David Gerrold on Lou Antonelli’s Apology

After Lou Antonelli posted his apology I asked for a comment from David Gerrold and he replied:

The convention has a strong anti-harassment policy. I expect they will investigate fairly and proceed from there. I’m not going to say anything else until they finish their investigation and determine what actions if any are appropriate — that part is for the convention to resolve.

Over here, Lou Antonelli and I have exchanged some private messages and I believe he is sincere in his apology.

Now I’m going to get back to work editing THAT novel, finishing a GoH speech, and polishing the details of the Hugo Award Ceremony script. I intend to have a great time at this year’s Worldcon. I hope everyone else who’s attending will bring the same enthusiasm.

Gerrold also made a public comment on Adam-Troy Castro’s Facebook page.

I do not know Mr. Antonelli. I do not understand why he felt the need to write to write the Spokane PD. And I won’t engage in online psychoanalysis or any other kind of second-guessing.

Yes, I was dismayed when I heard about the podcast. No, I have not listened to the podcast. I need to focus on more important things. But as others have pointed out, a line was crossed that shouldn’t have been crossed and I’m grateful that so many people spoke up.

More importantly, Lou Antonelli has apologized. I appreciate that. As far as I’m concerned the matter is over and done. I don’t have time for grudges. I’m satisfied with his apology, and I hope we can quickly put this behind us and focus on better things.

I sent Lou Antonelli a short private message saying so, and I reiterated my offer to buy him a beer the next time we’re both at the same convention. Because that’s what I would want if the situation was reversed.

36 thoughts on “David Gerrold on Lou Antonelli’s Apology

  1. David Gerrold also just posted an extended comment on FB which says in part —

    One last thought. I have been told that some people on some other threads are using this incident as further justification for one more round of negativity and name-calling. I have no control over what happens on other people’s walls. I can only be responsible for my own participation wherever I go.

    But here’s my request. If you, the person reading this, are seeing those kinds of negative messages, then I invite and encourage you to please make a serious effort to steer those conversations away from further personal attacks. It doesn’t matter what side anyone is on anymore. Further attacks serve no one, they hurt all of us.

    I want people to come to Sasquan to have a good time. Let’s have it be an opportunity for healing and celebration. It doesn’t matter anymore which “side” you think you’re on — we’re all science fiction fans, this community belongs to all of us, and it’s time to start rebuilding it as a place where it’s fun for all of us. Please.

  2. When you’re involved in a flamewar online, it can be very easy to forget the person on the other side of the internet is a person and not just some abstract adversary. Antonelli’s actions here (and with calling up the workplace of the guy who called him an asshole) strike me as someone who takes the actions of the other person against him very personally, but doesn’t quite realise that can happen on the other side too. Hopefully this whole fiasco helps him empathise better

  3. I have a friend who lashes out in the same way when feeling hurt, not listened to or under attack. He creates a lot of troubles for himself, draws energy from others and generally makes people angry. But he gets the absolute worst of it himself, mostly because people just stops listening to him or even uses him as an object of derision. Which just makes him lash out more.

    So I can in some way sympathize with Antonelli. I have a much harder time with those puppies that seems to go out of their way to instead hurt and torment others. People like Beale, TK, Williamson, Hoyt and Paulk.

  4. So I can in some way sympathize with Antonelli. I have a much harder time with those puppies that seems to go out of their way to instead hurt and torment others. People like Beale, TK, Williamson, Hoyt and Paulk.

    My mom has managed to quarrel, squabble and feud with most of her friends, family, and retail businesses in my home town. Very few people as a result remember that when you need to be nursed back to health, a roof over your head, money to pay rent, the last days of your life spent with somebody to look over and out for you, or the body of your dead husband washed, she is there in three minutes flat.

    Having a temper is bad, but it’s not the worst thing in the world.

    I tend to think that most of the Rabids behave like they do because they feel deeply threatened and are somewhat rigid personalities. It doesn’t excuse them, but sometimes I manage to feel sorry for them.

  5. @Anna

    My mom has managed to quarrel, squabble and feud with most of her friends, family, and retail businesses in my home town. Very few people as a result remember that when you need to be nursed back to health, a roof over your head, money to pay rent, the last days of your life spent with somebody to look over and out for you, or the body of your dead husband washed, she is there in three minutes flat.

