ConCarolinas Chair Steps Down

When David Weber got chair Jada Hope Diaz to publicly accept all his conditions for becoming ConCarolinas’ guest in 2019 (see video of her statement here), including an apology to John Ringo, who had withdrawn as a guest amid controversy over his selection, and then rallied thousands to sign his “Ensure Freedom of Speech & Assembly at ConCarolinas” petition “to support Jada Hope and Luis Diaz’s stance on the demands to disinvite guests at ConCarolinas based on unfounded and unproven stories posted by Internet pressure groups” — he did not expect that two weeks later they’d be quitting anyway.

Weber moved immediately to take control of the conversation:

Jada informed me yesterday [June 22] that she and Luis would be stepping down from the ConCarolinas con committee. My family and I were driving home from Myrtle Beach when she and Luis actually posted the news online, so I’ve just seen the formal announcement.

For all of you who signed the petition supporting the position they had taken at closing ceremonies on the dis-invitation of guests, I think a couple of things need to be understood.

The first is that Jada made it clear to me in her exchange of IMs with me that it was HER DECISION to step down, based in large part on medical considerations, because of her continued problems with the concussion symptoms from her head injury. I have no doubt at all that all of the stress involved with the concom’s internal debates played a major role in that (not to mention the brouhaha about John Ringo, prior to and during this year’s convention), as well. If nothing else, I’m sure it was at least a part of what her doctor was talking about when she said she had to cut back on stresses.

However, Weber also said the couple had lost the support of some other members of the ConCarolinas committee:

The second is that the concom has as yet made no statement (that I am aware of) regarding the policy that she enunciated at closing ceremonies about guest invitations and DIS-invitations. I was assured by several people who contacted me to discuss the ongoing, background tensions within the concom that the unhappiness with Jada and Luis as cochairs had nothing to do with that policy and that they — at least as individuals — supported the position Jada had taken in that instance.

But Weber is taking pains to insure that the change in leadership won’t be interpreted as a repudiation of his agenda:

I messaged Jada in these exact words:

“Don’t think anyone who signed it [the petition] just wants to beat up on cons, but they [the concom] need to be aware that a lot of people on the outside looking in DO see the petition as a referendum on your no dis-invitation policy.”

I think that is absolutely true, and I think the ball is now in the reorganized concom’s court, and I think that we, as the signers of that petition, NEED TO GIVE THE CONCOM TIME TO GET ITS FEET UNDER IT AND DECIDE WHAT IT WANTS TO DO GOING FORWARD.

This is not a time to leap upon the concom and beat it with spiked clubs for “forcing Jada out.” It is time for us to see what happens going forward and to let ConCarolinas CHOOSE ITS OWN PATH. If, at the end of the day, we don’t like the path it chooses, then it is always our option not to support the con. If, on the other hand, the con embraces Jada’s position on this issue going forward, then I believe it is incumbent upon us to meet them at least halfway.

I have said from the beginning that the object is to fix the problem, not to break anyone’s — or any GROUP of anyones’ — kneecaps. It’s time to let adults be adults and make adult decisions and then for the rest of us to respond as adults.

Jada Hope wrote in a comment on Weber’s June 24 post.

I want to thank everyone who has Been supportive to me and Luis (who is making me deactivate my account today). So many don’t even know me or Luis and have been kind and encouraging.

After our meeting with the other members of the committee I am very convinced they will support the statement that was made at closing ceremonies….

David Weber’s June 24 update said he is in dialog with ConCarolinas’ acting con chair:

…Since my previous post about Jada and Luis stepping down from the ConCarolinas concom, I have been in contact with the acting con chair.

He tells me that they are very much in the process of ASSEMBLING a concom; it was a small committee to begin with, and it just got two vacancies, so it may take them a little while to round up the pigs and chickens before they can start getting them into a row.

He reiterated to me that Jada’s decision to withdraw was directly related to her health and that her doctor was becoming seriously concerned about the damage she could do herself spending lots of time with computer screens and stress and was “adamant” that she stepped back.

He told me that the con is strongly committed to maintaining Jada’s stated policy where dis-invitations of the guests are concerned. He said to me:

“First priority is new leadership in place. Second is reiterating the spirit of the closing ceremonies video. Disinviting is bad form, full stop. The concom will not be pressured from any group to renege on a contract.”

