ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2020 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Friday, July 05, 2013

What confidentiality rules? Part II

I receive some answers to my questions concerning the mysterious "SFWA confidentiality rules" from an SFWA officer:
1. Can you please inform me where in the bylaws these "confidentiality rules" can be found?

"This report contains posts from online Forums, and private emails sent to the Board in conjunction with the investigation.  Just as our Member Discussion Forums and our printed Directory and The Forum are subject to Board policies regarding limited access, so is this report, both for your own protection and for others."

2. Is it a violation of "SFWA confidentiality rules" to provide a copy of the report to my attorney?

"No."
So, let's summarize:

1.  The SFWA Board has openly and admittedly violated the clearly posted SFWA forum confidentiality rules by reposting material from the SFWA discussions forums outside those forums without the explicit permission of me, and presumably, other members.

2. The SFWA Board appears to have invented some imaginary "confidentiality rules" and appealed to them in an attempt to keep its admittedly one-sided "investigative report" from being released to the membership and the public.

3. According to one SFWA officer, these nonexistent confidentiality rules permit the release of the report to non-SFWA members, including, but not necessarily limited to, my attorney, contra the claim of another SFWA officer.

4. The SFWA Board has intentionally misconstrued the SFWA forum confidentiality rules, by claiming "the report contains material from the SFWA Discussion Forums which therefore may not be distributed outside of SFWA".

This last claim is obviously and knowingly false, as the confidentiality rule is posted right on the front page of the forum and states: "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."  Emphasis added.  Note that there is no special exception for the Board.

Since the Board has already broken discussion forum confidentiality by distributing material from the forums outside them, and since the SFWA officer responsible for the investigation subsequently informed me that the report "may not be distributed outside of SFWA", I will provide a copy of the investigative report to any SFWA member who emails me to request one.  In light of the remote, but still extant possibility that the double-secret "SFWA confidentiality rules" relating to the release of the report to non-members will magically appear, I will refrain from making it available to the public for the time being.

In addition to the SFWA Board's violation of existing rules and invention of nonexistent ones, if there is any doubt the process is a farce designed to give cover to their true object, consider the following answer to another question:
5. There are specific claims concerning [REDACTED]. Why was I not provided with the evidence supporting those claims?  The appendix included no copies of [REDACTED].

These are listed for context and the Board will be considering these, but they are irrelevant to the substance of the complaint and shared in confidence with the Board.
So, we are told, the Board will be considering things that are irrelevant to the substance of "the complaint", which is the same thing as "the investigative report" even though, according to the protocols, the report is supposed to be "comprehensive".  As I expect will soon be readily apparent to even the most unsympathetic SFWA reviewer, it is far from comprehensive and is strictly prosecutorial.  And I am warned that if I subsequently proceed to release the report to the public and thereby violate the nonexistent "SFWA confidentiality rules", that will be held against me.

"Pelase be advised that such an action will be added to the material of the complaint and considered by the Board in its deliberations." [sic]

As I noted yesterday, what we're seeing from the SFWA is a petty version of the same tactic one can observe being utilized by various governments and agencies.  Just as the police in Arlington, Massachusetts attempted to secure permission for a "voluntary walk-through" before finally breaking in and doing what they intended to do from the start, the SFWA Board is appears to be trying to provide cover for its predetermined actions in order to avoid alarming the rest of the membership and alerting them to the fact that any of them can be expelled for any reasons that happens to suit eight members of the current Board at the moment.

This charade of due process is only being played out to conceal the fact that, thanks to the revision of the SFWA bylaws, a united Board can quite legitimately expel any member for anything, including their appearance or their opinions.  This is the leftist's dream structure, in which the only limits on the actions of the ruling body are its own self-imposed restrictions that can be ignored at will. 

The curtain has gone up. The lights will soon be shining bright. Enjoy the play.

Labels:

141 Comments:

Blogger Old Harry July 05, 2013 9:09 AM  

Kafka is laughing his ass off.

Anonymous Godfrey July 05, 2013 9:15 AM  

There is nothing worse - or more amusing - than petty insecure little people with power.





Anonymous Dead Kulak July 05, 2013 9:15 AM  

The end game:

"I am afraid to open my mouth. Whatever you say, if you say the wrong thing, you're an enemy of the people. Cowardice has become the norm." - S. P. Kolosov

Anonymous Mudz July 05, 2013 9:17 AM  

"I will provide a copy of the investigative report to any SFWA member who emails me to request one."

JIC: Make sure you confirm them first. One of the Not-Yet-Qualified might try a weasel tactic.

Anonymous VD July 05, 2013 9:18 AM  

Make sure you confirm them first. One of the Not-Yet-Qualified might try a weasel tactic.

Yes, I assumed as much.

Anonymous Pablo July 05, 2013 9:21 AM  

I'm actually enjoying their transparency. They should run for federal office. Good job responding to them by the way. The whole thing is almost as good as being at a drive-in. Gonna go make myself some popcorn now.

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 July 05, 2013 9:27 AM  

I don't think they realize yet that VD is only doing this out of amusement. I don't think they can comprehend that any of their members really and truly don't give a damn about being a member.

And that makes it all the more amusing.

Blogger Bogey July 05, 2013 9:27 AM  

Is it reasonable to surmise that every member of this board is a leftist.

Blogger Bogey July 05, 2013 9:28 AM  

...that was a question, forgot the "?"

Anonymous DrTorch July 05, 2013 9:31 AM  

a united Board can quite legitimately expel any member for anything, including their appearance or their opinions. This is the leftist's dream structure, in which the only limits on the actions of the ruling body are its own self-imposed restrictions that can be ignored at will.

Yeah, but it still didn't work out too well for Robespierre, Hebert, etc.

Anonymous Mr. Tzu July 05, 2013 9:31 AM  

There is nothing worse - or more amusing - than petty insecure little people with power.

Electing an entire board of petty insecure little people is worse. Unless there were tanks involved and Vox is withholding the information due to double-secret "SFWA confidentiality rules".

Anonymous VD July 05, 2013 9:32 AM  

Is it reasonable to surmise that every member of this board is a leftist.

Yes, albeit of varying degrees. Fiscus appears to be a bit more contemplative than the rest, from what I've seen, but I suspect he's easily pushed around. Gould may actually be just as out there as Scalzi, he's just less prone to run his mouth off without thinking.

Anonymous VD July 05, 2013 9:34 AM  

Yeah, but it still didn't work out too well for Robespierre, Hebert, etc.

Oh, I've already warned one or two of the saner members that once the obvious targets are gone, they'll find new ones. That's what they do.

Anonymous Azimus July 05, 2013 9:36 AM  

I don't know who is on the board of the SFWA, but if they're worth any salt they should be lamenting about now "Seriously, this is not what I joined the Board of the SFWA for." Even if they are your most virulent opponent politically, this kind of high school guidance counselor, "Johnny called Cindy a b*tch" nonsense must drain the life out of them. I wonder if they realize how much more of it they will have to deal with if they actually expel you...