    I’ve known people like that too – it seems to be a common personality type in any close-knit community.

    The tragedy of the Internet is that in this space, it’s very easy to earn a reputation for being an abrasive asshole, but much more difficult than in real life to develop a reputation for compassion and charity. Which implies that impulse control is an even more critical social skill here than in physical space.

  6. One difference is that online, many more interaction-spaces are available for all to see, even after a particular interaction has concluded.

    I don’t think that’s necessarily a lamentable difference. Doing some good things doesn’t mean people are obliged to turn a blind eye to other behavior. There is sometimes a fixation on whether somebody is “really a good person at heart” or whatnot, which I personally find pointless; we are none of us Anubis.

    (OTOH, if Anubis *is* reading this, I would enjoy any hithertofore unknown-to-modern-linguistics insights you may have about Old Egyptian or its contemporaries…)

  7. Pingback: Amazing Stories | AMAZING NEWS OF FANDOM 8-9-15 - Amazing Stories

  8. I’ve followed David Gerrold on FB since this kerfuffle began precisely because he was a vocal anti-puppy commentator (I also like him as an author, but that wasn’t enough for me to seek him out). My impression is that, like many of us, he finds the puppy arguments specious and that the slate-slingers (VD in particular) took a huge crap on the Hugo carpet. Also like many of us, he started out pretty harsh but has mellowed out as time went on (there was probably added pressure — inside and out — to do so because of his role as GoH).

    I have some recollection that he has “retracted” some intemperate comments; iirc, he doesn’t just delete them, he posts a note saying “I thought better of what I said,” but I couldn’t give you the particular substance of these (he also comments with some heat about anti-gay public figures, especially Republicans).

    I never saw anything remotely like a physical threat, however.

    I imagine it was enough for LA that his fear of blacklists/boycotts + the Hugo presenter’s public disdain (“hatred”) toward the slates/slaters + a huge slice of projection regarding his own side’s tactics and rhetoric = “danger, Will Robinson”, but in the absence of specifics, it’s just a guess.

    Anyway, DG says it’s a dead issue, so…until next time*, Lou. ;-p

    *I hope there is no next time.

  9. I think Antonelli’s apology is a good one, but I also think it doesn’t matter. If the police decide to get involved*, Antonelli’s apology won’t necessarily call them off. Lou can only apologize for his own actions, not for any subsequent actions the police might take thanks to his letter on behalf of the “anti-authoritarian” Puppies.

    *Not that they are going to—I’m sure Lou’s letter was filed right between the “I SAW ME A BIGFOOT!” report and the 911 transcript of a meth-addict calling to complain that his girlfriend consumed all his meth without asking first.

  10. Lou outed himself which is the only reason we know what he did. I wonder how many puppies have done stuff like that and no one knows. The level of vitriol on the puppy pages make me think he’s not the only one doing batshit crazy things.

  11. Lou also outed the editor who decided not to publish a story of his after all, due to this, publishing the full text of her email and her name. She’s now getting rape and death threats.

    Did he not know that would happen? Did he not just learn the value of thinking things through rather than just acting without reflection?

    So it goes, it seems.

  12. @Kurt
    Argh. That is really unfortunate, the Internet can be a vile and toxic place.

  13. Jim Henley : In the end, all we have to offer each other is mercy.

    and cheesecake.

    (Obscure references ‘r we)

  14. A little more than a year ago, when SWATing was being a thing, I read a justification for it on a GG forum. The basic gist was this – We’re the wronged, and most people are on our side but can’t say so because there’s a group of loudmouth SJWs who are running things and will try to destroy anyone who stands against them, so the only recourse we have is to go after those that offend us by turning their reactionary forces (the cops} against them.

    That said, I don’t think Lou was going for explicit revenge, but actually may have thought he was helping alert authorities to a real potential danger. Thats how warped the Puppy thing has some folks’ thinking.
    Chris

  15. I’m not sure “unfortunate ” is the term I’d use. More like “completely foreseeable and avoidable.”

    There’s an overlap between both sets of Puppies and GamerGate. GamerGate harasses women online, for various values of “you can’t say that’s true because you can’t prove it was us and besides they deserve it and they’re all just pretending to blame us and it must be rogue elements anyway.” So tell a bunch of Puppy supporters that a woman rejected a Puppy writer because of the kerfuffle, even if it was a part he says was his own fault — and what did he think was going to happen?

    He gave them her name and told them something that’d rile them up. That’s not bad luck, that’s setting a fuse and lighting the match.

  16. @Kurt
    I fully agree with your assessment of this being completely avoidable by Lou. It’s a very good point to make, people need to be very thoughtful before posting any personal information or correspondence without prior permission.

  17. I would use “unfortunate” in the same tone of voice as the knight in that Indiana Jones film saying “He chose…poorly.”

    Lou choose…poorly. In the future, I think any editor will have to consider that dealing with him will carry the strong potential for rape and death threats.

  18. There are lines that should never be crossed.
    Dragging the police in to a perceived feud under false pretenses is one of them.
    I know this because I was arrested on a trumped up charge (not convicted).
    Lou Antonelli, for even creating the possibility of such a thing happening to another human being does not deserve forgiveness, and should,in fact be ostracized.
    David is a much better person then I am.

  19. How can the Puppies see it as any kind of unreasonable threat that people will be reconsidering whether or not they want to associate or work with them… when shit like this keeps happening?

    Seriously? “If you decide not to publish me I’ll post your information out so the dogs can come after you.” WHY OH WHY wouldn’t someone want to work with Lou? 😛

  20. It’s been decades since I gave into an impulse that might have had long term legal consequences. This is a good thing for a given value of good.
    From my own experience, I am wondering if the problem here is that someone suffering from bipolar disorder has yet to learn to think the play in traffic level impulses through. Doing the first thing that pops into your head when you are angry, happy, or anything else strongly, much like loosing your inhibitions after two or three drinks, can make for an interesting life in the Chinese curse sense.

  21. Seriously? “If you decide not to publish me I’ll post your information out so the dogs can come after you.” WHY OH WHY wouldn’t someone want to work with Lou?

    Goodness knows it’s been predicted by several that the major Sad/Rabid Puppy players will find that, due to their behavior, professional avenues for them will be reduced, because who has time to deal with that kind of shit?

    And lo, an editor declines to continue a professional relationship with a Sad Puppy after he demonstrates himself prone to escalating irrationally and dangerously.

    It’s a simple principal. Act like an asshole, be treated like an asshole. But many of the Puppies have chosen to spin it as, “We are getting threats to our livelihood by the Puppy Kickers! See, *they’re* the real meanies! Anything we do is just self-defense!”

    Bets that the Puppies will see that the death and rape threats this editor is getting through that lens, and pontificate that she’s getting what she deserved for “threatening Antonelli’s livelihood”? Bets?

    *disgusted*

    And of course Antonelli gets a win-win. He gets to look all Ostentatiously Contrite with his “this is the rolled-up newspaper I deserved” song and dance–but I don’t think for a minute he’s not ENJOYING watching that editor receive abuse and harassment for the “sin” of severing a professional relationship with him. He didn’t manage to get Aaron fired when he called his workplace; the internet dropped on his head when it came out that he tried to get Spokane PD to harass David Gerrold. But oh, what success he’s had in making life hard for the Editor What Done Him Wrong! Bonus–he did it by part of his perfgets to play the role of Genuine Penitent

    No, I have absolutely no faith that he’s not enjoying this. I have no faith he didn’t do this on purpose. He didn’t have to use her name or post her email. He could have just said, “This thing I did cost me a story sale. I am getting a reputation I really don’t want. Time for me to think things through.” But no, he chose to out that editor and republish her email. I don’t think for a moment that this wasn’t deliberate.

    *very, very disgusted*

  22. Nicole J. LeBoeuf-Little on August 9, 2015 at 8:34 pm said:
    Bets that the Puppies will see that the death and rape threats this editor is getting through that lens, and pontificate that she’s getting what she deserved for “threatening Antonelli’s livelihood”? Bets?

    Or they’ll claim the rape and death threats are “false-flag operations”, and either she’s making them up, or we’re sending them to make the Puppies look bad.

  23. One point that occurs to me. Some folk have accused either David Gerrold or some unidentified friends of his of deleting the comments that led to the call to the police. If the issue was regarded as that serious, I am absolutely sure that somebody will have kept screengrabs of the comments as evidence. Will they produce them?

  24. Ramsey Campbell: Some folk have accused either David Gerrold or some unidentified friends of his of deleting the comments that led to the call to the police. If the issue was regarded as that serious, I am absolutely sure that somebody will have kept screengrabs of the comments as evidence. Will they produce them?

    Given that Dr. Mauser’s “quote” in the BOLO thread was wildly inaccurate, I suspect that they, along with the rest of the Puppies, are basing their accusations of incitement to violence on hearsay and greatly-inflated claims of what Gerrold supposedly said.

    I read Gerrold’s posts on Facebook, and in the past 5 months, he has never said anything even remotely close to “incitement of violence”, much less being police-actionable.

    There aren’t going to be any such screenshots produced, because such comments never existed in the first place.

  25. Nicole J. LeBoeuf-Little: FWIW, I think it’s completely over the top to – without proof – accuse Lou of “ENJOYING watching that editor receive abuse and harassment”, or to imply – as Kurt Busiek also did – that he should have been able to predict this outcome and thus did this deliberately.

    Yes, it would have been good if he had realized that possible consequence (which yes, is almost predictable behaviour in certain quarters, but, please, please, PLEASE not in our world!), and would’ve anonymized the message, but I’d rather think that he is mostly a decent human being, and as such of course doesn’t think that something like this could be the result. Death threats are beyond the pale. (I sincerely hope there’s some puppy supporters going around on their blogs pointing out the same in very strong terms, and if not, to any puppies reading this, please consider being that person! Let’s please all live up to the ideal of “We’re all still SF fans”!)

    Meanwhile, for us, let’s please not sink any further in level ourselves with rhetoric and accusations, but rather stick to the facts, and in their absence expect at least a baseline level of not-being-completely-batshit-insane from anyone who has not very obviously shown themselves to be otherwise.

  26. I am hoping the Lou matter is settled.

    I do hope Lou has apologized directly to the editor in question for putting them in that situation.

  27. Pingback: Dishonesty in the service of the oligarchy » Rants and Ramblings By An Old Bag

  28. Aan:

    I did not say Lou did it deliberately. I do think it’s absolutely predictable, however, and there’s too much overlap with the GamerGate crowd to say it wouldn’t happen in “our world.” The SF world is as infested with this crap as others.

  29. Aan, with all due respect, I disagree. I think it is not far-fetched for me to expect that Lou is at least on some level pleased to see an editor get Real Life Consequences for declining to publish him, given that Lou attempted to get one person fired and another harassed by the police for, basically, calling him an asshole on the internet.

    When my brother and I were VERY young, he and I often got into fights, as siblings will. If shortly after our fight, I stubbed a toe or slipped on the stairs or got in trouble with our parents for something unrelated, whatever, he would smugly sing-song, “That’s what happens when you…[do/say whatever he’d objected to in our fight]”

    That’s the pattern I see Lou Antonelli’s interactions fitting.

    You come to whatever conclusions you want. Me, I’ve seen enough of Lou’s escalations in the past four months to conclude he’s someone who believes people who get on his bad side deserve bad things to happen to them, and will try to arrange for those bad things to happen. And will find personal vindication in bad things happening to those people. I could perhaps be persuaded that he didn’t consciously intend to paint a big, neon target on Cuinn’s face when he posted her private correspondence without her permission (although since reading Cuinn’s revelation that Antonelli edited her email before posting it, I’m less persuadable there than I was at this time last night), but it would take a huge change of behavior in him, sustained over time and out in public, for me to believe him incapable of getting a kick out of bad things happening to the Person What Done Him Wrong.

    We all come to our own personal conclusions about other people, based on the behavior we see of them. This is mine about him. Yours differs. That’s OK.

  30. At this point, I think the only question worth asking is how long it’s gonna be until Crazy Uncle Lou decides to blow off all pretense of trying to interact with fandom-at-large, and plunge full-time into the subset of fandom which exists within the hermetically sealed echo chamber of right-wing Kulturkampf. I grant that it’s philosophically possible for CUL to realize it really would benefit him to stop being a paperthin-skinned douchenozzle who’s prone to escalating trivial displeasures into Horrible Crimes Against Humanity™, but given what he’s shown us of his behavior, I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting.

  31. Pingback: Friday Links (orphaned kangaroo edition) | Font Folly

Comments are closed.