Re: A quiet afternoon
Andre Lieven
wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 22:47:00 +0000 (UTC), Ben Yalow <yb...@panix.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >"Karl Johanson" <karljohan...@shaw.ca> writes:
> >>"Ben Yalow" <yb...@panix.com> wrote
> >>>"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
> >>>>Ben Yalow <yb...@panix.com> wrote:
> >>>>> "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> Ben Yalow <yb...@panix.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> That means that you've got to have three sets of security guards,
>
> >>>>>> And... ?
>
> >>>>> You're paying $20-30/hour for each security guard. And an art show
> >>>>> room should have one when it's open, and may want two when it's closed.
>
> >>>>This has always been done by unpaid volunteers at the cons I've been to.
>
> >>> As art show values have gone up, cons have found it better to use paid
> >>> guards. Their insurers don't like unbonded volunteers guarding a million
> >>> dollars worth of art (a Worldcon), or even a few hundred thousand (a major
> >>> regional art show).
>
> We aren't talking about a Worldcon. We aren't even talking about, from
> the descriptions you and Andre give, a major regional con art show.
>
> We've already established that the con at this venue (the St. Louis
> Airport Hilton) will have to be a very squeezed 1000 person con or
> smaller.
No, Mr. Yalow has well established, and my experience of Lunacon
(Attending
all but two since 1982, inclusive) causes me to exactly agree with Mr.
Yalow's
measured analysis of Lunacon, and it's function space uses, that
Lunacon
cannot fit into that hotel at all.
A greatly stripped down 1,000 person con might, but given a choice
between
a full service con such as Lunacon, and a stripped down con, well,
that's no
contest...
> >>Does it get up to a megabuck worth at a Worldcon (I'm asking, I'm not saying
> >>you're wrong)? If you assume 100 artists, that an average of $10,000 worth
> >>of art per artist. Sounds a little high.
>
> >The art show at N4 was several megabucks. But that was because the
> >special art exhibit was about two.
>
> >>If we assume a $1,000,000 worth of art, there the issue that that's a
> >>truckload of loot, much of which requires packaging to avoid being damaged.
> >>That leaves the would be thieves with difficult to fence loot. I could see
> >>some items stolen from art shows (and I expect it's already happned), but I
> >>can't see insurers worried about theft from the whole works (fire concerns
> >>would be bigger).
>
> >It's happened, although not that I know of from shows with pro guards.
>
> >>My memory isn't eidetic, but I don't remember seeing pro-security at the
> >>Worldcon art shows at Winnipeg 94 or Toronto 2003.
>
> >I remember seeing them there.
>
> >I don't have the details for Winnipeg.
>
> >The paid security expense at torcon 3 (line 189201 in their financial
> >report) was CDN$9191.00
>
> All of which is way beyond the scope of the art show we're talking
> about.
Andre
David Loewe, Jr.
Didn't mention Lunacon...
>A greatly stripped down 1,000 person con might, but given a choice
>between a full service con such as Lunacon, and a stripped down con, well,
>that's no contest...
--
"One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their
intentions rather than their results."
- Milton Friedman
Andre Lieven
> On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 12:58:39 -0700 (PDT), Andre Lieven
>
In another part of this titled thread, yes you and he were discussing
it.
And, as he is there year after year, and works it, it is quite
reasonable to say
that he knows exactly what he is talking about, and, at best, your
claims might
be useful to SOME Mid Western cons, but not much beyond that.
Man, talk about chutzpa, trying to argue con hotel topics with SMOF
Yalow.
I am quite pleased that most of my points were in agreement with Mr.
Yalow's
experienced statements.
> >A greatly stripped down 1,000 person con might, but given a choice
> >between a full service con such as Lunacon, and a stripped down con, well,
> >that's no contest...
Andre
David V. Loewe, Jr
You're very late returning to this discussion.
And the sentence "We've already established that the con at this venue
(the St. Louis Airport Hilton) will have to be a very squeezed 1000
person con or smaller." tells me that we're well past that.
>And, as he is there year after year, and works it, it is quite
>reasonable to say that he knows exactly what he is talking about, and,
>at best, your claims might be useful to SOME Mid Western cons,
This is the *Norwescon* model...
>but not much beyond that.
>
>Man, talk about chutzpa, trying to argue con hotel topics with SMOF
>Yalow.
Whatever.