Anonymous Dead Kulak July 05, 2013 9:38 AM  

"obvious targets are gone, they'll find new ones. That's what they do."

The Night of Long Knives, SFWA Edition -- should be fun to watch.

Anonymous Daniel July 05, 2013 9:44 AM  

So fascinating to watch the big picture: the future rapist ex-president of the SFWA said something stupid and wrong some time ago (what? a decade? five years?) to curry favor with his new warren. It was an off-hand thing, something so easily walked back it would have been completely forgettable by all parties in the moment.

But he doubled down. Nothing grave, just twice as wrong and twice as loud. Still nothing he couldn't have fixed. Somehow, he stopped for awhile, having some sense that it wasn't going according to script. But he obviously harbored something in the back of his mind, because he could not avoid round two once he became the object of ridicule for some outrageous statements he made about himself.

Now, this thing has spun wildly out of his control, and nothing is going to stop the McRapey Train from wrecking into its very own depot. I honestly don't think Mr. Bean could have done a more spectacular botch of his own interests.

I'm glad I'm not a member. If I were, I'd make that request in a heartbeat, which might very well be my last one. I don't know if it is really possible to die laughing, but I just bet their documentation would suffice to put it to a rousing experiment.

I feel exhilarated. Puppet Mistresses - the free man is coming to answer you! Mirth and Implosion!

Anonymous ChelmWiseman July 05, 2013 9:45 AM  

I would ask them to produce a copy of the confidentiality agreement you signed, which they believe binds you to the confidentiality rules. (Membership agreement?)

Just because they have a rule about something does not mean that the members are bound by it.

I also think you are right to point out that consideration of secret evidence against you - even to "provide context" to the board will taint the process and make it illegitimate. Since they have stated openly that this as their intent they should have to provide positive evidence that this does not weigh in their decision.

You should come to terms with the fact that they are totally kicking you out and absolutely nothing you do will prevent that. All of your actions should assume that this is the case.

If you really want to stay in the organization, You might request:
binding arbitration
access to an impartial ombudsman
a list of the criteria they would use to make their decision BEFORE you respond to the complaint... but none of this will prevent the rationalizations they will come up with to support their decision.

If you have not yet, you should file official complaints about the death threats and personal attacks you have received.

Anonymous FP July 05, 2013 9:47 AM  

"I will refrain from making it available to the public for the time being

Bah, you tease!

"So, we are told, the Board will be considering things that are irrelevant to the substance of "the complaint", which is the same thing as "the investigative report" even though, according to the protocols, the report is supposed to be "comprehensive"."

So they have their own "rape shield" laws. How convenient.

Blogger Subversive Saint July 05, 2013 9:48 AM  

Would you like any butter on your popcorn sir?

(I just committed some form of harrasment for using "sir" I just know it.)

Anonymous DJJ July 05, 2013 9:51 AM  

I'm surprised that the Tor lawyers aren't telling the board to knock this off.

Anonymous MrGreenMan July 05, 2013 9:54 AM  

People should avoid attempting to build any sort of career out of writing, or really any venture that leads them to shout, "I'm so smart/talented/good/artistic, I deserve to be paid!" like my old graduate school advisor shouted as he broke down, considering whether to get that Honda tuned up with 3 cylinders down, and whether he could satisfy the financial requirements of wife number three.

Before I gave up on Facebook, I saw an old acquaintance who had sold her soul to acting babbling on and on about how terrible it is that she has such a hard life, because she's trying to do her art, but she doesn't come from money, so mommy and daddy can't pay for her lifestyle, and she has to work, and, being a woman, that's double hard, because she gets only 72 cents on the dollar (yes, she believed this, despite working a minimum wage job...) and her beauty and youth are fleeting and should be channeled...life really owed her.

These people running this club probably enjoy the picayune because, otherwise, they would have to admit that, by all objective measures, they're less functional and successful as adults than the retarded boy from high school who got a job as a janitor and now owns his own house, a simple but not unattractive wife, and a brood of crumb crunchers who like their dad in a way no cat can. The life of Marc Maron as depicted on IFC would probably be an upgrade for most of them, as at least he appears to get sex regularly.

Anonymous VD July 05, 2013 9:55 AM  

I'm surprised that the Tor lawyers aren't telling the board to knock this off.

I suspect they're fully occupied with l'affaire Frenkel.

Anonymous DonReynolds July 05, 2013 10:06 AM  

Hmmmmm.....another case of Dean Wormer's "double secret" probation.

Blogger IM2L844 July 05, 2013 10:10 AM  

This is rich. The obvious goal here is emotional revenge. Surely, "Thou shall not hurt feelings" is clearly spelled out in the SFWA by-laws.

I can't even imagine the degree of emotional distress this is going to cause you. Book sales will undoubtedly plummet. Your name will be forever ruined, your children will probably petition the courts for emancipation and your dogs won't come when you call them. Oh, the horror.

Anonymous CarpeOro July 05, 2013 10:19 AM  

"Yeah, but it still didn't work out too well for Robespierre, Hebert, etc."


Dude, when was the last time you met a leftist that didn't implicitly think "This time it will be different. Those other attempts were noble, but they didn't have ME running things." That applies to every socialist/left wingnut I have ever talked with or read about. At heart they are the most irrational people on Earth. I exclude communists simply because most of them (from Stalin on) were really running a con for personal power. Ideology was simply another tool to manipulate (might even say opiate of du mb-asses) people with to obtain and secure it.

Anonymous jack July 05, 2013 10:23 AM  

Ah, this just keeps giving. I thirst to read the SFWA rules and bylaws and the REPORT alluded to.
All this is just too choice for mere popcorn, even with butter. It must be the very best fish eggs, raw of course, with a fine Chianti to wash it down. Then, as the tummy burps and the report reading continues, a fine Kentucky bourbon; just to aid the digestion, you see.

Anonymous DJJ July 05, 2013 10:25 AM  

Since NK is headlining next years WisCon, I'm guessing Vox will be burned in effigy as the main attraction. Only after the cisgendered have completed the ritual stoning and statements of ever allowing him to have sex with them.

Anonymous philip July 05, 2013 10:36 AM  

I can't sleep at night now because I'm wondering what will happen in next episode of my favorite soaps, "As the Pinkshirts Turn" and "The Young and the Scalzied."

I am hooked.



Blogger IM2L844 July 05, 2013 10:43 AM  

I can't sleep at night now because I'm wondering what will happen in next episode of my favorite soaps, "As the Pinkshirts Turn" and "The Young and the Scalzied."

I am hooked.


Tune in next week as the case is made that official representatives of the SFWA (Scalzi et al) and by extension the SFWA itself has engaged in a concerted effort to incite a boycott of Vox's products resulting in irreparable financial damages.