That is, in fact, only a portion of what he said to me about the con committee’s commitment to openness and a rejection of the dis-invitation of guests and about the creation of a mechanism to support that policy and give it teeth.

I believe that he is completely sincere about this, and what he has to say about Jada’s health tracks perfectly with what Jada herself has told me, as well as what I have heard from a third source.

So it sounds to me as if the convention is determined to stand by the policy Jada announced at closing ceremonies.

I hate it that Jada’s health is shaky enough to make her decision to stand down necessary, but at this time, I genuinely believe the revamped con committee will stand by her guest policy.

Which constitutes a win for the grown-ups.

When someone asked Weber who the acting chair is, Weber declined to say:

I’d rather not name names at this point, but if you know the ConCarolinas original concom, he was vice chair.

Weber is taking pains to verify why the change happened, and what the new chair’s policies will be, because of the adamant statement he made in his petition —

We believe that if ConCarolinas ejects Jada Hope and Luis Diaz from the Convention Committee (the managing body of the convention) and reverses the position they have taken on the dis-invitation of guests, then no one who believes in freedom of expression should attend this convention ever again.

49 thoughts on “ConCarolinas Chair Steps Down

  1. It’s just sickening the way people on the right can’t go anywhere without being targeted and harassed. Look at what Maxine Waters said recently. Just sickening.

    I’m glad ConCarolinas has decided to distance themselves from the bigots and mobs on the progressive left.

  2. Jo:

    “I’m glad ConCarolinas has decided to distance themselves from the bigots and mobs on the progressive left.”

    Fly away, little parrot.

  3. Hampus Eckerman:

    Fly away, little parrot.

    Ah, of course. You must be one of the members of the mob, lol.

  4. Jo on June 27, 2018 at 1:16 am said:

    It’s just sickening the way people on the right can’t go anywhere without being targeted and harassed.

    I’m shocked to hear that people on the right are having their children taken from them and locked in cages…oops no, that’s other people. No, I’m shocked to hear that people on the right are being effectively been excluded from going to bathroom…ooops no, again that’s other people. No, what I meant was I’m shocked to hear that people have been campaigning to stop people on the right from getting married…oh gosh, no that’s other people also. No, what I meant to say is that I’m shocked to hear about the extraordinarily high numbers of people on the right being shot by police…oh my, my error, once again that’s other people.

    An unarmed, innocent man can be murdered in cold blood in the USA and the right will ask whether maybe that man deserved it and call people who protest that murder ‘terrorists’ and cheer when the President says people exercising their lawful right to protest such killing should be sacked from their jobs. But if somebody on the RIGHT moves on from being the chair of an SF convention – well oh my, that’s suddenly the end of liberty as we know it. The state can kidnap children and murder people in their cars and the supposed champions of liberty are AT BEST silent and at worst cheer this on and demonise anybody who objects. Frankly, the level of civility in the wake of such obscenities is extraordinarily high.

  5. “Ah, of course. You must be one of the members of the mob, lol.”

    Yes, yes, everyone is a mob nowadays. Here I sit in my mob-room, doing mob exercises. *pant, pant* I think I’m going to do some mob lunch soon. “Lol”.

  6. 1. If you break into someone’s house then the law will separate you from your children because you’ll be in jail if you’re caught. Has nothing to do with whether you’re right or left. Your argument here is ridiculous on its face, and you know it.

    2. No one is being stopped from going to the bathroom. You can buy as many bathrooms as you want and use them all whenever you want. What you’re talking about is a law that said private businesses *had* to let anyone use any bathroom. And a backlash against that law saying that, no, a private business should not *have* to let anyone use any bathroom. Again, your argument is hyperbolic and ridiculous.

    3. Political affiliation has nothing to do with whether or not someone can get married. That’s just absurd. Again, your argument is based entirely on your brainwashed view of the world. It’s an example of not thinking deeply. What you’re talking about is gay marriage. Gay is not a political affiliation. Are you saying all gay people are on the left? Nonsense, and patently bigoted. The argument for gay marriage is clear: if straight people can get married then gay people should be able to also. Plenty on the right agree with that. The argument against gay marriage is a bit muddy, but it effectively seems to come down to: the state recognizes straight marriages because they strengthen the community. For instance, it’s a statistical fact that children do better when brought up in households with both mothers and fathers. It’s better for the children. It arguably provides an incentive to have children. And because it’s better for the children then it’s [QED] better for society. (Now, you might argue that some straight couples are incapable of producing children. This is a somewhat flawed argument though because a couple’s ability to produce a child is private medical information that is not, nor should be, made available to the state. Thus, not factored into a couple’s ability to have a marriage recognized.)

