Sasquan Decides Not To Ban Antonelli

Sasquan has decided that Lou Antonelli’s letter to the Spokane PD about David Gerrold violated its Code of Conduct, but at Gerrold’s request set aside a decision to ban him for the reasons discussed in the following public statement.

The Executive Committee of Sasquan, the 73rd World Science Fiction Convention, would like to address the matter of actions taken by Mr. Lou Antonelli with regards to one of our Guests of Honor, Mr. David Gerrold. On August 1st, Mr. Antonelli participated in a podcast in which he stated that he had written a letter to the Spokane Police Department, in which he stated to them that Mr. Gerrold was “insane and a public danger and needs to be watched when the convention is going on”.

Normally, online communications between members is not something in Sasquan’s purview to referee. However, Mr. Antonelli’s letter, which requested police action against Mr. Gerrold during the time of the convention, is within our purview. As such, we found that there was a strong possibility this act was a violation of our posted harassment policy[1], particularly if the letter had, in fact, been sent.

The Executive Committee then turned the matter over to our Operations Head, Ms. Robbie Bourget, who initiated formal proceedings in accordance with that policy. During these proceedings, it came to light that Mr. Antonelli had issued a formal apology to Mr. Gerrold and admitted culpability: he actually sent the letter, not merely claimed to have sent it.

We thoroughly reviewed all available data, including email from both involved parties, social media postings, discussions with key committee members, and so forth. The inescapable conclusion was that Mr. Antonelli had violated our Code of Conduct in this matter. The recommendation was to refund Mr. Antonelli’s membership and prohibit his entry to any convention location or function.

However, after the recommendation was made, Mr. Gerrold, as the aggrieved party, specifically requested that the Executive Committee set aside this recommendation on the grounds that Mr. Antonelli did apologize, is sending a retraction to the Spokane Police Department and because, as a Hugo Nominee, he deserves to attend the ceremony.

The Executive Committee has chosen to accept Mr. Gerrold’s request, and considers the matter closed as of this time. Ms. Bourget has spoken and corresponded with the Spokane Police Department, and they also consider the matter closed. We would like to thank Ms. Bourget for the calm professionalism she lent to the proceedings, and Mr. Antonelli and Mr. Gerrold for coming to a settlement that benefits not just them, but the Worldcon and its members.

While some wonder why the committee has not taken official notice of Antonelli’s interaction with Carrie Cuinn as well, perhaps that is explained by the statement “online communications between members is not something in Sasquan’s purview to referee.”

246 thoughts on “Sasquan Decides Not To Ban Antonelli

  1. Has anyone noticed that what Antonelli did was not confined to one state? He used the US Mail to send a false claim to the police department of a state other than the one he was in.

    For the record, I don’t agree with the committee’s decision, either. I think I understand why David asked the committee to show leniency. I’ve already heard that some people are claiming that Antonelli was being picked on simply for writing a letter––without mentioning it was a letter to the police, of course. It’s possible those same people or their friends might claim later on that David got someone banned from a worldcon for expressing an opinion about him––again without mentioning the circumstances.

    I still feel that there should be real consequences for anyone who does something like that. But I don’t know the whole inside story, either.

  2. Kurt Busiek

    I’d also note that this was another example of him acting at a great distance, though he completely failed to make anyone feel unsafe.

    (emphasis mine)

    I would just point out, Antonelli only “failed” to make Aaron feel unsafe because his target was a robust individual with a supportive employer – none of which he could have known when he picked up the phone to place a call to their workplace.

    Theses exact same actions directed at a different individual, in different circumstances could not only have made his victim feel unsafe, they could have caused real and lasting harm.

    Unfortunately I know this as a result of first-hand experience of a very similar incident.

  3. on not knowing who people are:

    Google.

    I timed myself: open browser. Type “Google”. Type “David Gerrold”. Select top search result (gerrold.com). “Go Back”, select second search result (wikipedia).

    15 seconds.