Anonymous Peter Garstig July 05, 2013 10:49 AM  

has engaged in a concerted effort to incite a boycott of Vox's products resulting in irreparable financial damages.

They'll never do such a thing explicitly in public. That's not how it goes. Leftists are the champions if implicit commands. They never do something without at least one out. They're slippery like fish.

Anonymous Harsh July 05, 2013 10:49 AM  

Tune in next week as the case is made that official representatives of the SFWA (Scalzi et al) and by extension the SFWA itself has engaged in a concerted effort to incite a boycott of Vox's products resulting in irreparable financial damages.

I'd love to boycott the books of the pinkshirts but with the exception of Scalzi I've heard of none of them and am not familiar with their work. And I stopped reading Scalzi a few years ago when it became apparent that he only had one or two good books in him.

Blogger IM2L844 July 05, 2013 10:53 AM  

They're slippery like fish.

Yes. There are lots of subtle ways to incite.

Anonymous Big Bill July 05, 2013 10:54 AM  

What is the difference between "no reposting" and "no redistribution"?

Anonymous Anonymous July 05, 2013 10:54 AM  

I do hope they come to their senses and realize that if they boot VD, he'll have no reason to honor their confidentiality request, and will likely plaster their 'case' all over the Interwebz. But then, what's one more embarrassment after the summer they've been having? -JR

Anonymous Josh July 05, 2013 11:05 AM  

Since NK is headlining next years WisCon

I think Vox needs to go wiscon. For science.

Blogger IM2L844 July 05, 2013 11:11 AM  

I think Vox needs to go wiscon. For science.

With a film crew and a live feed!

Anonymous Northern Observer July 05, 2013 11:16 AM  

I dunno, I think that their actions would be good evidence for how VD's reputation in the community has been harmed and could be included in the list of potential and actual financial losses that have resulted from the libelous online statements made about VD by certain individuals who are also members of SFWA.

Plus, they are obviously tormenting the poor man.

Anonymous MonkeyBoy July 05, 2013 11:20 AM  

"I think Vox needs to go wiscon. For science.

With a film crew and a live feed! "

And he should walk around with a self-declared "rape protection zone" of 5 feet in diameter surrounding him at all times.

He could stroll around and watch the fat cows struggle to get out of his zone.

Hours of entertainment!

Anonymous Daniel July 05, 2013 11:24 AM  

I'd love to boycott the books of the pinkshirts

No need. They are self-boycotting works.

Anonymous Steveo July 05, 2013 11:31 AM  

...the curtain opens with the surety the playwright has prepared scrupulously in the details. The orchestra cues what will become the funeral dirge of the petty, louche and censurable gang of dunces leading sssffwhaaah (the leaders - a rabbit tribe, possessed of great self-aggrandizement and vacuous ideals; purposed to kidnap a formerly honorable organization ). The trapper enters the lands of the warren with cold and vicious steel...

POPCORN!

Anonymous anon123 July 05, 2013 11:45 AM  

Who's conducting this investigation? Insp. Clouseau?

Anonymous Harsh July 05, 2013 11:50 AM  

Who's conducting this investigation? Insp. Clouseau?

The Spanish Inquisition.

Anonymous Vidad July 05, 2013 11:51 AM  

Spotted at WisCon:

http://dreambigliveboldly.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/p1110229.jpg

Anonymous Outlaw X July 05, 2013 11:54 AM  

No filming the police in public, we film you but you can't film us or we will shoot your dog if he gets out. Take it as you will Vox. You can turn around and put your hand behind your back or just go on and let the dogs out. I have no advice for you, because I only got a small grasp on the obvious kangaroo court.

Blogger Beefy Levinson July 05, 2013 11:55 AM  

In between fits of chuckling at the warren tearing itself to pieces, I feel a bit sad at seeing the decline of a once great genre. I'll get over it.

Anonymous kh123 July 05, 2013 12:06 PM  

"'This time it will be different. Those other attempts were noble, but they didn't have ME running things.'"

Can't help but hear Chris Hansen from Dateline NBC's voice read that line. With crossfades of multiple images of the SFWA forum and various emails.

Blogger His Lady July 05, 2013 12:06 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Anonymous Sigyn July 05, 2013 12:07 PM  

The Spanish Inquisition.

I wasn't expecting that.

Anonymous The Dude July 05, 2013 12:12 PM  

My advice? Basic litigation strategy. Give them a downside. File your own complaint with the Board accusing them of the same things that they accuse you of (to the extent you can figure it out), like reposting your stuff without permission, or posting Jerry Pournelle's stuff.

That will increase the work they have to do. They will be forced to use the same standards on the others that they are trying to use on you. All of a sudden they must come up with theories of BOTH cases that let their buddies off the hook but kick you out. That is not trivial.

You might consider checking with an attorney to find out who their insurer is so you can find out what your settlement might be. What other legal obligations should they be complying with? What does the financial statement for the organization look like? Do the Officers and Board members have D&O insurance? Are the meeting minutes public (to the members, that is)? Are unincorporated associations required to file annual reports or a statement of accounts in their home state or the states in which they have a presence? Are they required to have their books audited if they collect more than a certain amount of money? And if they are screwing up, who is liable? The membership as a whole? The board? The officers? Have they filed tax returns? In every state where they maintain a presence? Have they met their continuing 501(c)(3) requirements? Do the bylaws require them to keep meeting notes? Does state law require them to keep notes in the absence of any provisions to the contrary in the bylaws? Are the notes aupposed to be available to the membership? Where are the records legally supposed to be kept? Who is the official custodian of records? Who is the official "Agent for Service of Process"? Do they have one in every state where they do business?

An attorney that handles unincorporated associations (assuming the SFWA is unincoporated) can tell you right off the top of his head, how these little outfits screw up. Get some answers. If the board is obligated to make reports and hasn't been, the very fact that you are calling them to account will make it suicidal for them to expel you for "not niceness" or "reposting". You have just upped the ante astronomically. The courts take theft of association funds, financial auditing and obeying the corporate formalities quite seriously.

Just by asking the questions and demanding an answer you would raise their downside considerably, giving them absolutely no upside. If they throw you out after you have asked the questions, they look very, very evil. Worse, if they have been ignoring the corporate formalities for some time, the board and officers could be personally liable. Even more importantly, the organization itself may not be permitted to pay their legal costs or advise them in any manner.

Anonymous The Dude July 05, 2013 12:12 PM  

[continued] If they do have insurance, a complaint to the board for the board's behavior could trigger their obligation to report a threat of litigation to their insurer. Once their insurance company gets involved, they will make it clear that petty bitching and whining may subject them to personal liability AND that the insurer will not protect them from lawsuit if they are acting like the High School Mean Girls Club rather than the quasi-union/trade association they seem to be. It will scare the pants off them.