    4. Regarding being shot by the police, you’ll have to be a little more precise. Are you arguing that political affiliation has something to do with that? I seriously doubt you have any statistic worth its salt to back that up. But you’re probably referring to the number of black people involved in incidents. First, there are more white people shot by the police. By far. Second, you’ll probably jump to an argument about the statistical proportion of black people based on demographic representation. Well, you may as well argue that the state is sexist against men because way more men end up in prison than women. Is that your argument? No, let me guess, you just default to men committing more crimes. There are numerous factors that go into crime statistics. Your certainty that racism is one of those factors is based in nothing more than a shallow analysis. Has racism been responsible for bad things? Sure. No one argues otherwise. But to jump from that to systemic problems is goofy and a ultimately a leap you cannot make with logic.

  7. If you break the law your children will not normally be taken into custody except in extraordinary circumstances- they won’t be kept in special camps in cages. Pretending that the two things are equivalent is a lie.

    The children of drunk drivers aren’t locked in cages. The children of burglars aren’t locked in cages. The children of MURDERERS aren’t locked in cages.

    But what is interesting is how you quickly you reach for rationalisation and explanations for gross abuses of state power but offer NONE for the apparently terrible crime of (checks notes) sf con chair stepping down.

  8. Camestros Felapton:

    If you break the law your children will not normally be taken into custody except in extraordinary circumstances- they won’t be kept in special camps in cages. Pretending that the two things are equivalent is a lie.

    The children of drunk drivers aren’t locked in cages. The children of burglars aren’t locked in cages. The children of MURDERERS aren’t locked in cages.

    Separation certainly happens, but you are correct. The children are not typically placed in cages.

    I believe those pictures came from 2014? I don’t know what the heck Obama’s administration was thinking. Certainly a nasty time under that administration. Luckily, President Trump seems to be correcting that atrocity left over from so many former administrations.

    Much better to immediately send whoever comes across the border back immediately to stop the problem. Certainly don’t want kids in cages, and that includes kids incarcerated with their parents. Yes, definitely better to immediately send them back to wherever they came from before they committed a crime.

    To further quote you:

    But what is interesting is how you quickly you reach for rationalisation and explanations for gross abuses of state power but offer NONE for the apparently terrible crime of (checks notes) sf con chair stepping down.

    I have not suggested that a con chair stepping down was a crime, terrible or otherwise. Where are you getting that?

    What I am specifically against is the mob of people who went nuts when they heard Ringo was going to be a guest.

  9. “I believe those pictures came from 2014? I don’t know what the heck Obama’s administration was thinking. Certainly a nasty time under that administration. Luckily, President Trump seems to be correcting that atrocity left over from so many former administrations.”

    Yes, Obama doing <something only vaguely hinted at that we should assume is bad and was perhaps in 2014> was horrible and it is nice that Trump corrected <whatever it was that was certainly an atrocity that was left over>.

    It is nice that someone can be decisive <about we do not know, but it certainly was something important because it was Trump doing it>.

  10. Just to be clear, it seems to me that she is stepping down for health concerns, and that sounds like the right thing to do. I hope she’s okay, and I absolutely support her for taking the time to take care of herself. I wish her the best.

  11. Hampus Eckerman:

    Yes, Obama doing was horrible and it is nice that Trump corrected .

    It is nice that someone can be decisive

    The widely seen picture of kids kept in cages was taken in 2014 under Obama’s administration. Are you unaware of this?

  12. Jo: The widely seen picture of kids kept in cages was taken in 2014 under Obama’s administration. Are you unaware of this?

    Yes, and those were unaccompanied children who had crossed the border on their own and were in the process of being reunited with their parents, not children who had been taken from their parents as Border Patrol is currently doing at Trump’s direction. Are you unaware of this?

  13. “The widely seen picture of kids kept in cages was taken in 2014 under Obama’s administration. Are you unaware of this?”

    The Obama pictures were of kids that came alone with no parents as far as I know. Why are you discussing them? We are discussing the policy by Trump that kidnapped children from their parents, torturing them by denying them human contact. Do you deny that there was a policy change by Trump and that families were split up by this change?

  14. So it’s okay to throw kids in cages if they come across illegally without parents? Wow. Tough crowd.

    To be clear, yes, other administrations separated children from their parents. Unfortunately, we do not have a release on the numbers yet, and I will paste a link that goes into more detail on that.

    https://www.factcheck.org/2018/06/did-the-obama-administration-separate-families/

    Now, all of that said, clearly parents get separated from their children when the parents go to jail. Do you think the children go to jail with the parents? That would be nuts.

    Anyway, as I mentioned above, far better to just immediately send the illegal trespassers back. That way no one gets separated.

    Hampus wrote:
    Why are you discussing them?

    Because you brought up children being kept in cages.

  15. I have not suggested that a con chair stepping down was a crime, terrible or otherwise. Where are you getting that?

    The subject of the post. Maybe you should read it. Just a thought.

  16. Camestros Felapton:

    The subject of the post. Maybe you should read it. Just a thought.

    I did. The subject was about the chair stepping down for health reasons. In context of the Ringo situation, and I was commenting about how I applauded the decision of the con to not be swayed by bullying mobs.

    How you go from that to the con chair stepping down being a crime is dizzying.

  17. Jo:

    “To be clear, yes, other administrations separated children from their parents. “

    Not a word about how the change in policy by Trump increased the number of children separated from their families? Not even one word?

    “Because you brought up children being kept in cages.”

    No, I did not.

  18. //Jo on June 27, 2018 at 2:59 am said:

    Separation certainly happens, but you are correct. The children are not typically placed in cages. //

    Then why on Earth did you justify locking children in cages with ” If you break into someone’s house then the law will separate you from your children because you’ll be in jail if you’re caught.” ?

    I’ll hazard a guess as to why: the actual situation is indefensible. You don’t want to say that, you don’t want to discuss it directly and hence you hedge and try and talk about other things. Why? Because you wish to pretend that the very recent cases of members of Trump’s administration being publically criticised is just something that has come out of the blue. In fact, you know perfectly well WHY people have reacted in recent weeks very angrily to administration but you can’t be honest about it.

    And all THAT disingenuousness is in service of trying to characterise a con chair stepping down as another example of a “mob”.

  19. Hampus:

    No, I did not.

    Fair enough. It was Camestros. Apologies, all of your comments look the same to me.

    Hampus:

    Not a word about how the change in policy by Trump increased the number of children separated from their families? Not even one word?

    Trump stopped the separation of children, which was a leftover from other administrations.

    Regarding Trump’s stance on immigration. Uhm. Following the law? Good, that’s what the executive branch is supposed to do.

    Camestros:

    Then why on Earth did you justify locking children in cages with ” If you break into someone’s house then the law will separate you from your children because you’ll be in jail if you’re caught.” ?

    I justified separation. Keeping kids in cages was an Obama thing. Good thing Trump stopped that madness. Kids shouldn’t be kept in cages. In fact, anyone attempting to enter the country illegally should just be immediately turned around. Doing anything else is just pumping the well, asking for more, which only leads to more pain for everyone.

  20. “Apologies, all of your comments look the same to me.”

    They would not if you read them.

    “Regarding Trump’s stance on immigration. Uhm. Following the law? Good, that’s what the executive branch is supposed to do.”

    Yes, we know that <vague and strange statement about following the law, a statement that seems to have no meaning and is taken from the blue> certainly is important. Of course we should remember that <something that does not go into any specifics and therefore hasn’t got any value at all as an argument> is something to take into account.

    “Trump stopped the separation of children, which was a leftover from other administrations.”

    Still not a word about how his policy change increased the number of children separated from their families? Are you denying that this ever happened?

  21. I find it interesting that David Weber writes,

    It is time for us to see what happens going forward and to let ConCarolinas CHOOSE ITS OWN PATH. If, at the end of the day, we don’t like the path it chooses, then it is always our option not to support the con.

    … but seems to not see that that is precisely what those people did who protested against a particular invited guest of honor.

  22. Christian Brunschen on June 27, 2018 at 5:58 am said:
    I find it interesting that David Weber writes,

    It is time for us to see what happens going forward and to let ConCarolinas CHOOSE ITS OWN PATH. If, at the end of the day, we don’t like the path it chooses, then it is always our option not to support the con.

    … but seems to not see that that is precisely what those people did who protested against a particular invited guest of honor.

