Andre Lieven <andrelieven@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> You evaded my question. If I don't go to the con at all, I
>> obviously won't be buying anything in the art show, buying anything
>> in the dealer room, paying for part of a sleeping room at the con
>> hotel, eating in the hotel restaurant, or volunteering at the con.
> IOW, since you do none of those anyway,
Wrong.
> or, most squatting fen do none of any of those, the con really gains
> nothing, in terms of any aspect of it's relations with the hotel,
> from them.
Once again you have evaded my question. My question was, even if I
did none of those things, would the con be better off with me there or
not there? Keep in mind that if I'm there, the con benefits from my
paying for a membership.
> But, as several cons have learned ( Boskone & Iceberg, more than one
> Balticon, and Dripclave ), those squatting the con can do the con
> considerable harm, both overly and passively.
The big problem at the Boskone From Hell wasn't squatters, it was fire
alarms going off. They went off because there was a fog bank next
to them, which was because of the bitter cold weather and the poor
air circulation system of the hotel. Nobody pulled them. Yes, I
was there.
The big problem at "Dripclave" was the actions of two people, neither
of them a con member, in the sleeping room they paid for. As far as
I know neither of them had even entered the con's part of the hotel.
Not quite what I'd call a "squatter." Yes, I was there, too.
>> Anyhow, please note that I almost always volunteer, often pay for
>> part of a sleeping room for at least one night, and often buy
>> something in the dealer room.
> Woah, hold up there, Albert Schweitzer. Don't do us too many
> favours.
How about I'll keep doing fandom favors, but will try to make sure I
don't do *you* any favors.
>> I never said how you should go through a con.
> No, you did say that a comcon who dared to pick a hotel that wasn't
> on a Chinabus/Urban Transit line was catering " only to motorists. "
It was a question, not a statement. When I made it, I had no idea
where in New Jersey Cherry Hill was. I've since been told that it's
very close to Philadelphia. I thanked those who told me that.
> Yet, you commonly don't pony up for sleep and food during the con,
> which doesn't have to always mean $$$, as I often used to bring
> ready to eat food to a con with me.
I often do the same. What made you think otherwise?
>>>> Are you unable to express yourself without profanity?
>>> <Laughs> " In our century, we've learned not to fear words. "
>>> Lt. Uhura, Star Trek, The Savage Curtain.
>> The heavy use of profanity tends to be a sign that a person isn't
>> very good at expressing himself.
> Ah, the furious backpedaling kicks off with a bang. Hey, dude, you
> started to by claiming that ANY profanity was Bad, now it's just "
> heavy use of " thats Bad.
No, I asked, "Are you unable to express yourself without profanity?"
That is not a claim that any and all profanity is bad. It's often
the last word of a pilot before a major crash. I think it's quite
appropriate there. I don't think it's appropriate in this thread.
Why don't you killfile me, if my postings get you as upset as the
pilot of a crashing plane?
> A few more of your now common flip flops, ...
I do not flip flop.
>> It was a *question*, not an assertion or a whine.
> False. I look down even lower at people who choose to lie to
> themselves, than I do to those who only lie to others.
Massive projection.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html
before emailing me.
|
