ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Wednesday, June 24, 2015

An interesting admission and EPH analysis

I have to admit, I'm a little surprised that the SJWs have been willing to be this blatant about their push to completely change the Hugo rules:
Andrew Hickey on June 24, 2015 at 5:51 am said:
[T]he point of the rules change isn’t to force “Day” to nominate a quota of Tor novels, or to affect people’s nominations in any way. It’s only meant to stop him having disproportionate power.
Oh, is that all? They were fine with Tor wielding disproportionate power with its little 40-bloc vote, and reasonably so because prior to Scalzi and his greedy "award pimpage", Tor was always circumspect about quite literally letting other people win from time to time, but it's when the Puppies show up with seven times that number, suddenly change is needed.

If I simply wanted to win a Hugo, I would have done what Jim Hines and Kameron Hurley did and picked off one or two of the easier ones like Fan Writer or Related Work by following the Scalzi model. Contra the constant SJW denials, people have been utilizing tightly focused bloc votes for decades, it's just been hidden by the Worldcon counters. Note the Rosenberg votes in the 1984 example. I know of at least 12 other cases of focused bloc votes, in several cases directly from the Hugo nominee's mouth who orchestrated the vote.

It's not irrelevant to note that Joel Rosenberg had 19 bullet votes at this stage (a few of whom had voted for other less popular candidates as well), and that these included ten voters with consecutive membership numbers who cast nominating votes identically for him in this category and for a novel called The Sleeping Dragon and a short story called "The Emigrant". You'll never guess who those works were by.

Instead, I made about the biggest splash possible. Naturally, they conclude that this must mean that I want ALL THE HUGOS even though I didn't nominate myself in numerous categories for which I was eligible. You would think that at some point, in the midst of all the angst and hysteria, they would stop and think for two seconds about what I meant by my statement that I will not destroy the Hugos, I will make them do it. Anyhow, we know better than to expect reason, coherence, or even the simple truth from SJWs
JJ on June 24, 2015 at 6:22 am said:
Well, the Gallo thing has pretty much run its course now, and the “boycott” of Tor has turned out to be an utter dud, and all the commenters here at File770 are talking more and more about books and paying less and less attention to the Puppies.
What is amusing is that this comment was immediately preceded by:
  • 28 comments about me and the Puppies
  • 5 comments about books
SJWs always lie.

One of the more amusing aspects of File 770 is the way that the commenters there are both a) absolutely obsessed with me and b) hell-bent on denying that I am of any import whatsoever. So they repeatedly claim that they just want to talk about books while mostly talking about the Puppies; in the meantime, nary a link in the round-up has anything to do with anything that isn't related to me, the Puppies, or the Torlings dutifully doing exactly what I assumed they would do from the start, which is destroy the village in the name of saving it.

I find the EPH proposal to be very promising in this regard, as it is designed by the Torlings at Making Light to permit Tor Books to avoid being shut out in the future and ensure it at least one nomination per category every year. Of course, it will hand the Puppies the same fixed claim on the Hugos, which will gradually turn the award into a five-faction competition, perhaps four if we continue to build our numbers to the point where we can reliably lay claim to two nominations per category. It's a very parliamentarian proposal.

It means that DAW and some of the other smaller publishers had better decide quickly whether they are better off fighting amongst themselves for the 2-3 open slots or fight the proposal, because if EPH passes, some of them will never see another Hugo nomination after 2017... unless the TORlings are willing to give up one of their own seats on what will effectively be the Hugo Security Council.

It's telling that the Torlings would rather hand us the equivalent of a permanent nomination slot than compete directly with us. It demonstrates that for all of the bluster and splashing about of the small fry, the bigger fish in the little SF pond realize that the Puppies are a serious force with which they must expect to reckon indefinitely.

I am neither endorsing nor opposing EPH or any other rules changes this year. The reason is that when those rules changes implode the awards as I anticipate, I want all responsibility for the changes to be credited to those who proposed and voted for them.

Labels:

67 Comments:

Anonymous Alexander, #10 June 24, 2015 2:38 PM  

It's a classic bitch move to try things 'their' way for five seconds, then announce that enough time has passed and we must do things 'my' way. Forever.

The boycott has existed for not yet a week. Nice try, SJW, nice try, but we're not quitting just because you called it dead.

Anonymous Elijah Rhodes June 24, 2015 2:39 PM  

I'm sure they truly believe that it is far better to burn the village to the ground, rather than allowing Vox to get a Hugo. Idiots.