    Sorry, but I’m just so sick of this particular argumentative tactic: I’d never heard of the Hugo Awards before…I never heard of Worldcon…never heard of Gerrold before…the genre is about X…fandom is about Y

    It not only demonstrates the claimant’s disrespect for the things they’re arguing about (can’t be bothered to spend a minute learning facts), it also demonstrates that they’ve got no respect for themselves (at least if most of us assume that we like to be factually knowledgeable when we argue).

    I know. Antonelli’s statement about Gerrold was meant more as insult than real claim, but come on. The guy is a Worldcon GoH, an honor that is only extended to people who have long demonstrated their contributions to the field.

  4. If you have enough real evidence to warrant a convention committee taking action, you should take that evidence to the police or to Child Protection Services. …

    We’re not the law. We’re not law enforcement. We can’t let ourselves forget that.

    It’s true we’re not the law, but protecting children from sexual abuse often puts people in situations where neither the law nor the courts will act. My wife has reported on this issue for years as a journalist, and it’s troubling how often the authorities not only fail to act, but even punish mandatory reporters or family members who come forward.

    So if a convention has reason to believe a person is a threat to children, it may not be able to simply alert the authorities and expect the situation to be handled. Keeping sexually predatory adults away from conventions, or any other social gathering where they can interact with children, has to be a priority.

  5. Hampus Eckerman on August 12, 2015 at 12:55 am said:

    Is that a problem not to know about Star Trek? I’m not very impressed with the series and while I have seen Trouble with Tribbles an aeon ago, I have not much memory of it and had not heard of Gerrold before starting to read here.

    If you just want to be a SF fan? If that’s all you want, then no, not-knowing-about-Star-Trek isn’t really a problem. People who do know about Star Trek might think you’re missing out on something cool, but heck, every fan is missing out on something, you know? It’s just not physically possible, nor has it been in quite a few years, to read/watch/hear everything that has the SF/F nature.

    If you want people to think you’re familiar with the history of SF, and you use that putative familiarity-with-the-history to bolster your arguments? If that’s what you’re going for… well… Star Trek happens to be one of the most significant SFnal artifacts ever, an artifact whose cultural influence has spread far beyond the ‘walls’ of the SF ‘ghetto’. If you’re trying to convince people that you know a lot about the history of SF, and you don’t know nuffin’ about Star Trek, then yeah, that is a problem.

    One of the major themes in all Puppy pravda, right from the start, has been that they’re trying to making it possible for the good stuff to win Hugos again, just like the good stuff always used to win Hugos back in the Good Old Days™. This is, of course, an implicit claim to familiarity with the history of SF. Because if you’re not familiar with the history of SF, how the hell do you know what sort of stuff used to win Hugos?

    And that is why Antonelli’s ignorance of Gerrold is worth pointing out and laughing at.

  6. He’s talking about the author of The Trouble with Tribbles (et al.). And yet Antonelli doesn’t seem to know who he is.

    I suspect Antonelli is just reinforcing the “WorldCon is out of touch with real fans” mantra, puffing up the narrative by saying “they made this obscure guy their GoH”. The Pups don’t seem to realize that every time they highlight their ignorance this way (whether feigned or actual), they just demonstrate how insular and out of touch their tiny clique is.

  7. One of the major themes in all Puppy pravda, right from the start, has been that they’re trying to making it possible for the good stuff to win Hugos again, just like the good stuff always used to win Hugos back in the Good Old Days™. This is, of course, an implicit claim to familiarity with the history of SF. Because if you’re not familiar with the history of SF, how the hell do you know what sort of stuff used to win Hugos?

    One might note, for example, that The Trouble with Tribbles was one of those things that was nominated for a Hugo back in those good old days that the Pups claim to be pining for. And yet Antonelli says he is unfamiliar with the writer of the episode.

  8. Aaron: One might note, for example, that The Trouble with Tribbles was one of those things that was nominated for a Hugo back in those good old days that the Pups claim to be pining for. And yet Antonelli says he is unfamiliar with the writer of the episode.

    Not to mention that his novelette The Martian Child won both the Hugo and Nebula back in 1995.

    Oh, that’s right, Torgersen moved that particular goalpost from “20 years of Affirmative Action and pink SF” back to 30 years. Never mind.

  9. Oh, that’s right, Torgersen moved that particular goalpost from “20 years of Affirmative Action and pink SF” back to 30 years. Never mind.

    Before you know it, the good old days of Hugos going to the right kind of works that the Pups approve of will be pushed back to the 1940s.

  10. Nick Mamatas: Being barred from Worldcon would probably be the best thing that ever happened to him!

    Yes, if he’d been smart, he’d have used it as an excuse to not have to be there to be No Awarded, without it being obvious that’s why he didn’t go.

    But then, no one has accused — or is likely to accuse — Lou Antonelli of being smart.

  11. Yes, if he’d been smart, he’d have used it as an excuse to not have to be there to be No Awarded, without it being obvious that’s why he didn’t go.

    Having listened to some of the “Superversive” video on which he made his admission about writing the letter to the Spokane police department, I think the crew he was talking to are delusional enough that they think they will be winning Hugos. The “real fans” will rise up and show those evil SJW WorldCon trufen that they love quality science fiction like that written by Antonelli and Wright.

  12. Cubist:

    “Star Trek happens to be one of the most significant SFnal artifacts ever, an artifact whose cultural influence has spread far beyond the ‘walls’ of the SF ‘ghetto’. If you’re trying to convince people that you know a lot about the history of SF, and you don’t know nuffin’ about Star Trek, then yeah, that is a problem.”

    I can’t take you seriously in this. At all. There is absolutely no reason why knowing a lot of history about science fiction would have to include knowing a lot about Star Trek.

    Yes, be familiar with Star Trek. Know what it is about. But to know exactly what writers wrote what? Naaah, thats just ridiculous. Thats for the Star Trek fanboys. There are a lot of people with great knowledge of Science Fiction that lacks interest in Dr. Who, Star Trek or Stargate.

    TV-series are one thing, books another.

  13. There is absolutely no reason why knowing a lot of history about science fiction would have to include knowing a lot about Star Trek.

    In the case of Gerrold, there kind of is. Trouble with Tribbles wasn’t just one episode of the series. It was one of the episodes nominated for a Hugo Award, which sets it apart from most of the others. It didn’t win – the Dramatic Presentation Hugo that year was won by another Star Trek episode City on the Edge of Forever (written in part by Harlan Ellison). If one is claiming familiarity with the “good old days” of the Hugo Awards, then not knowing stuff like this is a serious gap in one’s knowledge.

    Of course, this doesn’t even get to the fact that Gerrold won a Hugo Award in 1995 and has been nominated for the award two other times. He has also been nominated for the Nebula six times, and won once. When the Pups to claim that they are knowledgeable enough to talk about what used to be the way science fiction was, but then turn around and claim ignorance of who a guy like Gerrold is, well, that kind of undermines their argument.

  14. @Hampus:

    Yes, be familiar with Star Trek. Know what it is about. But to know exactly what writers wrote what?

    If someone is pontificating about the “good old days” in SF history? They should at the least know David Gerrold and Harlan Ellison wrote two of the best known episodes of the original series.

    Bonus points for knowing that other writers for the series included Robert Bloch, Theodore Sturgeon, and Richard Matheson.

    And that someone should definitely know all five of those names.

  15. Rail:

    “If someone is pontificating about the “good old days” in SF history? They should at the least know David Gerrold and Harlan Ellison wrote two of the best known episodes of the original series.”

    That depends on if the good old days they refer to consists of Star Trek, doesn’t it? For not everyone is in love with Star Trek and for those not in love, it is enough to be familiar with what the series is about and skip the details.

    SF is so much larger than Star Trek and it can be comfortably avoided without people attacking the person for lacking knowledge. Just as it is possible to be able to talk about “good old days” without having to know who wrote the best episodes of Dr. Who.

    It is even possible to talk about the good old days and having skipped absolutely all TV series. As long as you talk about books or movies instead. Again, the details about Star Trek is for the fanboys. Not something they should see as universal for every person with knowledge of SF.

  16. SF is so much larger than Star Trek and it can be comfortably avoided without people attacking the person for lacking knowledge.

    I think you are missing the point.

