On Mar 28, 10:22 pm, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> weaseled:
> Andre Lieven <andrelie...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@[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.
Prove it.
> > 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.
Wrong. I have applied your once-again dishonest question into the
wider
area of *what are the consequences to a con that attracts so many
poor attendees*. Thats a fact of conrunning that you appear to be too
DIM to understand, which is your problem.
> 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 member****p.
And, suffers from having poor fen increase, thus making the con far
less interesting to other attendees, who are also there to make a
living; dealers and artists.
> > 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.
So was I.
> 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.
I wasn't, as I work another con that weekend. But, the issue of the
con attracting others was an issue:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disclave
In the early 90's more and more people who were not members of
Disclave
came to the hotel in conjunction with the convention. This hit
critical mass in
1997 when a fire sprinkler was broken, flooding much of the hotel.
Although
an investigation determined that neither Disclave nor WSFA was held
responsible for this event it became known as 'the Disclave flood' and
forever
associated with the convention. The 1998 Disclave, scheduled for a
different
hotel on a different weekend, was canceled six weeks before the
convention
by the hotel. Finding a hotel to hold the 1999 or 2000 Disclave was
tried but
as happens with volunteer organizations the committee members who
were
going to do this needed to focus their attention on other things
instead.
1997 was the last Disclave.
> >> 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.
Thats OK, I have no need of anything from the likes of you.
> >> 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.
" 80% of questions are statements in disguise. " Dr. Phil.
> When I made it, I had no idea where in New Jersey Cherry Hill was.
" Get a freaking atlas. " Royal Canadian Air Farce ( In response to a
line of dialogue from the 9/11 West Wing episode " Isaac and Ishmael
",
3 Oct 01 ), 5 Oct 01.
> I've since been told that it's
> very close to Philadelphia. I thanked those who told me that.
Did you also thank them for telling you that the Sun rises in the
East, too ?
> > 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?
Note that I specified a *past tense*.
> >>>> 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?"
Exactly, which means " any ". Further, this was yet another of your
statements-disguised-as-question. Your dishonesty is further shown.
> That is not a claim that any and all profanity is bad.
It is a claim that all use of it by me at you is bad to you, in
your view. Too bad I busted that, too.
> 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.
Too bad, control freak, that Free Speech applies even to people whom
you wish it didn't apply to.
Fascist.
> Why don't you killfile me, if my postings get you as upset as the
> pilot of a cra****ng plane?
<Laughs> Your pitiful attempts to crystal ball me are absurd.
I merely have a low tolerance for willful stupidity and deception.
> > A few more of your now common flip flops, ...
>
> I do not flip flop.
Yes, you do. As noted above.
> >> 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.
And now, you use other's lines. So, on top of your other outlier
issues, you are also a thief.
Andre
|