Anonymous Krul June 24, 2015 2:53 PM  

Wait... how is it that Vox has disproportionate power but Larry and Brad don't?

Blogger IM2L844 June 24, 2015 2:54 PM  

The only thing more predictable than SJWs shooting themselves in the foot is their congratulating themselves for being so clever to do so.

Blogger Elocutioner0226 June 24, 2015 2:59 PM  

Glock leg is usually non-fatal, meaning we get to watch them do it over and over again.

Blogger VFM bot #188 June 24, 2015 3:02 PM  

Anyhow, we know better than to expect reason, coherence, or even the simple truth from SJWs.

Well duh Mr. Supreme Evil Dark Overlord of Evilness and the ELoE! There's a reason the First Commandment comes first, and a reason that the First Amendment is first.

Just so The First Rule: SJW's always lie. Always? Yes, always.

Anonymous SS June 24, 2015 3:05 PM  

Wait... how is it that Vox has disproportionate power but Larry and Brad don't?

I imagine mainly because Brad and Larry have been at the Puppy game for several years now and didn't make much of an impact until Vox came on the scene and reduced the town to rubble.

Blogger RobertT June 24, 2015 3:06 PM  

40 bloc vote? 280 bloc vote? Is it that easy? If it is, I'm amazed. 40 people controlled Hugo voting for years?

Anonymous MrGreenMan June 24, 2015 3:09 PM  

The only sensible choice for their ideal voter - disinterested in the outcome, passionate about "fandom" - is to make a single selection in every category. They are going to force people to make too early a choice, and they are going to burn it down themselves. Dr Who will always win what Dr. Who has usually won; the five biggest nominating blocs will get their choices; all minority voices will be squelched, because nobody can give them a shot. If you had a second favorite, well, too bad - you would be a moron to put down your second choice since it cuts your first choice in half.

It's like socialism. They say they want little companies and not corporatism. They wind up with a handful of large, heavily-regulated, politically-connected companies and no small players.

EPH is the poison pill; it is them killing their own; how delicious. I like how they even lie to their own in their plain English explanation: "The important thing to remember is that nothing changes in how you nominate. If you think a work is Hugo-worthy, then nominate it." Except that, by having too many choices, you undercut yourself, and so you have to choose only one not to be a complete moron. I guess the idea that they've gamed this out is either laughable to them or it's exactly what they want - to institutionalize a specific cabal always winning.

Blogger Elocutioner0226 June 24, 2015 3:09 PM  

"Wait... how is it that Vox has disproportionate power but Larry and Brad don't?"

Maybe because Larry and Brad want to play a nice game of chess but Vox is comfortable with thermonuclear war?

Anonymous Book_Girl June 24, 2015 3:16 PM  

Dear Lord, I truly, honestly never realized how much pure entertainment I was going to get for a measly $40 spent on a Worldcon membership. I get far more enjoyment out of this kerfluffle than I ever get on what I spend on a yearly Netflix membership.

One satisfied customer right here. :)

Anonymous Leonidas June 24, 2015 3:19 PM  

Wait... how is it that Vox has disproportionate power but Larry and Brad don't?

Take a look at the nominations again. Rabid Puppies outperformed Sad Puppies pretty much across the board.

Blogger Dexter June 24, 2015 3:26 PM  

If the SJW were in Berlin on August 5, 1914:

"The Britisher pig blockade has run its course and is a complete dud, ja?"

Blogger Karl June 24, 2015 3:32 PM  

what will effectively be the Hugo Security Council

You're going to need a quality architect. Don't go the UN HQ modernist route.

Maybe a good motte/bailey - Security Council up top, minor publishers below.

Blogger Rabbi B June 24, 2015 3:36 PM  

"Well, the Gallo thing has pretty much run its course now, and the “boycott” of Tor has turned out to be an utter dud . . ."

The Unholy trinity of the SJWism: Deception, Doubling Down, and Disqualification.

Always deceive.

Always double down.

Always disqualify.

Blogger Quizzer W June 24, 2015 3:38 PM  

I will be attending Sasquan and must decide how to vote on this proposal. Your analysis is helpful. This assumes, of course, that I am not kicked out long before the meeting.

Blogger Cail Corishev June 24, 2015 3:40 PM  

Wait... how is it that Vox has disproportionate power but Larry and Brad don't?

Hyp-mo-tism.

Anonymous Porky June 24, 2015 3:49 PM  

Burn. Burn. Burn.

Blogger darkdoc June 24, 2015 4:03 PM  

Dumbass SJW's think they are dealing and fighting with Republicans.

