.
_
|------/X\------------------|-----------------------------------------|
| | |NASA-KSC | John P. Miller |
| | |STS-49 Endeavour | Ladc...@ix.netcom.com |
| | |First Flight | |
| | |Launch Team | "If the same amount of energy that was |
| / \ | spent studying the female bosom went |
| / I \ | into the space program, we would now |
| / OV I 105\ | be operating hot dog stands on the |
| |_____I_____| | moon." --J.P.M. |
|- '--'/_\'--' -------------|-----------------------------------------|
Jedi Squire #385 @10
RE: Re: Roland CAsTle
BY: catwoman#negia.net (Catwoman) #2850 @30
>I'm not entirely sure that Roland is completely paranoid. I have it on
>good authority from a high-up Dragon Con staffer (whose name will NOT be
>revealed) that Ed Kramer does in fact have a purr-sonal vendetta against
>both MOC and Roland. This source revealed that Kramer has on more than one
>occasion called up prospective MOC hotels and warned them that MOC Fandom
>would destroy their rooms and, get this, that we were Satan worshippers.
>Pretty cool, huh? All hail Lucifer! (And in case your wondering, I did
>not get this info indirectly from Roland. In fact he probably isn't even
>aware of it.)
On the contrary, Roland some time ago posted here a claim that Ed Kramer
had tried to influence his (Roland's) hotels, so this claim is nothing new,
nor independent of Roland at all.
I've never met either Mr. Kramer or Mr. Castle, but the public face Mr.
Kramer presents here is one of patience and willingness to settle this
nonsense. The public face Mr. Castle presents is one of hatred, homophobia,
sexism, sizeism, illogic, vulgarity, and paranoia. Neither of these is
evidence of action by or for Kramer or by or against Castle, but most people
use them as barometers of intent and credibility, and under those standards,
Mr. Kramer comes off as truthful and Mr. Castle as untruthful.
It will take more than anonymous, unsubstantiated allegations of a
vendetta and unverifiable telephone calls to change that public perception.
******************************************************************************
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
>I'm not entirely sure that Roland is completely paranoid. I have it on
>good authority from a high-up Dragon Con staffer (whose name will NOT be
>revealed) that Ed Kramer does in fact have a purr-sonal vendetta against
>both MOC and Roland. This source revealed that Kramer has on more than one
>occasion called up prospective MOC hotels and warned them that MOC Fandom
>would destroy their rooms and, get this, that we were Satan worshippers.
>Pretty cool, huh? All hail Lucifer! (And in case your wondering, I did
>not get this info indirectly from Roland. In fact he probably isn't even
>aware of it.)
On the contrary, Roland some time ago posted here a claim that Ed Kramer
had tried to influence his (Roland's) hotels, so this claim is nothing new,
nor independent of Roland at all.
I've never met either Mr. Kramer or Mr. Castle, but the public face Mr.
Kramer presents here is one of patience and willingness to settle this
nonsense. The public face Mr. Castle presents is one of hatred, homophobia,
sexism, sizeism, illogic, vulgarity, and paranoia. Neither of these public
faces is evidence of action by or for Kramer or by or against Castle, but
most people use them as barometers of intent and credibility, and by that
measure Mr. Kramer appears more likely to be truthful and Mr. Castle as more
likely to be untruthful.
It will take much more than a third-party, anonymous, unsubstantiated
allegation of a vendetta and unverifiable telephone calls to change that
public perception.
>Everyone keeps talking about this elusive mountain of lies, but I've only
>actually heard two "claims" of his treachery. GIVE ME HARD CORE PROOF
>other than your word against his.
This is a remarkably ironic request, given that a large number of
people have repeatedly made it of Mr. Castle with regard to his allegations
against Ed Kramer, Paul Cashman, et al., with absolutely no response other
than vituperation.
>>Again, I repeat that you have obviously not read any of the previous
>>messages or you would understand that far from "trying to bust his balls"
>>we have bent over backwards trying to deal with him in a clear-minded
>>manner. Unfortunately, Roland continues to rant and rave without ever
>>once producing a _single_ piece of his so-called evidence. He is now
>>being ostracised because of his unrepentant behavior.
>
>Roland enjoys being ostracized, so I'm sure your last deClAraTion just
>made his day.
