ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2018 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Wednesday, July 10, 2013

Response Part III

This is a short, but amusing section.  The SFWA Board is falsely charging me with publicizing confidential SFWA material while openly violating the SFWA discussion forum confidentiality rules itself.
2. Publication of confidential SFWA material
Mr. Beale has violated this policy on at least one occasion in the past (see Fig A.7) and been reprimanded for it (see Fig A.8). More recently, he has quoted on his blog of June 5, 2013, “Seriously Fascist Women’s Association”, from a warning received from Forum moderator Cat Rambo: “It's also intriguing to see how these liberal fascists claim labeling two old men ‘sexist bigots’ and openly calling for an end to their column is acceptable, but identifying them as ‘censorious’ is, and here I quote the SFWA moderator, ‘abusive behavior’.” (See Fig A.9) The phrase “abusive behavior” is, in fact, an automatically-generated heading for the message sent to Mr. Beale, but Mr. Beale seems to have believed that he was publishing Ms. Rambo’s own words and intended to do so. A post made to the SFWA online forums on June 1, 2013 provides more evidence that he believed he was posting Ms. Rambo’s own words: “And speaking of those differences, the fact that my expression of my opinion about MsTobler's laudable example, which is entirely sincere, was declared by Cat Rambo to be "abusive behavior" and somehow merits a schoolmarmish ‘warning’ only underlines how intellectually feeble and fascistic the organization has become over time.” (See Fig A.10) While the content he was reproducing was innocuous, this example suggests that despite an earlier warning and sanction he has shown little respect for the confidentiality of SFWA material.
In light of this charge, it is indeed ironic that in the Appendix to the report, the Board member and Board-appointed investigator Matthew Johnson violates the discussion forum confidentiality rules no less than nine times by re-posting screencaps taken from the SFWA Forum without my permission.  The SFWA Forums clearly state:  "The SFWA discussion forums are for SFWA members only, and all posts made here are confidential. Material may not be re-posted outside these forums without the explicit permission of their authors."

Just to provide one of the nine examples of his violation of the confidentiality rules, as can be seen in the image to the right, the Canadian Regional Director clearly re-posted the Forum message I posted on 01 June, 2013 - 08:28 PM on Page 11 of  SFWA Discussion Forums→ SFWA Publications→ SFWA Bulletin→ Issue 202.  I did not grant permission for any such reposting. The text is as follows:

[REDACTED]

It's not hard at all.  Whining about sexism and racism bores me too.  Sweet Saint Sanger, how it bores me!  But do you not understand that there are a number of SFWA members who, judging by their blogs and their books, truly aren't interested in doing anything else?  If it's not complaining about the Dialogues, or complaining about me, or complaining about someone else insufficiently kowtowing to their views, they'll complain about the number of books published by women, or the number of books reviewed by women, or the number of books published by women but not reviewed, etc.

I'm not going to pretend that the two gentlemen concerned hold me spellbound with their meanderings in every issue, but the institutional memory they represent, and the occasional golden tidbit they produce amidst the dross, is well worth putting up with their idiosyncracies.  Perhaps you disagree.  That's fine; I imagine one or the other will be dead soon enough and all the offended parties can dance on their graves.  But in the meantime, it doesn't materially harm anyone to let them remind us of what science fiction used to be, regardless of whether one regrets or celebrates the fact that it is different now.  If one can't respect the men or their opinions, one should at least be able to respect their past service to the organization.

And speaking of those differences, the fact that my expression of my opinion about Ms Tobler's laudable example, which is entirely sincere, was declared by Cat Rambo to be "abusive behavior" and somehow merits a schoolmarmish "warning" only underlines how intellectually feeble and fascistic the organization has become over time.


Furthermore, there is evidence that the Canadian Regional Director knowingly and willfully violated the SFWA discussion forum confidentiality rules based on whose permission he sought to obtain in the process of writing his report, and whose permission he did not seek.  And in its endorsement of his report by vote, the entire Board now bears responsibility for that publication of confidential SFWA material from the discussion forums.

More importantly, the charge itself not only contains an indictment of the Board, but the information that exonerates me concerning the same charge.  Johnson correctly points out "The phrase “abusive behavior” is, in fact, an automatically-generated heading for the message sent to Mr. Beale."

That is true.  The phrase was contained in an email sent to me, and while I did incorrectly believe they were Ms Rambo's own words, I also knew it could not possibly be covered by SFWA discussion forum confidentiality rules because the phrase was contained in an email delivered to my inbox.  Johnson's logic is incorrect and "this example" cannot possibly suggest "that despite an earlier warning and sanction he has shown little respect for the confidentiality of SFWA material" for the obvious reason that the automatically-generated heading was not covered by any SFWA confidentiality rules.

It is, in fact, entirely clear that I have considerably more respect for the confidentiality rules than he does, as there are more than 20 violations of discussion forum confidentiality in his report alone.

UPDATE:  SFWA President Steven Gould repeats his appeal to nonexistent "confidentiality".  Only this time it is nonexistent "professional confidentiality" as opposed to nonexistent "SFWA confidentiality rules":
On Confidentiality and Board Deliberations

The SFWA Board would like to thank members for their strong support and patience as we continue the investigation of recent complaints against one of our members. Because our mandate and desire is to respect all parties by maintaining confidentiality, details of the investigation will continue to be private. However, as the member under investigation has not respected professional confidentiality, we have been asked about the possibility of information becoming public that would inappropriately identify individuals. Please be assured that, per our standard procedures, no members who wrote to the Board to express their opinions were identified in this report, and any portions of emails which were included were reproduced with their authors’ permissions.

Thank you.

Steven Gould, President
For the Board
What is this "professional confidentiality" of which he speaks?  Attorney-Client? Doctor-Patient? Notice too that Gould admits the Board obtained permission from some members, while we know it did not do so for others, thus proving that the Board was aware it was repeatedly violating the discussion forum confidentiality rules by re-posting forum posts.

UPDATE II: Despite the fact that it is he and Matthew Johnson who have been violating the SFWA discussion forum confidentiality rules, Mr. Gould has removed my access to them.  Which was sort of redundant, as they had already banned everyone from discussing my case and blocked me from posting there since July 4th.
Dear Mr. Beale,

Effective immediately, I have directed our webmaster to remove your access to the SFWA discussion boards for repeated violations of of the SFWA Discussion Forum Guidelines, specifically:

Reading privileges will not ordinarily be curtailed. However, posting forum messages outside the forums without permission can lead to losing reading privileges.

Steven Gould
President
Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America
Now, I knew he would be an inept president, but his performance here is truly remarkable.


§ 107 . Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. 

Labels: ,

177 Comments:

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 July 10, 2013 9:10 AM  

I don't know, just because they violated the board policy, doesn't mean you get to nor does it exonerate you. I will say that you should file a complaint with them about the violations, if you have not done so already.

And if they ignore it, keep filing.

Blogger Markku July 10, 2013 9:17 AM  

I don't know, just because they violated the board policy, doesn't mean you get to nor does it exonerate you.

But he didn't. He quoted an email, which is not covered by the policy. It is purely incidental that the same sentence happens to be on their board. The fact that THEY did violate it merely opens additional, amusing possibilities.

Anonymous VryeDenker July 10, 2013 9:17 AM  

This is an excellent example of the way in which liberals will flout the rules (and maybe even laws) when they go after a perceived threat. After all, the rules are things that everyone else should obey, not our precious snowflake.

It's mildly entertaining when it's the SFWA, it's a whole different matter when they have access to drones.

Blogger Markku July 10, 2013 9:18 AM  

For example, I would think it is much easier to prove that the board is acting with malice if they accuse a member of something he DIDN'T do, while in fact doing the very act themselves multiple times.

Anonymous Try to be rational July 10, 2013 9:18 AM  

So your complaint is that in their formal report they violated the confidentiality rules in order to show evidence of why you should be banned? Isn't that kind of like complaining that the police took your possessions after arresting you for robbery? Pretty weak. Hopefully you have more against them than this.

Anonymous SFWA Supporter July 10, 2013 9:19 AM  

ha ha ... whatever, we're still going to kick you out regardless.

Anonymous Mudz July 10, 2013 9:21 AM  

Having the police rob you, after they're arrested you, is actually pretty bad.

Anonymous bob k. mando July 10, 2013 9:24 AM  

swiftfoxmark2 July 10, 2013 9:10 AM
I don't know, just because they violated the board policy, doesn't mean you get to nor does it exonerate you.




yes, but without the email quote ( which can't be included be it is materially not a 'post on the SFWA forum' ) they can only cite a single instance prior in which he is in violation. and they already punished him for that.

and they violated confidentiality nine times ( by publishing this to the open internet ) in order to make this accusation.

it seems they are unacquainted with the concept of sensitive information redaction when making documents available to the public.

amusing.

Anonymous harry12 July 10, 2013 9:25 AM  

VryeDenker July 10, 2013 9:17 AM

It's mildly entertaining when it's the SFWA, it's a whole different matter when they have access to drones.


At first reading, I thought you meant 'drudges'.

Anonymous dh July 10, 2013 9:27 AM  

So your complaint is that in their formal report they violated the confidentiality rules in order to show evidence of why you should be banned? Isn't that kind of like complaining that the police took your possessions after arresting you for robbery? Pretty weak. Hopefully you have more against them than this.

The difference being that there are rules for police investigations, including seizures (which, actually suck, but still, they exist).

In this case, there is no wiggle room in the SFWA policy on the boards. They should have added a line to the rule about confidentiality, along the lines of, "except for official SWFA, or board business, we don't need your permission to republish your posts".

But they didn't. Because these people are idiots.