I'm not going to tell them differently myself. Why ruin a glorious self-deception.

Blogger Feather Blade June 24, 2015 4:07 PM  

I don't know what their problem is, I mean, 3 of the 5 best novel nominees are TOR books.

Are they so blinded by their ideology that they will throw their own works under the bus merely because someone, whom they disliked, liked the works they put out?

What's next? They'll start telling everyone we have cooties?

Anonymous Poli_Mis June 24, 2015 4:10 PM  

EPH = The Jonestown Solution. Leftists have such a predictable playbook.

Blogger ScuzzaMan June 24, 2015 4:12 PM  

Apparently GamerGate is dead, too.

Anonymous rws June 24, 2015 4:17 PM  

#16 Quizzer. Perhaps you could volunteer to go up on stage to accept all the Puppy Hugos. Giving Gerrold a big sloppy kiss and yelling "You like me! You really really like me!" would likely be the most entertaining thing that has ever happened at a Worldcon.

Anonymous Bz June 24, 2015 4:23 PM  

Why are senior managers of Tor, one of the larger publishers of SF, at all involved in manipulating what is presented as the most prestigious fan award in the genre? I consider this activity sleaze and corruption, and I'm astounded that the company is permitting this to continue. Shall we consider Tor and Macmillan to be endorsing these activities?

Tom Doherty, yet another blemish on your reputation.

The World Science Fiction Society, who appear to oversee the Hugo awards, should publicly clarify its relations with publishers and take the opportunity to clean up the awards, in order to avoid undue influence from those who stand to commercially gain from its decisions. This seems pretty elementary.

Blogger bw June 24, 2015 4:45 PM  

I want all responsibility for the changes to be credited to those who proposed and voted for them.

Ouch. That's gonna leave a mark.
DeNial ain't just a river in Egypt.

Blogger Quizzer W June 24, 2015 4:47 PM  

#23 rws - What did I do to warrant such a horrific punishment?!?

Blogger Cataline Sergius June 24, 2015 5:10 PM  

They were fine with Tor wielding disproportionate power with its little 40-bloc vote, and reasonably so because prior to Scalzi and his greedy "award pimpage",

Tor got way too obvious. In a lot of ways Scalzi's award pimpage was gasoline on a long smoldering fire.

PNH has been in the business long enough he should have realized what he really had with Scalzi.

Not the new Heinlein. Not even the new Haldeman.

Just a writer who had had years to polish his first book and couldn't produce any works of comparable quality in under one year.

Happens all the time. Most editors can recognize it when they see it. They shrug and go back to the slush pile.

For whatever reason the Nielsen-Haydens didn't see it or couldn't.

I have no idea why.

Anonymous BGS June 24, 2015 5:10 PM  

40 people controlled Hugo voting for years? So for the low low price of $1640 you could have given yourself a Hugo in every category in those years overriding the rest of the votes.

•28 comments about me and the Puppies

The comment about me shouldn't count as I will be voting on my own for "If you where a Sam's club pallet of Doritos my love, by GRRM"

honestly never realized how much pure entertainment I was going to get for a measly $40 spent on a Worldcon membership.

I have probably gotten more fun out of this than Obama did at the Chicago bath houses. But then again he got paid there.

I will be attending Sasquan and must decide how to vote on this proposal.

Make sure you bring something like vanilla extract to put on your upper lip to help tolerate CHORF smells.

Anonymous rws June 24, 2015 5:11 PM  

Eternal fame, and perhaps your statue in the Halls of the Evil Lord of Evil. Think of the possibilities, man.

Blogger LP 999/Eliza June 24, 2015 5:23 PM  

Obsession is stating the fixation charitably.

Their antics and the ongoing HUGO matters require continued coverage. These matters surrounding it and the strange personalities too will out do the inflation/deflation debates.

Blogger bearspaw June 24, 2015 5:25 PM  

Slightly OT. Has Casalia considered moving into juvenile fiction, specificaly SF? The numbers are staggering compared to adult SFF.

Blogger VD June 24, 2015 5:29 PM  

Has Casalia considered moving into juvenile fiction, specificaly SF?

If we get a good one, sure.

Blogger Peter Pan June 24, 2015 5:38 PM  

I must have missed something. What are the EPH rules proposed?

Blogger Jack Ward June 24, 2015 5:39 PM  

I've managed to miss the definition, or, mechanism of EPH rule changes. A search here turned up nothing. I would appreciate a definition of this rule change or a place to go to find it. Thanks.

