Andre Lieven <andrelieven@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> You have, OTOH, spoken of doing cons on the very cheap, like not
> getting a room, or eating at restaurants, ...
True. I don't go to cons to eat or sleep; I go to cons to have
interesting conversations. I can eat and sleep at home. I'm
fortunate in that I'm able to get by for a weekend on very little
food or sleep. I'm unfortunate in that I'm not immune to the serious
economic problems here in the US, so I do have to spend my money
judiciously. If you and other Canadians are able to spend money
freely, good for you.
> As someone who has done pretty much every job at a con that exists,
> including financial control, chairing, et al, I am well aware that
> cons that develop reps for having a very cheap attending demographic
> aren't ones that many dealers or artists want to return to.
And indeed the last con I went to had no dealer room and no art show.
Even assuming (correctly) that I never buy anything in the art show
and (incorrectly) that I never buy anything in the dealer room, never
pay for part of a sleeping room, and never volunteer, how would it
benefit a con if I stayed home instead of going?
>> I wasn't speaking of people sleeping, but of people who choose to
>> stay up all night at cons so as not to miss anything.
> Yes, because the activities at 4 AM are spellbinding...
> <sarcasm mode off>
You've never gotten into a really interesting late night conversation
or game, and kept going until you noticed that it's the following
morning? I feel sorry for you.
> Most normal people, a set of humanity that even includes many fans,
> understand that sleep deprivation is better left to Gitmo than a
> Marriott...
Many people do things by choice for fun that might be considered cruel
and unusual punishment if someone were forced to do it.
I found it easier to sleep at Gitmo than in most Marriotts, as Gitmo
is warmer.
> Which YOUR whine of " Is Philcon intended for all fans, or only for
> motorists? " only further highlighted.
> I would be happy to stop " sniping " at you for that ****headed
> narcissistic moronic remark, had you the stones to admit that you
> were full of **** when you typed it.
Are you unable to express yourself without profanity? If so I feel
even sorrier for you.
I thought mine was a reasonable question, and I still do. What do
you think is unreasonable about it?
> But, as you don't ever have the integrity to admit when you are,
> frequently WRONG,
I always admit when I'm wrong. I don't see how a question can
be wrong.
> I have no fear that you will ever leave me without a proper topic
> over which to correct your delusions over.
Get a life.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html
before emailing me.
|