>I am quite pleased that most of my points were in agreement with Mr.
>Yalow's experienced statements.
>
>> >A greatly stripped down 1,000 person con might, but given a choice
>> >between a full service con such as Lunacon, and a stripped down con, well,
>> >that's no contest...
--
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and
bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny
in government."
- Thomas Jefferson
Andre Lieven
> On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 16:47:17 -0700 (PDT), Andre Lieven
>
So ? That in no way changes the fact that your claims WRT Archon do
not fit most East Coast cons, and, since there are far more such cons
in the East, and also, near to the West Coast, you are back to arguing
the few agai9nst the many.
That is... foolish.
> And the sentence "We've already established that the con at this venue
> (the St. Louis Airport Hilton) will have to be a very squeezed 1000
> person con or smaller." tells me that we're well past that.
Your concession is noted. Thank you.
> >And, as he is there year after year, and works it, it is quite
> >reasonable to say that he knows exactly what he is talking about, and,
> >at best, your claims might be useful to SOME Mid Western cons,
>
> This is the *Norwescon* model...
So you say...
> >but not much beyond that.
>
> >Man, talk about chutzpa, trying to argue con hotel topics with SMOF
> >Yalow.
>
> Whatever.
Wonderful, now you are a 12 year grrl...
> >I am quite pleased that most of my points were in agreement with Mr.
> >Yalow's experienced statements.
No debate/refutation even attempted ? Excellent, my point stands
proven.
> >> >A greatly stripped down 1,000 person con might, but given a choice
> >> >between a full service con such as Lunacon, and a stripped down con, well,
> >> >that's no contest...
Andre
David Loewe, Jr.
You're delusional.
THIS is about running a con in an airport hotel. That is what Norwescon
(oooh, a West Coast con) does. Archon runs in a convention center.
If you want to talk Archon, look for the words "convention center."
If you want to talk Norwescon, look for the words "hotel function
space."
>> And the sentence "We've already established that the con at this venue
>> (the St. Louis Airport Hilton) will have to be a very squeezed 1000
>> person con or smaller." tells me that we're well past that.
>
>Your concession is noted. Thank you.
"What ever gets you through the night..."
I conceded to Ben that *Lunacon* would not fit in that *specific* hotel.
Nothing more, nothing less.
I showed him another hotel on the Lambert strip (the Renaissance) that
he says *can* run Lunacon (almost waxed poetic).
>> >And, as he is there year after year, and works it, it is quite
>> >reasonable to say that he knows exactly what he is talking about, and,
>> >at best, your claims might be useful to SOME Mid Western cons,
>>
>> This is the *Norwescon* model...
>
>So you say...
Archon uses a convention center, not an airport hotel.
>> >but not much beyond that.
>>
>> >Man, talk about chutzpa, trying to argue con hotel topics with SMOF
>> >Yalow.
>>
>> Whatever.
>
>Wonderful, now you are a 12 year grrl...
I'm not the one beating a horse that died over a week ago, Andre.
>> >I am quite pleased that most of my points were in agreement with Mr.
>> >Yalow's experienced statements.
>
>No debate/refutation even attempted ? Excellent, my point stands
>proven.
You and Ben agreed? Whoopee!
>> >> >A greatly stripped down 1,000 person con might, but given a choice
>> >> >between a full service con such as Lunacon, and a stripped down con, well,
>> >> >that's no contest...
Given the choice between a stripped down con and no con... ?
--
"I'm looking at myself, reflections of my mind.
It's just the kind of day to leave myself behind.
So gently swaying through the fairy-land of love,
If you could just come with me and see the beauty of
Tuesday afternoon.
Tuesday afternoon."
David J. Hayward
Andre Lieven
> On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 19:05:37 -0700 (PDT), Andre Lieven
>
<Projection>
> THIS is about running a con in an airport hotel. That is what Norwescon
> (oooh, a West Coast con) does. Archon runs in a convention center.
So ? No one has said that no cons can do that. The point has been made
that sufficient conditions to do that need to exist, and that for most
east
coast cons, those conditions do not exist.
> If you want to talk Archon, look for the words "convention center."
>
> If you want to talk Norwescon, look for the words "hotel function
> space."
If you want to tell others what to talk about where, seek professional
mental health care for your control issues.