    If someone reads nothing but Star Wars tie-in novels and says they are a science fiction fan, I’m not going to argue with them. Read, watch, and otherwise enjoy the things you want to. You’re a fan just as much as the guy who has read every award-winning science fiction novel published between 1955 and 2015.

    But if that person then claims to be knowledgeable about science fiction as a genre, then that’s a bit like someone who has read nothing but John Grisham novels claiming to be knowledgeable about English literature. There is a baseline of knowledge that one has to have to make the claim that one is informed regarding the history of science fiction, and whether you like it or not, knowing more than the fact that Star Trek merely existed is part of what is required. Suppose someone claimed to be knowledgeable about modern European history, but knew next to nothing about the French Revolution. I doubt anyone would take that person seriously.

    In short: There is a difference between being a fan and being knowledgeable.

  17. Major conventions which I have attended certainly have had guests of honor with whom I was not familiar. (Minor ones are even more likely to do so.) My usual habit is to google the GoH of the convention I’m planning to attend, either to jog my memory (“Oh, she’s the one who wrote THAT book! How did I forget that?”) or to at least get some idea who they are (“Oh, he’s on that TV show that I never watched. Ok; that’s nice…”) When it’s something as big as Worldcon, my default assumption is that ALL of the GoHs have done something amazing, even if it doesn’t come immediately to my mind. I’d never dismiss a Worldcon GoH (even the fan GoH) cavalierly. To get there, they EARNED it. Even if it’s in a field of which I Wot Not Of.

  18. @Nick Mamatas

    where I’ll be, repping Edge of Tomorrow.

    I read that as “rapping Edge of Tomorrow” and was going to hunt for it on the program.

    @Hampus

    There is absolutely no reason why knowing a lot of history about science fiction would have to include knowing a lot about Star Trek.

    This is probably a bit of an “Americans vs. everyone else” divide. (I seem to recall that you’re Scandinavian?) Antonelli, and I think those surprised by his ignorance on that matter, are all American fans. Over here, a question like “who wrote the Trouble with Tribbles episode of original series Star Trek?” would be rejected from most fannish trivia contests on the grounds of being too easy, not too obscure.

    (Did anybody else around here grow up reading David Gerrold’s column in Starlog?)

    That said, there’s always a fan who dislikes something perceived as central to the genre.

    I really don’t know how I feel about the committee’s decision here — but they’ve been placed in a no-win situation. The best possible outcome at this point is that Antonelli simply decides not to go, but he’s the only person who can make that happen.

  19. Aaron:

    “But if that person then claims to be knowledgeable about science fiction as a genre, then that’s a bit like someone who has read nothing but John Grisham novels claiming to be knowledgeable about English literature. “

    I get your point, but think it is plain wrong. If you read 1000 SF authors, but skip out on watching Star Trek and building up a knowledgebase there, then you don’t reach the arbitrary baseline of being knowledgeable about SF? Nope, don’t agree. Star Trek is just Star Trek, a TV series among others.

    But the last might be my perspective as a swede. Star Trek was never a big thing here until TNG. If you didn’t see the sole viewing of trouble with tribbles somewhere around the end of the 70s, then you had missed your chance to see it unless you ordered the TV series on VHS from another country. Few people did.

    Books is what matters to me about knowledge of SF. TV series are an afterthought.

  20. Speaking of Edge of Tomorrow, I’m really glad the nomination got me to watch it. I had no interest in seeing it when it came out because I can’t stand Tom Cruise and avoid anything he is in, generally, unless there is another very strong argument to watch it. The fact that it sunk from theaters with barely a ripple seemed to say there was no other strong argument. I didn’t really start hearing buzz about it til it was out on video and then…well, still Tom Cruise.

    If someone had told me early on that Tom Cruise’s character starts off like a caricature of the cocky jackass Tom Cruise usually plays and then gets killed repeatedly and creatively (beginning with having his face and head melted)–that would have been an excellent “but Tom Cruise…” counter argument. I might have gone to the theater to see that! (I really don’t like him.)

    Aside from that attractive feature, it was a really good, suspenseful time travel story that was like Groundhog Day crossed with Starship Troopers. I had started in on the movies fully prepared to vote for Guardians of the Galaxy, which I had thoroughly enjoyed, and Edge of Tomorrow ended up thrashing it for my top vote. And I probably never would have gotten around to seeing it if I hadn’t felt duty bound to do so for the Hugos.

    So, thanks for that, Puppies!

  21. Hampus Eckerman on August 12, 2015 at 7:18 am said:

    Rail:

    “If someone is pontificating about the “good old days” in SF history? They should at the least know David Gerrold and Harlan Ellison wrote two of the best known episodes of the original series.”

    That depends on if the good old days they refer to consists of Star Trek, doesn’t it?

    You know, the Pups have explicitly cited Star Trek, as a specific exemplar of the sort of thing Puppydom is championing…

    For not everyone is in love with Star Trek and for those not in love, it is enough to be familiar with what the series is about and skip the details.

    Again: The Pups aren’t just saying goshwow, we’re trufen and we love SF!

    If the Pups actually were just saying that they’re ordinary SF fen, then fine. I agree with you that J. Random Trufan shouldn’t be scorned just ‘cuz they’re clueless about Star Trek. What you seem to be missing is, the Pups aren’t just saying they’re ordinary SF fen.

    The Pups have made more-or-less specific claims, both explicitly and by inference, that they, the Pups, are Authorities with Expertise in the Field of SF. The Pups are saying they know more about SF—more about what constitutes good SF—than the people who have spent the last 20-30 years reading SF stories, watching SF movies, nominating what they like best for Hugos, and voting on what they think is most worthy of the Hugos. Well, fine. Maybe the Pups do know more about SF than the people who have spend the past few decades nominating & voting the Hugo Awards. But if that’s the case, doesn’t it strike you as slightly peculiar that these oh-so-knowledgable Pups’ familiarity with SF does not extend as far as knowing the author of one of the best damn episodes of the SF series whose greater cultural impact can be gauged by the fact that NASA named the first Space Shuttle after Jim Kirk’s starship?

    Again, the details about Star Trek is for the fanboys. Not something they should see as universal for every person with knowledge of SF.

    I repeat: The Pups are not presenting themselves as J. Random Trufen. Rather, they are presenting themselves as Authorities, as Persons Who Know Better Than You. I mean, heiliger Christus, isn’t that the whole point of the Pups’ continuing drumbeat of “SJWs are forcing the Hugos to go to inferior crap, not the really good stuff like Dad and Gramps usedta read!” ?

  22. McJulie:

    “This is probably a bit of an “Americans vs. everyone else” divide. (I seem to recall that you’re Scandinavian?) Antonelli, and I think those surprised by his ignorance on that matter, are all American fans. Over here, a question like “who wrote the Trouble with Tribbles episode of original series Star Trek?” would be rejected from most fannish trivia contests on the grounds of being too easy, not too obscure.”

    Ah, yes, just thought of that myself in my last answer to Aaron. In sweden, we only had two TV channels up until end of the 80s, so there was never the same chance to see an episode again and again here unless you recorded it on VHS. And that didn’t exist when Star Trek was sent on TV here. Star Trek started to gain ground somewhere around 95-97, but then it was more the new episodes in TNG.

  23. @cmm

    Yes indeed. I sold EoT to a group of friends with “Tom Cruise repeatedly dies in painful and humiliating ways”

  24. Regarding Antonelli and Sasquan, I’m split. I hate when people get out of trouble that others wouldn’t, just because of political reasons or because they have the right contacts. At the same time, there is a much larger situation to defuse.

    It’s no easy choice. I would have accepted any decision I guess.

  25. @Hampton:

    Again, the details about Star Trek is for the fanboys. Not something they should see as universal for every person with knowledge of SF.

    Nope, sorry. That self-proclaimed “historian” should know all five of those names from the book world at the very least. I’m not nearly the SF collector many of the true historians of the genre are, and I have non-Trek stories by all five on my shelves.

    I was going to say more, something about the possible differences in the pop culture background noise in different countries, but then it registered that you’re (possibly unknowingly) rehashing the bookfen-vs-mediafen wars. That’s a religious war. I’m much too tired to do that again.