    Liberty and freedom for me but not for thee.

  23. A hobby is not worth your long term health. I hope Jada recovers fully from her concussion.

    I’m glad that ConCarolinas has a policy against disinviting invited speakers for their political views. It would be nice to keep raw politics largely out of a gathering of hobbyists. Since the MACE people run the gaming events, I may attend the next Con. I was close to going last year before they disinvited John Ringo. The final gaming lineup they had at this year’s event was impressive.

  24. Jo: Go away while I still retain some faith that there might actually be some conservatives out there who aren’t venal liars, bigots, or arse’les. You are making someone look bad, and it isn’t the people you accuse of being a lookalike mob.

    Re: Jada Hope: concussion damage is really serious business. I hope she gets the chance to recover that she needs.

    Nothing about Weber’s comments or the rest of the concom convinces me I will ever want to go to ConCarolinas, but neither does it particularly affect my life.

  25. Jo on June 27, 2018 at 1:16 am said:
    It’s just sickening the way people on the right can’t go anywhere without being targeted and harassed. Look at what Maxine Waters said recently. Just sickening.

    On the contrary: what would it take for people to start calling a la lanterne given the election of a Russian agent to the presidency, the dismantling of the right to vote, the systematic mass incarceration if not murder of the African-American population, the removal of any semblance of modern day science from public life and the fashioning of a society where there is no right to health or serene old age, not to mention the resurrection of torture as a means of intelligence gathering are NOT ENOUGH?

  26. Jo on June 27, 2018 at 2:33 am said:
    1. If you break into someone’s house then the law will separate you from your children because you’ll be in jail if you’re caught. Has nothing to do with whether you’re right or left. Your argument here is ridiculous on its face, and you know it.

    You know, it’s very hard to debate with people who start from assumptions like “2+2=5” and “if A then non-A”. Same with people who are apparently not bothered by children being removed permanently from their parents. I mean, if you don’t have that minimum of empathy, I don’t know how to talk to you, really. Nor can I force myself to overcome my revulsion to do it.

    I’m not even pointing out that requesting asylum at a border crossing is NOT ILLEGAL, because clearly, you’re not particularly interested in facts.

  27. Crossing the border at an undesignated place is a misdemeanor. It’s right up there with using Smoky the Bear without authorization. (Only YOU can stop fascist fires!)

    How many other people have their children taken away from their families and locked in cages when they are *suspected* but not convicted of a misdemeanor?

  28. @Ultragotha
    They’re surrendering to CBP and trying to claim asylum at undesignated crossings because the officials at designated crossings keep turning them away, which is illegal.

  29. P J Evans.

    Yes. Most of them are. And those have not committed any crime at all.

    But the minority that do try to enter the country at places other than designated crossing points are hardened criminals of the likes of people who use the US Flag for advertising in Washington DC. Quelle horreur.

    I do not understand people up in arms about people crossing the border being criminals. They don’t seen to understand our laws at all.

    And they seem to have no compassion, empathy or heart. Those fleeing violence in their countries are fleeing from instability WE CAUSED.

  30. Poor Jo–set up 4 different arguments but people are only arguing on one.
    Jo has everything but the bridge.
    Any bets on which website this will be reported on?
    I see JDA is ratcheting up the “File770 supports pedophiles” thing.

  31. Harold Osler: Are you genuinely suggesting anyone waste even a moment on Jo’s other rank stupidity? Because that is all it is.

    And *willful* stupidity at that, which is the worst kind. She could have learned. She chose not to.

  32. Are you genuinely suggesting anyone waste even a moment on Jo’s other rank stupidity? Because that is all it is.

    Lord have mercy, no. I’ve been scrolling past most of it anyway. I took a look and just kept going–the usual crap I have no time to argue about. I figured Jo was bored and trying to stir shit.
    Or maybe it’s some bizarre attempt at media attention for CarolinaCon (or whatever it’s name is–I’m way down on the page and don’t feel like scrolling up to check.)

  33. Harold Osler on June 27, 2018 at 1:14 pm said:

    Poor Jo–set up 4 different arguments but people are only arguing on one.

    I decided that the others were self-refuting – particularly the one whose gist was that it was OK for the police to murder people so long as it is proportionate to demographic levels of crime. I thought that by itself needed no further explanation as to why somebody offering it was actively opposed to liberty in any general sense (whether left or right).