> >> And the sentence "We've already established that the con at this venue
> >> (the St. Louis Airport Hilton) will have to be a very squeezed 1000
> >> person con or smaller." tells me that we're well past that.
>
> >Your concession is noted. Thank you.
>
> "What ever gets you through the night..."
Just as with Keith, you have a deep aversion to ever saying that you
were
wrong about something.
> I conceded to Ben that *Lunacon* would not fit in that *specific* hotel.
> Nothing more, nothing less.
You get no prize for that, since Ben's knowledge of Lunacon massively
outstrips yours.
> I showed him another hotel on the Lambert strip (the Renaissance) that
> he says *can* run Lunacon (almost waxed poetic).
Which would still leave Lunacon as a NOT convention center-run con...
> >> >And, as he is there year after year, and works it, it is quite
> >> >reasonable to say that he knows exactly what he is talking about, and,
> >> >at best, your claims might be useful to SOME Mid Western cons,
>
> >> This is the *Norwescon* model...
>
> >So you say...
>
> Archon uses a convention center, not an airport hotel.
So ?
> >> >but not much beyond that.
>
> >> >Man, talk about chutzpa, trying to argue con hotel topics with SMOF
> >> >Yalow.
>
> >> Whatever.
>
> >Wonderful, now you are a 12 year grrl...
>
> I'm not the one beating a horse that died over a week ago, Andre.
Yet, when you did that, that was just fine: Double Standard Alert,
sport, if you can resurrect a thread that NO ONE was posting on for
a month, then I can bring back into an active thread an earlier topic
that I had last addressed.
Deal with it.
> >> >I am quite pleased that most of my points were in agreement with Mr.
> >> >Yalow's experienced statements.
>
> >No debate/refutation even attempted ? Excellent, my point stands
> >proven.
>
> You and Ben agreed? Whoopee!
More to the point, Ben and I agree that you are wrong.
> >> >> >A greatly stripped down 1,000 person con might, but given a choice
> >> >> >between a full service con such as Lunacon, and a stripped down con, well,
> >> >> >that's no contest...
>
> Given the choice between a stripped down con and no con... ?
Proof that that is the actual world choice ? Uh huh. Just more of your
Kith
class unsupported BS.
I'll stick with Mr. Yalow and his well proven record of knowledge and
experience with the topic. Match his credentials, ace.
Andre
David V. Loewe, Jr
Funny how it has quickly gone from "can't possibly work" to "most cons
can't do it that way."
>east coast cons,
Funny how it shrank from East *and* West Coast cons down to East Coast
cons real quick there...
>those conditions do not exist.
You haven't really looked.
>> If you want to talk Archon, look for the words "convention center."
>>
>> If you want to talk Norwescon, look for the words "hotel function
>> space."
>
>If you want to tell others what to talk about where, seek professional
>mental health care for your control issues.
...as Andre tries to force me to talk about Archon in a post where I see
no point in doing so...
>> >> And the sentence "We've already established that the con at this venue
>> >> (the St. Louis Airport Hilton) will have to be a very squeezed 1000
>> >> person con or smaller." tells me that we're well past that.
>>
>> >Your concession is noted. Thank you.
>>
>> "What ever gets you through the night..."
>
>Just as with Keith, you have a deep aversion to ever saying that you
>were wrong about something.
And, the last time you admitted you were wrong here was... when?
>> I conceded to Ben that *Lunacon* would not fit in that *specific* hotel.
>> Nothing more, nothing less.
>
>You get no prize for that, since Ben's knowledge of Lunacon massively
>outstrips yours.
>
>> I showed him another hotel on the Lambert strip (the Renaissance) that
>> he says *can* run Lunacon (almost waxed poetic).
>
>Which would still leave Lunacon as a NOT convention center-run con...
<shakes head>
TWO models for lowering room costs were put forward.
1) Run the con out of a small to medium sized convention center with
nearby lodging (the Archon model).
2) Run the con out of an airport hotel with lots of nearby lodging (the
Norwescon model).
What was being discussed here (after I split the topics) was the
Norwescon model.
>> >> >And, as he is there year after year, and works it, it is quite
>> >> >reasonable to say that he knows exactly what he is talking about, and,
>> >> >at best, your claims might be useful to SOME Mid Western cons,
>>
>> >> This is the *Norwescon* model...
>>
>> >So you say...
>>
>> Archon uses a convention center, not an airport hotel.
>
>So ?
It is a different model than the one being discussed here.
>> >> >but not much beyond that.
>>
>> >> >Man, talk about chutzpa, trying to argue con hotel topics with SMOF
>> >> >Yalow.
>>
>> >> Whatever.
>>
>> >Wonderful, now you are a 12 year grrl...
>>
>> I'm not the one beating a horse that died over a week ago, Andre.
>
>Yet, when you did that, that was just fine: Double Standard Alert,
>sport, if you can resurrect a thread that NO ONE was posting on for
>a month, then I can bring back into an active thread an earlier topic
>that I had last addressed.
Hint: You were arguing about whether or not Lunacon can fit into the
St. Louis Airport Hilton. That issue was *conceded* more than a week
ago. *That* is why it is a dead horse, not because it has lain fallow
for some length of time. It would be like arguing over who IS going to
win the Battle Of Midway. It's already over, it is a moot point.
>Deal with it.
>
>> >> >I am quite pleased that most of my points were in agreement with Mr.
>> >> >Yalow's experienced statements.
>>
>> >No debate/refutation even attempted ? Excellent, my point stands
>> >proven.
>>
>> You and Ben agreed? �Whoopee!
>
>More to the point, Ben and I agree that you are wrong.
Again. Whoopee!
>> >> >> >A greatly stripped down 1,000 person con might, but given a choice
>> >> >> >between a full service con such as Lunacon, and a stripped down con,
>> >> >> >well, that's no contest...
>>
>> Given the choice between a stripped down con and no con... ?
>
>Proof that that is the actual world choice ? Uh huh. Just more of your
>Kith class unsupported BS.
>
>I'll stick with Mr. Yalow and his well proven record of knowledge and
>experience with the topic.
Until such time he disagrees with you...
>Match his credentials, ace.
Do you mean like how he told me that the 397 bed St. Louis Airport
Hilton can't sell out a 1000 member con and the 447 bed Rye Town Hilton
can?
--
"Isn't life strange
A turn of the page
A book without light
Unless with love we write"
John Lodge
Andre Lieven
stupided:
> On Sat, 4 Jul 2009 07:39:24 -0700 (PDT), Andre Lieven
>
Feel free to provide a quote from me for the former.
> >east coast cons,
>
> Funny how it shrank from East *and* West Coast cons down to East Coast
> cons real quick there...
I don't know West Coast cons; so I cannot address them in detail. I
would
suspect that, absent very close by cheaper hotels, the same rules
apply.
> >those conditions do not exist.
>
> You haven't really looked.
<Projection>
> >> If you want to talk Archon, look for the words "convention center."
>
> >> If you want to talk Norwescon, look for the words "hotel function
> >> space."
>
> >If you want to tell others what to talk about where, seek professional
> >mental health care for your control issues.
>
> ...as Andre tries to force me to talk about Archon in a post where I see
> no point in doing so...
<yawn> You were the one trying to claim that pretty much any con
could do this, without taking into account the function space of each
type of hotel.
Mr. Yalow well corrected your erroneous statements on this topic.
With far more grace than many.
> >> >> And the sentence "We've already established that the con at this venue
> >> >> (the St. Louis Airport Hilton) will have to be a very squeezed 1000
> >> >> person con or smaller." tells me that we're well past that.
>
> >> >Your concession is noted. Thank you.
>
> >> "What ever gets you through the night..."
>
> >Just as with Keith, you have a deep aversion to ever saying that you
> >were wrong about something.
>
> And, the last time you admitted you were wrong here was... when?
I make it a point NOT to make sweeping claims about topics that I
don't
have the background in, in the first place. That sharply reduces my
odds of
committing an error.
Besides, oh wrong one, the topic on the table was YOUR IN-ability to
admit YOUR now well proven error.
> >> I conceded to Ben that *Lunacon* would not fit in that *specific* hotel.
> >> Nothing more, nothing less.
>
> >You get no prize for that, since Ben's knowledge of Lunacon massively
> >outstrips yours.
>
> >> I showed him another hotel on the Lambert strip (the Renaissance) that
> >> he says *can* run Lunacon (almost waxed poetic).
>
> >Which would still leave Lunacon as a NOT convention center-run con...
>
> <shakes head>
Can you hear the rattling ?
> TWO models for lowering room costs were put forward.
>
> 1) Run the con out of a small to medium sized convention center with
> nearby lodging (the Archon model).