Blogger eharmonica June 24, 2015 5:41 PM  

Here you go:
http://sasquan.org/business-meeting/agenda/

B.1.4 – Short Title: E Pluribus Hugo (Out of the Many, a Hugo)

It started out on Makinglight

Blogger luagha June 24, 2015 5:49 PM  

I wish I knew if the Neilsen-Haydens used actual Tor advertising dollars from an advertising budget to buy multiple memberships for their bloc votes. I mean it seems so obvious, but not being an SJW, I don't accuse without proof. Just mention things passive-aggressively.

Blogger byronfrombyron June 24, 2015 5:51 PM  

@ Elocutioner:

That's GLOBAL thermonuclear war, sir. The fires from which the Dark Lord's castle shall be lit for a millenium. The cries from which will fill his banquet halls as the music of conquest.

Anonymous TimP June 24, 2015 6:22 PM  

> 40 bloc vote? 280 bloc vote? Is it that easy? If it is, I'm amazed. 40 people controlled Hugo voting for years?

Yes and no. 40 votes wasn't enough to completely control the Hugo nomination process, but it was enough to have a massive influence. If you look at the 2010 numbers (http://www.thehugoawards.org/content/pdf/2010HugoVotingReport.pdf; starting from page 18) you see that:

864 nominating ballots where cast.

The range for Best Novel was 62 to 142 nominations.
The most popular category was Best Dramatic Presentation, Long Form was 174 to 246
Best Short Story was 23 to 59 (only the 59 was over 40)

40 voters would be enough to get you most of the minor categories, but in the big categories it would have a big influence, but wouldn't be enough to guarantee getting your works on.

This year the total nominating ballots was about double 2010's, so yes, a 280 bloc vote would be able to control pretty much the entire thing.

The fact that the Puppies didn't get every nomination, just most of them, is evidence that either there was less than 300 of them nominating, or that they didn't really vote that consistently with the proposed slate. I'd be betting on the later rather than the former.

Blogger Jack Ward June 24, 2015 7:08 PM  

Thank You, ehamonica [35]. I went there. I skimmed; I then read. Is it possible for those people to come up with something more confusing? I don't think so. It will be interesting, if this piece of crap rule change happens, to see what the Evil Lord decrees is the best way to game the hell out of it. Because, thats exactly what that rule change deserves.

Blogger Groot June 24, 2015 7:17 PM  

"Here you go:
http://sasquan.org/business-meeting/agenda/"

Submitted by: ... Tammy Coxen ...

I did not know that was the plural form.

Blogger rcocean June 24, 2015 7:49 PM  

OT: I noticed that Red state and Erik Erickson are now joining the Left is pushing the "Like the Confederate flag = racist" meme. And of course, if you don't like Gay Marriage you're not welcomed at "Red State" either. Does any conservative still read and comment there?

Blogger rcocean June 24, 2015 7:52 PM  

BTW, didn't know that Nikki Haley is a actually a Sikh Indian. Southerners seemed to love Sikh's - Jindahl is one too.

Anonymous Donn #0114 June 24, 2015 8:14 PM  

What is the Rosenberg deal with 1984. The link went to a page with about a hundred entries.

Blogger Danby June 24, 2015 8:19 PM  

@rocean,
Haley's parents are Sikh's, Haley herself is a Methodist, I believe.
There's a lot of overlap between Sikhs and rednecks.

Anonymous aacid June 24, 2015 8:25 PM  

It just seems when you look at that plan that if you like a number of works that vote may not count. Just seems it makes it easier to target the nom with single votes. Honestly I can see the 4/6 idea but this just seems a way to empower the gaming by single parties (*cough* Scalzi *cough*). Even if every minion voted randomly from the 2015 reading list you have posted (as an example) many of their votes would be of less worth than someone that just read a book or two and pushed it...

As to the idea that best related work is all rubbish as posted in the linked article...Different tastes but better than lots of years. As for whether Hugos reflect the genre...There is more to SF/F television than Buffy, Doc Who and GoT... This year is probably most diverse.

Blogger Joel #0164 June 24, 2015 8:42 PM  

And of course, if you don't like Gay Marriage you're not welcomed at "Red State" either.

Do you mind providing evidence for this? I don't ever visit Red State normally so I might be missing something, but I looked up their gay marriage archive and it looks like the articles published under that tag are still fairly negative on the subject (judging by the headlines at least; I only read/skimmed a couple of the articles).

Anonymous Donn #0114 June 24, 2015 9:04 PM  

They're so unconcerned that they will simply concede a hugo or two to the puppies every year? They're so unconcerned that we keep getting new SJWs every day saying that the puppies are nothing and losing so go home and quit?

First rule is always in action.

Anonymous Noah Nehm June 24, 2015 9:17 PM  

It seems to me the characteristics of a SJW (Emotional Reasoning, Victim Mentality, Propensity toward Condemnation, Invective, and Vituperation, Uncompromising, Controlling, Manipulative, etc) fits the profile of those suffering from Borderline Personality Disorder.

Blogger Wyndie June 24, 2015 9:23 PM  

@Danby, you are correct. I used to go to the same conservative Methodist church as the Haleys.

Blogger James Sullivan June 24, 2015 10:08 PM  

@rcocean,

Jindal was Hindu and converted to Catholicism.

Blogger bob k. mando June 24, 2015 10:25 PM  

28. BGS June 24, 2015 5:10 PM
Make sure you bring something like vanilla extract to put on your upper lip to help tolerate CHORF smells.



dude, that's just NASTY.

http://www.qwantz.com/index.php?comic=2837

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanilla#Nonplant_vanilla_flavoring

Anonymous zen0 June 24, 2015 10:43 PM  

42. rcocean

BTW, didn't know that Nikki Haley is a actually a Sikh Indian. Southerners seemed to love Sikh's - Jindahl is one too.

Sikhs tend to have a sense of honor. Up to and including rebellion if necessary.

Anonymous Hawk S. Rabidus June 24, 2015 10:48 PM  

Is it now apparent that the tactics have shifted slightly here in regards to the Tor boycott? I won't say it's got a new spin on it, but has it not been adjusted?

Initially, it was framed almost exclusively as the appropriate response to the flimsy apology, and the fact that no other action had been taken.

Lately, it's been framed almost exclusively as the appropriate response because it's the weapon of choice of the SJWs.

But if that's the case, then it's not entirely the same weapon. Because the other side would never admit "well, we're not really as insulted as we let on, but it's a convenient weapon we can wield".

Then, if the other side thinks that only unquestioned sincerity (ie: real crocodile tears of anguish as opposed to simulated crocodile tears of anguish) are a necessary ingredient for this tactic, they'll view this boycott as specious and manufactured. And they'll not budge unless it's visibly hurting the bottom line for Tor. In other words, I don't think they'll care unless you can make them care by taking away a significant part of their business.

So if they dig in, and the boycott fails, how does one frame the situation then? "We won because they refused to concede to our demands, and now we never have to concede to their demands ever again?"

Blogger bob k. mando June 24, 2015 10:56 PM  

53. Hawk S. Rabidus June 24, 2015 10:48 PM
But if that's the case, then it's not entirely the same weapon. Because the other side would never admit "well, we're not really as insulted as we let on, but it's a convenient weapon we can wield".


oh? and this supposed dichotomy CONCERNS you? really, REALLY concerns you?

it's not a question of insult, it's a question of justice.

your confusion is akin to the Leftist mistaking of incarceration for rehabilitation.

the Tor / Macmillan response is no longer a question of meting out an appropriate consequence to Gallo. it is now a referendum on Tor / Macmillan management.

Anonymous Thobby (#58) June 24, 2015 11:01 PM  

Well, for me the question does not arise, because I'm every bit as insulted as I let on. If not more so.

Anonymous Godfrey June 24, 2015 11:06 PM  

The boycott is slowly spreading. Just keep spreading it one person at a time with the people you know.

I've personally cost Tor $$$ with the SF readers I know.

Take a stand against insensitive intolerant misandrist bigotry. Boycott Tor.

Anonymous Hawk S. Rabidus June 24, 2015 11:18 PM  

I am very sure that many people are insulted. But most of those watching this latest initiative seem to focus on Vox, and it's unlikely that they are treating it as credible that he's truly offended here.

They probably think his statement about insult is as legit as the "wink, wink" statement of John C. Wright about not being able to support the Tor boycott.

But there's no reason not to believe that the grassroots participating in the boycott are truly hurt and righteously indignant. Will it be enough to hurt Tor's bottom line? Because I don't think they'll meet to discuss terms otherwise.

Blogger Groot June 24, 2015 11:24 PM  

Vox is right. I popped over to File770 and they are obsessed with him. Not a lot of humor over there, I note. Our concern troll here has it right: "seem to focus on Vox."

Blogger automatthew June 24, 2015 11:29 PM  

I had my children help me bring all the Tor books downstairs, then arrange them on the dining room table for the photograph. We talked about why we were doing this, the battle we were fighting.

My father follows this blog. Though he doesn't read much science fiction, we talk about this war.

This war involves generations. Our enemies do not understand what they have roused.

Blogger Quizzer W June 24, 2015 11:30 PM  

I just read an update today on Firefox. It has dropped to under 2% browser share with no end to the drop in sight. It's taken, what, 18 months or so to go from 25% share to 2%? The article mentioned they see it being merely a footnote in another 18 months. No, I can't remember where I read it. White Russians + Summer Heat == Forgettery fully engaged.

Is the Tor boycott similar? Don't know, time will tell, but it will be a very interesting comparison in a couple of years.

Blogger ScuzzaMan June 25, 2015 12:45 AM  

FYI marketshare.com lists 10 % or so, a drop of over half since the SJW raid on their CEO ...

Blogger Groot June 25, 2015 12:56 AM  

"Firefox's lowest share since July 2006, when the browser had been in the market for less than two years." Thank goodness Tor has high switching costs, a monopoly on the market, and no alternatives. Otherwise, I'd say it might have been a dunderheaded move to call half your customers neo-nazis.

Anonymous Shut up rabbit June 25, 2015 1:51 AM  

@53. We are every bit as insulted as the panty-wadders and the pearl-clutchers but previously we would have been satisfied with a recognition that we had been wronged and an apology.

However, since so much of the world is in the hands of liars and hypocrites who honesty believe any wrong is acceptable as long as it is aimed at the others while they are immune from any form of criticism, it is time to take a stand and insist that the rules are applied equally to both sides.

Each time the demand for equality is rejected by the so-called "egalitarians" their hypocrisy exposed to the point where no reasonable person can accept that what is happening is merely a difference of opinions.

Anyone claiming to be a "moderate" in such a situation is a liar or a coward [or probably both] As has been discussed they are "appeasers". I mean, how would a compromise with these people work? Do they get to impose what is published, praised and rewarded Mon, Wed, Fri and we can do what we want on the other days? It's not a difference of opinions, it never was.

It is a group of egotistical totalitarians looking to impose their idea of a "fair" on everyone else (with them in the positions of leadership, of course).

Thankfully, those that believe this crap are so dumb (its a self-selecting population of the meanest and most impressionable people on the planet) that a concerted effort by normal people just to not put up with their shit anymore will bring the whole house of cards tumbling down.

They exist because of our over-tolerance and that is now being withdrawn as they clearly cannot help but abuse it (no wonder most SJWs are also obese, they have no self control be it for food, freedom or meddling other peoples lives)

So, thank you for your CONCERN but we don't care!

Blogger Kull June 25, 2015 8:56 AM  

I am genuinely insulted by Gallo's comments. Hurt, wounded, emotionally distraught? No. Just insulted. And I am not worried in the least whether or not the boycott succeeds. I refuse to give them my money, now and forever, until they address the problem in their ranks.
It is a myth that the Viet Minh never won any battles. But they sure did lose a lot. Our guys stacked their corpses like cord wood, burned their homes, herded their families onto strategic hamlets, etc., all for naught. So you can fret about firefights and battles all you want. But they can't win unless you quit. They know that and that is why there are upwards of 500 comments on all the 770 puppy threads. Constant ridicule, constant pressure. I don't care how the tor boycott can be spun. Whatever anyone says about it I will be still be here, ready to crawl under the wire and start fucking shit up.

Anonymous Giuseppe June 25, 2015 9:07 AM  

Hawk,
Start firing in the direction of the enemy or fuck off.
We don't need no stinking moderate /concern-trolling/friendly fire.
You are either wanting to burn the enemy to the ground or you're helping the enemy. Your "intentions" are utterly irrelevant. Only results count.

Anonymous Giuseppe June 25, 2015 9:16 AM  

Kull,
That's the spirit!
I'm gonna snail Mail mcmillan regularly for at least a year or until they fire Irene Gallo, Moshe Feder and Patrick NH.
And theyvwill be classics. I have a folder on my hard drive called "polite fuck yous" letter I have written that invariably got a result. Most make people piss themselves laughing.
I will compile them into a book one day.

Tor may need their own sequel.

Blogger SirHamster (#201) June 25, 2015 12:53 PM  

And theyvwill be classics. I have a folder on my hard drive called "polite fuck yous" letter I have written that invariably got a result. Most make people piss themselves laughing.
I will compile them into a book one day.


Published on Castalia House? Would enjoy learning how to properly twist the knife.

Post a Comment

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

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts