299 thoughts on “Dragon Con Launches Its Own SF Awards”

1. kathodus – yes, you’re right about it. One of the reasons I’m mostly out of fandom is I got tired of the on going struggles to get anything done. And in reviewing my previous associations, I really *am* ashamed I didn’t listen more to people.

   And then, of course. I read this thread and my snark gland kicks in… *sigh*

2. @Tasha – Giant wolves! I’m sure they can hunt for themselves. I’d hate for you to have to make sandwiches for a bunch of giant wolves just because I liked the image of you leading a pack of them into the night.

   And the apology thing came to mind because you’ve got a very specific (and accurate, IMO) system for making a good apology that you’ve posted about on File770 before. I’ve seen you apologize here when you felt you needed to, and I’ve apologized to you at least once in the past for an ill-considered comment. I don’t recall you ever asking for or demanding an apology, though, so that bit was definitely poetic license on my part.

3. @Ed,

   As pointed out, the majority of the comments about the Dragon Awards is about the very much lack of proofreading and inconsistencies in the rules, descriptions and FAQs. Back when there were discussions here about creating a new award, a lot of the discussion was a lot of the same, pointing out flaws and issues and the difficulty of administering the proposed awards. Then we got sidetracked here by the Puppy discussion, which is not directly related to the Dragon Awards.

   As a fellow conrunner and having been involved with the presentation of the Nebulas and the World Fantasy Awards (but not the actual administering), I can see flaws in their rules and definitions above and beyond the obvious ones and wish them luck in implementing them without any fannish drama. Since we have no clue who is administering them for Dragon*Con or their development history, its fun to speculate. I think it is all something we need to keep us occupied while waiting for the final Hugo ballot.

4. kathodus: That’s interesting, and goes along with this… Which has that frowning harumph vibe that Puppy statements often have.

   I’m sure I can’t be the only one who’s noticed the similarity in the verbiage and structure to the awards proposed last year over on Black Gate’s site.

5. It doesn’t have that bizarre web of trust that the Black Gate proposal has, though it does have the same logical failure regarding trust (you can trust the admins of this award, because we’re the Good Guys). I don’t see how a sys admin can not understand that in planning and implementing a voting system, there are no essentially good bad guys, there are only attackers whose attacks you must mitigate.

6. Something for the Sad Puppies to win…

7. kathodus: It doesn’t have that bizarre web of trust that the Black Gate proposal has, though it does have the same logical failure regarding trust

   It also has the same “we reserve the right to name whatever winners we wish, by selectively disqualifying ballots and/or voters according to any criteria we decide to use” aspect to it.

8. JJ on April 6, 2016 at 8:05 pm said:
   kathodus: That’s interesting, and goes along with this… Which has that frowning harumph vibe that Puppy statements often have.

   I’m sure I can’t be the only one who’s noticed the similarity in the verbiage and structure to the awards proposed last year over on Black Gate’s site.

   Yeah, but I’m fine with people coming up with another kind of award, if that’s what they want.
   And if it seems to maybe reflect some of the ideas expressed by puppies or by the guy over on Black Gate, that doesn’t bother me.
   So this one will be everyone voting, and only the Man Behind the Curtain will know for sure whose votes count.
   Well, if that’s what they want, good for them.
   I wish them great fun with it all (though GIGO always remains applicable).

9. @kathodus:

   @Tasha – Giant wolves! I’m sure they can hunt for themselves. I’d hate for you to have to make sandwiches for a bunch of giant wolves just because I liked the image of you leading a pack of them into the night.

   And the apology thing came to mind because you’ve got a very specific (and accurate, IMO) system for making a good apology that you’ve posted about on File770 before. I’ve seen you apologize here when you felt you needed to, and I’ve apologized to you at least once in the past for an ill-considered comment. I don’t recall you ever asking for or demanding an apology, though, so that bit was definitely poetic license on my part.

   I can see me with a wolf pack. Growing up we took in an abused, trained, attack German Shepherd. She was never fully safe but what a guard dog. My poor mom when she switched allegiances and threatened my mother when mom and I got in a fight. The look on her face was priceless.

   We also had Siberian Huskies. Great dogs. The pug died when I was 4 or 5 of an epileptic fit (or I killed it by forgetting to put my crayons away – which story depends on my moms mood). We also had cats, gerbils, sea monkeys, goats, and a Podunk (half Shetland pony and half donkey).

   I’d have to move back to the country to do the pack of wolves but I miss country living. I have a voice for animals and kids which is usually obeyed from the 1st meeting. Doesn’t work with cats but they remember being worshipped as gods and see humans as slaves unlike other animals which see us as food bringers/masters or prey.

   Yes my borrowed Proper Apology(TM) is a useful format. Glad to know I wasn’t losing my mind. Poetic license is all good. I did accept your apology right? If not let me do so now and no hard feelings. Things get emotional and overheated at times and we all say and do stuff we regret.

10. Lauowolf: Yeah, but I’m fine with people coming up with another kind of award, if that’s what they want.

    Absolutely! It’s certainly a more constructive use of time and effort than trying to sabotage the Hugo Awards.

    I wish them the best of luck. I think that they are going to find out that designing and administering an effective awards program is all much, much more difficult and time- and labor-intensive than they thought.

11. @JJ I’m sure I can’t be the only one who’s noticed the similarity in the verbiage and structure to the awards proposed last year over on Black Gate’s site.

    A bit. I had a long day so I’m not up to looking over Jay Maynard’s post or my final comment with suggestions to see how much it maps to the ideas without the web of trust. I’ll try to compare them tomorrow for kicks.

    2.5 hours of pre-op today: duplicate paperwork galore because places can’t print what’s in system and have patients update it, blood test because lab screwed up in not sending results to surgeon, chest X-rays because 49 is same as 50, EKG, talk with anesthesiologist, talk with nurse about all the stuff I need to stop doing 5 days before (in 3 days) and the stuff to do night before and morning of surgery. Then stop at primary doctor for another test based on Fridays test results – I may need antibiotics – I’ll let my doctor & surgeon fight it out whether I can take prior to operation if I need them. Poor Mr got to come along for all the fun and act as translator as my hearing aid died while I was filling out paperwork and extra batteries weren’t in bag where they belong so I was mostly deaf.

    Woo hoo I got out of the house today! We even stopped at a supermarket and did some of our Passover shopping after all the testing. As long as I was tripping on Xanax and Percocet why not get something positive done? I may have bought more candy than we need for 2 people for 8 days. I was hungry. We got stuff for Seder night and basics.

12. @Tasha Turner,
    Best wishes on the op.

    @Ed Green,
    The urge to snark is hard to resist. But in this instance, the general tenor of comments have been “Good on you for attempting something constructive” & “Best of Luck with it!” leavened with awards-organising neepery, pointing where there might be problems. As I said upthread, with any new award, there is bound to be initial bedding-in issues & I hope the Dragon*Con Awards organisers take on board some of the improvements suggested here.

13. @Ed Green: “@ Kendall Damn it! I was trying for essential…”

    ::snort:: touché! Sorry I got a bit grumpy, and thanks for making me laugh. 😀

14. Damn it! I was trying for essential…

    Heck, I was happy to been non-essential enough that I could retire. (At least, no one seems to have had enough of a need to try getting hold of me.)

15. I was musing what I might nominate, so I looked at my Hugo longlist. First thoughts, with the aim of trying to avoid double noms:

    Best science fiction novel – Ancillary Mercy, or maybe something else if I want to totally avoid double noms
    Best fantasy novel (including paranormal) – Uprooted (b/c Fifth Season goes apocalyptic!)
    Best young adult/middle grade novel – Not sure, might have to get my daughter to decide this one!
    Best military science fiction or fantasy novel – Ancillary Mercy – I’d have gone Sorceror of the Wildeeps but it fails their wordcount test
    Best alternate history novel – The Mechanical or The Watchmaker of Filigree Street or Karen Memory or Sorceror to the Crown – do these fail the “but could have been” test? Probably, but fun anyway.
    Best apocalyptic novel – The Fifth Season (Might not have been what they were looking for, but it’s the book with the most apocalypses of the year)

16. I registered, got a mail with a link on how to confirm my identity, clicked the link and got a message on confirmed, then…

    …nothing.

    I don’t know what is supposed to happen now. Will they mail me later on how I can enter my nominations? Do I get a password and an account? No idea.

17. @Hampus

    I tried registering and nominating. Confirmed my email address, but apparently I’m supposed to receive a nomination confirmation number? Nothing yet.

    There’s a fair amount of bugs and teething problems they need to work through.

    ETA: Ancillary Mercy for both MilSF and Best SF; Uprooted for both Best Fantasy and Best YA (hey, that’s where it was for Goodreads); Seveneves for Best Apocalyptic.

18. I join the general sentiment of “good for them” and “good luck!” I may nominate and will probably vote (if things get nominated that I have an opinion on). Look forward to hearing if others here are able to get set up to nominate.

19. I was looking through the probably-soon-to-be-renamed Dragon Awards page to try to find if they had specified how many of the nominees will become finalists, and noticed that they have yet another piece of contradictory information: In one place they say final voting will end on September 3, and in another, they say September 1. Did no one proof read any of this?

    In any event, there appears to be no information on how many finalists there will be. That seems like information that would be useful for people to have. I suspect the number of finalists will be 5, because that seems to be fairly standard, but it doesn’t have to be. And if it is a number like 5 (or 10, or 15), then that raises another potential problem.

    The voting system is “vote for one thing to win”. Under that system, any field that has more than 2 finalists is almost certainly going to end up with winners who win with a minority of the vote. If you have five finalists, it would theoretically be possible for someone to win with 21% of the vote. That’s not incredibly likely, but someone winning with something like 26% of the vote is not only possibly, it is probably inevitable. I suspect that will result in a fair amount of complaining from people whose favorites didn’t win.

    I was also struck by the tenor of this part of the press release:

    Like the Dragon, our recipients are extraordinary and unique. Fueled by the passion for their art, they have spread their wings and soared above us all.

    First off, if you have multiple recipients, they can’t be unique. But leaving that nitpick aside, notice that the recipients of the award are “above us all”? One thing about the Hugos is that they are structured in a way that tends to promote a sense of camaraderie between authors and fans. There are fan awards. The authors are just fans like the rest of us. And so on. This award, in contrast, seems to set its honorees on a pedestal to be positioned above the teeming masses. That may not be the intent of the language used, but it seems a little off-putting to me.

20. @Mark and @snowcrash
    FYI, from the Dragon Awards site:

    Do not nominate a book for more than one category. If the same book is added more than once, your nominations will be null.

21. One of the things I do professionally is copyediting.

    If someone points out “you said August 31 here, and August 25 on page 3, which is it?” that’s not an attack: that’s an attempt to help the person get the correct message across. I think most people would rather get that sorted before the invitations go out/people start making plans/people show up six days early and you aren’t ready, or don’t show up until six days late and miss the event.

    DragonCon isn’t my thing (even Worldcons are bigger than I usually want to deal with these days), but I wish them no ill: there are a lot of people who go to and enjoy DragonCon, and this is good.

22. @Laura

    Thanks, I’d missed that!
    —

    In “well, that didn’t take long” news, VD announces he will be letting his followers know his Dragon nominations for absolutely no reason at all.

    I am registered to vote in the Dragon Awards and I would encourage you to do so as well. I’ll post my recommendations here the week after the Hugo shortlist is announced, in the event that any of you might happen to be curious about them.

23. You know, I’ve seen a lot of conjecture and conspiracy theories about nefarious puppy-led DragonCon award organizing and manipulation, coincidentally from many of the same people who regularly state that any complaints the puppies might have are based on conjecture and conspiracy theories. Just an observation.

    @Kendall
    It was not I who brought the puppies into this; I simply did not sit by quietly while various filers bashed them (IMO) unfairly.

24. I am not sure how Puppyish this is. Certainly their opening sounds like a well-known Puppy talking point; but it is not an exclusively Puppy talking point; it is a widespread talking point that the Puppy leadership has exploited. Un-Puppyish people like Eric Flint and Philip Sandifer have said similar things. The view that the Hugos have an obligation to represent all fans (in a broad sense, i.e. enthusiasts), and are failing to do so, has been around for a long time.

    It seems to me that if this is successful, it will be a good thing for the Hugos, because it will relieve them of the burden of having to represent everyone. I have said before now that many of the problems of the Hugos come from people exaggerating their importance. They are seen as the definitive awards for science fiction, so that anything that is excluded from them is excluded from science fiction. If they are just seen as a set of awards representing a group of people which has a valuable perspective, they can work more effectively.

25. It was not I who brought the puppies into this; I simply did not sit by quietly while various filers bashed them (IMO) unfairly.

    Associating the Puppies with the probably-soon-to-be-renamed Dragon Awards is “bashing” them? I think it is early to jump on the idea that the Pups are behind these awards, but it is hardly bashing them to speculate it may be so. Unless, of course, you think being associated with this award is somehow something to be ashamed of.

26. Tell me, not counting any puppies of any variety, who would be the most prominent conservative-leaning member of the Worldcon community.

    Surely Robert Silverberg.

27. And now on the heels of Mr Beale, John C Wright is promoting the Dragon Con Award and his eligibility for same.

28. What is the purpose of the “you can only vote for a book in a single category”? Is it to prevent books from being nominated for or winning multiple categories? Because if so, I think that’s not a particularly effective means of accomplishing that goal.

    Take a popular book like Uprooted that could fit into two or more categories. A single fan couldn’t vote for the book in both the Best Fantasy and Best Young Adult/Middle Grade categories, but a couple of thousand fans could vote for it in one, and a couple of thousand other fans could vote for it in another, each making their own decision as to which category it best fits into and what other books they want to nominate. This could put the book into the finalist list for both categories, and since in the finalist voting it seems likely that it will only take a plurality of votes to win, it could win in both as well.

    I don’t see any real problem with having one work win in multiple categories, but if the intent of the “you can only vote for a book in a single category” rule is to prevent that from happening, I think it is inadequate to the task.

29. Only waiting for Declan Finns campaign now.

30. And now on the heels of Mr Beale, John C Wright is promoting the Dragon Con Award and his eligibility for same.

    Perhaps they could implement an award for “slavish toady of the year”, and then JCW could win it every year.

31. JJ: If there was really a huge demand among Worldcon members for an award category for video games and RPGs, there would be one.

    Well, I wouldn’t say it was quite that straightforward, given the time it takes to get things done in WSFS (for good reason). I would say there is considerable demand, as shown by the fact that people keep trying to nominate games in other categories, and people are working on it – I’ve seen two proposals in the last few months. Certainly, just coughing in WorldCon’s direction, as if it were a thing that could be done trivially if anyone put their mind to it, is not a good idea. (There was a person doing that a while ago about the YA award, clearly unaware that there is a committee working on it right now.)

    Certainly WorldCon and the Hugos are primarily about written fiction. But there’s been a Dramatic Presentation award since the 60’s, so looking outside the central area is not a new thing. The Hugo is not the major award for film or TV, or comics (and it won’t be the major award for YA/youth, if that gets instituted); it’s a distinctive perspective on the field. But a game Hugo could be the same.

    (I am not a gamer: I have no dog in this fight. I just think the idea seems to make sense, given what else the Hugos include, and it’s quite likely the demographic has changed enough in the last ten years to make it workable.)

32. Oh look, in the link Paul just posted JCW explicitly calls on puppies to get involved in the Dragons.

    All bold activists crusading to end puppy-related sadness and get an award that is given out for science fiction rather than for political correctness should sign up to vote for the Dragon Award.

    I think suggesting that the Dragons will be of interest to the puppy campaigns turns out to have been pretty reasonable.

    I doubt anyone involved with the main puppy campaigns has been directly involved in creating these awards, but the Dragon organisers were probably aware of the issues.

33. @Mark indeed. Right there in black and white. I didn’t want to quote from Mr. Wright’s blog and be accused of cherry picking his words.

34. @Aaron

    I did think Best SF/Best Fantasy were meant to be the “top” categories, and winners in the more specific categories would also then be in contention for the top two, so I’m also a bit confused!

    This is the sort of thing that suggests they don’t yet have a consistent vision about what this award is meant to be. Mind you, perhaps that’s acceptable in the first year of an award, and they can get it working better in later years. It does show that this award-giving malarkey is trickier than some people think though.

35. I think suggesting that the Dragons will be of interest to the puppy campaigns turns out to have been pretty reasonable.

    I see two reasonably likely possibilities:

    (1) The Pups will dominate the probably-soon-to-be-renamed Dragon Awards, getting mediocre stuff like that produced by JCW onto the finalist list, and possibly pushing them to victories. If this happens, I expect that the awards will soon be regarded as a complete joke.

    (2) The Pups will be overwhelmed by other voters who, given the fact that Dragon*Con’s demographic tends to skew young and liberal, will frequently vote for the kinds of things that JCW has dismissed as “political correctness”, which will cause outpourings of frothy Puppy rage.

36. “I would say there is considerable demand, as shown by the fact that people keep trying to nominate games in other categories….”

    I did nominate Fallout 4 in BDP: Long Form. I am also very much against a game category. So no relation between them for me.

37. @Sean

    Again with this post-modern crap. How is referring to the words the puppies wrote to explain why they were conducting their slate-ing campaign “bashing” them? Their words mean what they mean, and we’ve all just brought up why they said they were conducting the various Sad Puppies campaigns.

38. @Hampus
    I too voted for Fallout 4 for BDP. It deserves it but likely has no chance.

    @Aaron
    The comment regarding the puppies being unfairly bashed was related to The Young Pretender’s drive-by insult earlier on, but if you hadn’t been so quick to pounce and/or had been following the discussion more closely you would have known that.

39. @Sean

    So you were only objecting to one post when you used “lots” and “many”? And you didn’t refer to it specifically so we could be clear on what you meant?
    You’ll forgive me if I suggest that the onus for clarity falls on you in this instance.

40. The comment regarding the puppies being unfairly bashed was related to The Young Pretender’s drive-by insult earlier on, but if you hadn’t been so quick to pounce and/or had been following the discussion more closely you would have known that.

    You mean comments from two days ago? That’s what you’re whining about now? Comments that have been completely and wholly substantiated in the ensuing conversation, while you have offered nothing but whining and false Puppy talking points? That’s not “unfair bashing” of the Pups. That’s fairly describing the Pups. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with facts, and this has caused you some difficulty.

41. @Sean
    I tried to help Jay Maynard get a puppy award up and running because I thought it would be a great thing. We aren’t bashing puppies if they were involved in starting a new award as we’ve suggested they do just that for years now. We have commented on mistakes on their website – we also correct OGH when he makes mistakes on his posts here. You’ll also see commenters do the same on Scalzi’s site. It’s not bashing it’s free copy editing and proofreading. We’ve also noted getting a new award up and running is hard. Again that’s not bashing its stating a truth. I believe almost everyone commenting has wished them luck. There is a reason we keep recommending you work on your reading comprehension – the amount of misreading comments on this post has been high. Set aside your prejudices when reading. It will help your comprehension greatly I promise.

    ETA: cross-posted. Didn’t realize you were using the puppy tactic of over generalizing and not citing sources. If I had I would have responded differently. I suggest learning to be more specific in your comments when you mean 1 don’t say “many” and “lots”. Also respond to person with @name and quote from comment. It improve conversation.

42. @The Young Pretender
    I don’t think either of us will do any convincing of the other on this. Our interpretations of what the puppies have said varies much too widely, and I feel that their intentions have been, in many cases, misconstrued.

    But not entirely.

    There is a fundamental difference in each camps’ value systems regarding what is worthy of award. IMO, different opinions are great and welcome, and in that, I disagree with both camps, but I can also appreciate a push to make the award more inclusive.

43. @Sean

    I can understand a difference in views and opinions. I cannot understand nor accept difference in facts. There must be some basis for factual claims. Earlier you claimed that Torgersen apparently admitted to his flawed execution of SP3.

    As per my earlier post, please point me to where this admission was made. I’d like to understand the flaws as he saw them.

44. I feel that their intentions have been, in many cases, misconstrued.

    Yes, because you’ve engaged in selective reading of their statements and are engaged in an effort to revise history. Even when you’ve had their exact statements pointed out to you that contradict what you claim were their “intentions”, you’ve continued to act as a Puppy apologist. To be blunt, anyone who didn’t know anything about the Pups looking at this conversation is likely to come away with the impression that you are either incredibly dim or incredibly disingenuous.

45. @Aaron

    (1) The Pups will dominate the probably-soon-to-be-renamed Dragon Awards, getting mediocre stuff like that produced by JCW onto the finalist list, and possibly pushing them to victories. If this happens, I expect that the awards will soon be regarded as a complete joke.

    I only see this happening if Dragon*Con doesn’t advertise its awards to its members and cleanup its various typos/contradictions so people can figure out how to vote.

    ——–
    Nominating once you’ve registered. From what I can tell we registered to vote. Hope you copied that code made available while you were filling out your registration form. That may be your code when it comes time to vote and wasn’t an example. LOL

    To nominate from what I can tell we simply go to the nomination page, re-enter the same information we used to register and then nominate. Why rush to nominate when you can’t change your mind and the site is riddled with typos and contradictory information? Make a list of what you intend to nominate and give them a month or two to get things straightened out. Maybe by then we’ll get email instructions or something. 😀

46. @Tasha
    Did you see that my initial post was regarding this commentary:

    I think the struggle to make cons that are safe for anyone not a white guy shows that often, fandom could use some gate-breaking. And non-profit cons can at times be more guilty of this, taking shelter in their warm feelings of righteousness to ignore the mess in front of their eyes.

    In fact, part of my objections to the Puppies is that it’s more of the same – gatekeeping about who the real fans are – about one corner of fandom that at least recently has shown themselves open to a broader tent, a broader definition of who we all are. I know the Hugos aren’t perfect, but there considerably better than they were circa race fail (which I think in the long run is what the whole Puppy movement is best understood as: a reaction to race fail.)

    The Puppies were a last attempt at gatekeeping, for all the populist puffing they did. They were about making fandom strictly a matter of pulps, of engineer heroes, and of great big guns.

    It didn’t sound particularly complimentary or friendly, but I have appreciated the people echoing support for whoever is running the DragonCon awards, although I really doubt it’s the puppies.

47. @Sean

    Sorry, but that’s not a drive-by insult. You may not have agreed with it, but there was nothing gratuitous or unwarranted about it.
    In a similar way, I haven’t agreed with things you’ve said but I haven’t felt insulted by them.

48. Did you see that my initial post was regarding this commentary

    And you called that “unfair bashing”. Except it was completely accurate, as has been illustrated by the many quotes from Pups that have been produced in this very thread. It is pretty obvious that you don’t read anything anyone else writes, but do you even read what you write?

49. @Sean There is a fundamental difference in each camps’ value systems regarding what is worthy of award. IMO, different opinions are great and welcome, and in that, I disagree with both camps, but I can also appreciate a push to make the award more inclusive.

    I think a number of have said this before but let me try again. Starting with the first year Hugos were given out some members as well as outsiders have disagreed with the work/people who received the award. This has continued to be the case right up to today. 60+ years and still going strong with the wrong stuff winning according to someone somewhere every year. So the pups aren’t saying anything new. Unlike everyone one else in fandom rather than either getting appropriate memberships and becoming nominators and/or voters of what each of them thought was the best SFF that year or simply complaining they decided to run a war which consisted from the start of insulting others They used terms on their announcement pages for each years slate from SP1 of LC gloating about making heads explode to SP3 with Brad stating affirmative action is only reason people have won for mumble years and voters don’t really like the books they nominate and vote for.

    The anti-slaters are very welcoming to differing opinions. We argue over books and why the book you like is bad, bad, bad all the time here on file770. What we don’t say is you are wrong for liking a bad book. Afterwards we try to find books we both like. If we can’t find books in common we geek out about how many books we’ve both read and how cool it is that there are books for different taste so I can read what I like and you can read what you like. Some years books/stories you like are going to win Hugos other years books/stories I like are going to win. What’s neat about this is we both get to complain and gloat – geeks love to do both. I suggest new glasses if you’ve missed this interaction while reading File 770. Perhaps your confirmation bias is too high and you automatically skip when we are doing something you’ve convinced yourself we can’t do because we are evil and mean to anyone who disagrees and we like all the same things.

50. @Sean
    The Young Pretender (TYP) points out that puppy leaders are against Codes of Conduct and safe spaces at conventions. Codes of Conduct (CoC) are designed to protect people from harassment usually done by white men/men. Safe spaces are for minorities to get some quiet time away from constant microaggressions more likely to be done by white men or white women. So far we have facts. There are lots of studies to back up the harassment and microaggressions. If you read Brad, Hoyt, and a number of the other puppy leaders you’ll find them making statements against conventions having CoCs and safe spaces. They’ve put material/fan writers on their ballots who rant against these things because they’ve never experienced them and they are afraid they’d be banned from conventions for violating CoCs which makes one wonder how they manage to have day jobs or go anywhere in public without being arrested.

    TYP is a regular commenter here so I’m not sure how you classify a comment by them drive-by. Tangential comments or threads going off on tangents are normal on File 770 are you sure you read here regularly?

    I’m not seeing insults or lack of friendliness. I’m seeing facts. Ones that you are trying hard to deny. But the facts don’t change just because one doesn’t like them. The world is round not flat, it revolves around the sun not the other way, earth isn’t the center of the universe as many humans believed, people made adjustments to their beliefs being wrong. The world didn’t end. What the world looks like depends on an individual’s experiences and their ability to be compassionate and see things from the eyes/shoes of those that don’t have all their advantages. Only you can open your mind and stop living in the river denial.

Comments are closed.