This is dependent on several issues. 1) That such a facility ( With
nearby
CHEAPER lodging than the lodging in a hotel with sufficient meeting
spaces. ) at all EXISTS in the market of the con in question. 2) That
this
could be cheaper, when this model does NOT have meeting room costs
being lowered by sales of hotel spaces.
> 2) Run the con out of an airport hotel with lots of nearby lodging (the
> Norwescon model).
Once again, you ASSume that many markets have this available, and
that the costs there will be lower than in other parts of the local
market.
As an example, the con formerly known as Toronto Trek, now called
Polaris, used to be at a major Toronto airport hotel. But, as with the
old Adams Mark that hosted Philcon for so many years (At least 1986-
2000), said airport hotel has been torn down. The Polaris concom found
that no other airport hotels had sufficient meeting space for their
con.
The hotel they are at this year is to the North & East of the
airport.
> What was being discussed here (after I split the topics) was the
> Norwescon model.
So, if that is what you wish to *limit* discussion to, have the
honesty
to re-title that part of the thread "Norwescon, How They Do It".
But, anyone can discuss anything on Usenet...
> >> >> >And, as he is there year after year, and works it, it is quite
> >> >> >reasonable to say that he knows exactly what he is talking about, and,
> >> >> >at best, your claims might be useful to SOME Mid Western cons,
>
> >> >> This is the *Norwescon* model...
>
> >> >So you say...
>
> >> Archon uses a convention center, not an airport hotel.
>
> >So ?
>
> It is a different model than the one being discussed here.
So ?
> >> >> >but not much beyond that.
>
> >> >> >Man, talk about chutzpa, trying to argue con hotel topics with SMOF
> >> >> >Yalow.
>
> >> >> Whatever.
>
> >> >Wonderful, now you are a 12 year grrl...
>
> >> I'm not the one beating a horse that died over a week ago, Andre.
>
> >Yet, when you did that, that was just fine: Double Standard Alert,
> >sport, if you can resurrect a thread that NO ONE was posting on for
> >a month, then I can bring back into an active thread an earlier topic
> >that I had last addressed.
>
> Hint: You were arguing about whether or not Lunacon can fit into the
> St. Louis Airport Hilton. That issue was *conceded* more than a week
> ago. *That* is why it is a dead horse, not because it has lain fallow
> for some length of time. It would be like arguing over who IS going to
> win the Battle Of Midway. It's already over, it is a moot point.
IOW, you were WRONG, and you wanted to evade acknowledging that.
> >Deal with it.
>
> >> >> >I am quite pleased that most of my points were in agreement with Mr.
> >> >> >Yalow's experienced statements.
>
> >> >No debate/refutation even attempted ? Excellent, my point stands
> >> >proven.
>
> >> You and Ben agreed? Whoopee!
>
> >More to the point, Ben and I agree that you are wrong.
>
> Again. Whoopee!
IOW, you were WRONG, and you wanted to evade acknowledging that.
> >> >> >> >A greatly stripped down 1,000 person con might, but given a choice
> >> >> >> >between a full service con such as Lunacon, and a stripped down con,
> >> >> >> >well, that's no contest...
>
> >> Given the choice between a stripped down con and no con... ?
>
> >Proof that that is the actual world choice ? Uh huh. Just more of your
> >Kith class unsupported BS.
>
> >I'll stick with Mr. Yalow and his well proven record of knowledge and
> >experience with the topic.
>
> Until such time he disagrees with you...
If he disagrees with me on a topic such as con hotel issues, the it
will
be likely that he will be right, and I will be wrong. That is why I am
unlikely
to disagree with him on such a topic; I know and I am happy to
acknowledge
that he possesses a great deal of specific knowledge and experience on
this
topic that few can even think of matching. Yourself and myself NOT
being
among those who could.
The difference is that I am fine with acknowledging that truth, and
you still
*seek to evade it*. That is dishonest of you and it is disrespectful
towards
Mr. Yalow. Develop some better manners.
> >Match his credentials, ace.
>
> Do you mean like how he told me that the 397 bed St. Louis Airport
> Hilton can't sell out a 1000 member con and the 447 bed Rye Town Hilton
> can?
He laid out an excellent case why the FUNCTION SPACE was not
suitable; To that issue, the bedroom count matters NOT. Duh.
Develop some better manners.
Andre