Blogger Markku July 10, 2013 9:28 AM  

So your complaint is that in their formal report they violated the confidentiality rules in order to show evidence of why you should be banned? Isn't that kind of like complaining that the police took your possessions after arresting you for robbery? Pretty weak. Hopefully you have more against them than this.

He is merely going through the entire report methodically and responding to each and every charge. And knowing how long it is, this will be quite a saga.

Blogger Markku July 10, 2013 9:31 AM  

In this case, there is no wiggle room in the SFWA policy on the boards. They should have added a line to the rule about confidentiality, along the lines of, "except for official SWFA, or board business, we don't need your permission to republish your posts".

But they didn't. Because these people are idiots.


They could have done it much easier. They could have asked Vox's permission, and if Vox didn't give it, rabbity rabbit on the forums about how Vox is acting in bad faith in trying to prevent the truth from getting out.

Or they could have produced two versions, one redacted that Vox was free to distribute (including but not limited to his lawyer) and one for his eyes only, until such a time that permission was granted.

Anonymous Salt July 10, 2013 9:31 AM  

I get a whiff of social perturbations similar to atheist Aspie behavior within the SFWA. It seems quite apparent, as the stated remedy was dutifully applied yet the Warren demands building the bonfire around the stake.

Anonymous Josh July 10, 2013 9:33 AM  

Our sacred confidential forums! This reminds me of that journolist scandal several years ago.

Anonymous Alexander July 10, 2013 9:39 AM  

This is an excellent instruction in the incompetency of bureaucracy. No doubt we shall soon enjoy the breakdown that occurs when it becomes obvious how much of our actual government is behaving in a similar manner.

Given how fast and loose SFWA seems to be with their own legal code, is there evidence that the current (and perhaps previous) president and the board members themselves obtained those positions improperly?

Anonymous zen0 July 10, 2013 9:40 AM  

As a Native Son of the True North Strong and Free, I would like to offer my apologies for my fellow citizen.
Probably a Yank that came for the health care.

Blogger The Deuce July 10, 2013 9:40 AM  

Furthermore, there is evidence that the Canadian Regional Director knowingly and willfully violated the SFWA discussion forum confidentiality rules based on whose permission he sought to obtain in the process of writing his report, and whose permission he did not seek. And in its endorsement of his report by vote, the entire Board now bears responsibility for that publication of confidential SFWA material from the discussion forums.

That's beautiful. I was thinking that the SFWA might be able to argue that reposting forum material for the "confidential report" didn't violate the forum rules (even though it quite clearly violates the letter of the rules and also allows the information to be spread further since email isn't confidential), or at least try to say that it was a mere technicality that they weren't aware of, but if the CRD actually sought permission from others to repost their material in the report, it completely scotches that argument.

Anonymous rubbermallet July 10, 2013 9:43 AM  

ha ha ... whatever, we're still going to kick you out regardless.

ironically this seemingly sums up the prosecution pretty well.

Blogger El Borak July 10, 2013 9:45 AM  

Mr. Beale seems to have believed that he was publishing Ms. Rambo’s own words and intended to do so...

If I'm reading this correctly, they are accusing you of intending to violate the confidentiality rules, but of not actually doing so, since the words 'abusive behavior' were not actually posted in the forum?

If that's not an indictment of your first-degree crimethink, I don't know what is.

Anonymous Josh July 10, 2013 9:46 AM  

but if the CRD actually sought permission from others to repost their material in the report, it completely scotches that argument.

The depositions should be entertaining.

Any chance of getting Nancy Grace to cover the trial?

Anonymous Strange Aeons July 10, 2013 9:54 AM  

It has been widely noted that Leftists modus operandi is to invade an existing institution, secure positions of control, and derail it from within. Once they are secured, I'd imagine it is highly difficult to oust them. So my question is, if the SFWA has become such a trainwreck due to these rabbits & pinkshirts, why not leave it to its inevitable fate, gather like-minded persons who love the art of SF writing and wish to preserve it, and create a new & competing organization of creative writers who can revive the genre without being bogged down by hypocritical goodthink? Would this be overly complicated and/or ill-advised?

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 July 10, 2013 9:55 AM  

But he didn't. He quoted an email, which is not covered by the policy. It is purely incidental that the same sentence happens to be on their board. The fact that THEY did violate it merely opens additional, amusing possibilities.

All right, that seems fair.

Still, if they violated confidentiality, then he should file a formal complaint with them just as extensive as their own report. Then submit it every day.

If you play by their rules, you'll lose. In this case, he needs to make it clear to them that they are breaking their own rules and that their report is illegitimate as a result, all complaints should be dropped, and that all board members involved in this report should step down pending a lawsuit.

Anonymous Stilicho July 10, 2013 9:57 AM  

But they didn't. Because these people are idiots.

True. Smart lefties always build in exceptions from the rules for themselves and their friends. For a "bipartisan" example, see the Congressional rules on insider trading.

Anonymous Stilicho July 10, 2013 10:02 AM  

If you play by their rules, you'll lose.

You are assuming he expects or wants a result other than the inevitable expulsion that is the predetermined result of this board's machinations. He's playing to achieve a desired result. And it is hilarious to watch.

Personally, I think a label on every book cover along the lines of "Author Banned by SFWA for being too controversial" might just have a similar effect to the old "banned in Boston" labels.

Anonymous Noah B. July 10, 2013 10:10 AM  

"If I'm reading this correctly, they are accusing you of intending to violate the confidentiality rules, but of not actually doing so, since the words 'abusive behavior' were not actually posted in the forum?"

Yep -- in this section, they're accusing Vox of badthink.

Anonymous VD July 10, 2013 10:10 AM  

So your complaint is that in their formal report they violated the confidentiality rules in order to show evidence of why you should be banned? Isn't that kind of like complaining that the police took your possessions after arresting you for robbery? Pretty weak.

You need to read through it more carefully. It's more akin to complaining that the police robbed your house after inadvertently admitting that the charges against you are false. Did you not grasp that the Board investigator admitted I did not violate forum confidentiality a second time, but merely quoted my email?

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 July 10, 2013 10:10 AM  

Just for clarification, as I have no interest in joining SFWA, does it require it's members to pay a fee for membership?

Anonymous VD July 10, 2013 10:12 AM  

ha ha ... whatever, we're still going to kick you out regardless.

Do you seriously think I'm not aware of their intentions? I'm not doing this for my benefit.

Anonymous Noah B. July 10, 2013 10:17 AM  

"ha ha ... whatever, we're still going to kick you out regardless."

You can't win. If you kick him out, he'll become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.

Anonymous Laz July 10, 2013 10:17 AM  

@ Vox: Screaming "He did it too!" is not a valid excuse. Never has been.

Anonymous VD July 10, 2013 10:22 AM  

@ Vox: Screaming "He did it too!" is not a valid excuse. Never has been.

What part of "I didn't do it" did you not understand, Laz? I'm not making an excuse because there is nothing to excuse. I'm making an accusation.

Anonymous Noah B. July 10, 2013 10:23 AM  

That's some seriously poor reading comprehension, Laz.

Blogger Markku July 10, 2013 10:23 AM  

Laz: You still apparently don't understand that ONLY the accuser has done it. There is no need to show it, it is adequate to demonstrate that one has not done it himself. But that it shows malice from the accuser as a bonus.

Anonymous Josh July 10, 2013 10:24 AM  

Screaming "He did it too!" is not a valid excuse. Never has been.

You're an idiot. When someone is trying to expel you for violating a policy they have violated twenty times more frequently than you have, they really don't have a case other than, "you are mean and we hates you and you totally can't sit with is anymore!"

Anonymous Josh July 10, 2013 10:26 AM  

If this report is from the sfwa board, does this mean that each board member is guilty of violating the forum confidentiality rules? Or just those involved in compiling the report?

Anonymous Daniel July 10, 2013 10:27 AM  

The SFWA is fully armed, in fact, with drones. The Hines X-14 Screaming Girl and the McRapey Sidewinder drone on and on and on.

Good news is that they only have two settings: Self-stun and misfire.

See also their announcement from yesterday:

http://www.sfwa.org/2013/07/on-confidentiality-and-board-deliberations/

On Confidentiality and Board Deliberations
The SFWA Board would like to thank members for their strong support and patience as we continue the investigation of recent complaints against one of our members. Because our mandate and desire is to respect all parties by maintaining confidentiality, details of the investigation will continue to be private. However, as the member under investigation has not respected professional confidentiality, we have been asked about the possibility of information becoming public that would inappropriately identify individuals. Please be assured that, per our standard procedures, no members who wrote to the Board to express their opinions were identified in this report, and any portions of emails which were included were reproduced with their authors’ permissions.

Thank you.

Steven Gould, President
For the Board

Anonymous ___ July 10, 2013 10:28 AM  

@VD I think people are getting confused because you buried the lead. You have to read 8, 9 whole paragraphs before getting to the point where you explain that "you didn't do it." People with short attention spans or lack of posting discipline may have problems with that. :)

Anonymous Daniel July 10, 2013 10:30 AM  

Just to be clear: that is their public announcement to membership, even though such messaging was more appropriate for their confidential, members only forum.

It is like the Apple Dumpling Gang, without the wisdom of children.

Anonymous bob k. mando July 10, 2013 10:31 AM  

swiftfoxmark2 July 10, 2013 10:10 AM
Just for clarification, as I have no interest in joining SFWA, does it require it's members to pay a fee for membership?




you'd best go back and start from the beginning.