Get some legal advice and ask the board the questions (or. rather, have your attorney make a request for the information). Up the ante. "Discovery" means little or nothing to you. What "discovery" do they need to throw you out of their club for being not-nice. Discovery (or rather the threat of discovery) of the directors or officers of an unincorporated association or a corporation can be very oppressive--particularly if they have been ignoring the corporate formalities for many years.

Once they realize that they may have personal problems (read: $$$] they may reconsider and realize (a) "not niceness" is not a good grounds to expel anyone, (b) they don't want to throw you out, (c) they ought to clarify what things like "not posting" means, (d) they really ought to clean up the organizational books, (e) they really ought to check state laws and see what their current legal obligations are, and (f) they ought to get some D&O insurance to cover them the NEXT time they want to boot someone out and thereby threaten his livelihood.

And when the membership finds out they are wasting money on Chicago Lawyers (Koval's hometown) because of some petty girls-versus-boys hormonal fight, I imagine they will go ballistic, too. Particularly if it turns out they are personally liable for any association malfeasance under state law.

Get some legal advice and send a lawyer's letter back. You don't need to bring suit, just force them to get some legal advice themselves, which will bring some adults (hopefully male) into the situation who will tell them what their (I would guess huge) downside risk is.

Anonymous Daniel July 05, 2013 12:16 PM  

I'll just file a FOI with the NSA to get these emailed documents, thanks. The only drawback is that it will probably include a significant amount of only tangentially related Scalzi wardrobe malfunctions. The price I gotta pay for freedom 2.0...

Anonymous Salt July 05, 2013 12:17 PM  

@ The Dude

SFWA is Incorporated in the State of California, and is currently active. I also doubt SFWA maintains liability insurance.

Anonymous aviendha July 05, 2013 12:26 PM  

The Dude: Damn man that was an awesome breakfast read.
Vox, start a paypal for a Lawyer fund to do this investigation, I'll throw in twenty bux.

Blogger The Deuce July 05, 2013 12:26 PM  

Vox:

"Since the Board has already broken discussion forum confidentiality by distributing material from the forums outside them, and since the SFWA officer responsible for the investigation subsequently informed me that the report "may not be distributed outside of SFWA", I will provide a copy of the investigative report to any SFWA member who emails me to request one."

Why limit it to SFWA members who ask for it? Why not email it to *all* SFWA members, and then if one of the many members should decide to break forum confidentiality rules by anonymously leaking to the public, well, that's a problem between them and the SFWA, now isn't it? :-)

Anonymous Salt July 05, 2013 12:32 PM  

@ The Dude

Also, SFWA is a 501(C)(6). Really, do a little homework first. The Registered Agent for service of process, RACHEL SWIRSKY, also appears to be a SFWA member.

Blogger IM2L844 July 05, 2013 12:32 PM  

"The Dude abides. I don't know about you but I take comfort in that. It's good knowin' he's out there..."

Anonymous Blue and Gray game July 05, 2013 12:33 PM  

Completely related:
http://www.black-and-right.com/2013/07/01/before-its-deleted-of-the-day/

The following was a difficult read because it’s also what liberal blacks call “dirty laundry”: bad stuff about black folk never to be said around whites. The essay was posted on Craigslist and it’s the kind of truth that often is taken back out of PC fear….


Essay by a teacher in a black high school
*This is a repost from the rants and raves section from the Mobile, Alabama craigslist.*

The truth is usually a tough thing to accept, so I understand if this is flagged. It would be a cowardly thing to do, but I understand it. Some people just ignore unpleasant truths. However, if you think ignoring the problem, or trying to censor the truth, will help our black children improve, you’re dreaming. This is important, so I’m happy to repost – indefinitely if necessary. I find it interesting that NO ONE has had the intellect to refute anything in the essay. They can only attempt to censor it, as if doing so somehow makes it invalid. Weak minds, weak minds.

Until recently I taught at a predominantly black high school in a southeastern state.

The mainstream press gives a hint of what conditions are like in black schools, but only a hint. Expressions journalists use like “chaotic” or “poor learning environment” or “lack of discipline” do not capture what really happens. There is nothing like the day-to-day experience of teaching black children and that is what I will try to convey.

Most whites simply do not know what black people are like in large numbers, and the first encounter can be a shock.

Anonymous Northern Observer July 05, 2013 12:34 PM  

"SFWA is Incorporated in the State of California..."

I thought that it was Massachusetts.

Anonymous Salt July 05, 2013 12:37 PM  

@ Northern Observer

No. It was originally inc in Maryland. It is now in Cali as a check with the Sec. State/corportaions will verify.

Blogger Rob Crawford July 05, 2013 12:43 PM  

"The SFWA Board appears to have invented some imaginary "confidentiality rules" and appealed to them in an attempt to keep its admittedly one-sided "investigative report" from being released to the membership and the public."

The first rule of a kangaroo court is that the defendant is not allowed to present a defense.

Anonymous Outlaw X July 05, 2013 12:43 PM  

Those who do evil do it in the dark for the dark cannot stand the light. Therefore evil will try to hide in the darkness, sometimes decision's we make light up the darkness and we are hated, ridiculed and punished. "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you and then you win." This is not always true, but found it never failed me.

Blogger The Deuce July 05, 2013 12:45 PM  

You know, in regard to my previous comment, and given the Board's new take on forum confidentiality, seems to me that if you had, say, a backup of the entire contents of the forum, you could do something similar with it.

Anonymous Salt July 05, 2013 12:49 PM  

The only thing SFWA can do to Vox is expel him. They have much more to lose than Vox.

Wabbits don't seem to understand that, ultimately, they are but prey.

Anonymous VD July 05, 2013 12:50 PM  

seems to me that if you had, say, a backup of the entire contents of the forum, you could do something similar with it.

Do you know, I suppose I could, at that. What a pity that an Internet superintelligence would never have the capacity to foresee the likelihood of his access to such delicately confidential forums being cut off.....

C'est la vie.

Anonymous VD July 05, 2013 12:52 PM  

The first rule of a kangaroo court is that the defendant is not allowed to present a defense.

The funny thing is that the point of contact I've been given is with the assigned prosecutor. Even though he's not my regional director.

Anonymous NateM July 05, 2013 12:55 PM  

"They have their own rape shield laws".

Funnily enough its actually shielding the rapist..

Anonymous DJJ July 05, 2013 12:56 PM  

At Wabbit / Cisgendered Central moments after they expel Vox...

Oops, now how did the entire private SFWA message board end up posted on a privately hosted non-USA based website that gives a rabbits rear end about DMCA?

Blogger Jeff July 05, 2013 1:00 PM  

This is so sad. When I grew up the SFWA was home to giants. Asimov, Heinlein,Bradbury etc. Now? Faugh...