More evidence of clinical paranoia on his part, if you ask me. He
believes everyone is against him, and so deliberately acts so hatefully in a
public forum that everyone eventually does dislike him, so he then feels
fulfilled.
This is not the action of a well man.
Jedi Squire #385 @10
RE: Re: Roland CAsTle
>In article <4k0h75$1h...@mule2.mindspring.com>, dil...@atl.mindspring.com
>wrote:
>
>>What message is that? That there is an international conspiracy out to
>>destroy MOC? Of the fact that all the people on this forum are decended
>>from sheep?
>>
>Now you're starting to sound paranoid.
These are paraphrases of what Roland has said here, as archives can
show you. No paranoia on this end.
>>2. Ed Kramer is guiding all the people on Usenet to post negative things
>>about MOC.
>>
>>Boy, this is a paranoid delusional fantasy beyond anything I have ever
>>seen. I suppose I cannot call this a lie, since it is the result of a
>>percieved delusional situation.
>>
>That's what's so interesting. All I read about are people who hate Roland
>for this reason or that. I don't think one has to have a phD in Conspiracy
>Theory to start wondering if most of the people on the Anti-Roland Squad
>aren't working together in SOME way... Oh let's go out on a limb... Could
>they be... DRAGON CON staff members? Let's be reasonable here. It's
>clear that many of you/them/whoever are on the Dragon Con staff. That's
>not paranoia. It's merely an observation. Something for other people to
>ponder.
Your dissertation was rejected by your examination committee, sorry.
Gary is posting from New York, Ulrika from California, Dave Romm from
Minnesota, and I from Missouri. DragonCon staffers? None of us at all.
Better luck next time.
Jedi Squire #385 @10
RE: Re: Roland CAsTle
>Catwoman (catw...@negia.net) wrote:
>
>: None of us saw you that day. However, I purr-sonally would be glad to
>: set up a meeting between you and Roland at your earliest convenience if
>: you still want to talk to him face to face. I look forward to meeting
>: you.
>
>I am still awaiting Fred Grimm's reply to his offer to mediate a meeting
>between Roland and I. He hasn't replied in about two weeks, but I am
>still hoping.
>
>You, I will not meet with. Frankly, I view you as part of the problem,
>and not the solution. As long as Roland is surrounded by people that
>feed his paranoia and supprt his violently antisocial behvaiour, he will
>never get the help that he so urgently and obviously needs.
Kelly, you're not calling her a CATamite, are you? <smile>
>By the way, what is you name? "Catwoman" may be a nice nom de plume to
>use in the FANDOM newsletter, but here in alt.fandom.cons, the way to
>gain credibility is to use your real name.
Well, gee, I thought that reasonably intelligent posting and an
occasional flash of wit counted for something....
Incredibly yours,
Jedi Squire
P. S.: Wanna see my birth certificate?
Jedi Squire #385 @10
RE: Re: Roland CAsTle
>Why are you so bitter?
>Did your mother not suckle you as much as she did your siblings?
Bought yourself a second net.account, did you, Roland?
Catwoman
>brian moore (bmo...@vnet.net) wrote:
>
>: Tell me please, oh all knowing, these "people" I have libelously accused?
>: Name one person I have mentioned.
>: And I do stand behind what I post, unlike you.
>: It isn't Michael Dillson business.NEVER WAS. NEVER WILL BE.
>: Once more its not yours either.It doesn't concern either of you.
>: But I can see you have appointed yourself Righteous Speaker.
>
><various utterances crunched>
>
>Here's the question: is this guy Roland, or is the Roland-meme so
Dear Gary,
Hi, sweetie, it's me again. I've got Roland sitting here looking over my
shoulder. He said to tell you that you're still a dumbphuck.
Just thought I'd let you know. And by the way, "dumbphuck" is copyrighted by
Mr. CAsTle, so don't use it.
P.S. You desperately need to get a phucking life.
Hugs and hisses,
CATwoman
Catwoman
>brian moore <bmo...@vnet.net> wrote:
>>Ulrika O'Brien wrote:
>>>
>>> gfa...@panix.com (Gary Farber) wrote:
>>>
>>> >Interestingly, this is a primary concept that Roland Castle displays
>>> >trouble with: inability to understand Usenet as a *public* forum.