  26. Let’s put it this way: For USAn fen like Antonelli and the vast majority of Puppydom in general, being clueless about Star Trek is kind of like being a German fan who’s clueless about the classic Fritz Lang film Metropolis.

  27. I get your point, but think it is plain wrong. If you read 1000 SF authors, but skip out on watching Star Trek and building up a knowledgebase there, then you don’t reach the arbitrary baseline of being knowledgeable about SF?

    No, you don’t. Sorry. The impact of Star Trek on the entire science fiction field – including much of written science fiction that followed – is so great that not knowing much about it serves as a disqualifying factor. There are some things that are simply too foundational to skip over.

    Even if one never saw the original series, if one watched Deep Space 9, that series did an entire episode that crossed over with Trouble with Tribbles.

  28. I had started in on the movies fully prepared to vote for Guardians of the Galaxy, which I had thoroughly enjoyed, and Edge of Tomorrow ended up thrashing it for my top vote.

    Thank you for your support!

  29. It’s also worth noting that Gerrold had a column in the SFWA Bulletin for a while, during the time Antonelli was a member of SFWA.

  30. Hampus: Just to bring things back to roots…it’s not that all sf fans need to know anything at all about Star Trek. But the Puppies frequently cite Star Trek as an example of the sort of sf they claim is being crowded out by politically correct thought police. They went exuberantly nuts over William Lehman’s piece about how Trek inspired generations of engineers, and therefore had to be destroyed for leftist social engineering, and like that.

    If I tell you that something was vitally transformative to me, and that I idolize the people who made it…and then turn out not to know who they were or anything about it, well, I’d expect you to doubt me. You should, certainly. And so it is with the Puppies and Star Trek. They’re interested in something other than the actual shows and the people who made them happen. And that’s funny, given their claims.

  31. Here’s another reason why the Srabad Puppies not knowing who Gerrold is underlines how fuck ignorant they are: Gerrold wrote The Flying Sorcerers with Larry Niven, Larry Niven wrote The Mote in God’s Eye with Jerry Pournelle and JEP, of course, is published by VD.

  32. Re: Trek: Hampus, I think you’re missing out on something foundational, but the sine qua non is a slippery slope I’m not going to step onto. Trek, particularly TOS, is definitely more American and, especially since the reboot (ironically), something for older folks.

    It may also be turning into one of those things that’s so much a part of the landscape that it’s hard to remember it wasn’t always there, i.e., easily taken for granted. But I do think you’re skipping an awful lot of joy.

  33. Rail:

    I have all authors on my bookshelves and no idea that they had anything to do with Star Trek. Because, you know, I leave Star Trek to those who like Star Trek.

    I have seen no sign that Antonelli calls himselves a historian and seen no indication that he has never heard of Bloch. Lets not create strawmen.

  34. Yes, be familiar with Star Trek. Know what it is about. But to know exactly what writers wrote what? Naaah, thats just ridiculous. Thats for the Star Trek fanboys. …

    TV-series are one thing, books another.

    I can’t agree with you here.

    Since the Hugos honor books and TV series, a SF fan who is claiming authoritative expertise on the field in a Hugos debate makes himself look like a phony by asking, “David Gerrold who?”

    The writers of classic Star Trek episodes have been big names in SF, certainly to fans of a literary bent like the Hugo voting pool. “The Trouble with Tribbles” is the most celebrated episode of the most celebrated SF TV series in history.

  35. (Did anybody else around here grow up reading David Gerrold’s column in Starlog?)

    Yup! Those columns led me to “When Harlie Was One” and “The World of Star Trek”.

    Re: the relevance of Star Trek to SF fandom history. Not recognizing the show’s impact and importance when you’re claiming said history as part of your argument/agenda, is like claiming to be a WWII historian and not knowing about the Treaty of Versailles.

  36. Will R: Watched Star Trek, didn’t like. But I’m not very fond of TV series at all. A few episodes, then I’m bored. There’s just a few series I can watch a whole season of.

    Cubist: I am well aware of the cultural impact of Star Trek, but I can’t see that the shuttle is named Gerrold?

  37. Hampus Eckerman on August 12, 2015 at 8:42 am said:

    Will R: Watched Star Trek, didn’t like. But I’m not very fond of TV series at all. A few episodes, then I’m bored. There’s just a few series I can watch a whole season of.

    Cubist: I am well aware of the cultural impact of Star Trek, but I can’t see that the shuttle is named Gerrold?

    [shakes head] Okay, now I know you’re just trolling. Later, dude.

  38. Hampus Eckerman said:

    “Regarding Antonelli and Sasquan, I’m split. I hate when people get out of trouble that others wouldn’t, just because of political reasons or because they have the right contacts. At the same time, there is a much larger situation to defuse.”

    But I don’t think it defuses the situation to tell a serial harasser that people will bend over backwards to accommodate his bad behavior. It encourages more of said bad behavior, because he knows that all he needs to do is say, “I’m sowwy, I’ve been a bad widdle boy,” and everyone will say, “Look at that hangdog expression! He’s learned his lesson! Let’s get him a present.”

    (Ah, Simpsons quotes. How would we communicate without you?)

    Allowing Antonelli to continue his behavior without consequences only encourages future confrontations, and I’d just as soon not see that happen.

  39. Star Trek is awesome. Mini-skirts and go-go boots!

    Then some nerds got a hold of the property and TNG was like a ten-year long computer summer camp.

  40. I think you can be entirelly aware of the “cultural impact of Star Trek” and yet be somewhat unaware of David Gerrold.

    This is likely when the only part of Star Trek you really like tends to be DS9, which as all right-thinking people know, is the best Trek.

    Having said that, Trials and Tribble-ations was fantastic episode, and I thank Mr Gerrold for his contribution to it’s existence.

  41. This is likely when the only part of Star Trek you really like tends to be DS9, which as all right-thinking people know, is the best Trek.

    I think you misspelled “pale imitation of Babylon 5“.

  42. @Aaron, no I didn’t (oooh, are we gonna have a DS9 vs B5 fight? It’s like Usenet and the 90’s never left!)

    As someone who realllly liked both shows, at the time I really liked B5. But DS9 is the one that really grew on me and has aged faaaaar better.

  43. @Hampus Fair enough. To @Nick’s point, there was always a fair amount of goofiness inherent in Star Trek. We have to remember it was contending against “Lost in Space” in its original time slot.

  44. But DS9 is the one that really grew on me and has aged faaaaar better.

    I found the exact opposite. DS9, like TNG, has aged really badly.

  45. Will R. on August 12, 2015 at 9:25 am said:

    @Hampus Fair enough. To @Nick’s point, there was always a fair amount of goofiness inherent in Star Trek. We have to remember it was contending against “Lost in Space” in its original time slot.

    Oh, the horrible things the show runners did to Man From U.N.C.L.E. when trying to imitate Batman. We shall draw a compassionate curtain over most of Season 3.

    I think it’s entirely reasonable for Jane Random Fan to not be aware of Gerrold’s influence in SF. I don’t think it’s reasonable for the main puppies to state that. They wax wroth over The Good Old Days and Gerrold was a big part of them.

  46. “The Trouble with Tribbles” is the most celebrated episode of the most celebrated SF TV series in history.

    No — that would be “City on the Edge of Forever” — I love “Tribbles,” it’s great fun, but the episode I’ll never forget is “City.”

    Hampus, I suspect that your lack of exposure to the real Star Trek (TOS) is why you don’t understand how glaring Antonelli’s lack of knowledge is — The man is old enough to have watched the show the first time around (1966). IIRC, Gerrold wrote a book about the making of “The Trouble with Tribbles” and as others have mention is an award-winning author.

  47. IIRC, Gerrold wrote a book about the making of “The Trouble with Tribbles” and as others have mention is an award-winning author.

    Antonelli’s professed lack of knowledge is sort of like someone talking about how great music was in the old days of the 1960s, and then turning around and saying “And who is this Ringo Starr guy? I’ve never heard of him!”

Comments are closed.