Sasquan has decided that Lou Antonelli’s letter to the Spokane PD about David Gerrold violated its Code of Conduct, but at Gerrold’s request set aside a decision to ban him for the reasons discussed in the following public statement.
The Executive Committee of Sasquan, the 73rd World Science Fiction Convention, would like to address the matter of actions taken by Mr. Lou Antonelli with regards to one of our Guests of Honor, Mr. David Gerrold. On August 1st, Mr. Antonelli participated in a podcast in which he stated that he had written a letter to the Spokane Police Department, in which he stated to them that Mr. Gerrold was “insane and a public danger and needs to be watched when the convention is going on”.
Normally, online communications between members is not something in Sasquan’s purview to referee. However, Mr. Antonelli’s letter, which requested police action against Mr. Gerrold during the time of the convention, is within our purview. As such, we found that there was a strong possibility this act was a violation of our posted harassment policy[1], particularly if the letter had, in fact, been sent.
The Executive Committee then turned the matter over to our Operations Head, Ms. Robbie Bourget, who initiated formal proceedings in accordance with that policy. During these proceedings, it came to light that Mr. Antonelli had issued a formal apology to Mr. Gerrold and admitted culpability: he actually sent the letter, not merely claimed to have sent it.
We thoroughly reviewed all available data, including email from both involved parties, social media postings, discussions with key committee members, and so forth. The inescapable conclusion was that Mr. Antonelli had violated our Code of Conduct in this matter. The recommendation was to refund Mr. Antonelli’s membership and prohibit his entry to any convention location or function.
However, after the recommendation was made, Mr. Gerrold, as the aggrieved party, specifically requested that the Executive Committee set aside this recommendation on the grounds that Mr. Antonelli did apologize, is sending a retraction to the Spokane Police Department and because, as a Hugo Nominee, he deserves to attend the ceremony.
The Executive Committee has chosen to accept Mr. Gerrold’s request, and considers the matter closed as of this time. Ms. Bourget has spoken and corresponded with the Spokane Police Department, and they also consider the matter closed. We would like to thank Ms. Bourget for the calm professionalism she lent to the proceedings, and Mr. Antonelli and Mr. Gerrold for coming to a settlement that benefits not just them, but the Worldcon and its members.
While some wonder why the committee has not taken official notice of Antonelli’s interaction with Carrie Cuinn as well, perhaps that is explained by the statement “online communications between members is not something in Sasquan’s purview to referee.”
Discover more from File 770
Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.
I’d like to believe that Antonelli has finally learned a lesson about behaving rashly and intemperately toward people who say or do something which upsets him — that perhaps he will go so far as to seek anger management counseling, which he clearly needs.
However, given that this is clearly a pattern of behavior for him, and the fact that he has been let off the extreme consequences of being banned from Sasquan and the Hugo Awards, I doubt very much whether any real change will occur.
I’ll be impressed if Lou Antonelli actually attends Sasquan. I can’t imagine how painful it would be to have to face people after this. He’ll be under a microscope, people will be saying things to goad him into a response, and unless he’s really good at wearing a hair shirt, he’ll say at least a few things that get broad negative attention–and no one will be giving him the benefit of the doubt. The response to his post about Carrie Cuinn’s withdrawing her magazine’s offer (which I truly believe was nothing more than him indulging in self pity) illustrates just how hard it would be for him to stay out of trouble.
If I were him, I’d lay low for a few months at least. He’s been given an offer to withdraw with dignity. He should take it, and stay out of the news entirely for a while.
In the meantime, he should think about writing under a pseudonym.
Reading File 770 often makes me think that *all* of fandom is insane. Probably not dangerous, though.
I’m having trouble with this line:
Srsly? So there’s an override on the CoC? Hugo Nominees get a golden ticket?
What a wonderful year to implement this innovation.
(For the record, I hope that Antonelli does take some time off, and finds a better balance in his social media interactions. But I think this is a bad decision on Sasquan’s part.)
While I respect and admire Mr. Gerrold’s forgiving nature and honorable intentions, Mr. Antonelli’s actions should have resulted in him getting banned from this year’s convention. Being nominated should not give one a free pass for abusive and harassing behavior. I think it sends a very mixed and unsavory message regarding how harassment policies are handled and enforced.
I think that this is a very good decision on Sasquan’s part.
I understand and respect the concern that some have about the possibility of Lou causing additional disturbances at Sasquan since he’s already precipitated what *could* have been a pretty major issue already. I stress *could* have been, because the issue was quickly and effectively defused by the forward thinking and generosity of David Gerrold and by the Sasquan Committee immediately implementing and executing their pre-existing Code of Conduct Procedure to deal with the issue. I think the Committee did exactly the correct things in deciding first to exclude Lou from the convention, and then to set aside that decision at David’s request after fully investigating all aspects of the incident. I want to commend the Sasquan Committee for their actions at every step of this incident. I think they are correct to allow Lou to attend at this point because of David’s specific intercession on Lou’s behalf, *and* because Lou is a Hugo nominee.
Yes, what Lou did was rotten, but David Gerrold says that he has forgiven him. If David can forgive that insult and ask that Lou be allowed to attend, I can’t see how anyone else can really say that David’s generosity is wrong. In fact, I think that Lou *should* be there, because I think that Lou needs to see and understand that in spite of his assault on the very spirit of what the science fiction community is all about, the community is stronger than ever. He – and frankly, all the puppies of the world – need to see that although their assaults do cause a good deal of pain, their assaults will – in the end – amount to nothing but dust in the wind. They all need to see for themselves that trying to hijack any part of our community or our Worldcon just won’t bring about the changes that they promote. We just won’t allow such forces to change who we are, or what we believe in.
I think the Sasquan Committee has steered the right course through a very tricky minefield, and I believe that they have served Fandom well in this crises.
Curt Phillips
@Abi
The override in this case is the request by the aggrieved party.
What you quote is part of the reasoning of the aggrieved party.
That is how I read that statement.
Imagine that someone else had done the same thing, but instead of apologizing, he doubled down, insisting on his right as a citizen to report anything suspicious to the police and condemning everyone who disagreed as a “terrorist-lover.” Would you really believe that this person should receive the same punishment as someone who admitted he’d made a terrible mistake, expressed remorse, and was forgiven by his victim?
If we don’t extend mercy in the face of remorse, we encourage people to never admit to their mistakes. There’s too much of that already.
Abi said:
I read this as *David* said that Lou deserved to attend. And the Executive Board took David’s views into consideration, as he was the aggrieved party. Isn’t it better to do what can be done to make the aggrieved party whole?
I read the “deserves to attend the Hugo ceremony” as being part Gerrold’s request, not official Sasquan policy. FWIW, as someone who sits on a board that has granted variances to some who otherwise violate official city ordinances, there’s good reasons to allow such exceptions to said code of conduct, provided a reasonable case can be made for it.
I think it was the wrong decision. While I certainly believe that David Gerrold, as the aggrieved party, carries a lot of weight in his opinions on the matter, the decision to ban someone from attending a convention is related to what they may do in future as well as what they have done. Lou Antonelli has shown himself to have poor impulse control, a short temper, and bad decision-making skills when he’s angry. These traits have led him to make decisions that have endangered others, even after his most recent apology. Allowing him to attend the convention puts other attendees at risk, and that should be the primary consideration, not Gerrold’s forgiveness or lack thereof.
I decided to peek at the Hugo side of the internet and all I see is even more of what has become the usual ‘Hugo-related’ back and forth. What is true, what is mispresentation, and what is outright false? I just do not care enough to find out.
But… I have skimmed through the blog posts and I have stumbled on the word of ‘SWATting’ in the text bodies and comments alike.
So if someone could be so kind and explain to me how could someone ‘SWAT’ anyone with a letter sent months in advance?
Because quite frankly, all previous incidents of ‘SWATting’ in the public eye have shared a simple pattern. An ‘anonymous’ individual informs the authorities of a situation that warrants a direct response. For example a hostage situation, which does not leave the proper authorities any time to actually verify the situation; they will be forced to act as trained. Here are some examples of what happens next: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiW-BVPCbZk
Thus, I really cannot see how sending a letter months in advance, could be considered ‘SWATting.’ The authorities will have time to verify the validity of the claims, and even decide in advance what is their appropriate response. I have not read the letter, but at best or worst, I would expect a pair SF&F leaning cops attending Sasquan.
And due to my sense of black humour…
I must ask…
“Are the expected Sasquan attendees so anti-authoritarian that a presence of a pair of cops will automatically result in a bloodbath?”
Anyhow, that was my thoughts on this recent Hugo debacle.
Susan: If I was on the Sasquan committee — I’m not, and haven’t read any of their discussion about this issue — I would want to accomodate a GoH’s request, if on balance I thought doing so would not result in people being physically unsafe.
Antonelli’s history is verbally flying off the handle.
He regularly appears at local and regional conventions, and there haven’t been any reported physical altercations or angry in-person confrontations.
Again, on balance, I can understand why the Sasquan committee decided to honor Gerrold’s request and take the public relations hit. And I wouldn’t doubt, after the “vigorous” internal discussions (the word someone used to describe them), that most of the criticism will echo things they already said among themselves.
Unfortunately, when Sasquan cite the basis of Gerrold’s plea in the way they did, and then accede to it, they look to me to be endorsing that basis. They could, of course, clarify this, and I would certainly be interested in seeing them do so.
Nothing to say about the substance of the matter, Tuomas?
As a side note, it’s worth remembering that Gerrold himself said there was more to the story than is publicly known.
Greg Hullender: I’ll be impressed if Lou Antonelli actually attends Sasquan. I can’t imagine how painful it would be to have to face people after this. He’ll be under a microscope, people will be saying things to goad him into a response
I highly doubt that. I, for one, am glad that images of Antonelli are readily available on the Internet — because if I see him enter a room at Sasquan, I will either be making a hasty exit or cuing up 911 or Sasquan Security on my phone.
And I suspect that I am far from alone in having that plan-of-action.
And for those of you who are claiming that since the “aggrieved party” has accepted the apology and requested that Antonelli be allowed to attend Sasquan and the Hugos: you are wrong.
All of us who are attending Sasquan are aggrieved parties, and I am extremely unhappy about and uncomfortable with the fact that Sasquan has chosen to overlook this violation of their Code of Conduct.
Natalie Luhrs has phrased it quite well:
I’m sure that those of you who see no danger in police being called to Sasquan must really enjoy your safe, comfortable world, where bad things are never done (either accidentally or deliberately) to law-abiding citizens by the police.
The fact that it was nipped in the bud well before the convention does count for something, however.
I agree: while it’s nice that Mr. Gerrold felt safe enough to be magnanimous, and this may in part be due to his privilege as GoH, etc., etc., the rest of us cannot be so sure. In addition, since Antonelli has a lengthy history of “flying off the handle”, it’s clear that he’s been sanctioned, chastised, and otherwise pummeled publicly — and yet, he keeps on doing the very same things. In my mind, that makes him a bully who’s learned to skate through officialdom, apologizing where he needs to be forgiven, and moving on where he doesn’t have to apologize. That’s the wrong message. Sorry, Sasquan, I expect better.
This decision is a mistake. The executive board’s finding that Lou Antonelli violated its harassment policy and will be banned from Sasquan should not be set aside because the target of his harassment believes he should be allowed to attend.
Sasquan’s board is now on record that they know he’s engaged in harassment but are allowing him to attend anyway. What message does that send to people who expect a convention to be free of harassment and other abusive behavior?
David W.: The fact that it was nipped in the bud well before the convention does count for something, however.
No, it doesn’t. This is one bud that is, unfortunately, non-nippable.
We have no reason to believe that:
1) Antonelli has actually sent a retraction to the Spokane PD;
2) The Spokane PD originally filed his report in the “Crackpot File” and completely forgot about it;
3) The Spokane PD, having received a retraction from Antonelli, will subsequently not at all have Sasquan on its radar for trouble;
4) The Spokane PD will not be subject to heightened sensitivity and response should any calls come in from the venue (or from anyone referring to the venue) during Sasquan.
The horse is out of the barn on this one, and it’s not going back in.
What message does that send to people who expect a convention to be free of harassment and other abusive behavior?
Ummm? That if you are a victim of something they will abide by your opinion?
Look – given the guys track record on all of the nonsense he’s pulled he almost certainly should be banned, but it’s not happened.
However, can we tone down the indignant rhetoric a smidge? Not least of which because I am fairly sure the Spokane PD will have given the letter all the respect it’s due and I am certain it is filed with the Bigfoot sightings.
Tuomas has been trying this line on Twitter, as well, gang. Just in case any of us were feeling special over here.
I think that’s for the best and I have more respect for Mr. Gerrold now for stepping up and making that request. Even if he personally is unhappy with Puppy related sadness he’s still acting as a professional in this situation and handling it in a mature manner even when a nominee crosses a personal and professional line.
While I also would’ve understood the decision to ban him, it would’ve just escalated a situation he does appear to regret. Mr. Gerrold not wanting this to get in the way of a nominee from being able to attend is more mature than I might be about it in that same situation, but I hope they can even meet at the Con and share a drink and hopefully even laugh about how stupidly ridiculous some of the actions of the last couple of months have been in regards to what should be a celebration.
I would be happier about this if the Executive Committee had waited until after it had received confirmation that the retraction had been sent. Part of apologising is making amends. I don’t think Antonelli is quite there yet. On the other hand, my esteem for Gerrold is increased.
Ms. Bourget has spoken and corresponded with the Spokane Police Department, and they also consider the matter closed.
If not for this line, I would disagree with the decision. Even with this line, I’m still a little disappointed. Antonelli directly violated policy. He probably should be banned. But I’m sure glad it wasn’t my decision to make.
ETA: While I also would’ve understood the decision to ban him, it would’ve just escalated a situation he does appear to regret.
I would believe this if he hadn’t made the email about his rejected story public, not acknowledged the response the editor was getting until the next day, then refused to state clearly that rape and death threats are not acceptable… instead, referring to them as “reprimands.” I don’t know if he regrets anything, but there is reason to believe he only regrets getting caught.
they also consider the matter closed.
Any word on whether they ever considered the matter open?
JJ: First, it is an incredible oversimplification to describe what happened as Gerrold accepting Antonelli’s apology on behalf of the rest of fandom. That’s really not a perceptive comment at all.
Second, it has long been one of those unwritten fannish rules to never call the cops to a convention if it can possibly be avoided due to all the ways in which fandom intersects the counterculture that are unlikely to be appreciated by the authorities. It shouldn’t take you long to think of some of those ways. It is foolish to assume the committee harbors any of the illusions you attribute to them.
Third, what is unsafe is to expect the committee to handle problems that law enforcement ought to handle. And in fact, I’m told by someone who was present that they had representatives of Spokane PD present at the last all-hands committee meeting. Because when you have a large number of excitable people engaged in a controversy surrounding the main awards event at your con, having a good line of communication with mundane security trumps the usual desire to avoid their notice.
JJ, it’s reasonable to expect that if Antonelli sent the initial letter about Gerrold to the Spokane PD that he also sent a letter of retraction. It’s not reasonable to expect the Spokane PD has a “Crackpot File”, although it’s reasonable enough to assume that some of them did roll their eyes. It’s reasonable to expect the Spokane PD to do their actual job, which includes responding to all calls, even false ones like fire departments do.
I expect people who are responsible for public safety to take their jobs seriously enough that they don’t over- or under-react to events that may, or most likely, may not take place during Sasquan.
FWIW — and this is not meant as a comment on the current situation specifically — I am personally more familiar with cons having a local police contact than not. The major convention I do every year has an off-duty sheriff (Officer Willy!) who comes every year and who is very protective of “his” attendees, and who has trained a number of other officers in How To Deal With All These Weirdos That We Like so that there is literally always a member of PD on hand in case somebody needs to be removed. (It’s almost always drunk and disorderly. When people get to a certain point, they can leave in a squad car or an ambulance, depending on what the EMTs say–but they’re leaving.)
However, this is much easier to do with a con that is in the same place every year, and which is beloved by the city as a major source of income to downtown. Worldcons are limited in their time to build local contacts by their irregular nature. But I wouldn’t consider the presence of the police as a weird thing, myself.
I have a serious problem with being told we shouldn’t “escalate” the situation any further. Let us not forget just who actually escalated this into a situation: Lou Antonelli. Let us also not forget just who has a history of doing the very same thing repeatedly: Lou Antonelli. When children mess up this badly, adults put them into a time-out. What Lou Antonelli needs is the grown-up version of a time-out, and the sooner, the better. He has already been given the benefit of the doubt, cut a whole lot of slack, forgiven by many, and yet here he is again stirring up trouble against someone who made him mad. There is only one person behaving childishly, and that’s Lou Antonelli. There’s only one person who still has not been punished appropriately. I’m still waiting for actual consequences for his behavior. Being slapped on the wrist by Sasquan isn’t any kind of consequence. Carrie Cuinn is the first person to actually make any attempt at punishing him, and look what happened to her. He acted as though he couldn’t believe he was being called on his abusive behavior, and all his posts about her were deliberately written to fan those flames. He’s shown himself to be someone who thinks consequences are for Other People.
@JJ
So you’re saying that by failing to ban Antonelli, the Executive Committee has failed to send the message that making false police reports is forbidden?
Didn’t Antonelli say that he’s decided to not attend any conventions for the next six months, as part of his penance or something?
Greg Hullender: So you’re saying that by failing to ban Antonelli, the Executive Committee has failed to send the message that making false police reports is forbidden?
Did I say that I would file a false report on Antonelli? I did not, and it’s offensive that you’ve implied that I did.
I said I would be ready for any eventuality — because Antonelli has made it very, very clear that he is a loose cannon with a huge anger management problem, who cannot be trusted to behave according to the standards of a civilized society.
Ginger –
I’m the one who used the word escalate so I’m not sure if this is meant for me, but I’m certainly not telling anyone what they should or shouldn’t do. Only that I thought David Gerrold as Guest of Honor chose not to do so, a decision I respect because it probably wasn’t a easy one and appears to be done because he didn’t want to bar a nominee from attending.
That’s not me telling anyone what they should do, only that I think what one person specifically did in their specific capacity I think was a good thing.
Mike Glyer: It is foolish to assume the committee harbors any of the illusions you attribute to them.
I am not assuming that the Sasquan concom harbors any illusions, nor attributing any to them.
I am pointing out that a fair number of the commenters here clearly harbor those illusions.
David W: It’s not reasonable to expect the Spokane PD has a “Crackpot File”
Sure it is. All police departments have a “Crackpot File”.
Mike:
Textually, even. He sends angry e-mails, but apparently at conventions, when challenged, he gets sullen and mulish about being entitled to his opinion. His offenses seem to be more about trying to get people in trouble with someone else, not to be a threat in person.
JJ:
We do, however, have reason to believe that Sasquan’s Operations Director has spoken with the Spokane police and everything’s settled there, because Sasquan has told us this, and we don’t have any reason to assume they’re lying on the subject.
Danny:
After Sasquan, for which he already had nonrefundable plane tickets, and where he’s a Hugo nominee (however unlikely he may be to win).
**
For whatever it’s worth, Sasquan has also discussed the matter with Carrie Cuinn, who has also asked them not to ban him.
Fair enough, JJ. I Am Not A Cop, FWIW.
I was not a party to the decision regarding Mr. Antonelli, and indeed first heard about it the same time everyone else did.
But for those people who are insisting that Sasquan did not follow their Code of Conduct–that’s hogwash.
If you actually bothered to look at Sasquan’s Code of Conduct (which you can find here http://sasquan.org/code-of-conduct/#policies ), you will see that their stated procedures include this:
“Upon completion of their report, convention security shall forward their report to the Chair of the Convention who shall, upon evaluating the totality of the circumstances, decide upon the appropriate disciplinary action. As noted above, disciplinary action may include a verbal warning or even expulsion from the event.”
It looks to me that they followed their procedures to the letter.
While I have great respect for Gerrold’s generosity in this matter, and I think Antonelli is nothing but an internet blowhard who is probably a lot milder in person than he is behind an LCD screen, I think I have to disagree with the decision here. The fact that crazy Uncle Lou is a Hugo nominee is neither here nor there; if he can’t attend, for whatever reason, he can ask a proxy to pick up his award (if any) and read his acceptance speech, same as any other nominee unable to attend.
The fact is, Antonelli has exhibited apalling manners and continues to do so, and should be excluded from polite company — I’m using a fairly low bar for ‘polite’ here, btw, but one that still excludes making malicious reports to the police and siccing one’s internet chums onto random women one has had an unsatisfactory interaction with. If he misses his minuscule chance of picking up a tin rocket personally, well, them’s the breaks. It’s not as if he wouldn’t get it delivered to him.
Kurt: For whatever it’s worth, Sasquan has also discussed the matter with Carrie Cuinn, who has also asked them not to ban him.
I am glad to hear that because I kept wondering about the rhetoric of “the victim accepted apology, and asked he attend, so good….” because of course Carrie Cuinn is also a victim (arguably of more harassment than was aimed at Gerrold, as far as I know–understanding he may not have reported what harassment from the puppyfans he’s received for various good reasons).
One question:
People keep talking about how Antonelli has demonstrated a pattern of behavior. Has any of that pattern actually been violent?
I was talking to someone else who said he’d demonstrated a pattern of verbal abuse. I’m not even sure he’s done that. He’s sent angry e-mails. He tried to call Aaron’s boss but didn’t get past the receptionist and apparently didn’t yell at her. He sent a letter about Gerrold to the police. He published Cuinn’s e-mail, cutting the link to the video that made him look like a douche and identifying her and the magazine.
None of that is good. None of it.
But as far as loose cannonism goes, based on that pattern, if I run into Antonelli at Sasquan and he doesn’t like it, the worst I expect him to do is to go home, stew about it and then be an asshole online somehow, probably ineptly and in a way that makes him look like a tool. That’s his pattern, as far as I can tell.
I don’t think he’s going to molest women, attack cosplayers or gun down kaffeeklatchers. That’s not his pattern, as far as I can tell.
So if we’re judging this on patterns, I can’t say I’m worried about him being at Sasquan, even though he mostly seems to go after smartass liberals, usually men, so I’m in his sweet spot as a target.
If we’re just saying, “He was abusive in stupid ways, so let’s fear him like a serial murderer,” then I don’t know why anyone would talk about patterns, because that’s not a pattern.
Everybody will do as they see fit, of course. But if there’s a reason to fear for one’s physical safety when Lou Antonelli is wroth, are thorny examples of it? Or is it all letters and other mealy-mouthed shit from someone who only does things from a safe distance?
Just to be clear – I am sure the Spokane PD would have done something before filing the report in the crackpot file. I assumed that’s where it would have ended up when it became apparent that the letter concerned a 60 something man who wrote the Tribbles episode on Star Trek because I honestly can’t see any Police Department not putting that one in the No Further Action bucket. I’m more surprised that there wasn’t ‘this is wasting police time’ response.
So you agree with me, but you think my tone is too “indignant”? I’ll take a pass on arguing that point with you. I simply stated my opinion that the con is sending contradictory messages on harassment. Whether it meets your standard on the proper level of indignation is of no interest.
Cuinn’s post about this, read her first comment as well.
I am utterly sick about the precedence this sets for future harassers. I am horrified that they think Gerrold is the person who’s life is endangered by someone calling the cops to be on the looking for violence. I am horrified that the official policy appears to push the responsibility for addressing harassment onto the victims and then calls that “respecting their wishes.” Which is how they phrased it when linking me to Cuinn’s post. This is so wrong. So incredibly wrong.
…but not a con attendee. She’s a supporting member this year.
The Gerrold thing was about something that could have disrupted the con and made congoers unsafe, particularly Gerrold. That’s smack in the middle of their purview for their harassment policies, which are con-specific.
The Cuinn thing, while nastier (though possibly not on Antonelli’s part, if you believe him, which no one is required to do), is about a story that got returned by a magazine, with a kill-fee offer. It’s not really within Sasquan’s purview to police that (as they note in their announcement, about online disagreements), and not part of making Sasquan a safe con-going experience.
I’m glad they talked with her, because at the very least, it’s considerate and polite. But I can understand why the con-focused incident is the one they’re focusing on, and the one people are talking about regarding the decision. Because the question isn’t, “Is Lou Antonelli an asshole?” That’s been answered, pretty definitively. But Sasquan isn’t the Asshole Police; there are bound to be a number of assholes at the show. Sasquan’s got a lot of responsibilities to deal with in the next couple of weeks, and making sure the show is a safe venue for attendees is a big one. Making sure Facebook is a safe venue for editors is probably more Facebook’s responsibility.
If the Cuinn thing unfolded in a way that suggested Antonelli was a danger to people at the con, then it’d be in their purview to weigh it. And to some degree, they clearly did. But if what they came out with after doing so was that being an asshole on the internet in that particular way does not significantly threaten to disrupt the con or threaten the safety of attendees, I can understand the focus on the Gerrold thing, which was directly about the con and con activities.
Kurt Busiek: People keep talking about how Antonelli has demonstrated a pattern of behavior. Has any of that pattern actually been violent?
My past personal experience with a couple of guys who behaved the way Antonelli has is that their aggression is all just talk — until it isn’t. Being “No Award”ed (if that’s what happens, and I think it’s likely) is not going to go down well with someone like that.
I also have no confidence that any buddies walking into a room with him at Sasquan have any better impulse control than he has.
I certainly have no interest in having any contact with him. But I’m damn well going to be aware of it if he’s in the same room with me.
Fair enough.
I wonder if he’ll attend the Hugo Losers’ Party? Since he has two nominations, he’d have to have a spectacularly good night not to qualify.