SFWA not only charges membership fees / dues, but Vox plumped for the Lifetime Membership back in the day. he has also served on the Nebula award jury.

this has all been covered in detail previously.

that's what makes this so funny; by accepting dues from an author the SFWA contractually obligates itself to that author. and thence, renders it a materially actionable offense when the SFWA violates bylaws and obligations too that author.

Anonymous Laz July 10, 2013 10:31 AM  

"What part of "I didn't do it" did you not understand, Laz? I'm not making an excuse because there is nothing to excuse. I'm making an accusation."

My fault V. I understand now. Maybe I shouldn't have read this until I had my requisite 10 cups of coffee. lol.

Anonymous Josh July 10, 2013 10:31 AM  

You have to read 8, 9 whole paragraphs before getting to the point where you explain that "you didn't do it."

What part of "falsely accuse" did you miss in his first sentence?

Anonymous Susan July 10, 2013 10:32 AM  

Leftists never like it when you embarrass them by exposing their own dirty laundry. That's why it is so funny watching somebody flip the questions on a reporter.

They usually react by breaking the rules themselves and then tripping over themselves to blame you. Nothing new here, but it never hurts to have the legal ammo.

Couldn't happen to a better bunch of wannabe's. I am beginning to think that this current bunch is probably why I don't care much for SF/F much. I do like watching movies and TV that the late and great Richard Matheson and Ray Bradbury had their hands in though.



Anonymous Josh July 10, 2013 10:33 AM  

How many of the complaints were by active sfwa members and how many were by non members complaining that they would never join sfwa until Vox was expelled?

Blogger Markku July 10, 2013 10:35 AM  

Please be assured that, per our standard procedures, no members who wrote to the Board to express their opinions were identified in this report,

HAHAHAHA! I can imagine the rabbit panic.

Anonymous bob k. mando July 10, 2013 10:39 AM  

"we have been asked about the possibility of information becoming public that would inappropriately identify individuals."



i have to ask:
Vox, has the identity of these accusers been made known to you? i suspect not, otherwise it's difficult to imagine how the SFWA could guarantee that you wouldn't release the info.

not that they aren't so damn incompetent that they wouldn't tell you and still make that guarantee ...


to explicate for everyone else:
Vox is not being permitted to know *who* his accuser(s) is(are).


now, clearly, this isn't an actual court room and actual legal protections against unfair prosecution don't necessarily apply.

but still, it's amusing that he's having to defend himself against accusations from 'secret informants' that he has committed badthink and that his loyalty to the Party is in doubt.

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 July 10, 2013 10:41 AM  

SFWA not only charges membership fees / dues, but Vox plumped for the Lifetime Membership back in the day. he has also served on the Nebula award jury.

In that case, lawsuits should come in floods against all board members personally for the actions they have taken. It seems to me that the entirety of SFWA is no fun anymore and more concerned with political Leftism rather than fiction (though both are probably the same thing). I say crush it.

Anonymous Randy M July 10, 2013 10:42 AM  

"That is true. The phrase was contained in an email sent to me"

Was the e-mail one of those auto-generated ones the forum sends, like "You have a message in your in-box from FemMod01 titled 'abusive behavio'"?

Not that I think that would cover it, it would just be funny if they didn't know how their own forum software works.

Anonymous DJJ July 10, 2013 10:43 AM  

I can't wait for the rabbit panic once this goes into discovery...

Anonymous Josh July 10, 2013 10:44 AM  

to explicate for everyone else:Vox is not being permitted to know *who* his accuser(s) is(are).

Of course. [ALERT: TRIGGER WARNING] Rape shield laws. They have to protect those poor innocents whose minds were [ALERT: TRIGGER WARNING] raped with his badthought and hate. Because he's a [ALERT: TRIGGER WARNING] mental rapist.

Blogger Cinco July 10, 2013 10:46 AM  

"In that case, lawsuits should come in floods against all board members personally for the actions they have taken. It seems to me that the entirety of SFWA is no fun anymore and more concerned with political Leftism rather than fiction (though both are probably the same thing). I say crush it."

Shhhhh.... Don't tell them, they will quit providing all the evidence.

Anonymous Other Josh July 10, 2013 10:48 AM  

Vox, I know you are an award winning cruelty artist, but why are you wasting your time on these rabbits? Pure amusement?

At some point, I would get so fed up with their stupidity, I would renounce all ties with the group and head on to greener pastures.

Anonymous Noah B. July 10, 2013 10:50 AM  

Vox is not being permitted to know *who* his accuser(s) is(are).

There really aren't any statements from members included in the report that rise to the level of accusations. The statements are all simple permutations of, "Vox is bad, kick him out."

Anonymous Randy M July 10, 2013 10:51 AM  

", as the member under investigation has not respected professional confidentiality,"

Ha ha. In other words, there is no confidentiality rules about this, we'd just really like for you shut up and take it without making a fuss.

It's sad when your inquisitors don't bother to get to know you.

Anonymous Laz July 10, 2013 10:51 AM  

"You're an idiot. When someone is trying to expel you for violating a policy they have violated twenty times more frequently than you have, they really don't have a case other than, "you are mean and we hates you and you totally can't sit with is anymore!"

I guess that makes you an idiot for arguing the point when all you had to do was point out I was wrong, as the other posters did.

As to your argument, when speaking of people with any power over you it doesn't work- because they have the power. There are plenty of examples- school admin, your immediate boss, etc. They may be wrong or in violation of the same rules but, ultimately you're the one to get the shaft. Whether you win a judgement or not.

Anonymous VD July 10, 2013 10:51 AM  

I can't wait for the rabbit panic once this goes into discovery...

Especially since the Board just officially referred to them. That's why I think it is so amusing that they think they can keep any of this secret. Once this shifts from the Board's authority to a legal one, their ability to keep any of it behind closed doors is gone.

It's as if no one there thinks one step ahead, or about possible alternatives.

Anonymous VD July 10, 2013 10:54 AM  

Vox, I know you are an award winning cruelty artist, but why are you wasting your time on these rabbits? Pure amusement?

I've already explained this. This is a microcosm of what is happening in nearly every organization across America. Every church. Every Boy Scout troop. Every political party. They're all at different stages, but the process remains the same. It's what happens when you don't pay the price of vigilance.

Blogger Cinco July 10, 2013 10:55 AM  

"Especially since the Board just officially referred to them. That's why I think it is so amusing that they think they can keep any of this secret. Once this shifts from the Board's authority to a legal one, their ability to keep any of it behind closed doors is gone."

Oh man, now they are probably going to drop the whole thing. Why did you have to tell them!? I found this entire thing, entirely amusing.

Blogger Markku July 10, 2013 10:56 AM  

They may be wrong or in violation of the same rules but, ultimately you're the one to get the shaft. Whether you win a judgement or not.

...because nobody fights back. And lo and behold, that's exactly what this saga is about.

Anonymous TheExpat July 10, 2013 10:56 AM  

SFWA President Steven Gould repeats his appeal to nonexistent "confidentiality".

This would be the same Steven Gould that twittered and otherwise commented publicly about the situation even before he became president, right?

Anonymous Stilicho July 10, 2013 10:58 AM  

It's as if no one there thinks one step ahead, or about possible alternatives.

Short time preferences lead to short term planning

Blogger IM2L844 July 10, 2013 10:58 AM  

You should demand that the NSA provide you with the details of Matthew Johnson's e-mail activities related to this report. You know they've read it and added it to your watch file.

Anonymous realmatt July 10, 2013 11:04 AM  

Haven't these yahoos heard?

DON'T SWITCH THE BLADE ON THE GUUUUY IN SHADES OH NOOO

Blogger Nate July 10, 2013 11:05 AM  

"There are plenty of examples- school admin, your immediate boss, etc. They may be wrong or in violation of the same rules but, ultimately you're the one to get the shaft. Whether you win a judgement or not."

Spoken like a coward.

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 July 10, 2013 11:08 AM  

I've already explained this. This is a microcosm of what is happening in nearly every organization across America. Every church. Every Boy Scout troop. Every political party. They're all at different stages, but the process remains the same. It's what happens when you don't pay the price of vigilance.

There is no new continent to flee to. There is no country to flee to. There is no place to go where you won't find this kind of nonsense. They are parasites on society is so many ways. It is high time we ripped them from their hosts and scatter them to the wind.

Anonymous DJJ July 10, 2013 11:19 AM  

66 Rabbits will eventually be outed as they wrote to the board about this. Oh, and I hope the board members remember not to delete those emails, the judge won't like that.

Sleep well wabbits, soon all of us will know who you are, including your publishers. Do you really think that they want the headaches associated with you?

Anonymous jack July 10, 2013 11:22 AM  

Yummy: Section 3. Thank You, Sir; may I have another...

Anonymous Daniel July 10, 2013 11:23 AM  

Oh man, now they are probably going to drop the whole thing. Why did you have to tell them!? I found this entire thing, entirely amusing.

You really don't understand, Cinco. For years, there have been opportunities for McRapey and His All-Star Rabbit Band to quit before getting themselves into a bigger mess. That's the funny part: they see the wall ahead and don't stop. Instead, they squeeze their eyes shut and run faster.

When they wake up with only a concussion and a little less cash on hand, they declare victory...and go looking for another wall.

Vox called this shot at least as far back as October, long before any of the "offenses" occurred. Now, either he is psychic or simply understands how decayed organizations malfunction. He showed them exactly what water main was going to break as a result of their neglect and destruction.

The SFWA is as likely to quit while they are losing badly as Scalzi is likely to unwear that dress.

Even from a sane position, the SFWA just can't let this thing go now that they've started it (i.e. it isn't a "stop throwing good money after bad" opportunity). They've moved troops into firing lines. The machine has started. Retreat will certainly result in devastating losses. Going forward, who knows? Perhaps they'll luck out and get an insane judge that saves them a little face before getting wrecked on appeal.

Ultimately, though, I will say this: this episode has provided me an interesting bible lesson. I never understood what Jesus meant when he said, "Forgive them Father, for they no not what they do." It has been a long time since I have seen one guy so casually and concretely expose the ignorance of liars and accusers. It is helpful to me personally as a Christian to keep that in mind. I am far too quick to ascribe will and full knowledge to those who make false claims.

This of course doesn't mean you should avoid fighting the poor fools, but should, in fact, fight them harder. Not to enlighten them, but to assure that right is done in thwarting them. It has been very helpful to me in a number of other matters that I was "letting go" because of my false conception of the will of fools. Now, I just see it as an opportunity to educate - not necessarily the faction leaders - but the onlookers.

Anonymous Desiderius July 10, 2013 11:24 AM  

"There is no new continent to flee to. There is no country to flee to. There is no place to go where you won't find this kind of nonsense. They are parasites on society is so many ways. It is high time we ripped them from their hosts and scatter them to the wind."

This is true.

It is as well true to the extent that I do not share Vox's optimism that there exists a higher authority to which he can appeal which will be sufficiently sympathetic to his claims, however true and valid, to act upon them in any materially productive way.

Black Knighting is a tactic. I unconvinced the strategy has been fully thought through or is viable given current reliance interests (i.e. pre-collapse).

Anonymous jack July 10, 2013 11:24 AM  

@DJJ.
Sleep well wabbits, soon all of us will know who you are, including your publishers. Do you really think that they want the headaches associated with you?

Well said, Sir. Well said!

Anonymous Desiderius July 10, 2013 11:26 AM  

"Perhaps they'll luck out and get an insane judge"

They are entirely sane.

What they are unlikely to be is good, right, or true.

Courageous is right out.

Anonymous JartStar July 10, 2013 11:36 AM  

They're all at different stages, but the process remains the same.
...
There is no new continent to flee to.


Libertarians flee the battlefields and abandon the castles as the hordes arrive and the Conservatives are mostly bumbling fools who don't want to rock the boat too much, while the Progressives have their eye on the prize and work tirelessly towards it night and day by nearly any means. Who do you think was going to win?

This is why the libertarians wish for massive societal upheaval and a crash as it is the last vindication of their political philosophy which has been rejected by everyone else for centuries.

Blogger JACIII July 10, 2013 11:37 AM  

It appears, via common internet search, that "Professional confidentiality" is something that applies to prechool teachers, lawyers, professional investigators, and the financial industry. I can't for the life of me come up with a reference to a professional confidentiality duty concerning wereseal wromance writers.

Anonymous Dick D July 10, 2013 11:39 AM  

Can't wait to see the discovery on those emails firing on through the warren in the buildup and deliverance of this....

Anonymous Josh July 10, 2013 11:42 AM  

But but but the lawyers can't look at those emails because because because they're confidential!!!

Anonymous It is what it is July 10, 2013 11:46 AM  

This focus on the board "violating confidentiality" is a dead issue and you're wasting a lot of time on it, when the absurd SFWA allegations themselves should be the focus.

The ability of the governing body to quote forum posts in a disciplinary proceeding, or any proceeding where it part of their function is IMPLIED whether they expressly make an exception in their rule or not in writing and any court will see it that way.

You can argue about it all you want, but reality is, as you have often pointed out what is observed, not what we think it should be and that applies to the law as well.

Anonymous VD July 10, 2013 11:49 AM  

This focus on the board "violating confidentiality" is a dead issue and you're wasting a lot of time on it, when the absurd SFWA allegations themselves should be the focus.

I'm not wasting any time on it. I'm just being methodical. This is their report, I'm merely responding to it.

The ability of the governing body to quote forum posts in a disciplinary proceeding, or any proceeding where it part of their function is IMPLIED whether they expressly make an exception in their rule or not in writing and any court will see it that way.

No, it most certainly is not. And that aspect is not a matter for a court anyhow.

Anonymous Daniel July 10, 2013 11:51 AM  

Defeatist thinking Desiderius. There are plenty of decent judgments made every day. There are plenty of appeals that go well.

Regardless, the truth won't be buried by incompetence. It presents itself over time, as long as someone bothers to uphold it at the time.

Far more important than the success in the eyes of the Law is documenting the truth. While I'm confident that this effort will result in the exposure of the liars, the loss of professional reputation for the accusers, the exoneration of Vox, and, if it goes that far, material rewards for him and losses for the SFWA, all of that is in fact secondary to the thing I'm more than confident, but certain will occur: the Truth will out. Not because the Truth has some magical self-exposing property, but simply because a free man will claim it.

That's how it works. Quitting, while seemingly practical (who cares if rabbits are ever taught a lesson? It isn't like they will retain it.) is an abandonment of the Truth to someone else. For one, I'm glad he decided to pick it up. It is costing him time to do this for the benefit of others. At most he'll gain a little money and a judgment in his favor, two things he's got plenty of and can make elsewhere at a lot easier clip.

A few have noticed this, but far more should. He's doing this as a service. If I were in the SFWA and benefiting from its membership, I'd be thanking him for staying and doing more than his part to save the organization.

Imagine for a minute if he had held position of similar standing in the BSA.

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 July 10, 2013 11:53 AM  


Libertarians flee the battlefields and abandon the castles as the hordes arrive and the Conservatives are mostly bumbling fools who don't want to rock the boat too much, while the Progressives have their eye on the prize and work tirelessly towards it night and day by nearly any means. Who do you think was going to win?

This is why the libertarians wish for massive societal upheaval and a crash as it is the last vindication of their political philosophy which has been rejected by everyone else for centuries.


You misunderstand the battle. We are fighting the Progressives, not the hordes. And yes, the Conservatives are content to keep the debates civil all the while being willfully blind to the real damage that Progressives are causing. But the enemy is the Progressive, who seeks to destroy anyone who he or she happens to disagree with at the current moment in time.

Blogger Nate July 10, 2013 11:55 AM  

there is always the moon.

Anonymous Peter Garstig July 10, 2013 11:57 AM  

Ultimately, though, I will say this: this episode has provided me an interesting bible lesson. I never understood what Jesus meant when he said, "Forgive them Father, for they no not what they do." It has been a long time since I have seen one guy so casually and concretely expose the ignorance of liars and accusers. It is helpful to me personally as a Christian to keep that in mind. I am far too quick to ascribe will and full knowledge to those who make false claims.

This of course doesn't mean you should avoid fighting the poor fools, but should, in fact, fight them harder. Not to enlighten them, but to assure that right is done in thwarting them. It has been very helpful to me in a number of other matters that I was "letting go" because of my false conception of the will of fools. Now, I just see it as an opportunity to educate - not necessarily the faction leaders - but the onlookers.


Once again, Daniel, very true and eloquent.

Anonymous Josh July 10, 2013 11:58 AM  

The ability of the governing body to quote forum posts in a disciplinary proceeding, or any proceeding where it part of their function is IMPLIED whether they expressly make an exception in their rule or not in writing and any court will see it that way.

Where is it implied? Also, why did they get permission from some writers to quote them but not from Vox?

Anonymous Josh July 10, 2013 11:59 AM  

there is always the moon.

Until Gru and the minions steal it...

Anonymous MrGreenMan July 10, 2013 12:02 PM  

@It is what it is

You forget that there is only one sin somebody inside the body of the Left can commit: hypocrisy.

This is an illustration of the same. The Foucauldian morality would prefer that you had no principles at all and were but a breathing, mumbling, excreting, fornicating biological organism. They have attempted to hold up the sanctity of privacy and permission to repost, have acknowledged that they've been less than 100% able to live up to this as they requested some permission and not others, and so it is a clear illustration - they are hypocrites, their only apostasy, their only sin.

Admiral Boorda committed suicide for less.

(I understand some of them consider obesity the other possible sin, but it is certainly not with the super fat writers association.)

Anonymous Salt July 10, 2013 12:03 PM  

So this is what it looks like when you drop a light down the wabbit hole. Most entertaining.

Anonymous Peter Garstig July 10, 2013 12:04 PM  

The ability of the governing body to quote forum posts in a disciplinary proceeding, or any proceeding where it part of their function is IMPLIED whether they expressly make an exception in their rule or not in writing

That's typical leftists thinking. Are you now aware, my little fool, that under such conditions, the confidentiality rule is not worth anything at all? Aren't you aware that the governing body can start 'disciplinary proceedings' at will, for any reason and thus render the confidentiality rule?

This is exactly the kind of reasoning permeating our legal texts and (more importantly) our juris prudence. And that's why it's all going downhill.

Anonymous Peter Garstig July 10, 2013 12:04 PM  

now = not

Blogger The Deuce July 10, 2013 12:07 PM  

Josh:

Where is it implied? Also, why did they get permission from some writers to quote them but not from Vox?

Yup, that gives away the store right there. What will be even funnier is if it turns out that they quoted anyone other than Vox, who agreed with Vox on something, without asking their permission for the report.

Blogger rcocean July 10, 2013 12:12 PM  

So who's paying this report? It seems like a lot of time and money has gone into this absurdity. Money and Energy that could be better spent helping authors.

Anonymous it is what it is July 10, 2013 12:13 PM  

VD,

It is implied, you're taking an absurdist position and it actually weakens your arguments as to the other valid points. I understand you're trying to pick apart their reasoning as an illustration to others, that's fine, but since you have already indicated this is going to the courts where all their laundry will get aired, the courts do matter in the end.

Josh,

Come on now. Put your thinking cap on. Does a governing body have the authority to discipline and regulate the body? Obviously yes, or it would not be a governing body. Will a governing body have need of copying forum posts in a disciplinary hearing or in the process of governing its body. The answer is yes.

If you think they can function without that, you're being irrational.

It is implied.

Mr greenjeans,

I am not forgetting anything and I think you are clearly mistaken about hypocrisy being a sin to the left, it isn't. Being seen as outside the groupthink is the sin and the only sin that matters.

Blogger rcocean July 10, 2013 12:13 PM  

As Vox already stated, its a done deal.

Execution first, trial later.

Anonymous Indy July 10, 2013 12:13 PM  

Gawd! These sniveling little @@shats are entertaining in a perverse, decay of civilization, context.

Ohh Noooos!!! my inane whimpering might find itself into the public domain where I could actually be called to account and my thoughts ridiculed.

Cowards and fools flee the confrontation of their own words.

Anonymous Mr. Nightstick July 10, 2013 12:14 PM  

Until Gru and the minions steal it...

Gru already stole the moon ... but he gave it back.

Anonymous Noah B. July 10, 2013 12:14 PM  

"there is always the moon."

Sorry -- the greed of the US government knows no earthly bounds.

Blogger rcocean July 10, 2013 12:16 PM  

I always knew Vox was a wrecker.

Anonymous It is what it is July 10, 2013 12:20 PM  

Peter Garbagebag,

Since we are into naming calling, you are a complete idior.

Things are implied, without saying them in all aspects of life and I don't care how far back it goes, it isn't a leftist thing.

It is as simple as this:

I hire someone to fix my roof. It is implied that I have given him permission to go on my property and get on my roof to do so, even if I don't have express language in a contract, or even if I don't verbally say so.

I cannot then charge him with trespass for doing so.

Things are implied all the time. To think differently is nonsenical and quite frankly, retarded.



Anonymous Josh July 10, 2013 12:21 PM  

Will a governing body have need of copying forum posts in a disciplinary hearing or in the process of governing its body. The answer is yes.

Than why did they get permission from singe people to include their posts in the report?

Anonymous VD July 10, 2013 12:22 PM  

It is implied, you're taking an absurdist position and it actually weakens your arguments as to the other valid points.

You have no idea what you're talking about. The SFWA Board had the same obligation to get my permission to repost my posts as they did for every other member. There is no SFWA Board exclusion to the forum confidentiality rules anymore than there is to copyright. The Board can certainly argue that it has the implied right to ignore the organization's rules if it wants. I very much hope to see them make that casae and put it in writing.

And it is ridiculous to claim that one argument has any bearing on another unrelated argument. The fact is that I didn't violate the forum confidentiality rules beyond the one time, regardless of what the SFWA Board did or did not do.

Anonymous Josh July 10, 2013 12:23 PM  

Some people. Stupid Swype.

Blogger IM2L844 July 10, 2013 12:25 PM  

This is a lose/lose scenario for the SFWA. They've allowed themselves to be flung headlong into this thing by a small handful of squeeeeky wheels demanding their specious cake eating doublethink honor be defended. The SFWA accepted the role as their champion, has thrown down the gauntlet and Vox has picked it up. I've got my money on Vox. Anybody giving odds?

Anonymous GreyS July 10, 2013 12:27 PM  

T(hese)PAI. I knew they were kinda dumb, but it is incredible how short-sighted these people are.


"I get a whiff of social perturbations similar to atheist Aspie behavior within the SFWA. It seems quite apparent, as the stated remedy was dutifully applied yet the Warren demands building the bonfire around the stake." Salt


Anonymous it is what it is July 10, 2013 12:27 PM  

Idior being of course someone to stupid to be even an idiot . . .

Anonymous Anonymous July 10, 2013 12:33 PM  

Who is this "Beale" guy?

Anonymous VD July 10, 2013 12:37 PM  

From the SFWA President:

Effective immediately, I have directed our webmaster to remove your access to the SFWA discussion boards for repeated violations of of the SFWA Discussion Forum Guidelines, specifically:

Reading privileges will not ordinarily be curtailed. However, posting forum messages outside the forums without permission can lead to losing reading privileges.


Steven Gould
President
Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America


Translation: we want to lift the ban on discussing you with the membership but don't want you to have access to the discussion. It's a little ironic, considering that Gould and Johnson are the ones who have repeatedly violated the forum confidentiality rules, not me.

Anonymous It is what it is July 10, 2013 12:37 PM  

VD,

They don't need to address it. They will ignore it.

And while you are correct from a logical perspective that the weakness or absurdity of one argument does not diminish the truth of another argument, you are dealing with people and in general if one argument is crazy, people tend to disregard any valid points that might be made as a whole.

You remind me of Rabbit in Winnie the Pooh. So very very clever, even in being wrong.

Anonymous VD July 10, 2013 12:40 PM  

Things are implied all the time. To think differently is nonsenical and quite frankly, retarded.

No one is saying things are never implied. We are saying that the implication to which you are referring is false. Notice that the President has now acted unilaterally to discipline me for something I have not done, but that he has.

Anonymous Josh July 10, 2013 12:41 PM  

Effective immediately, I have directed our webmaster to remove your access to the SFWA discussion boards for repeated violations of of the SFWA Discussion Forum Guidelines, specifically:Reading privileges will not ordinarily be curtailed. However, posting forum messages outside the forums without permission can lead to losing reading privileges.

Can they do that? What do the forum guidelines say about restricting access?

Anonymous Noah B. July 10, 2013 12:41 PM  

SFWA President Steven Gould repeats his appeal to nonexistent "confidentiality". Only this time it is nonexistent "professional confidentiality" as opposed to nonexistent "SFWA confidentiality rules"

In other words, they were hoping to intimidate you into silence and apology, and they're really embarrassed that their accusations are going to be publicly aired.

Anonymous VD July 10, 2013 12:44 PM  

They don't need to address it. They will ignore it.

Of course they will!

You remind me of Rabbit in Winnie the Pooh. So very very clever, even in being wrong.

Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps I'm not necessarily playing the game you think I'm playing? Given the Board's obvious willingness to break rule after rule, (implied permission to do so or not), do you think I have any doubt about the eventual outcome regardless of what the rules state?

They will do what they want to do no matter what the rules are. I've never suggested otherwise.

Anonymous Josh July 10, 2013 12:47 PM  

So have any other SFWA members figured out that the Board can expel members for any reason at any time?

Anonymous Noah B. July 10, 2013 12:48 PM  

"Effective immediately, I have directed our webmaster to remove your access to the SFWA discussion boards for repeated violations of of the SFWA Discussion Forum Guidelines..."

A blatantly false accusation. You're digging your own grave, Stevie boy. (Metaphorically speaking, of course -- I wouldn't want you to feel like you were being threatened or anything.)

Anonymous Josh July 10, 2013 12:51 PM  

Did they get explicit permission from Sean Wallace to post a screenshot of his comment?

Anonymous Randy M July 10, 2013 12:51 PM  

"However, posting forum messages outside the forums without permission can lead to losing reading privileges."

Has there been a new accusation? By their own charges, you only ever posted "an automatically-generated heading for the message" --not a message, and even that wasn't from the forum.

Surely they aren't couting your update from the public website as an item? I think they are sticking to the interpretation that the report itself is covered, somehow.

Anonymous NateM July 10, 2013 12:52 PM  

I have to admit I never dreamed they'd take it this far. They are in new territory, far past the point where they'd go back to harrumphing and declaring their undying vow not to have sex with someone. They may realize how far, given how wide eyed and scrambling they are, but if I may make a prediction I'd be willing to bet if this debacle becomes any more publicized and/or litigious they will be begging to forget the whole thing. Not because they'll realize they're wrong, mind you, but because of how ridiculous it makes them look.

Anonymous allyn71 July 10, 2013 12:53 PM  

"I've got my money on Vox. Anybody giving odds?" - IM2L844 July 10, 2013 12:25 PM

What do you consider a resolution to this conflict?

Vox getting thrown out of SFWA? Vox winning a lawsuit against SFWA? Vox staying in SFWA?

Can't give odds till we know what we are giving odds for.



I will grant this, SFWA will continue to look like idiots and provide comic relief until this is resolved. 100% guaranteed.

I have a vision of them on a Skype call contemplating their next move when someone shrieks out "He posted again!!!" and everyone loads up VP to see what Vox's lasting post highlighting their ineptness.

Anonymous It is what it is July 10, 2013 12:53 PM  

VD,

There are two seperate issues here.

First, I recognize that the entire thing is a sham. I recognize that they are just trying to come up with anything to oust you simply for crimethink. I recgnize that this is the process of the pink shirts.

I have been on the receiving end of that in my own life.

I underatand all of that. I have no dispute of that. I have no dispute over the fact that they are acting in an authoritarian manner in an attempt to silence you and will do so whether you violated any rules or not.

An attempt that will backfire on them.

I recognize the games the are playing, I've seen them all before.

I know you are displaying the process (almost universal in its formation) of a group being progressively taken over by the progressives and the tactics they use that ultimately destroy a group (whether it is boy scouts or any other organization)

But regarding the confidentiality matter in the disciplinary process, what you are saying is that they need your permission to discipline you, because that's essentially what you are saying. It is wrong on its face. Take s step back and think about it for a moment.

Honestly, reading you on this reminds me of other people in this situation that are talking rapidly about a wrong that is being done to them, it has the same emotional feel to it.

Anonymous Randy M July 10, 2013 12:57 PM  

"Come on now. Put your thinking cap on. Does a governing body have the authority to discipline and regulate the body? Obviously yes, or it would not be a governing body. Will a governing body have need of copying forum posts in a disciplinary hearing or in the process of governing its body. The answer is yes."

Surely the governing body only has authority to do what is spelled out in the charter, contract, consitution, etc. Otherwise Vox would be in danger of a canning, in the name of discipline, no?

And also surely the report could have contained instead hyperlinks to posts to the password protected forum, allowing members to see items underconsideration without breaking confidentiality themselves.

It's just that they only see the laws as there to protect uncrimethinkers.

Blogger IM2L844 July 10, 2013 12:59 PM  

Things are implied all the time. To think differently is nonsenical and quite frankly, retarded.

Speaking of that, can't we skip ahead to the part where you are effectively called a Nazi so we can watch "It is what it is" skate backwards?

Anonymous It is what it is July 10, 2013 1:01 PM  

VD,

Have I ever argued that they won't do what they want to do? Why are you taking my statements that way?

You're reading in quite a bit.

Does it matter what "game" you're playing if your wrong regardless?





Anonymous Noah B. July 10, 2013 1:02 PM  

"But regarding the confidentiality matter in the disciplinary process, what you are saying is that they need your permission to discipline you, because that's essentially what you are saying. It is wrong on its face. Take s step back and think about it for a moment."

Not so much. There was no need for the Board to reproduce what was posted on the forum. They could simply have referred to it. Instead, they willfully violated the rules by soliciting permission to reproduce material from other forum contributors, but not from Vox.

Anonymous VD July 10, 2013 1:02 PM  

Did they get explicit permission from Sean Wallace to post a screenshot of his comment?

I assume so.

But regarding the confidentiality matter in the disciplinary process, what you are saying is that they need your permission to discipline you, because that's essentially what you are saying. It is wrong on its face. Take s step back and think about it for a moment.

I'm not saying anything of the kind. You're provably wrong. They disciplined me in the past for violating forum confidentiality without any need to violate it themselves. They had plenty of perfectly legitimate alternatives to utilize as part of the process, from simply referring to the posts by date and forum number to requesting my permission. Notice that Gould has now acted unilaterally and without even making a specific claim.

Honestly, reading you on this reminds me of other people in this situation that are talking rapidly about a wrong that is being done to them, it has the same emotional feel to it.

You're reading it incorrectly. I'm neither upset nor surprised. And you might be surprised how many people, some of whom dislike me very much, have contacted me to express their support for my calling out the Board in this public manner.

This is just today's point. It's straight out of the report, number two. Tomorrow won't have anything to do with confidentiality.

Anonymous kh123 July 10, 2013 1:03 PM  

So in giving evidence that your SFWA post was reposted without permission, the president bans you. Based on double-secret instructions.

So many state secrets to keep track of. How can one not be exiled.

Anonymous VD July 10, 2013 1:05 PM  

Does it matter what "game" you're playing if your wrong regardless?

I don't follow. Precisely what are you saying I am wrong about? Are you saying that the SWFA rules, guidelines, and bylaws do not apply to the SFWA Board members? Are you saying that the SFWA Board members can repost anything they want anywhere?

I can't answer the question without more information.

Anonymous It is what it is July 10, 2013 1:05 PM  

Skate backwards on what exactly?

If you think I'm going to call him a Nazi, you're sorely mistaken.

I agree with Beale on 70-80% of what he writes, and that which I don't agree with him on, it generally gets me thinking about it and considering his arguments.

Anonymous JoeyWheels July 10, 2013 1:07 PM  

allyn71 wrote:
"I have a vision of them on a Skype call contemplating their next move when someone shrieks out "He posted again!!!" and everyone loads up VP to see what Vox's lasting post highlighting their ineptness."

As a long-time lurker and less than-occaisonal poster here I'd like to say I am enjoying the "Battle For the SFWA"(R)tm

Out of curiosity, I scoured the screenshot..and it is obvious that whomever made the capture is monitoring Vox Popoli. I'm also confident that everyone involved from the 'SWiFaR' ranks is too.

....and that notion fills me with unbridled joy. This whole epic is like watching Bobby Fisher play chess against someone who barely knows checkers; yet thnks the rules of the simpler game can be transposed up to chess.

Forth Eorlingas!!!!!!!

Anonymous FUBAR Nation Ben July 10, 2013 1:09 PM  

Vox kind of looks like Riddick.

Blogger IM2L844 July 10, 2013 1:13 PM  

Skate backwards on what exactly?

The fundamentals of implications and their potential ramifications, but we'll see. You may surprise me.

Anonymous Davey Hogan's Revenge July 10, 2013 1:29 PM  

Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy states that in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people":

First, there will be those who are devoted to the goals of the organization. Examples are dedicated classroom teachers in an educational bureaucracy, many of the engineers and launch technicians and scientists at NASA, even some agricultural scientists and advisors in the former Soviet Union collective farming administration.

Secondly, there will be those dedicated to the organization itself. Examples are many of the administrators in the education system, many professors of education, many teachers union officials, much of the NASA headquarters staff, etc.

The Iron Law states that in every case the second group will gain and keep control of the organization. It will write the rules, and control promotions within the organization.

Appropriate. Not that the progs would understand a real SF writer who is, like, familiar with the laws of science.

Anonymous Outlaw X July 10, 2013 1:31 PM  

Piss on them Vox, they can't stop you from writing books. But I do understand giving them hell. I must be missing something.

Alexa Report

SFWA

Global Rank
Global rank icon 183,763
Rank in United States
United States Flag 44,029

Vox Popoli
Global Rank
Global rank icon 116,544
Rank in United States
United States Flag 22,445

Anonymous Salt July 10, 2013 1:44 PM  

It's so laughable. I think the board is only capable of two dimensional thinking. The superior intellect of the pinkshirts.

Anonymous Sigyn July 10, 2013 1:45 PM  

"there is always the moon."

Sorry -- the greed of the US government knows no earthly bounds.


Actually, since the lunar surface isn't included, this looks like an anti-salvage measure more than anything else.

Of course, the question comes up if someone can MOVE the stuff without violating the measure...'cause if they can't, then it kind of is a claim on the surface.

This is what Congress does with its time. Aren't you glad they earn so much money in salary?

Anonymous Is is what it is July 10, 2013 2:01 PM  

I'll try and make this simple, since I apparently have not been clear:

No reasonable person is going to see quoting Beale's posts in a disciplinary action without his consent as a violation of confidentiality.

I mean that.

This is not a reasonable or rational argument being made.

Honestly, this reminds me of the feminist argument that there is no consent to sex unless it is expressly asked if the person wants to have sex and the other person expressly consents. That's how far you all are taking this. It is that absurd.

IM2L844,

Since we are discussing implications and ramifications, perhaps you need to ponder that the implications and ramifications of your position is EXACTLY what the feminsits are arguing regarding consentual sex. The implications of your position is more horrific than the implications of what I am saying.

Anonymous Rico July 10, 2013 2:07 PM  

It is what it is, it sounds as though you have never been part of an organization before. Neglect of the bylaws when it constrains a Board is a sadly typical behavior. Organizational procedure is often spelled out to prevent abuse such as this. Rules are rules, not just when they serve the interest of organizational leadership.

Blogger Nate July 10, 2013 2:21 PM  

"I'll try and make this simple, since I apparently have not been clear:

No reasonable person is going to see quoting Beale's posts in a disciplinary action without his consent as a violation of confidentiality.

I mean that.

This is not a reasonable or rational argument being made."

Have you ever noticed how many exceptions there are in legal contracts? That's because common sense assumptions don't have any relevance in a contract case. There are no assumptions. They didn't think to include the exception for themselves in their own bylaws... so they are therefore comically bound by them.

What you're missing is how inept the by-laws were written. The whole point is to shine the line on that one fact, and basically employ that fact and leverage it to dismantle the whole organization.

This is black knighting. this is taking the rules they think are in their favor... and demonstrating just how those same rules can be used against anyone at any time.

Anonymous Peter Garstig July 10, 2013 2:38 PM  

It is what it is:

I'm terribly sorry, my little snowflake, for having hurt your feelings. But you're demonstrating again and again that you are indeed a little fool, as your example of trespassing clearly shows. You give explicit authorisation to the roofmaker to enter your property. Trespassing considers unauthorized access to your property. That's common law.

Now, double down and inhale.

Anonymous Daniel July 10, 2013 2:48 PM  

This is incredible. It is what it is lost in the weeds. I've seen a lot of organizations fail. I've never seen one fail in such a spectacular array of rainbow colors.

Blogger IM2L844 July 10, 2013 2:53 PM  

...you need to ponder that the implications and ramifications of your position is EXACTLY what the feminsits are arguing regarding consentual sex.

Interesting. Do tell. What, EXACTLY, do you think my position is?

Anonymous Laz July 10, 2013 3:04 PM  

"Spoken like a coward."

Spoken like a trolling keyboard commando.

Anonymous Anonymous July 10, 2013 3:07 PM  

It Is What It Is,

You've made your position clear. People don't agree with you. Not because they don't understand what you're saying. But because they don't agree with you.

Personally, I don't agree with you either. The argument Vox has put forward is not irrational, in my opinion.

The Board can certainly discipline members without reproducing confidential material.

To my knowledge, the Board has zero authority to reproduce any confidential material. In fact, I would argue that the Board's hands are more firmly tied on this matter (than Vox's) due to their duty of loyalty. Duty of loyalty is generally regarded as consisting of three things:

1. Conflict of interest,
2. Corporate opportunities, and
3. Confidentiality.

In other words, the Board has an actual duty to keep matters internal to the organization confidential.

Anonymous Salt July 10, 2013 3:09 PM  

Apologies to NETWORK -

Mr. Gould: You are meddling with the primal forces of nature, Mr. Beale, and I won't have it! Is that clear? You think you're opening people's eyes. That is not the case! Misogynist old men writers, kings of science fiction, have taken billions of dollars out of this country, and now they must put it back! It is ebb and flow, tidal gravity! It's vampires and wereseals. It is feminality in the balance! There is only the SFWA, Mr. Beale. That is the natural order of things today. That is the atomic and subatomic and galactic structure of things today! And YOU are meddling with the primal forces of nature, and YOU... WILL... ATONE! Am I getting through to you, Mr. Beale?

Anonymous jack July 10, 2013 3:09 PM  

@Vox: This is just today's point. It's straight out of the report, number two. Tomorrow won't have anything to do with confidentiality.

Excellent! We, of the Ilk and near Ilk, will get our daily fix. I'm already in the first stages of withdrawal contemplating the end of this kerfuffle with the SFWA board and the limited listing of members who just could not say no for a chance of forum immortality. What do you follow this act with? If it can be bested I cannot hardly wait.
Would it be fair to say that that Beale guy has at least a semi load of chili?

Anonymous GreyS July 10, 2013 3:18 PM  

This doesn't seem too difficult to understand, It Is What Is. By concentrating on, and arguing about, one particular point you miss the bigger picture-- VD is going step by step through the sections while admitting his (apparently only) violation-- misuse of the twitter feed.

You crying (essentially) "It's obvious you are wrong about the privacy issue" is itself obviously wrong, since virtually all here disagree with you. You then take that supposed wrongness and extrapolate it into being his entire defense.

Advice: Let it go. Have patience as the whole thing unfolds.

Anonymous WaterBoy July 10, 2013 3:21 PM  

Josh: "So have any other SFWA members figured out that the Board can expel members for any reason at any time?"

Even now, they are trying to correct the condition that led to the current situation:

Egregious or repeated abuse of the feeds may be cause for suspension or expulsion, after due process by the Board.

Nota bene: "egregious" is in the eye of the beholder.

One wonders if:
- A board vote was held on this change to a "working policy".
- A majority of the board voted for it.
- The change has been published in both the Forum (how can Vox be apprised of changes if he can no longer read them?) and the Bulletin (oops -- not yet, that's on hiatus).
- "Suspension" is defined in the by-laws, as "expulsion" is.

More and more SFWA is resembling nothing more than a confederacy of dunces¹.

¹"When a true genius² appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him".

²Okay, genius may be too strong...but use a relative scale with those in charge.

Anonymous Day late, dollar short July 10, 2013 3:33 PM  

Even now, they are trying to correct the condition that led to the current situation:

Barn doors closed, check.
Animals already escaped, check.
Farmer wreaking havoc, check.

Anonymous Daniel July 10, 2013 4:00 PM  

Old white male feminists in "charge."

Check.

Anonymous Dean Wormer July 10, 2013 4:20 PM  

This year is going to be different. This year we are going to grab the bull by the balls and kick those punks out of SWFA.
[inaudible]
They are?
[inaudible]
Oh. Then as of this moment, they're on double secret probation!
[inaudible again]
There is a little-known codicil in the SWFA bylaws which gives the President unlimited power to preserve order in time of forum emergencies. Find me a way to revoke Vox's membership. You live next door. Put Neidermeyer on it. He's a sneaky little shit, just like you, right? The time has come for someone to put their foot down. And that foot is me.

Anonymous Anonagain July 10, 2013 4:27 PM  

"The phrase “abusive behavior” is, in fact, an automatically-generated heading for the message sent to Mr. Beale."

That made me laugh.

Blogger wahsatchmo July 10, 2013 5:10 PM  

Davey Hogan's Revenge:

"Secondly, there will be those dedicated to the organization itself. Examples are many of the administrators in the education system, many professors of education, many teachers union officials, much of the NASA headquarters staff, etc.

The Iron Law states that in every case the second group will gain and keep control of the organization. It will write the rules, and control promotions within the organization."


I like how this is phrased. I've always thought that those that rise to the top in any nonprofit or political organization are those who define their roles by creating impediments to the organization's future. In other words, they create problems, impede progress, and oppose innovation so that their roles seem personally or individually relevant (through interference), and in doing so destroy the organization, literally spiting the organization's expressed goals.

The SFWA seems no exception.

As far as implied versus expressed confidentiality rules, I have to agree with Vox. The organization, having written its bylaws, would be considered to have known what the hell it was doing when writing said such laws. The members (i.e. Vox), to which the organization and board have a fiduciary duty, are considered laymen in terms of their interpretation of those bylaws. As such, any court would give deference to the layman in its interpretation with regard to a 'reasonable standard', because the organization was supposed to be smart enough to write their bylaws with their clear intentions showing.

Plus, the board compromised itself by their actions specifically requesting permission from certain authors to reproduce their forum contributions. Their actions belie any consideration that the board actually understood an implied right to reproduce any posts of any member in this particular contrived circumstance, since it went out of its way to contact certain members, but not Vox. And, of course, they had alternative methods to inform Vox of the posts in question via hyperlink, or date and time, or post number, as Vox pointed out.

This is why I hate most nonprofits, political divisions, and professional organizations. Too many of those that would volunteer to participate as board members have too much time to screw up the organization for everybody, simply to justify their own existence.

Anonymous Anonagain July 10, 2013 5:12 PM  

Vox has gone rogue. He must be stopped! It is becoming difficult to take this infantile farce seriously.

For all their affectations of protocol and deliberative proceedings, it is beyond obvious to anyone with two functioning neurons that the SFWA Board has simply fabricated 34 pages of trumped-up charges against one of its members, and is putting the entire membership through this ridiculous fiasco solely for the purpose of appeasing 2.6% of its membership - vindictive, vicious banshees who will not stop screeching until Vox is thrown out.

Of such insignificant atrocities is society methodically reduced to a hellhole of Leftist insanity.

Blogger Nate July 10, 2013 5:18 PM  

"Spoken like a trolling keyboard commando."

Sure.. because everyone has always been scared to do or say anything right? Solipsism much?

Anonymous DrTorch July 10, 2013 5:19 PM  

"I'll try and make this simple, since I apparently have not been clear:

No reasonable person is going to see quoting Beale's posts in a disciplinary action without his consent as a violation of confidentiality.

I mean that.

This is not a reasonable or rational argument being made."


For the record, I think you're exactly right. It is thin ice to insist that they've broken the rule. Alone, I would be very surprised to see it stand up in court.

However, given the context, that is the juxtaposition of their action's against VD's, it is far more compelling. Would it sway an arbiter, judge or jury? That's a risk, but I'd say it's worth pursuing given the risk/reward estimation. It's also the right thing to do.

Have you ever noticed how many exceptions there are in legal contracts? That's because common sense assumptions don't have any relevance in a contract case. There are no assumptions. They didn't think to include the exception for themselves in their own bylaws... so they are therefore comically bound by them.


That's why lawyers have jobs, but I wouldn't bet the farm that on any given day a judge will ignore common sense assumptions.

Anonymous VD July 10, 2013 5:37 PM  

It is thin ice to insist that they've broken the rule. Alone, I would be very surprised to see it stand up in court.

That aspect will never appear in court... or at least, it wouldn't have if Gould hadn't gone on the record inventing new confidentiality rules. It's otherwise unimportant. You have to understand, this is not yet a legal conflict. That part can't even start until AFTER they expel me. This is all just necessary prelude.

And tomorrow is when the prelude starts to get interesting. I suspect that is why there was the sudden flurry of activity; I can't imagine they ever dreamed the nonsense they put in there would ever be placed before the public. Remember, so far we have:

1. SFWA claiming it owns Twitter.
2. SFWA claiming I did what SFWA then admits that I didn't do.

And that concludes the nominally sane portion of the report. It's all downhill from here.

Blogger Markku July 10, 2013 5:41 PM  

I can promise the Ilk that we are merely a few inches into Bizarro World at this point. Things are about to get chray-zee.

Anonymous DT July 10, 2013 5:45 PM  

I don't follow these posts very closely. But I can say this: if I was a science fiction writer, I would never, for any reason, be a part of SFWA. When I think of SFWA, I picture the First World Problems meme. Specifically the crying female photo.

Vox: why do you even waste your time with those morons? You could have written another novel in the time you've gone around with them and their menstruating PC drama.

Blogger JACIII July 10, 2013 5:45 PM  

Entertainment like this cannot be purchased. At any price.

The SFWA board makes the keystone cops look coherent, and who hasn't imagined a Porcine Power Point Princess cooking up that lovely pie chart from yesterday's post for submission to the Board for ammo. See? Math isn't hard for guuurls!

And I suspect the banning from the forum has more to do with the fear someone may be data mining for information which could be used against the SFWA board.

Anonymous Sensei July 10, 2013 6:06 PM  

I can promise the Ilk that we are merely a few inches into Bizarro World at this point. Things are about to get chray-zee.

And here I'd been thinking they couldn't get much more absurd..

Anonymous VD July 10, 2013 6:17 PM  

Vox: why do you even waste your time with those morons? You could have written another novel in the time you've gone around with them and their menstruating PC drama.

What do you think I'm doing now? I can't write 24 hours a day. This is entertainment.

Anonymous Anonagain July 10, 2013 6:22 PM  

Things are about to get chray-zee.

No, Markku - I believe the correct spelling is cahray-zee.

Anonymous Anonagain July 10, 2013 6:44 PM  

I can promise the Ilk that we are merely a few inches into Bizarro World at this point.

I'd take a guess, but try as I might, I've never been able to think like a Leftist zombie retard. Theirs is a world void of reason, logic, facts, honor, morals, truth or even reality. I may as well be attempting to guess at the thought process of a two-dimensional alien entity that just beamed in from another galaxy - except Leftists are less human.

Anonymous Anonagain July 10, 2013 6:57 PM  

Q: How many SFWA members does it take to screw in a light bulb?

A: 2.6% to screech about it, and a 34-page report from the Board to rationalize it.

Wait. I was confusing screwing in a light bulb with screwing Vox. Never mind.

Anonymous It is what it is July 10, 2013 7:19 PM  

Peter Gasbag,

Is calling me a snowflake supposed to shame me? I didn't realize that rabbit behavior isn't restricted to the pinkshirts. Keep twitching your nose at me angrily, it makes you look cute.

And really I explicitly said he could go on my property? Where exactly? Explicit means explicit, implied is not written but assumed. No where did I say he could be on my property, it is IMPLIED logically that he could because he would have to. That's where the disconnect comes from.

And you reference Common Law. The application of supposed common sense reasoning to situations by the courts. Your response actually proves my point. There are things presumed and assumed.

Some of you think this:

"I can't wait for the rabbit panic once this goes into discovery...

Especially since the Board just officially referred to them. That's why I think it is so amusing that they think they can keep any of this secret. Once this shifts from the Board's authority to a legal one, their ability to keep any of it behind closed doors is gone.

It's as if no one there thinks one step ahead, or about possible alternatives."

You think a lawsuit is going to put everything in the public domain? Why wouldn't their attorney get an injunction? Why wouldn't they try (and possibly successfully) get the court to force you to shut down all discussion of this while this is pending in court because the blog is accessible anywhere? And seal or restrict content publication to what is relevant?

And then there is the big question.

What are Mr. Beale's damages? He's going to get more readers out of this, not less. It doesn't impact him economically. So I don't see any damages here. Not enough to get it out of small claims. Hurt feelings . . . from a self-proclaimed cruelty artist? Where are the damages. Getting kicked out of an organization the is essentially irrelevant?

Or do you all think calling someone names and kicking them out of a dying organization means you should get a pot of gold?

I hope Beale's attorney got his fees up front.

Blogger tz July 10, 2013 7:24 PM  

Quite entertaining.

The only thing I can think of is the SFWA as represented by the board holds the copyright to the posts at the forums, so the right to reproduce, quote, etc. so they might be violating the forum rules (which I expect they can retroactively change), but they have somehow reserved the right to reproduce willy-nilly any works owned by the SFWA.

So who has the copyright to the forum postings? The poster or the SWFA?

Anonymous VD July 10, 2013 7:41 PM  

What are Mr. Beale's damages? He's going to get more readers out of this, not less. It doesn't impact him economically. So I don't see any damages here. Not enough to get it out of small claims. Hurt feelings . . . from a self-proclaimed cruelty artist? Where are the damages. Getting kicked out of an organization the is essentially irrelevant?

You're late to the party. $5,000 less whatever they calculate according to the bylaws. That's the Board-established price of a Lifetime membership as of 2010.

Anonymous Spike July 10, 2013 8:18 PM  

I am reminded of watching the late stages of RPG.net's decent into PC tyranny, when one of the Admins had to ban HIMSELF for two weeks for making a Brokeback Mountain joke.

Now, of course, no one was paying anything for 'membership' on the forums at that time, but it was interesting how the forum rules got more and more... abstract after that, and how more and more of the more obnoxiously progressive members (those who had been banned in the past) were given moderation powers...

Drawing exact parallels is, of course, impossible. However, I would think that the progression of decay, and the continued long term health of that forum would indicate that the SWFA may persist in healthy irrelevance for quite some time. I think the Hoyt post was more damning of their long term prospects than their internal rot, sadly. Too many idle people seem to enjoy the corruptions of their surroundings rather than be revolted by them.

Anonymous It is what it is July 10, 2013 8:55 PM  

$5000 . . .

Less the cost of whatever the annual membership is/was. Lets assume $250.00 a year (feel free to state the real number unless that's double secret as well) and you've been a member for what, 16 years.

So maybe $1000. Giving you interest, lets be generous, $2000 to recover.

That's not damages, that's chump change.

You just proved my point, you don't have damages.

That puts you in small claims, which keeps you from getting lawyer fees (assuming you win) and keeps most of the discovery procedures out of the question.

A lawyer (unless he's probono) is going to charge you anywhere from $200-500 an hour. So if you're paying one already, you're burning through any recovery. Like I said, I hope he got his money up front.

Once you're no longer a member, many of your procedural objections will be out because you lack standing . . .

Yep, this is going to be entertaining, but not in the way you, or either of the rabbit warrens expects.

Anonymous LL July 10, 2013 9:24 PM  

Actually @Markku and @Anonagain, in modern kidspeak, "It's gonna get cray cray!!"

Anonymous Josh July 10, 2013 9:43 PM  

That's the Board-established price of a Lifetime membership as of 2010.



Aren't dues $80/yr? What's the advantage of the lifetime membership?

Blogger IM2L844 July 10, 2013 9:57 PM  

Yep, this is going to be entertaining, but not in the way you, or either of the rabbit warrens expects.

It is what it is, I thought you said you were a regular reader of this blog. Many of the prodigiously clueless things you've said prove beyond any doubt that you were either exaggerating or outright lying about that. Unless, of course, by regular you mean annually. Even if you only read this blog on a monthly basis, you would be more informed about the situation than you appear to be.

You really should just stop. you're making yourself look foolish. If you were half as smart as you think you are, you would be too embarrassed to continue, but I expect you'll carry on a bit longer.

Anonymous Anonagain July 10, 2013 10:02 PM  

Actually @Markku and @Anonagain, in modern kidspeak, "It's gonna get cray cray!!"

Kay kay!

Anonymous Alexander July 10, 2013 10:10 PM  

You're all wrong - at this point, the correct response is not to comment about how 'cray cray' things are going to be but to emit one continuous, high-pitched 'squeeeee'.

Anonymous Daniel July 10, 2013 10:19 PM  

It is what it is, it isn't what you think it is. You best pipe down now. You've wandered into pit row and think you belong because you have heard of cars before.

Anonymous It is what it is July 10, 2013 10:49 PM  

And the rabbits tell me to shut up for my own good.

My how much you mirror the ones you mock.

Rabbits gonna rabbit.

Anonymous Josh July 10, 2013 11:27 PM  

Are you related to Asher?

Anonymous NateM July 10, 2013 11:33 PM  

This whole thing reminds me of Hoffa's sparring with Bobby Kennedy in his hearing and running circles around him. Scalzi and Co. are less drunk but equally as Bobby in that respect, but God bless them, they keep trying to keep up when they are hopeless outmatched.

http://youtu.be/tsWVzTK0__s

Anonymous Anonymous July 11, 2013 12:03 AM  

I can imagine It-is-what-it-is's legal advise to Jessica Wishart.

"But Jessica, coffee's supposed to be hot. Where are your damages? You're wasting your time!"

Here's my thought:

I'm okay with this if Vox is doing it on principle alone. The SFWA has lost its way. It's no longer following its purpose as set out by its by-laws, in my opinion. I think it's important that people take a stand, if only because I don't want to live in a world dominated by groupthink.

Legally, there's more than one approach Vox could conceivably take. I suppose your position is . . . what exactly?

That Vox ultimately won't have standing? I disagree. Vox clearly has standing, and will clearly have standing if he's booted out of the organization tomorrow.

Is your position that some of the dirty laundry might not come out? That's possible, but that depends on how future events play out. I don't have a crystal ball, and I suspect you don't either. I also suspect that's why a lot of people are paying attention. I can certainly envision quite a few leaks coming out in the near future. In fact, I'm hoping that the entire SFWA forum gets posted for the world to see. Vox is not the only one capable of doing that.

Is your position that Vox is wasting his time? Noted.

Is your position that people here shouldn't be calling you names? I agree.

Blogger IM2L844 July 11, 2013 1:00 AM  

And the rabbits tell me to shut up for my own good.

Ah, just as I thought.

Look, I don't care if you blather on for days, but when it became clear that you thought Vox was niggling over nothing for the sake of a few grand, I just felt sorry for you. I determined to intervene on your behalf and save you from the inevitable fallout that would surely ensue.

I was trying to do you a favor, but, by all means, do as you please.

Anonymous Peter Garstig July 11, 2013 5:59 AM  

It is what it is, I don't think you understand what I was saying. Because it's quite simple to understand, I assume that you are a fool. I might be wrong on this though.

I never said that there are never any implications in common law or elsewhere.
I never said that there can't be any implications in the case under discussion.
I merely said that if it is implied that confidentiality rules can be broken when the Board investigates against a member, the rule itself is worthless.

I don't expect you to understand.

Anonymous 411 July 11, 2013 6:23 AM  

RE: Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy

Close, but it would better be understood as the battle of the brain hemispheres.

The left/male brain is the system brain, the right/female brain is the social brain.

The system brains construct systems/organizations, which if successful, attract the status seeking social brain.

I presume, though I know not, that the founders of the SWFA united in order to discuss the systems of nature (science) and the system of writing fiction. However, once established and recognized, the social brains desired membership for the social status, and in crept the clowns.

And to anyone interested in sexual dynamics, it should be observed that the male desires the beautiful system (symmetrical, fertile female body), while the female desires social status. What do women say when asked about attraction? They list things like success, confidence, intelligence, sense of humor, tall, etc. They also like to say that looks don't matter that much.

so just be cool bruh

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts