You're correct, David. It's not just an interent slapfight--It's copyright infringement and the invasion of privacy of those who posted on a private BB.

(and I know that's not what you meant)

I guess I would argue, as a non-member who is nonetheless affected by the actions and judgements of the SFWA, that while I do enormously appreciate David's efforts to document what's going on for posterity -- including the bits which affect me, for all that I can't access them or contribute to them -- while I do appreciate and admire the impulse to make public a debate about a very public criminal act, if it actually comes down to standing your ground or having your SFWA privileges reinstated, I would argue that you are in a better position to help out as a voting member of the SFWA. I would argue that the SFWA is the single-most powerful organization affecting written SF fandom, and that it clearly needs to be changed from the inside out; and that if we ever hope to have "teeth" added to the clause that Christopher Rowe was pointing to, then we will need as many voting members on our side as possible.

PS. To any SFWA members who are thinking about letting their membership lapse after this incident: if money is not an issue, then I would *strongly* encourage you to stay active. For all the reasons I just gave.

Plus the Nebulas, of course. Good citizenship and all.

Ellen, do you want me to take your post down? You haven’t said — or if you have, I seem to have missed it among all the flames I’ve been wading through.

David, no. You got my post from Harlan's BB. Not the same thing at all. I have no problem with that (I wouldn't have asked you to add the rest of that paragraph if I didn't want it to remain :-) )

Ah, so I did. Sorry. It's becoming a long evening over here in Basel.

Switzerland???? that's where you live. I just got home from LA environs late last night and although it's only a teeny bit over a week since I left for the convention, it feels like a month!

For the record, I think people who think they can say something under special circumstances and expect it to stay secret are naive. One of my laws: If you don't believe it, don't say it; if you said it, don't deny it.

But you are allowed to clarify the context, to point out typos (see the Bible with "Thou shalt commit adultery"), and to say you were exploring a proposition that you don't believe or no longer believe.

But to think you can say something in confidence and be guaranteed that it'll stay in confidence? People don't work that way, and all things considered, I'm glad they don't. If I had to choose a world with many whistleblowers or none, I'd go with the first.

P.S. I should add that supporting the right to quote others does not mean I'm in the "Harlan is Evil and Must Suffer" camp or in the "Harlan is a Great Man and Can Do No Wrong" camp. I'm in the "Harlan's a guy who's done some great things and some dipshit things, and this was one of the dipshit ones" camp.

I wonder if posters in the private lounge would object to having their words paraphrased. More to the point, I wonder if that would be a violation of SFF.NET or SFWA policy. It's hard for me to imagine that it would be. It's hard for me to imagine that being paraphrased would be preferable to standing behind the exact words I actually said.

Not being a smartass here. I'm seriously wondering.

You know what seems to be largely missing in all of this discussion about should you publish quotes or where or how and what to do about Harlan is a univeral reaction to the fans.

We aren't members, we weren't nominated for Hugos and we aren't published authors. We are the ones who buy your books and this whole thing really made a lot of us mad.

Ben Rosenbaum made a comment above that I think all of the folks at the Hugos and members of the community, etc. should take to heart. The internet is buzzing about what Harlan Ellison did because 1) most of us can not believe this could happen in 2006, especially to someone like Connie Willis on the stage while presenting an award and 2) that the reaction has been mixed.

Mixed.

Do you understand that we are angry that this goes on at your awards? Do you understand that we are disappointed that you all have to talk and discuss and debate? Do you see that we are so pissed that we are burning up blog posts from one end of the internet to the other and the big point for all the folks who were there (or know Ellison and Willis) seems to be that this is a private discussion?

This goes beyond me not paying a dime for anything written by Harlan Ellison ever again. Right now, I have no interest in supporting the Hugos or any other award in the Sci Fi community. I buy books and I review books and this makes me sick - what Harlan Ellison did, and what everyone else has not done.

Ah, found the answer to my own question about sff.net policy:

Anything posted in a private-access newsgroup on SFF Net may not be quoted, directly or indirectly, outside the newsgroup hierarchy in which the quotation first appeared, without the author's explicit permission. Information in private-access newsgroups may not be distributed by email, reposting, or other methods.

So any stupid thing I say in the lounge is supposedly protected behind a wall of silence. No wonder so much of what's said there is stupid.

Colleen,
You don't get it. The privacy/copyright- sfwa newsgroup issue is quite separate from the Harlan-Connie issue.
I had no problem with David leaving my post up as it was NOT taken from a private bulletin board. I did have a problem in that he quoted part of my post out of context--which, by the way, he did with most of the SFWA posts. This is is one issue.

So what have we NOT done with regard to Harlan? Let's see we've criticized him, castigated him, asserted that he did a bad thing. I can't think of any post I've read that suggested that Harlan did something of merit. What some of us have done is clarify what happened so that those who weren't there would know. And put it into the context of the award ceremony. That's not a defense of Harlan's actions.

So...what would you like to see? Him burnt at the stake?

I have to say that I'm quite amazed that the concept of private communication is held in so little esteem here. It seems as though anything said in a private communication between two parties must also be fair game. How sad, especially considering the original discussion concerns lack of respect for personal privacy.

Michael, if you don't want your words repeated, don't speak. Thinking that the Cone of Unquoting has descended on a group of more than, oh, four people is really, really, really silly.

I generally respect privacy quite well. I make exceptions for things like "I just bought a gun and I plan to lower the world's population slightly" and things said in large groups.

Absolute rules are for absolute idiots. Discretion doesn't mean you won't speak: it means you'll speak if you think it's the right thing to do.

Quoting _partially--and out of context_ from a private forum is wrong, Will. In addition to the privacy issue, he edited the quotes to push his own agenda.

I don't want him burned at the stake Ellen. Honest. I realize he is not a rapist or murderer. What I would like to see (and so would a lot of other fans) is something official done. It's all well and good for everyone and their third cousin to give their opinion (it's what the internet is good for, right?) but what about an official word from the Hugos? I guess I'm waiting for the WSFS to issue a statement concerning the organization's position on something that occured at a sanctioned event. There should be an apology - from them (it's not our job to make Harlan apologize). If you attend an event by a professional organization then you assume it will be conducted in a profession manner. That's what polite society is all about, right? So shouldn't there be a professional, official response and some sort of statement as to how this will be prevented in the future. (And I don't mean by not inviting Harlan Ellison - from what everyone is saying all over the web this is not necessarily an incident isolated just to him.)

So maybe the group that invited Harlan, invited Connie and set the stage (so to speak) should step up now and convince the fans that it will not tolerate this behavoir.

I mean if someone had their breast groped at the Oscars while giving out an award wouldn't the Academy of Motion Pictures, etc. issue a statement?

Can't something like that happen?

And as for the privacy issue - well, I guess I'm like everyone else who writes on a message board or forum. It would be great to assume that the words are safe there forever but I think a bit naive. If you want it to be private guys, then use a pen and paper. (And please - don't compare having board postings made public with someone grabbing your breast. With all due respect - that's not even close.)

But more importantly, I guess I figure that is something for you all to sort out yourselves - I just don't want to see the larger problem lost in that disagreement.

Sincerely,

Colleen

Colleen,
Thank you for actually providing a concrete non-inflammatory response :-).

I may be misremembering, but I believe there may have been misbehavior at the Oscars --or no, I guess it was the pre-show where one of the greeters groped various young actresses and asked if they were natural blonds and other inappropriate questions...etc. I don't recall if the group that hired him reprimanded him or even made any comment.

No one has been comparing touching a breast with posting conversations from private newsgroups where they don't belong.

But of course it's an _important_ issue. Just a different issue.

Ellen, complete agreement that quoting out of context is wrong. Like many wrong things, it's often done with the best intentions ("this is the part I most object to"), but quoting should always be done with sensitivity to context.

Ellen:

Yes the weirdness at the Oscars was I think in the red carpet walk with Issac Mis... (can't spell that). And the network he was with did apolgize. I was thinking more of the stage itself, which is where Connie and Harlan were.

As for my comment about privacy vs. the act against Connie I must have misread what Michael wrote:

"I have to say that I'm quite amazed that the concept of private communication is held in so little esteem here. It seems as though anything said in a private communication between two parties must also be fair game. How sad, especially considering the original discussion concerns lack of respect for personal privacy."

I thought what he referred to as "the original discussion" was what Harlan did. So from this quote, it seems as if he is comparing the breach of her private space in such a horrid manner with the public postings. I don't think I'm wrong here - but maybe he should have been clearer in what he meant.

And thanks right back for keeping this from getting all wild and out of control!

It seems as though anything said in a private communication between two parties must also be fair game.

Michael, don’t be hyperbolic. I’m sure you can see the difference between something said in front of upwards of a thousand people, and something said to one other person, even if you disagree with me as to how important that difference is.

Switzerland????

Yep. I let Ben Rosenbaum talk me into it.

I once posted a long rant about the state of Italian SF on a private mailing list. It contained what amounted to a slag of my then boss, who was not on the mailing list.

I got an angry letter from him and lost my job.

Technically, whoever forwarded my post to him was wrong. Practically, I learned my lesson: if you don't want people to think you are an idiot, don't write idiotic things in public, even if "public" means a few hundred people.

Dear Will Shetterly, I love you. Marry me. ahem, I mean, yes. What you said. yes.

Colleen, love you, too. But this is America and I can't ask you to marry me.

The whole issue of public/private comes up a lot on LJ where one can friendslock posts so that, in theory, only certain people will read said post. however, many have learned that, even with the barrier, it's still not a good idea to say anything you wouldn't want to have to defend/own up to regardless of the right or wrongness of the person posting private things.

Oh, and Ellen, Deirdre someone or other did say that posting private communications is just as bad as Harlan groping someone's breast over on the original post. I don't know if she said that before or after you said no one had. I'm too lazy to compare timestamps!

Anna, sympathy: but you ought to have known someone would at least describe your post to your boss. Hell, you say as much.

What disturbs me about quoting whole posts out of a private area is that it makes a private area public. If folks in the lounge wanted to be saying things in public, they have ways to do it -- just as I'm posting now.

There are things they can do about it, too. Will they? We'll see, I guess.

Just to be clear, I did not mean to imply that what David did was as bad as what Harlan Ellison did, which was egregious and unforgivable. I meant only to say that they both involve disrespect for individuals and their privacy.

David, I'm glad to hear that you feel that sharing information from a private e-mail would be wrong. Yes, there is a difference, but I don't see it as a significant one.

Michael

Please immediately remove my post. Thank you.

Done, sir.

Anna, sympathy: but you ought to have known someone would at least describe your post to your boss.

I’d just like to point out that, had the mailing list been a SFF.net private newsgroup, that description would still be a site policy violation, at least as I understand the policy.

Tempest, I think that'd be absolutely lovely, but Emma's never cottoned to the notion of additional wives. How I suffer.

Michael, regarding, "David, I'm glad to hear that you feel that sharing information from a private e-mail would be wrong. Yes, there is a difference, but I don't see it as a significant one." You really don't think there's a difference between writing one person and putting a post before hundreds? As a person who values his marriage and who likes small gatherings of friends, I'm croggled.

Tempest - we could always go to Canada! ha!

Michael - thank you for clarifying your comments.

It seems from the posts here and on David's other thread that the private vs public postings is quickly becoming the bigger issue. And I have yet to see anything from the event organizers that this was wrong and that accept some responsibility.

What do I think is going to happen? Some folks will steer clear of Harlan Ellison in the future and probably they will not have a female presenter on stage with him again. And that's it. Otherwise it will all disappear and over time become less than it ever was. And I imagine there will be fewer women attending the gatherings - they just won't want to take the chance.

Don't all of you big time writers who belong to these organizations want to do something or request something (of an official capacity) to prevent that? (And please don't think this is just about Harlan Ellison - it has rapidly proven itself to be not only about what he did, but also everyone's initial and later reactions to it.)

Colleen, speaking as mid-time writer who's not currently a member of any SF organization, I'm not sure an Official Statement is called for. This wasn't something the Neb organizers had planned, and the community has been remarkably consistent in saying Harlan Did Big Wrong. I like discussion and consensus. I don't like proclamations; they often divide people who need to be brought together.

I guess what I'm thinking Will (and I should not have used "big time" writers - sorry about that) is not a proclamation as sorts. Consider this was a meeting of IBM executives for awards for annual performance or Intel or Boeing - any professional company, group or organization. And something just like this happened. Wouldn't the company then issue a statement of apology that inappropriate behavior occured at their annual meeting during the awards ceremony? Wouldn't it be normal for the CEO to say "Ms Willis was an invited guest and treated in manner that was unacceptable and unfair. And to all those who witnessed this and were offended by it, IBM offers it sincere apologies and assurances that steps will be taken to prevent a repeat of this sad action."

That's what I mean. The problem with community reaction is that it rarely constructively changes anything. What is done to prevent a recurrence must be done by the organizers themselves.

Colleen, I agree there are times for proclamations, but when the community is addressing something, proclamations become redundant, at best.

One of the dangers of making rules is that it encourages rule-breakers to break them. It makes people think they're rebels when they're really clueless shitheads.

Will I think you and I will politely agree to disagree on this - from where I sit it seems the community is spending more time arguing (and over at Ed's some folks seem to be sharpening metaphorical knives to kill the messenger) then doing anything constructive.

But maybe you have a different viewpoint on all of it - maybe all of you do and we (on the outside) are missing it.

The problem of course, is that in light of what happened we are the ones you need to reassure. (Because we are so stunned and disappointed and shocked by all the bizarro discourse that has followed.) So far, that hasn't been happening (again, at least where I am sitting).

Regardless, good night Mr. Shetterly and enjoy the rest of you holiday! :)

Will I think you and I will politely agree to disagree on this - from where I sit it seems the community is spending more time arguing (and over at Ed's some folks seem to be sharpening metaphorical knives to kill the messenger) then doing anything constructive.

But maybe you have a different viewpoint on all of it - maybe all of you do and we (on the outside) are missing it.

The problem of course, is that in light of what happened we are the ones you need to reassure. (Because we are so stunned and disappointed and shocked by all the bizarro discourse that has followed.) So far, that hasn't been happening (again, at least where I am sitting).

Regardless, good night Mr. Shetterly and enjoy the rest of you holiday! :)

Will I think you and I will politely agree to disagree on this - from where I sit it seems the community is spending more time arguing (and over at Ed's some folks seem to be sharpening metaphorical knives to kill the messenger) then doing anything constructive.

But maybe you have a different viewpoint on all of it - maybe all of you do and we (on the outside) are missing it.

The problem of course, is that in light of what happened we are the ones you need to reassure. (Because we are so stunned and disappointed and shocked by all the bizarro discourse that has followed.) So far, that hasn't been happening (again, at least where I am sitting).

Regardless, good night Mr. Shetterly and enjoy the rest of you holiday! :)

Alan, yes, that was kind of my point.

There is another lesson I learned: if I can imagine being ashamed of what I wrote, I should probably not write it at all. In most cases however, it is possible to write one's concept in such a way that world can see it and you can honestly say, I stand by what I wrote.

As a matter of fact, a lot of people have defended Harlan Ellison or expressed the opinion that the incident has been blown out of proportion withouth having to resort to impugning the wit, youth or physical appeal of a writer that is ten thousand times more talented and a human being vastly more liked than them. And have done so in public.

David did something that, by general standards of politeness and civility, is very wrong. In most cases, I would find it a despicable action, and I am sure, so would he. However, there are moments when politeness and civility are not the higher virtue. It's not a coincidence if most of the depressing things he quoted came from people who spoke under the cover of a "private" group. I find it in itself encouraging, as I find encouraging that the most depressing quotes have been taken down.

But yes, I think that despite being something very rude and nasty, what David did was nonetheless right. Some things, and sometimes shameful things, that are whispered among friends, are well exposed to the light.

Colleen, just wanted to add that I haven't been following much of the discussion. I may be overly optimistic about the power of debate and consensus; it is often ugly to watch. If enough idiots take the wrong position, a proclamation will be appropriate.

And a good night and a good weekend to you!

David, I don't mean to be mean about it, but some of your commenters display an ignorance about SF's various organizations and their history which is simply breathtaking.

Colleen writes: "I guess I'm waiting for the WSFS to issue a statement concerning the organization's position on something that occured at a sanctioned event. There should be an apology - from them..."

The soonest the WSFS could issue such a statement would be at the Worldcon next year in Japan. And the idea that the WSFS should take responsibility for, and issue statements about, every piece of bad behavior that happens at a Worldcon is simply astonishing. This is like saying that because a guy on your block hit his wife, your block association needs to issue a statement condemning it. It's the statement of someone who has no idea what the WSFS is.

Jackie M. writes: "SFWA is the single-most powerful organization affecting written SF fandom"

Excuse me while I expire of laughter. SFWA? Powerful in connection with fandom? Are you high?

SFWA? Positive in connection with fandom? Are you high?

No. Grossly ignorant in all things organizational, no doubt, but not high.

Under the circumstances, I would be thrilled to learn that there is a more-powerful, fan-inclusive organization which is capable of censuring Ellison in a manner which will set concrete standards -- not just for Ellison's future behavior, but for all professional AND non-professional SF conduct.

And I would be positively ecstatic to learn that the "a bit of grab-ass is not sexual harassment" attitudes which apparently prevail in the SFWA private online areas have no influence whatsoever on the predominant cultural environment of my con-going experiences or on SF fandom in general.

Nuts! I wasn't going to post here again...

The below is an example of how quoting out of context leaves readers with the wrong impression. No one in the sfwa newsgroup approved of Harlan's actions. Your depiction of any "attitude" by sfwans in participating in the private discussion is ignorant.

"And I would be positively ecstatic to learn that the "a bit of grab-ass is not sexual harassment" attitudes which apparently prevail in the SFWA private online areas have no influence whatsoever on the predominant cultural environment of my con-going experiences or on SF fandom in general.

—— Jackie M., 6:32 AM, Monday, September 4, 2006

Patrick

To respond to your quote:

Colleen writes: "I guess I'm waiting for the WSFS to issue a statement concerning the organization's position on something that occured at a sanctioned event. There should be an apology - from them..."

The soonest the WSFS could issue such a statement would be at the Worldcon next year in Japan. And the idea that the WSFS should take responsibility for, and issue statements about, every piece of bad behavior that happens at a Worldcon is simply astonishing. This is like saying that because a guy on your block hit his wife, your block association needs to issue a statement condemning it. It's the statement of someone who has no idea what the WSFS is.

I believe I posted elsewhere that if this had happened at a backyard bbq then it would apply more directly only to the people involved. It occured however at an event hosted by a professional organization for the sole purpose of providing awards as voted upon by another professional organization. (Hence my mention of both WorldCon and WSFS - they were both directly involved in the event.)

If you are going to host an event, if you are going to invite people to attend, if you are going to assign it the "trappings" of professionalism and that is certainly all of what was going on here - it's the Hugos for heaven's sake - then if one of your presenters is humiliated and sexually harrassed on stage in front of an audience then you have to take some responsibility.

That doesn't mean they are guilty of the exact act but you are responsible for providing a safe and professional and respectful environment.

Otherwise, well,they might as well be giving out the Hugos at someone's block party.

And please - domestic abuse inside someone house compares to harrassment on the stage while awarding the Hugos? I'm afraid I don't follow the comparison. And this was certainly not some bit of "bad behavior". Again, it occurred on the stage, during the awards presentation, in front of an audience. If you cannot at least provide a secure environment to your invited guests in this context, then how can you possibly be capable of providing it anywhere else during the event?

Colleen, Patrick, slow down a little. :) I think you two are on the same side.

Despite what some people seem to think we're ALL on the same side.

I'm happy to back away David - this has all been so intense that it quite seems to have lost all notions of polite company (at least in a few posts).

I'll wait to see what happens next. Perhaps someone will respond in an official capacity from one of the organizations and perhaps not. It would be nice to see though.

Colleen says:

"It occured however at an event hosted by a professional organization"

No it didn't. It occurred at the World Science Fiction Convention ("Worldcon"), an event run by volunteer fan committees since 1939.

"for the sole purpose of providing awards as voted upon by another professional organization."

Wrong again. The Hugos are awarded by the members of the current Worldcon. (Members of the immediately prior Worldcon are also entitled to nominate; to vote, you need to be a member of the current one.)

"(Hence my mention of both WorldCon and WSFS--they were both directly involved in the event.)"

Worldcon and WSFS are essentially the same. The World Science Fiction Society (WSFS) is the unincorporated body comprised of members of the current and forthcoming Worldcons. Neither is remotely a "professional organization."

I'm sorry to be so short with you, but you are making as much sense as someone who asserts that World War II began when Delaware attacked Batman.

David says you're on "the same side" as me. I don't think so. I think you're on the side of people who think they ought to be able to make pronouncements about what this or that organization should do, without troubling themselves to know the first thing about the nature of those organizations. I think you think it's just silly fannish stuff you don't have to know about before you moralize about what other people ought to do. I have no respect whatsoever for that, and it's not on any "side" I care to be on.

Colleen, one thing that might help: a quick perusal of the WSFS pages. The purpose and organization are listed on that page, and the rules of the organization are linked from there.

Wow.

Patrick I'm not moralzing at all - at least not as I know the word defined. I've never said a word about what should or should not happen to Mr. Ellison compared to many other bloggers all over the blogosphere who have wanted to attack him. In fact I made a point of earlier of saying I did not want Ellen to think I was saying that and she seemed to understand.

My mistake seems to be comparing the awards ceremonies for the science fiction community (at least in this specific context) with ceremonies I am familiar with in the non literary world. I'm sorry you took this as an attack. I'm sorry you took it so freaking personal. I'm sorry I made you so angry.

I'm sorry that you don't seem to like me very much when all I wanted was to find out why the people who hosted this whole dinner don't seem to want to express their committment to maintain any sort of professional atmosphere during the dinner.

My experience is primarily with aviation organizations and from complaints about catering to anything else, if there is a problem then the organization who hosts the banquet/ceremony/etc. handles it. If something happened like this say at an AOPA dinner (Aircraft Owners and Pilots Assoc), well there would be something up on the website shortly thereafter. There would discussion from the organization. There would be apologies and assurances. There would be, well, a response.

And that is the behavior I'm used to.

I did not realize that the situation was not the same here. I wrongly assumed that something with as much credibility as the Hugos stemmed from a professional organization or that they were awarded at a professionally (even if volunteer) organized ceremony. You have very effectively made it clear that I did not understand this.

Although for the record I would like to tell you I have a degree in history and I do know alot about WWII.

Good night Patrick. Have a lovely night. You just showed one sci fi fan what you really thought of her. Wow. I had no idea that this is what it was going to be like posting questions over here. I must be more naive then I thought. I did not expect this.

Colleen, in brief, this is how the Hugo ceremony works, organization wise.

WSFS, which is an unincorporated litarary society, allows committees (which are incorporated) to bid on hosting the next Worldcon. Each year, it's a different corporation, and LA Con IV was hosted by Southern California Institute for Fan Interests (SCIFI), Inc.

It is that convention which makes decisions about what the Hugo ceremonies consist of; there's only three (iirc) constitutionally-required events at a Worldcon. One is the business meeting, two is site selection for the worldcon two years hence, three is the selecting of the Hugos. For example, one oft-debated point is whether or not one SHOULD have other awards, such as the Big Heart, First Fan, Seiun, etc. They always happen, but generally there's a debate a year about it anyway.

The specific rules for granting of Hugos are part of the WSFS constitution, and the corporation running the convention agrees to abide by them. The only award voted on with the Hugos that is not a Hugo (but receives the same statue) is the Campbell award, for which the rules are set by Dell magazines.

Patrick's already covered voting, so I'll just skip that part.

So, here's the problem: there is no easy and specific way to cope with the problem of one person groping another on stage. Next year, the event may well be in another country, with entirely different people, under a different parent organization. Point in fact, last year it was in Scotland, this year in the US, next year in Japan.

The only thing one can do that will affect every convention down the line would be to amend the WSFS constitution, and that is deliberately difficult.

The WSFS business meeting is a wonder of parliamentarianism. So, basically, let's say you draft something and everyone thinks it's a great idea and you've crossed all your parliamentary Ts. And they pass it. You'll still have to have it confirmed by the following Worldcon, and then it would go into effect the following year. Since the business meeting has already happened for this year, that means you'd have to lobby your case in Yokohama Japan, and Denver Colorado, and it would go into effect for 2009, which would probably be in Kansas City or Montreal (as those are the outstanding bids). That's the best case scenario.

Question one (rhetorical): do you think it's a big enough issue that it can be articulated clearly enough so that a proposal can be drafted to prevent the Harlan Incident from happening again? And what are the consequences if it does?

Question two: do you think that it's something that you can get 50% of those present at the business meeting to agree with you about, especially since they are generally reluctant to amend the constitution?

And, in closing, it is Not Required for there to be a Hugo award ceremony at all, so it's entirely possible that trying to get specific behavior conditions written in might be countered with not having a ceremony at all.

Jackie M: "Under the circumstances, I would be thrilled to learn that there is a more-powerful, fan-inclusive organization which is capable of censuring Ellison in a manner which will set concrete standards -- not just for Ellison's future behavior, but for all professional AND non-professional SF conduct."

No, the world isn't that organized. SFWA is a bag of potty old (well, mostly old) writers who spend most of their time engaging in stupid arguments. And SFWA really is as close as one gets to a Secret Cabal That Controls the World. (That's not say, not very.)

"I'm sorry that you don't seem to like me very much when all I wanted was to find out why the people who hosted this whole dinner don't seem to want to express their committment to maintain any sort of professional atmosphere during the dinner."

No, that's not "all you wanted." You also wanted to moralize about organizations and events you know absolutely nothing about. And that's why I don't like you.

By the way, it's not a "dinner", either. One would think that, with that college degree you boast about, you would know how to do five minutes' worth of research.

Patrick --

I feel like a poster child for futility pointing this out to you in an environment which has already been poisoned by so much hostility -- and I realize that this comment of mine will very likely result in an even more vicious response -- but I feel compelled to point out that your verbal assaults on Colleen have crossed the line into abuse. You outright refused to comply when David asked you both to back down; you then proceeded to justify your disrespectful tone by accusing Colleen of "breathtaking" ignorance and moralizing. You then insulted her intelligence.

I admired your initiative in being one of the first and most prominent members of the SF community to point out the original breach of common decency which led to all of this hoopla; I'm grateful that you have been willing to pursue the matter with such persistance and (generally) gracious level-headedness. But your continuously contemptuous treatment of Colleen is grossly inappropriate -- especially in light of the fact that David politely asked you to knock it off two posts ago.

David --

I'm discharging what I perceive as an ethical obligation. If my comment results in a further escalation of hostility from Patrick, I promise I will drop the matter immediately.

I did indeed "accus[e] Colleen of 'breathtaking' ignorance and moralizing." And I "insulted her intelligence." Quite deliberately, too.

More than that, I think it was entirely appropriate to do so. I have no patience for people who spread misinformation far and wide when they could learn better via five minutes on Google.

The people Colleen slimed--the volunteer fan organizations she attacked--are human too. If you prick them, they bleed. Many of them have worked for decades to make the World Science Fiction Convention, and the Hugo awards, something worth caring about. If you want to cast her as the victim in this exchange, feel free, but in so doing you are conclusively establishing that you care nothing for justice.

There are ways of communicating all of that without resorting to the level of incivility and childish name-calling that is apparently so prevalent in the SFWA private forums.

Patrick:

I referred to the Hugos as a dinner because it was late at night when I made the post and I slipped up. I was comparing it to an awards dinner. I know it's not a dinner, but this is not a graduate thesis I'm writing it's a comment to a blog.

So yes, feel free to hate me forever for that.

I would like to point out though that I have not "slimed" anyone - I have gone out of my way to be polite, I have asked polite questions, I have not said anything rude. Specifically, I asked some questions about why things of an organizational manner could not be done differently. I can't understand at all how you could suggest that I was cruel to people because of that (especially compared to what so many other people on this site and others have written).

I certainly did not attack anyone but you seem to want to insist that I have. As all of my posts are here for the world to see I will leave this alone. Folks can decide for themselves.

Finally, as for insulting my intelligence, well go ahead, if it makes you good. After this bizarre exchange, how could I possibly care about your opinion of me? I will say this though, you have clearly fulfilled every bad stereotype that has been floating around the lit blogosphere lately about the Sci Fi Community.

I don't know you, and I'm sure I never will. But remember, for the record, all I ever said was that I was a fan. Clearly science fiction must not need many if this is how you treat the ones you have.

David, best of luck to you and Jackie, thanks for the kind words.