Blogger Midknight July 05, 2013 1:26 PM  

@Jeff - and now they tear down giants rather than stand on their shoulders

Anonymous Harsh July 05, 2013 1:27 PM  

The Spanish Inquisition.

I wasn't expecting that.


No one does.

Anonymous realmatt July 05, 2013 2:46 PM  

Do you know which member(s) actually writes these messages you've been sent? I understand you can't say, I'm just curious.

I imagine them scrambling, standing around the computer thinking of something to say, like teenage boys standing around a phone making prank calls.

Anonymous Northern Observer July 05, 2013 2:59 PM  

Is anyone else seeing all of the comments between 1:27 and 2:46 disappear?

Anonymous realmatt July 05, 2013 3:03 PM  

Is anyone else seeing all of the comments between 1:27 and 2:46 disappear?

The reach of the SFWA

KNOWS

NO

BOUNDSZZZZZ

Anonymous VD July 05, 2013 3:11 PM  

Is anyone else seeing all of the comments between 1:27 and 2:46 disappear?

I spammed a few of Obvious's comments; he's banned for refusing to answer a question. I also deleted two responses to him.

Do you know which member(s) actually writes these messages you've been sent?

Yes, they have identified themselves. I don't really see it as relevant which Board member sends the messages; they are speaking for the entire Board at this point.

Anonymous Anonagain July 05, 2013 3:11 PM  

I expect there is less honor and justice to be found within any Leftist hive than in the mafia. I wouldn't be surprised if the future resistance to the NWO will be comprised of the mafia.

Anonymous Jack Amok July 05, 2013 3:14 PM  

Oh, I've already warned one or two of the saner members that once the obvious targets are gone, they'll find new ones. That's what they do.

Two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch. Even if you're one of the wolves, you've got to realize that tomorrow you'll be out of sheep, and your comrade wolf probably isn't interested in turning vegetarian...


They are self-boycotting works.

Excellent.

Anonymous Anonagain July 05, 2013 3:27 PM  

Does the SFWA have a motto? If not, I suggest:
Those who will not assimilate will be purged

Anonymous Obvious July 05, 2013 3:39 PM  

I answered the question long ago.

It's okay, though. I know your memory issues. :)

Anonymous realmatt July 05, 2013 3:59 PM  

All this, just so some geeks can talk about their terrible fan-fiction and furry fantasies without criticism.

Anonymous rabbitfarts July 05, 2013 4:02 PM  

I once read a book written by Obvious.

Just kidding. Nobody reads anything Obvious writes.

Anonymous The Peoples court of Fagistan July 05, 2013 4:03 PM  

Vox Day,

You have been tried in absentia, and found guilty of thought crimes by the Peoples Gay, Lesbian and Transgendered Revolutionary SFWA Court.

You are hereby sentenced to wear John Scalzi's favorite lavender dress, and undergo 20 years hard labor/LGBTTR (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans-gendered and Trans-racial sensitivity training.

Anonymous Anonagain July 05, 2013 4:04 PM  

In Latin: Assimilare aut purgari

Anonymous VD July 05, 2013 4:08 PM  

You are hereby sentenced to wear John Scalzi's favorite lavender dress, and undergo 20 years hard labor/LGBTTR (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans-gendered and Trans-racial sensitivity training.

What, no red pumps?

I answered the question long ago.

Okay, and the answer was?

Anonymous Anonagain July 05, 2013 4:53 PM  

Being merely sensitive to women isn't enough to compensate for the evil of male privilege. It's a known fact that woman have more pain than men. In the name of equality, the pinkshirts really must demand that Scalzi and all male SFWA members wear a tampon up their butts that they may more closely identify with females and feel their pain - also as penance for not having a vagina.

I suggest this requirement be incorporated into the SFWA's bylaws asap.

Anonymous Harsh July 05, 2013 5:00 PM  

What, no red pumps?

Red pumps with a lavender dress? How gauche.

Anonymous Anonymous July 05, 2013 5:08 PM  

@Beefy Levinson July 05, 2013 11:55 AM: In between fits of chuckling at the warren tearing itself to pieces, I feel a bit sad at seeing the decline of a once great genre. I'll get over it.

The genre is alive and well. It has simply fled the world of paper and ink, and now exists primarily in electronic format.

And in so doing, science fiction (particularly of the sort written by white men for an audience of white men) has achieved starflight. E-publishing is the literary equivalent of a hyperdrive, allowing science fiction creators to transcend the political and ideological limitations of the Print System and roam the galaxy of imagination at will.

SF is now forever beyond the reach of the Soviet of Feminist-Workers of America and the Big-Publishing NKVD. Freed from the crushing shackles of revolutionary ideology, SF writers can now write what they like, without fear of being accused of political deviationism by the Space Politburo.

Anonymous Daniel July 05, 2013 5:17 PM  

Red pumps with a lavender dress? How gauche.

Worse. Red pumps with a lavender dress shirt.

McRapey "taunts the untauntable" while we are left to mock the unmockable. We will never be as cruel to them as they are to themselves.

Think about - in his own defense he has 1) confessed rape 2) cross dressed 3) worn pumps in public in a professional capacity 4) adopted a molesting pink rabbit as his mascot and 5) lied to the press. Never forget that when you kick one of these folks in the ass, you'll only be driving his head farther up it.

Anonymous nateM July 05, 2013 6:11 PM  

To be fair, scalzi doesn't look bad in the suit (minus pumps), but then what guy does...

Anonymous Salt July 05, 2013 6:22 PM  

Daniel, did he click his heels three times?

Anonymous Harsh July 05, 2013 7:03 PM  

I answered the question long ago.

Okay, and the answer was?


I believe his answer was he refuses to answer. Which isn't really an answer. Unless you're Obvious and then it's the height of genius. Or so he thinks.

Anonymous Daniel July 05, 2013 7:27 PM  

Daniel, did he click his heels three times?

No, but I would not be surprised if his forthcoming book will be a remarkably familiar "homage" to L. Frank Baum. His twist will be that Witch of the East survives long enough to become a teen fashion icon.

Anonymous Obvious July 05, 2013 7:41 PM  

And in so doing, science fiction (particularly of the sort written by white men for an audience of white men) has achieved starflight.

Because I know that I want my literature of ideas to exist in an echo chamber. Fuck letting women and minorities write science fiction. That would forever sully a proud and noble tradition. I mean there's no way that women and minorities have been writing science fiction for hundreds of years or anything.

Okay, and the answer was?

You deleted it. Good job. Now you either did it intentionally, so that you could continue to sidestep what I've been saying while clinging to "the rules" (that you don't really follow), or you did it unintentionally, which would be all the more amusing

Blogger IM2L844 July 05, 2013 8:07 PM  

Now you either did it intentionally, so that you could continue to sidestep what I've been saying while clinging to "the rules" (that you don't really follow), or you did it unintentionally, which would be all the more amusing

Oblivious, you haven't been saying anything of consequence. You merely respond to questions with objections to the questions and evasive rhetorical attacks on the questioner's personal integrity.

You ain't got no chili!

Anonymous Loki Sjalfsainn July 05, 2013 8:17 PM  

Does the SFWA have a motto?

"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy."

Anonymous Obvious July 05, 2013 8:28 PM  

IM,

I wasn't aware that I had to spoon feed you lot. I mean, this is where the superintelligences come play ain't it?

Bluntly, the first sci-fi was written by a guy named Ibn al-Nafis. The novel that started off Sci Fi as we know it was Mary Shelley's The Modern Prometheus. You'll note that neither of those are "white men writing for an audience of white men".

Anonymous Obvious July 05, 2013 8:31 PM  

To be fair, the blog owner will probably suddenly remember a sci-fi novel he wrote that predates those.

Anonymous Loki Sjalfsainn July 05, 2013 8:53 PM  

To be fair, you seem to have forgotten about a fellow named Lucianus Samosatensis, whose novel was written in Attic Greek.

You may argue that Semitics (Syrians) are not white per se, but as they are lumped in with Caucasoids, and as Syria was then under Roman rule, he counts as a white man writing for an audience of white men.

Anonymous Anonymous July 05, 2013 8:54 PM  

@Obvious July 05, 2013 7:41 PM: Because I know that I want my literature of ideas to exist in an echo chamber.

1. I don't give a damn what you want. Your opinion is unimportant and irrelevant.

2. Re writing to a echo chamber: SFWA, heal thyself. At least white male SF writers don't have to submit their work to a Soviet of Feminist Writers to determine if the echo is loud enough.

3. I am a white male. I prefer to read science fiction written by people who share my culture, values and worldview (i.e. other white males) rather than works crafted by hostile outsiders who hate me and everything I believe in. If that is a problem for you, then I can only conclude that you hate white males.

4. When a nonwhite woman writes an SF novel worth reading, I'll read it. I have yet to encounter such a novel.

Fuck letting women and minorities write science fiction. That would forever sully a proud and noble tradition.

D'accord. Your own words, sir. Bravo.

I mean there's no way that women and minorities have been writing science fiction for hundreds of years or anything.

Correct again! Even a broken clock, etc.

Bluntly, the first sci-fi was written by a guy named Ibn al-Nafis.

Bluntly, that's an interesting personal opinion. Your viewpoint has been noted.

The novel that started off Sci Fi as we know it was Mary Shelley's The Modern Prometheus.

SF, if you please. Not "sci fi".

And that Shelley book is an example of Gothic horror, as anyone familiar with the circumstances of the novel's creation will know. You should consult a good dictionary for the actual definition of "science fiction". Mary Shelley was neither a scientist nor was she extrapolating a future scenario based upon science. Her novel is horror, not SF.

You'll note that neither of those are "white men writing for an audience of white men".

You'll notice that Obvious is hostile and hateful towards white people, and his words indicate a genocidal desire to erase white culture and accomplishments from human knowledge. He is, in short, a bigot and a hater, and may thus be safely consigned to the land of wind and ghosts along with others of his kind.


Anonymous Salt July 05, 2013 9:01 PM  

Obvious consulted Wikipedia. That's obvious.

Anonymous Harsh July 05, 2013 9:12 PM  

Bluntly, the first sci-fi was written by a guy named Ibn al-Nafis. The novel that started off Sci Fi as we know it was Mary Shelley's The Modern Prometheus. You'll note that neither of those are "white men writing for an audience of white men".

Science fiction "as we know it" was started by people like H.G. Wells, Jules Verne, and Hugo Gernsback, you stupid faggot. And they were all (surprise) white men.

Blogger Brad Andrews July 05, 2013 9:21 PM  

I saw the SF romance book referenced here a while back in my local library. I have no idea what it has to do with SF based on the cover and reading the dust jacket description. If that is what the SFWA stands for now it is long gone, no matter what happens here.

I do want to know why so much older SF is either not available on the Kindle or way over priced. Try 99 cents or perhaps $2.99 to meet Amazon's bias there, not significantly more.

Wouldn't authors want that additional income stream for work that was already done?

Anonymous Loki Sjalfsainn July 05, 2013 9:32 PM  

Science fiction "as we know it" was started by people like H.G. Wells, Jules Verne, and Hugo Gernsback, you stupid faggot. And they were all (surprise) white men.

Madam Shelley had done nothing that had not already been done by Shakespeare or Kepler two centuries before, or by Swift one century before. This is not to say it is not an interesting book. I merely say it to point out that she was no pioneer.

Anonymous Anonymous July 05, 2013 9:33 PM  

Mary Shelley was also -- by all accounts -- a pretty hot piece of ass.

Anonymous Obvious July 05, 2013 9:49 PM  

I am a white male. I prefer to read science fiction written by people who share my culture, values and worldview (i.e. other white males) rather than works crafted by hostile outsiders who hate me and everything I believe in. If that is a problem for you, then I can only conclude that you hate white males.

Yeah. You create those straw men. Work yourself into a righteous froth.

You'll notice that Obvious is hostile and hateful towards white people, and his words indicate a genocidal desire to erase white culture and accomplishments from human knowledge. He is, in short, a bigot and a hater, and may thus be safely consigned to the land of wind and ghosts along with others of his kind.

Yup. There it is.

Genocidal, eh? Erasure? All of that because I pointed out that white men aren't the only ones throughout history to have written Sci Fi? No one is disputing that white dudes have written a lot of Sci Fi. The one of us trying to erase the accomplishments of others is you.

Mary Shelley was neither a scientist nor was she extrapolating a future scenario based upon science.

You have to be a scientist to write science fiction? I'm sure that'd be news to Heinlein. She wrote a story about a scientist, who uses science to animate a man made out of body parts. She also wrote a post-apocalyptic novel entitled the Last Man.

No one is saying that H.G. Wells, Jules Verne, and Huge Gernsback weren't a huge part of where Sci Fi came from, or even the MAJORITY of where it came from. That you want to stick your fingers in your ears and ignore that non-white males have added to the genre says much of your own biases.

It's interesting that this group can't have a discussion without jumping to conclusions and insults.

Anonymous Obvious July 05, 2013 9:52 PM  

@Loki Sjalfsainn

You're right. I didn't know about that novel. Thank you for bringing him to my attention.

I was wrong about Ibn being the first.

Anonymous Anonymous July 05, 2013 10:01 PM  

Obvious:

Why do you keep posting to me? Did I not make it plain that I am not interested in your ignorant and irrelevant opinions? You are a genocidal, anti-white bigot and as such I give your posts the same treatment I'd give to posts authored by a Black Muslim or a member of the Ku Klux Klan. Go peddle your hate somewhere else, to someone who gives a damn what you think.

Anonymous Obvious July 05, 2013 10:05 PM  

Why do you keep posting to me? Did I not make it plain that I am not interested in your ignorant and irrelevant opinions? You are a genocidal, anti-white bigot and as such I give your posts the same treatment I'd give to posts authored by a Black Muslim or a member of the Ku Klux Klan. Go peddle your hate somewhere else, to someone who gives a damn what you think.

You don't understand what those words mean, eh? Acknowledging that people besides white males have accomplished things doesn't take away from the accomplishment of white males. It's not a zero sum game. Please enlighten us how anything I've said makes me genocidal, anti-white, or a bigot.

Anonymous Harsh July 05, 2013 10:11 PM  

All of that because I pointed out that white men aren't the only ones throughout history to have written Sci Fi?

No one here made that claim, you stupid faggot.

Anonymous Harsh July 05, 2013 10:12 PM  

It's interesting that this group can't have a discussion without jumping to conclusions and insults.

Stop acting like a stupid faggot and you'll stop being insulted, you stupid faggot.

Anonymous Anonymous July 05, 2013 10:18 PM  

Just ignore Obvious. He's a hater. Let him stew in his hatred.

Anonymous Majid July 05, 2013 10:21 PM  

"Yeah. You create those straw men. Work yourself into a righteous froth."

[points to the ground]

That is not an argument.

Anonymous Obvious July 05, 2013 10:22 PM  

Just ignore Obvious. He's a hater. Let him stew in his hatred.

"You're black!" said the Raven to the Crow.

All of that because I pointed out that white men aren't the only ones throughout history to have written Sci Fi?

No one here made that claim


Other than Shibes Meadow, you mean?

Anonymous Harsh July 05, 2013 10:28 PM  

Other than Shibes Meadow, you mean?

He did not, you're mistaken. Read his post more carefully.

Anonymous Harsh July 05, 2013 10:30 PM  

Just ignore Obvious. He's a hater. Let him stew in his hatred.

"You're black!" said the Raven to the Crow.


No one here hates you. You're just a fool and a useful idiot who's not used to people who don't agree with your narrow worldview.

Anonymous Obvious July 05, 2013 10:32 PM  

He did not, you're mistaken. Read his post more carefully.

I'm aware of the point you're trying to make. In his post he merely said that no one that wasn't a white male has every written a piece of sci fi worth reading. But when I made the sarcastic comment that women and minorities certainly haven't been writing sci fi for hundreds of years, he agreed with me. He makes it clear that he believes only white males have written "real SF".

Anonymous Obvious July 05, 2013 10:38 PM  

No one here hates you. You're just a fool and a useful idiot who's not used to people who don't agree with your narrow worldview.

Really? That's your contention? That I'm not used to people who disagree with my narrow worldview? I think you should look at some of the rhetoric being thrown around in here. You'll notice that I, when people show me I'm wrong, acknowledge such things. I don't go around calling people faggots, anti-white bigots, idiots, or any of the other things that you've used in attempt to belittle me.

I read science fiction BECAUSE I want to read novels about and by people who aren't part of my "narrow worldview. Contrast that with Shibes Meadows and his statement "I prefer to read science fiction written by people who share my culture, values and worldview (i.e. other white males)". Look at that, Shibes Meadow doesn't want to engage with anything that doesn't fit into his worldview. Hmmmm.

Anonymous Harsh July 05, 2013 10:43 PM  

All of that because I pointed out that white men aren't the only ones throughout history to have written Sci Fi?

He makes it clear that he believes only white males have written "real SF".

You're backtracking and qualifying. I specifically challenged your first claim that someone here said that no one but white men have written science fiction full stop.

Second, your claim that modern science fiction was started by non-Westerners and non-males is patently false, to which you haven't replied.

Anonymous Obvious July 05, 2013 10:50 PM  

You're backtracking and qualifying. I specifically challenged your first claim that someone here said that no one but white men have written science fiction full stop.

Yup. You're right. No one said that exact thing. THAT EXACT THING wasn't said. That doesn't mean we're stupid people that are incapable of deciphering subtext and intent.

Second, your claim that modern science fiction was started by non-Westerners and non-males is patently false, to which you haven't replied.

@Loki Sjalfsainn
You're right. I didn't know about that novel. Thank you for bringing him to my attention.
I was wrong about Ibn being the first.


Oh. Look. I did in fact reply to that point.

Anonymous Harsh July 05, 2013 10:52 PM  

Oh. Look. I did in fact reply to that point.

And yet in neither case you have conceded that you are wrong. You continue to be smug and snarky. Do you wonder why people here don't respect you? Because you are not worthy of respect. Argue like a man and you'll be treated like one.

Anonymous Harsh July 05, 2013 10:59 PM  

That I'm not used to people who disagree with my narrow worldview?

It's painfully obvious that's the case. (No pun intended.)

Anonymous Anonymous July 05, 2013 11:01 PM  

For those that want to read real SF, written by a white male and crafted to appeal to white males, may we suggest...?

Uller Uprising (1952) by the inimitable H. Beam Piper. The late Mr. Piper's tale is a thinly disguised SF retelling of the Sepoy Rebellion in the British Raj circa 1857, with the planet Uller as India and its four-armed lizard-geek natives as, er, the natives. While Piper depicts good and evil characters on both sides of the conflict, the "hero" of the story is a Earthman occupier named von Schlichten, a descendant of Nazi war criminals(!) and a man who takes a dim view of colonial subjects who prefer wallowing in their traditional disorder and savagery instead of submitting themselves to foreign-imposed peace and public order.

I won't give away the ending, but I will say this: Mr. Piper, God rest his poor soul, was a fan of capital-C Civilization and an enemy of Democracy (and of popular government in general). and, thus, was one of the Good Guys who could never be published today. Still, the book remains relevant: a public reading of Uller Uprising at an SF convention would produce amusing results.

You can read it online, or buy it in reprint. Either way, Uller Uprising is a cracking good read, written by a guy who believed in order, duty, and the judicious use of power to preserve and promote good old Western Civ. Read it, and become part of the solution.

Anonymous Harsh July 05, 2013 11:04 PM  

Thanks for the recommend, Shibes. I will continue in my bigoted ways and read yet another white male's book.

Anonymous Obvious July 05, 2013 11:10 PM  

Are you incapable of reading? Because I conceded I was wrong TWICE in that comment alone.

Yup. You're right. No one said that exact thing.

Right. There. You were right, corollary, I was wrong. See how that works?

I was wrong about Ibn being the first.

There it is again.

Do you wonder why people here don't respect you?

Nope. I've got a pretty good idea of why they don't.

Anonymous Harsh July 05, 2013 11:13 PM  

You're still being a snarky asshole. So fuck you until you learn how to be a man.

Anonymous Obvious July 05, 2013 11:18 PM  

Really? That's what you got? "You're a snarky asshole." Bravo.

Why not actually respond to some of the points of the discussion instead of acting like a gradeschooler on the playground. If you're a man, be a man. Use logic, reasoning, and facts to show me where I'm wrong.

All I've seen from you is a predilection for ad hominem attacks and an inability to acknowledge the words in black and tan on the screen. If that's your idea of being a man, why would I want to be that?

Blogger IM2L844 July 05, 2013 11:19 PM  

Oh. Look. I did in fact reply to that point.

No you didn't! This is EXACTLY the type of evasive rhetoric I was talking about.

Saying, "I was wrong about Ibn being the first." is not tantamount to admitting that "your claim that modern science fiction was started by non-Westerners and non-males is patently false..."

Just say it.

Watching your bunny hop marathon was entertaining, at first, but now it's just getting painfully monotonous.

Anonymous Obvious July 05, 2013 11:25 PM  

Who started modern science fiction is a different argument entirely. I, and a lot of people, believe it was Mary Shelley. You don't. That's a matter of opinions, not facts. I acknowledge that there is a large contingent who think that Mary Shelley's Frankenstein wasn't the birth of modern Sci Fi.

Anonymous Obvious July 05, 2013 11:28 PM  


I said Ibn was the first. I was wrong, because as Loki pointed out, there was an author, Lucius, who predated him. Quantifiable data.

I believe Mary Shelly's Frankenstein to be the birth novel of Modern Sci Fi. Others disagree. That is a matter of opinions, and of course, if you have a differing one, you will believe mine to be wrong. Qualitative data.

Whatever your opinion is, women and minorities have been writing Sci Fi for hundreds of years. Quantitative data.

Anonymous Loki Sjalfsainn July 05, 2013 11:45 PM  

Whatever your opinion is, women and minorities have been writing Sci Fi for hundreds of years.

And yet, for the genre, those novels you cite--including the one to which you concede by Lucianus--are not influential. That by Ibn al-Nafis ("Ibn" means "son of", incidentally) was not translated to English until the early twentieth century, long after science-fiction had come into its own. And by the time that Madam Shelley wrote of her monster, others had already contributed those elements; her only novelty was in bringing them together in said configuration.

It is not to say that no woman has ever contributed to science fiction, at any rate. It is merely to say that those elements essential thereto were contributed by white men, and that the audience thereof consisted of white men. Even Madam Shelley was not writing for an audience of women.

Blogger IM2L844 July 06, 2013 12:15 AM  

Obvious, it is widely acknowledged that H. G. Wells, Jules Verne and Hugo Gernsback are the original progenitors of modern science fiction and that's an objective verifiable fact. Why is it so distressingly arduous for you to admit such a well known simple thing?

Anonymous Matthew July 06, 2013 12:16 AM  

The real victims are the people who believe that a teenaged girl wrote Frankenstein, rather than the famous poet she married.

Anonymous Matthew July 06, 2013 12:17 AM  

Also: the 17th Earl of Oxford.

Anonymous Prosecutor Krylenko July 06, 2013 12:23 AM  

No one said that exact thing. THAT EXACT THING wasn't said. That doesn't mean we're stupid people that are incapable of deciphering subtext and intent. Engineer von Meck may said "insufficient quantities to increase production according to Gosplan projections", but what our revolutionary sense of justice can detect is: "This is a golden opportunity to sabotage and wreck the State". We're not here to crack jokes, after all.

Anonymous Obvious July 06, 2013 12:29 AM  

IM2L844,

You can bring that up with Brian Aldiss (incidentally, also not a scientist). We won't even go into the fact that AFTER The Modern Prometheus, the year that Verne was born in fact, Madame Shelley published a post-apocalyptic SF novel set in 2100.

Again, arguing over where modern science fiction started is one of feelings, opinions, and qualitative analysis. YES, a lot of people acknowledge that Wells, Verne, and Gernsback were the Fathers of Modern Science Fiction. I am not disputing your point. I'm not saying you're wrong.

I AM saying that women and minorities are a part of the history of science fiction.

Anonymous Jack Amok July 06, 2013 12:50 AM  

Does the SFWA have a motto? If not, I suggest:
Those who will not assimilate will be purged


I had assumed with Scalzi's ascension the motto was changed to "Squeeeee!"


And as far as female Sci-Fi writers, there have been excellent female sci-fi authors who have contributed to the genre. They have several differences with the current lot infesting the SFWA:

1 - the were good writers first and foremost.
2 - they wrote actual sci-fi, not tarted up bodice rippers in space, or necrophiliac S&M fantasies.
3 - they wrote about themes that appealed to grown up men and women, they didn't harp on and on and fucking on about "edgy" crap that only appeals to the most emotionally stunted, solipsistic women.
4 - if any of htem got any special favors for being women, it was because they were sleeping with somebody, so to whatever extent they didn't earn their success with their writing talent, they at least earned it with some other talent.





Blogger IM2L844 July 06, 2013 12:54 AM  

I AM saying that women and minorities are a part of the history of science fiction.

NOBODY has said they're not.

Anonymous bob k. mando July 06, 2013 2:09 AM  

are you actually arguing with (willfully)Oblivious?

you know he misrepresents and lies about everything he feels like he might be able to get away with, right?

Anonymous VD July 06, 2013 3:01 AM  

Fine, Obvious, we can do this again. You have one opportunity and you will answer the question here, in this thread, today, with either "yes" or "no".

Are you a member of SFWA?

No more evasions, excuses, or claims to have answered it before. Either answer it, again if that is truly the case, or be permanently banned. It should be clear by now that I could not care less about your claims of hypocrisy and so forth.

Anonymous VD July 06, 2013 3:07 AM  

In his post he merely said that no one that wasn't a white male has every written a piece of sci fi worth reading. But when I made the sarcastic comment that women and minorities certainly haven't been writing sci fi for hundreds of years, he agreed with me. He makes it clear that he believes only white males have written "real SF".

In other words, you were the only one to have written what you claim others wrote here. But you did it in a "sarcastic" manner, so it doesn't count... even though it was the only one.

What is with you and Scalzi and your inability to grasp that if you can use sarcasm and satire, however ineptly, others can too? You quite clearly don't understand that many of the regulars here are more intelligent than you are. You get caught out and shown to be wrong every time you comment here.

Anonymous wcu July 06, 2013 6:43 AM  

Vox, I don't know if this has been suggested, but have you considered just breaking off and starting your own group? I know the boy scouts of america were recently overun and now other groups are starting something new apart from them.

Anonymous Mr.A is Mr.A July 06, 2013 9:57 AM  

@ Shibes Meadow

Piper's "Terrohuman Future History" and many of his other SF works would prevent him from being considered by the SFWA today, even though his women managed to be intelligent, competent, decisive, and still be feminine, flirtatious, and lovely to look at (because they worried about it).

I have no doubt it would be the latter three items that would have him disqualified and burned in effigy by the SFWA Central Committee.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts