The 2018 Worldcon committee has notified author Jon Del Arroz that his right to attend Worldcon 76 in person has been revoked. He will still be allowed to retain a supporting membership with Hugo voting rights. They made the announcement today on social media. Here is the Facebook version:
Worldcon 76 has chosen to reduce Jonathan Del Arroz’s membership from attending to supporting. He will not be allowed to attend the convention in person. Mr. Del Arroz’s supporting membership preserves his rights to participate in the Hugo Awards nomination and voting process. He was informed of our decision via email.
We have taken this step because he has made it clear that he fully intends to break our code of conduct. We take that seriously. Worldcon 76 strives to be an inclusive place in fandom, as difficult as that can be, and racist and bullying behavior is not acceptable at our Worldcon. This expulsion is one step towards eliminating such behavior and was not taken lightly. The senior staff and board are in agreement about the decision and it is final. If you have any questions or concerns feel free to share them here or in email at [email protected]
They added on Twitter:
FYI, Jonathan was banned because of his own actions. Not because of any ‘email campaign’.
— Worldcon 76 San Jose (@worldcon2018) January 3, 2018
Discover more from File 770
Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.
@Bill: “No, you said “No photos = it never happened.” You asserted the equivalency of the two statements. To continue with your logical analysis, IF A=B, then NOT A = NOT B, and (existence of photos) = (it did happen).”
Not real good with that “logic” stuff, are ya?
Consider: “If I’m wearing overalls, it’s a Monday.” That establishes that I only wear overalls on Mondays. It does not establish that I always wear overalls on Monday, merely that I never wear them on any other day of the week. I could be wearing a tuxedo (not A) on a Monday (B) and it would not contradict the original statement.
@Contrarius: “So you’ve been there before? Was it a fun con?”
I used to find it so, but not since the Puppy Wars broke out. My last year attending was 2015, and that was only because I was part of the concom, had a specific duty to perform that I couldn’t easily hand off, and thus had already committed to the event. Since the con has started hitting its membership cap, I made the decision to quit going and let someone more Puppy-adjacent have the room and badge I otherwise would have taken up.
Consider this aspect. This is a convention that on the one hand prides itself on having a robust science track, but on the other has repeatedly hosted “global warming is bunk” panels helmed by the former con chair. As I went from generally libertarian to moderately liberal, I kept feeling less comfortable there. I do miss seeing some people, and I particularly miss the annual “Mad Scientist” panel (so popular that finding a place for it was always a challenge), but I don’t miss the overall experience of being surrounded by people who treated me well while bad-mouthing people I agreed with and positions I held. I felt like I couldn’t really be myself while I was there, and that sucked most of the fun out of the experience. Paying a couple hundred bucks to plaster on a fake smile just wasn’t worth it.
IF A=B, then NOT A = NOT B
Ow, ow ow.
Try this one:
“animal is bird”, therefore “animal has wings”
“animal is not a bird” therefore “animal doesn’t have wings”
They’re not at all equivalent. But that’s the kind of argument you’re trying to use.
The amusing thing about this thread is somebody so keen to display their ignorance in public.
@jo whom ever you actually are, yes, trolling online has real effects.
Millions of people don’t like SJW? And? That makes it ok to abuse them online? Millions of people don’t like many things apparently but it doesn’t mean you get they to harass them for sport. Unless you’re a complete arsehole and frankly that appears to be his problem.
Finally: would you post some of these links you refer to because the only one I could find was a random blog that jokingly points out that anyone and everyone could own a non-profit. Except in this case: the ownership is really defined in excruciating detail in documents you can find online if you actually weren’t just trolling.
Paul Weiner wrote:
Yeah, I guess that’s a pretty fair representation of what I think. For instance, I keep imaging this scenario. Kid comes home from school. “Dad,” the kid says. “What’s wrong? Why are you crying?”
“Someone won’t stop making fun of me on the internet!”
I mean, I guess it’s possible that’s what’s going on, but it just seems… odd. To me, at least.
BravoLimaPoppa3 says:
Case in point.
kathodus on pontificates:
Of course Jo is. You just don’t like the answers.
Aaron ponders:
Simple answer. The individual in question is probably hoping to eventually make Worldcon not worthless and irrelevant. And to do that would require equal representation (meaning diversity of thought) at Worldcon.
In other words, the idea is that Worldcon is worthless *because* Worldcon isn’t inviting to folks like Jon Del Arroz. If Worldcon *were* inviting to folks like Mr. Arroz then Worldcon wouldn’t be worthless. So, you see, the person you’re referencing is actually working to *help* Worldcon. Altruism.
Kevin Standlee muses:
It’s amazing how many storytellers have trouble understanding different points of view.
There’s the bubble narrative and then there’s the troll. That’s about the extent of what a lot of the posters here seem capable of imagining.
@Camestros @Aaron: It’s like that old joke about the college freshman asked about the food in the cafeteria: “It’s terrible! And the portions are way too small!”
@Contrarius
Libertycon is a very relaxing con. It is only as fun as the company, which is usually good. There are some very good people there.
Their artist gest of honor this year is the same as Worldcon actually.
And to do that would require equal representation (meaning diversity of thought) at Worldcon.
There is plenty of diversity of thought at Worldcon. The only people who aren’t allowed to go are serial harassers.
It’s amazing how many storytellers have trouble understanding different points of view.
Abject ignorance, which is the only contribution you’ve provided thus far to this thread, is not a point of view.
Jo: Yeah, I guess that’s a pretty fair representation of what I think. For instance, I keep imaging this scenario. Kid comes home from school. “Dad,” the kid says. “What’s wrong? Why are you crying?” “Someone won’t stop making fun of me on the internet!”
Okay, so you actually don’t see any problem with bullying, and therefore the Worldcon chairs are not being bullies to JDA when they tell him he is not allowed to attend.
“What’s wrong, Jon? Why are you crying?”
“They won’t let me attend their private event, because of my bad behavior!”
All of you who are insisting that Worldcon is in the wrong and being a bully should just suck it up and quit your whining and crying.
Aw, sweet. No doubt you’d be perfectly okay with your kid meeting the kids harassing him in the internet in person?
How about a grown woman who is constantly asked by a co-worker for blow jobs, and insulted and prank-called by his friends for not putting out? It’s all words, isn’t it? Would you tell her to suck it up and say the company has no business interfering in his freedom of speech, even if he’s violating the company’s own rules against harassment? Seems to me you would, since you’ve pretty much declared there’s no such thing as verbal harassment.
And again, which is better? To think Jon’s full of shit and doesn’t REALLY believe he’s being threatened or his kids doxxed by SFWA members and is just saying so to rile up his followers for clicks and giggles?
Or to think Jon genuinely believes he was threatened and his kids were doxxed by them – and instead of bringing ACTUAL PROOF through legal channels he’s trying to arrange a face-to-face angry confrontation with people who likely have nothing to do with it?
For Jon and his family’s sake, I think believing Jon is full of shit about the whole ‘doxxing’ story is actually the better option. Which comforts me, because it also seems to me the most likely one. But Worldcon would have a vested interest in preventing that confrontation regardless of which is the truth, for the safety of all the con members.
Yes, the demographics of libertycon are older. There are some libertarian grey hairs. But, that’s not everyone. The grey hairs are welcome, the not so grey hairs too.
It’s unfair to categorize it as a con for gun nuts. The con’s feel is effected by who happens to be there. With this year’s line up, you can draw your own conclusions about what the atmosphere will be, and what behavior will and won’t be tolerated.
MM: It’s unfair to categorize it as a con for gun nuts.
Libertycon has an offsite gun-shooting event every year.
I’m sure that not everyone there is a gun nut. However, given the high proportion of attendees who are Puppies, a lot of them will be.
@Jo
So inviting JDA, author of a media tie-in novel, two self-published books and a couple of short stories, would make WorldCon suddenly valuable, just because JDA feels the need to broadcast his voting decisions to the rest of the world.
Unlike you (I suppose – correct me, if I’m wrong), I’ve actually been to WorldCon. And I saw plenty of authors there with more interesting credentials than JDA. I also saw plenty of diversity there, including people who probably vote for conservative parties. Not that I necessarily know what people vote for, since that’s not a topic that comes up a lot. Never mind that the 2017 WorldCon was in Europe, where people are more reluctant to air their political affiliations and voting decisions in public and where the political spectrum is broader. I’m pretty sure no one here at File 770 could tell you what I voted for in last year’s general election.