>>> >
Okay, okay.
Are you a Farber clone?
CW
Kelly Lockhart
: Brian, are you sure you aren't really Roland under a new
: handle?
I have wondered the same thing - the writing styles (or sprcifically, the
_lack_ of writing style) between Brian Moore and Roland Castle seem to be
virtually identical.
At least Catwoman (whoever she really is) is a distinct individual - she
may parrot Rolan'ds paranoia, but her writing style is a lot clearer than
his, although she does resprt to that really odd habit of capitalizing the
letters CAT in every word that contains all three (doesn't that sound
really time-consuimg?).
-- Kelly Lockhart
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| kel...@cris.com http://www.cris.com/~kellyl |
| k.loc...@genie.com Genie SFRT1 Category 38 Topic 4 |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Kelly Lockhart
: Ulrika O'Brien <Ulr...@aol.com> wrote:
: >That's fine. You start. Please show me what connection to Dragon*Con
: >Gary Farber has. Or Dave Romm. Or Kevin Standlee. Or Dave Weingart.
: >Or Seth Breidbart.
: I voted against it for NASFIC.
: As a result of that vote, I had a membership in last year's Dragoncon.
: I didn't go.
You know, you keep this engaging in this sort of behaviour, your status as
a "Kramer Kronie" may be seriously questioned. :-)
Kelly Lockhart
I won't bother qouting.
My question to Catwoman is why she has failed to respond to any of the
posts made to her since she put forth her conspiracy theory.
I will note that Roland and his supporters all share in the habit of not
responding to direct questions and insulting people instead.
Elisabeth Kovar Burgess
Catwoman posted something defending Roland. You posted a follow-up saying,
and I paraphrase, 'Watch it, you're going to get jumped.' I, reading this
group, made the assumption (yes, I know how that word can be capatalized) that
you meant that she was going to get jumped By the people posting to this group
Because she was defending Roland. You have said that this assumption is
incorrect.
Ok, I stand corrected. Or rather, I sit corrected. That leaves me confused
as to what you *did* mean. Since I don't know any of these people, including
you, I figured that you're the obvious person to ask. So-
Direct question, no bullshit or hidden motives, what did your actual reply to
Catwoman mean? Or, more accurately, what did you intend it to mean, since it's been
incorrectly interpreted?
Thanks -
Elspeth
Daniel B. Holzman
David E Romm <ro...@winternet.com> wrote:
>
>> to start wondering if most of the people on the Anti-Roland Squad aren't
>> working together in SOME way...
>
>interactions or responding to his posts in this neswgroup. That's the
>commonality.
I don't know about you, but I think I'm going to hit up Nancy Leibovitz
for a button with that to go along with my "Wednesdays's Coterie of Thugs"
button.
>> Oh let's go out on a limb... Could they be...
>> DRAGON CON staff members?
>
>In your coursework for your phD in Conspiracy Theory, did you ever
>encounter a precept known as Occam's Razor?
Just for the record, I am in no way related to DragonCon. I just think
Rollie has demonstrated himself to be a twit.
--
Daniel B. Holzman -- Love does not subtract, it multiplies. -- All acts of love
and pleasure are Her rituals. -- An it Harm none, do what you Will. -- They
took my name and stole my heritage, but they didn't get my goat. -- The
word is all of us. -- Remember the Twelth Commandment and keep it Wholly.
Michael Dillson
:>Dear Gary,
:>Hi, sweetie, it's me again. I've got Roland sitting here looking over my
:>shoulder. He said to tell you that you're still a dumbphuck.
:>Just thought I'd let you know. And by the way, "dumbphuck" is copyrighted by
:>Mr. CAsTle, so don't use it.
:>P.S. You desperately need to get a phucking life.
:>Hugs and hisses,
:>CATwoman
Well, so much for calm and rational.
I guess this FURmly establishes which CATegory she falls in.
Ulrika O'Brien
>What are you trying to say,that I don't have the right to tell someone >its none of their business about a post I made?
Here it is in words of one syllable, Brian: You have the *right*
to say that, but if you say it, what you say is false.
What you post publicly is the business of everyone who frequents
the group you post to. Do you understand yet?