  34. I find it more than a little disturbing that a major author is attempting to exercise control over a convention to such an extreme extent. If an author attempted this sort of manipulation on Worldcon or my local/regional con, I would be outraged.

  35. Before David Weber took it upon himself to make ConCarolinas as awful as possible, I would’ve figured him too busy for such a task. The new people running the con should definitely let him publicly demand as many actions from them as he deems appropriate, today and in the future.

    They should also let Weber go public with their medical conditions and anything else they’ve shared with him in private channels, as long as it furthers his agenda of helping his pro writer buddies avoid taking any responsibility for mistreating people.

  36. I now wonder what the Honor Harrington cons are like and if Weber treats the actual conrunners like this, too.

  37. It’s just sickening the way people on the right can’t go anywhere without being targeted and harassed. Look at what Maxine Waters said recently. Just sickening.

    I’m glad ConCarolinas has decided to distance themselves from the bigots and mobs on the progressive left.

    I thought this was sarcasm, and then… oh dear.

  38. Christian Brunschen

    I find it interesting that David Weber writes,

    It is time for us to see what happens going forward and to let ConCarolinas CHOOSE ITS OWN PATH. If, at the end of the day, we don’t like the path it chooses, then it is always our option not to support the con.

    … but seems to not see that that is precisely what those people did who protested against a particular invited guest of honor

    That was also my favorite part.

  39. @mlex:I’d have though the same had I not recognized the pseudonym from the last time.

  40. I’ve attended several Manticons, mainly for GOHs like Eric Flint, Marko Kloos, and Tim Zahn. I’ve never understood the draw of cosplaying Royal Manticoran Navy, and I’ve decided that David Weber would prefer it if I don’t attend it whenever he’s a GOH. Since I skipped it this year, when Weber was the main GOH, it’s possible that I just might skip it altogether in the future.

  41. What I think is interesting is that they are literally setting up the dynamic that the best thing they can do for their cons if they want to be able to draw from both groups of fans is to quietly stay the hell away from inviting writers like Ringo or Weber as a GOH. If you invite them, because of their public actions, people won’t want to be involved. If you dis-invite them, they’ll weaponize their fanbase against you. So, better to just quietly stay away, say nothing, and choose less polarizing guests if you don’t want to have to brand your con as a partisan event.

  42. I wish Jada the best. Concussion and head injuries generally are just really bad. She needs proper care, not more stress, or anyone using her resignation for anything.

  43. Our local RMN are good peeps; this must be tough on them.

    I say they just rename it “Weber and Ringo Con” and be done with it. Has an author ever held such sway over what’s supposed to be a general SF con? He appears to be in charge and is certainly speaking officially for the con. Seems to be the power behind the throne, with more pull than the actual con chair. Looks like a palace coup.

    Is every fan in the ConCarolinas area supposed to fall in line with this and if they don’t support sexual harassers and pew-pew milSF, tough luck? No cons for them? LibertyCon and LibertyConCarolina is it?

    Having had a mild concussion in my time, I can’t imagine how Jada’s borne up at all through this whole thing. I’m glad she’s no longer dealing with the stress and the computer time, and hope she’s completely ignoring the fallout. Go dark, Jada (literally and figuratively), and let your brain meats rest. You’re well out of it, and you need your brain for other, more important things.

    @dexf: That’s what I’d take away from this. Nobody wants to spend all their time dealing with that kind of thing. Con-running is hard enough. Better to avoid anyone polarizing, regardless of politics. Maybe invite authors who don’t yet have a weaponized (literally in Ringo and Weber’s case) fanbase.

    Lois McMaster Bujold. Everybody likes her. I was at one con where she was GoH and she’s so nice and charming. So’s Connie Willis, though snarkier. Right-wing milSF men aren’t all bad (#NotAllEtc); I’ve been to many cons with Larry Niven and he’s fine nowadays. Seanan McGuire/Mira Grant, you get two GoH for the price of one, bringing in two different sets of fans. Harry Turtledove’s cool. Kim Stanley Robinson is very classy and erudite. Spider Robinson (this year’s Worldcon GoH) is a delight.

    There are so many other authors who aren’t problematic whom you could invite, why ask for trouble?

  44. Weber is now the ConCarolinas spox?! I really don’t care much about what he said; I’m more interested in what the real concomm may have to say.

  45. Pingback: Top 10 Posts for June 2018 | File 770

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.