But it’s okay if WorldCon isn’t your thing and if DragonCon, GenCon or LibertyCon (where I suspect I would feel extremely uncomfortable because of the gun thing) are more your thing. Luckily, there are plenty of cons in the US.
As for the harrassment issue, I can’t stand racists, nationalists and xenophobes. And I’m pretty sure I have said what I think about such people on more than one occasion. However, I do my best to avoid those people online and offline. I certainly don’t address tweets and e-mails to them to let them know how I feel about them. I don’t ask them to review my books after I have insulted them. I don’t continue to address e-mails and tweets to them, after they’ve repeatedly told me to stop. And I don’t sic all my friends and followers on them, after they blocked me. Cause this is what JDA did to Paul, to Cat Rambo, to Sharon Lee (who has never to my knowledge made any political statement at all), to Chuck Wendig, to N.K. Jemisin, to Kameron Hurley and to plenty of others.
Also, as someone who has been the target of online harrassment from folks from your side of the political spectrum (though not from JDA), it is stressful and disruptive and it makes you become extra cautious. I never had to disable comments on my blog before I was targeted by certain folks who disagreed with some fairly mild criticism of their posts. I never used a service like web archive or do not link before. I do now.
And coincidentally, it’s not just people on the right of the political spectrum who harrass other online. In her heyday (she seems to have quieted down of late), Benjanun Sriduangkaew operated much like JDA does now and she is on the left of the political spectrum. My first run-in with online harrassers involved left-leaning British fans and critics who didn’t like that I disagreed with them.
jayn’s all like:
Silly jayn. You can’t just push a button to mute someone in real life. There are actual laws to deal with legal situations like the one you’ve outlined. It creates a hostile work environment, and thus it qualifies as harassment, and thus measures should be taken to change the situation.
Now, and stay with me here, Twitter is a bit different. See, you can mute people on Twitter and other social media sites. It’s easy because they’re not actually there. It’s just you and a computer. So you can use your computer how you want, including making it so that you don’t see certain things. This means it’s awfully hard to show a judge that you had to endure a hostile Twitter environment, lol.
Regarding Worldcon though, which is what this thread is about, the man shouldn’t be banned for what you’re worried he might do. The code of conduct says someone shouldn’t video record in certain areas. Okay. But the code of conduct doesn’t say someone shouldn’t *talk* about video recording months before the convention.
Here’s how easy it could’ve been:
Jon’s all like, “hey, I’m gonna video record in that room!”
But Worldcon goes, “heck no, that’s against the code of conduct!”
So, Jon’s like, “ah man, that sucks.”
Jo: Regarding Worldcon though, which is what this thread is about, the man shouldn’t be banned for what you’re worried he might do. The code of conduct says someone shouldn’t video record in certain areas. Okay. But the code of conduct doesn’t say someone should *talk* about video recording months before the convention.
You’ve had it pointed out to you repeatedly that the bodycam issue is just a small part of the reason he was banned from Worldcon, but you keep trying to ignore that.
Really, you need to just suck it up and quit your whining and crying.
JJ,
It’s awful confusing what Jon Del Arroz was banned for.
But I can tell you what he *wasn’t* banned for. He wasn’t banned for anything he actually did at the convention.
Yep. If watermelon is fruit then not-watermelon is not-fruit.
Golux logic.
“If you can touch the clocks and never start them, you can start the clocks and never touch them.”
Jo: But I can tell you what he *wasn’t* banned for. He wasn’t banned for anything he actually did at the convention.
Which, again, is immaterial to the reasons why he was banned fom Worldcon 76.
I’m mystified as to why you’ve spent so much time here trotting out the same disingenuous talking points over and over and over again.
Nobody here is stupid enough to fall for your bullshit excuses and evasions. No one here has the ability to reverse Worldcon 76’s decision — and I highly doubt that anyone here would do so if they could. In fact, many of the people who comment or read here are probably responsible for a significant number of the ~825 “Likes” on Worldcon 76’s Facebook and Twitter announcements.
So hey, you can keep whining and crying here if you want, but it’s not going to accomplish anything for you.
Twitter is a bit different. See, you can mute people on Twitter and other social media sites. It’s easy because they’re not actually there. It’s just you and a computer. So you can use your computer how you want, including making it so that you don’t see certain things. This means it’s awfully hard to show a judge that you had to endure a hostile Twitter environment, lol.
The problem is that many of the people JdA has harassed have blocked and muted JdA, and he has gone out of his way to find alternate avenues or otherwise get around the blocks and still harass them, or to call upon his friends and followers to swarm in and harass them on his behalf.
Here’s how easy it could’ve been:
Jon’s all like, “hey, I’m gonna video record in that room!”
But Worldcon goes, “heck no, that’s against the code of conduct!”
So, Jon’s like, “ah man, that sucks.”
Or, he does what he has done when people have blocked him, muted him, or told him they don’t want further communications with them – ignored that and tried to keep harassing them.
JdA has a track record of not observing boundaries. This is well established by his behavior over the past year and a half or so. Given that, your scenario for “how easy it could have been” is not something that any rational person would believe was plausible.
Actions have consequences. JdA’s actions over the last eighteen months have given him a reputation as someone who harasses people even when asked to stop politely, blocked, muted, and otherwise told to go away. One person he harassed had to threaten legal action to get him to even pause, and he’s still smearing her and trying to harass her. When you establish that kind of reputation, the consequence is that no one will believe you when you say you will behave.
The phrase “willfully ignorant” comes to mind when dealing with people like Jo.
Or the phrase “Can’t cure stupid.”
@Jo
Funny you skipped the first question I asked. You brushed off the concerns of a child (let’s say yours) about people insulting him on the internet as trivial and not worth bothering about. Would you assume immediately when your child hears the kids who have been insulting him on the internet are going to show up in person that they are ALL harmless because you’ve heard the ringleader only insults, even though he’s called up aid in the insulting by multiple others you have no knowledge of except their usernames? When you hear from your kid that the ringleader’s coming to meet him in person with an unspecified number of his friends, will you brush off his concerns as by definition absurd, because Sticks and Stones, and tell him to suck it up, it’s just words?
No shit, Sherlock. And people here have been describing that JdA gets around that by having his friends help him harass by asking them to continue the insults and tagging when he is blocked, and so on. On the internet, on prank calls, or in person at work while talking to your colleague about the pubic hair on your Coke, it’s still harassment by words, and it reveals the character of the person insisting on forcing the unwanted communication, regardless of the medium.
And the people he has harassed, and gotten his friends to harass, and the Con that has stated as part of its CoC that they don’t allow bullying, have a right and a responsibility to judge him by that history of harassing, and factor that in as part of the calculation of whether it’s worth it to overlook his declaration that he’s going to break the rules he agreed to abide by.
Just as you (probably) wouldn’t REALLY tell your kid to stop being a weenie and suck it up, that there couldn’t be any real problem with having those internet bullies visit him in person, because rains of internet insults from complete strangers ALWAYS signifies that the insulters are altruistic fluffy bunnies who will always harmlessly improve every social occasion – and leave him to it.
I just spent a while writing a detailed response to Contrarius, Rev Bob, and PJ about how to logically analyze Contrarius’s original statement “No photos = it never happened.” In it, I wrote the proper logic formulae, with truth tables and the correct dyadic operators that I had pasted from web pages that included them. Unfortunately, the software here didn’t carry them over to the final version, and it was about as useful as a page of math homework without any plus or minus or equals signs.
Essentially, the three of you are treating his statement as if it meant IF (no photos) THEN (glitterbomb never happened), and then proceeded from there.
But Contrarius said (No photos) IS EQUIVALENT TO (glitterbomb never happened), which is a different proposition altogether. My analysis above moves forward from that. Contrarius says that doing so leads to a fallacy (and I agree that the existence of photos does not necessarily prove a glitterbomb happened). But the fallacy does not come from bad analysis on my part; it comes from a bad premise (in that “no photos” IS NOT NECESSARILY EQUIVALENT TO “glitterbomb never happened”).
Logic at this level is in many ways a math problem similar to algebra, and is more precisely discussed using the correct symbology. I don’t know how to do that here.
tl;dr The photos that Contrarius does not see do not mean that a glitterbomb did not happen.
In other words, the idea is that Worldcon is worthless *because* Worldcon isn’t inviting to folks like Jon Del Arroz. If Worldcon *were* inviting to folks like Mr. Arroz then Worldcon wouldn’t be worthless. So, you see, the person you’re referencing is actually working to *help* Worldcon.
Amazingly, you seem oblivious to the simple fact that if he had just bought his membership and kept his trap shut, none of this would have happened.
Aaron: “When you establish that kind of reputation, the consequence is that no one will believe you when you say you will behave.”
Not that I’ve seen that statement made, only the opposite. But it is why no-one is asking for any such promise, because they wouldn’t believe it (based on past behaviour). Communicating the CoC has no point when limits and boundaries have been repeatedly ignored over many months.
“Regarding Worldcon though, which is what this thread is about, the man shouldn’t be banned for what you’re worried he might do.”
The man was banned for what he said he was going to do, what he has provided evidence in the past of doing, and for the sake of the people he was going to do it *to*, by the available evidence.
I know conventions that have pre-emptively banned people because of the threats they’ve made towards attendees (or concom members). If you’re going to go around making that kind of a nuisance of yourself, you should expect to be banned.
If I announced I was going to LibertyCon, “and did anyone want to help fund my puppy-kicking expedition”, and I had a history of trolling and invading Puppy spaces (when, instead, my known history is departing when asked), and I had made up fake stories about Puppies and broadcast them: “Ein Puppenfuhrer said I should be killed, and here’s my cut-and-pasted exchange with him to prove it” — well, then I think that in the interests of the good of its members, they’d be within their rights (and good reason) to ban me.
Because believe it or not, concoms’ main goals are for their participants to have fun, not to provide people with harassment platforms.
@jo “It’s amazing how many storytellers have trouble understanding different points of view”
I’d never really call Kevin a story teller myself, at least not that I am aware of. What I would call him, however, is one of the top 10 people on the planet when it comes to understanding the legal operation and standing of the Worldcon and the World Science Fiction Society, how it’s organized, how it operates and so on.
Dismissing his views as not taking another point of view into account is, in all honesty, up there with flat earthism.
Your total lack of empathy towards others is astounding though.
@Bill: “But Contrarius said (No photos) IS EQUIVALENT TO (glitterbomb never happened), which is a different proposition altogether.”
So, after being shown by three different people how your “logic” is fallacious, your defense rests on… scrutinizing one shorthand character in Contrarius’s message and taking it out of context.
Riiiiight.
Guys, I think both Bill and Jo have worked very hard on this thread, and it’s about time we gave them the reward they have earned.
[PLONK]
To quote somebody else on this:
“Hey I’m going to come to your party and shit in the punch bowl!”
“Why did you ban me from the party? I hadn’t done it yet?”
Being an arsehole has consequences, given he was going on about how much fun he was going to have screwing with people at the convention I’m not shocked at all by this. It’s a club and he went too far. Boo fucking hoo.
But Contrarius said (No photos) IS EQUIVALENT TO (glitterbomb never happened), which is a different proposition altogether. My analysis above moves forward from that…
Where does your analysis proceed from the proposition that Contrarius was quoting a popular interweb catchphrase that means nothing more than “Prove it”?
If, while composing this post, someone else beats me to making this point I might well say I was ninja’d but I don’t expect anyone will attempt to prove logically that I was murdered silently by a Japanese assassin and thus deny the existence of any future posts by me.
Jo:
We don’t really what you buy. You are a troll on a monologue-repeat. Go away.
Contrarius:
I always open up my mail in the kitchen. Don’t be ridiculous.
“IF A=B, then NOT A = NOT B”
So…
IF Colonel Fluffy = Cat THEN Not Colonel Fluffy = Not Cat.
Weird.
Or did you mean that:
IF Sergeant Hinklebottom = Not Cat THEN Not Sergeant Hinklebottom = Cat?
That is even weirder. I do think you have a real problem with your logic. And that is without me agreeing with Contrarius in any way.
Trying to cover your tracks, huh, Goemon Ishikawa?
The trolls are just irritating, but I’m enjoying the heck out of “CSI: Glitterdicks”.
No, but we Can Choose who we choose to associate with.
If someone who has previously been rude to guests at several other parties, has tried to kick children, and has stated he is going to continue to do so, and announced that he wants his buddies to act that way as well, he is not going to be allowed to attend the next block party
He can live in the neighborhood just Jim dandy. He cannot expect that the neighborhood’s other citizens will be friendly after his prior actions
Speaking as a professional mathematician:
In mathematics, “X = Y” means ” ‘X’ and ‘Y’ are two names for the same thing”. (Except when it doesn’t, but that’s another beef for another day.)
But this is not a mathematics panel, and “=” is frequently used, these days, as if it meant “is” (or “if-then”) or something similar. However annoying I find that (dammit, you’ve already got perfectly cromulent words for that – like “is”!), it is the vernacular, and to complain that the symbol isn’t being used in a technically correct way is a waste of bits.
@Jo
I hope that I never meet you knowingly, because you are coming off as a rather unpleasant person I wish never to meet.
And if I decided for the next 6 months to email you, message you, mention you on social media, tag you and continually harp on this, even if you asked me to stop, then I would be no better than Mr. Del Arroz. In fact, I would be emulating him.
Real world example: within the USA the Episcopal Church (EC) and the Anglican Church Of North America (ACNA) are separate legal, non-profit, incorporated organizations.
As a result of a variety of doctrinal and theological differences a number of parishes of the EC decided to break from the EC and form the ACNA.
The legally responsible structure of the EC, and the multitude of congregants of the EC were sad to see them go, and wished them good luck in their new endeavors. However, the ACNA also decided that, contrary to a number of prior-agreed to covenants, and applicable secular and canon law, the members of the ACNA, and the legally responsible structure of the ACNA decided that they wanted to appropriate the physical properties and real estate of their former parishes. The courts did not agree.
If these non-profit entities were really “owned by the public-at-large” there would be no court case at all, rather than one that has been running for several years.
Indeed, if these entities were truly “owned by the public-at-large” there would be nothing to prevent any individual from showing up, declaring themselves as “members” of the church and unilaterally declare themselves as members of the vestry of the parish and thus able to determine policy and activities of the parish.
Indeed, there would also be no bar, under your theory, of a local, say, Zoroasterian temple from driving up and lay claim to the pews and pulpit.
I think it’s time to start checking some IP addresses.
@Kurt Busiek…and another thing:
why does what JDA wants given precedence over what the other attendees may or may not want?
The whole argument you were skillfully replying to boils down to: “why not just let him do what he wants?”
I wish I could go to a convention where that was the prevailing dynamic: Steve gets to do whatever he wants to, the rest of you just have to put up with it. (Not that I’d be harassing anyone, but the con would most definitely have an Amazing Stories focus that was probably not the original intention of programming….)
@Hampus —
Notice that isn’t what I actually asked. I asked how many times has anyone here opened their mail in the middle of their kitchen floor — not simply in the kitchen. I would not be at all surprised if many folks open their mail at their kitchen table, or perhaps their kitchen counters — but not on the kitchen floor.
@Rev. Bob, @MM, @JJ — Thanks so much for the LibertyCon info. I’m quite used to living and working amongst conservatives — and I’m a white middle-aged woman — so a conservative bent to the con in and of itself would not ruin the con for me. I’m going to wait for the concom to put more info on their website before making any decisions. If I do decide to go, I’ll let you guys know!
@Jo and @Bill — I think your respective issues have been quite thoroughly covered by me and multiple other commenters. You guys got nuthin — get over it.
@JJ: simple answer: so that a ton of “pro-JDA” bullshit, linked to File 770, appears in search results.
This and related (get your buddies’ websites to review, comment, interview, profile) is then used to demonstrate how far-ranging and influencing the individual is. One the surface, it can look impressive. Look behind the curtain and its one person furiously pulling levers while running on an unstoppable treadmill.
And how the hell can you see from that picture where the package was opened? Again, don’t be ridiculous. There are enough failed internet detectives anyway.
@Hampus —
A couple of things:
1. the confetti is not scattered far and wide, as it would be if the can had been opened at any significant elevation;
2. the can is not placed on top of (overlapping with) any of the confetti, as it would be if it had been set down on top of the confetti explosion;
3. there’s a clear direction and pattern to the explosion, which starts roughly at the point where the can rests and extends to the top of the pic.
There are several pics of genuine confetti bomb explosions, of bombs from the same company (Ruin Days), at the company’s website. In them, you can see some of the things I’m talking about — confetti spread over table and floor, widely spread confetti on the floor from a bomb that was opened on a table, and so on. Google “Ruin Days Spring Loaded Dick Bomb” and then look at the pics sent in by happy customers. Take a look at those and get back to me.
I asked how many times has anyone here opened their mail in the middle of their kitchen floor — not simply in the kitchen.
I’ve opened packages (and letters) while sitting on the living-room floor. Is that close enough? (Because I don’t sit on my kitchen floor. I have a stepstool that’s far more comfortable than vinyl flooring over concrete.)
As I said, there are enough failed internet detectives anyhow.
1. You can’t see an angle or force from a picture unless it is you who sent the cannister and tested it out in 20 different angles first.
2. And?
3. And?
The only thing you managed was to sound even more ridiculous.
@Hampus —
I never mentioned angle or force — I mentioned spread, which is clearly visible.
And this is evidence (not incontrovertible proof, evidence) against the claim that the can was set down after the explosion.
As #2 — this is evidence against the claim that the can was exploded from a height (like kitchen table or counter) as opposed to being exploded on the floor.
Even when such a tube is exploded from a chair (as opposed to the greater height of a table or counter), the spread of the confetti is wider and more random than we see in Jon’s pic. See representative Youtube videos of real bombs exploded from chairs or tables or counters here: https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=1cYe8CwKjvs ; https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=zD2zQStHo-o ; https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=G8pI5BhRQVQ ; https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=gCOm63TtfRM
— I’ve inserted spaces in the URLs to make sure they don’t try to autoplay or whatever.
Again: is this incontrovertible proof of anything? Absolutely not — and I haven’t claimed otherwise. What it is, though, is suggestive evidence against Jon’s claim. And given Jon’s long history of lies, that should be no surprise to anyone.
1. Spread is not interesting if you don’t know angle or force.
2. This is not evidence in any way.
3. This is not evidence in any way.
You might as well start talking about shadows on the first moon landing pictures.
@Hampus —
Baloney. Spread **compared to other bomb explosions with known relative heights** is quite telling.
Of course it is, in its LACK of evidence that the can was set down after the explosion occurred.
Of course it is. Cans that explode from a height have a more widely spread and more random pattern.
Look at the videos and customer photos and then get back to me, Hampus. And yet again — no, I am NOT claiming that any of this is incontrovertible proof of anything, so don’t start trying any straw men.
Daveon on January 5, 2018 at 11:01 pm said:
Thank you!
I am not a lawyer (I’m a computer programmer), but I have a fair bit of practical experience in organizing and running non-profit organizations in three countries, to wit:
1. I have organized two non-profit corporations in California and am on the boards of directors of both of them: I am Secretary of SFSFC Inc., the California non-profit, tax-exempt corporation that WSFS authorized to host the 2018 Worldcon, Worldcon 76, and I am Chairman of Worldcon Intellectual Property, the non-profit corporation that WSFS (which is an unincorporated society) set up to manage the society’s intellectual property, such as the service marks on things like “Worldcon” and “Hugo Award.” “Organizing” in this case includes doing most of the writing of the organization’s corporate papers including the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws.
2. I am a director of CanSMOF, the Canadian non-profit corporation that ran the 2009 Worldcon in Montreal.
3. I helped organize and was Secretary of a non-profit society in Alberta set up to host Westercon 58 in Calgary. (The society dissolved after the convention’s commitments were discharged.)
4. I was a director of the UK equivalent of a non-profit corporation (“company limited by guarantee”) that ran the 2005 Worldcon in Glasgow.
5. I was, back in 1994, the paid Executive Director of a 501c6 non-profit, tax-exempt corporation (not related to SF/F) for software developers. (I was an employee, not a board member.)
Again, I’m not a lawyer, but the assertion that “the public” owns all non-profit organizations is absurd on its face. You just walk into the American Red Cross, the National Rifle Association, Little League Baseball, many colleges, and most churches, and assert that you are “the public” and that therefore you own everything in sight and that they have to do what you tell them to do because You Are The Public, and see how far you get.
In situations like this it would be nice to have a forum somewhere for current supporting and attending members of Worldcon. There’s a lot of cranks in fandom who hate Worldcon and the Hugo Awards and have no interest in them other than to make attacks to virtue signal their buddies.
I’m far more interested in what my fellow Worldcon members think than in the opinions of trolling outsiders like Jo. We have nothing to prove to people like them. Worldcon isn’t their thing nor do they have any real interest in it as an institution.
Contrarius: I think you summed it up with ”baloney”. I’m satisfied with that.