Not related to previous post

[james_davis_nicoll]

Who's been saying the Hugo process is corrupt?

Comments

[nihilistic-kid.livejournal.com]

My objection, of course, and totally obviously, is to your claim that it was "merely" my words as an excuse.

She used a fair amount of bullshit misinformation and disinformation as fuel, including my words. There was certainly other fuel too, as I've mentioned.

As far as what you think is up to me, kindly do yourself the favor of being slightly less ridiculous. I see that Rose, again, already remarked on how friggin' obvious my comments were. I simply don't think someone who looks at my tweet, and wants to intimate that I am falsely accusing someone of a crime, needs much more than two patient explanations and one less-patient denial.

[agent-mimi.livejournal.com]

My objection, of course, and totally obviously, is to your claim that it was "merely" my words as an excuse.

She used a fair amount of bullshit misinformation and disinformation as fuel, including my words. There was certainly other fuel too, as I've mentioned.

What I said may not be grammatically correct, but I thought it was clear. Since it wasn't, let me clarify: The phrase I used was "she merely wanted" to use your words, not "she merely used" your words. There was no intended implication that she only used your words. In fact, in that very post you keep quoting, I said, "she has multiple reasons that go far beyond what was said in the brief Twitter exchange with Nick."

So yes, of course, there was other "fuel." Absolutely, and I said so from the beginning. I don't agree that it was bullshit, though.

[nihilistic-kid.livejournal.com]

So yes, of course, there was other "fuel." Absolutely, and I said so from the beginning.

So did I. But what you had to say was:



Not that I don't think she's flouncing because I genuinely do, but her post makes it clear that she has multiple reasons that go far beyond what was said in the brief Twitter exchange with Nick.

But her post...in contrast to what alternative claim out there? Certainly not anything I claimed. My very first comment mentions the complete exchange with Lavie, whose initial comment kicked off the kerfluffle.

[agent-mimi.livejournal.com]

But her post...in contrast to what alternative claim out there?

I was contrasting the notion that the Twitter exchange was the sole reason for Cheryl's post versus her multiple reasons she wrote in the post itself. You said she referenced "a whole bunch of stuff" in her post, but your definition of "a whole bunch of stuff" is all the stuff in the Twitter exchange. Personally, I think she referenced the exchange plus blogs, fan comments, the comments of professionals, and controversies of previous years. I also speculate that her post was written in the context of all of the complaints that have been swirling around since the ceremonies, not just the complaints made in that one Twitter exchange.

For example, early on you said Cheryl saw the Twitter exchange and had it explained to her, but "ignored all that and went on her flounce anyway, using a term that nobody actually used to refer to the Hugos process." I think it's possible that she used the term "corrupt" because it was out there on the internet in places like File 770 and the first comment on Tor's Hugo winners post. These aren't direct examples, but close enough to suggest the term didn't come from you at all.

[nihilistic-kid.livejournal.com]

I was contrasting the notion that the Twitter exchange was the sole reason for Cheryl's post versus her multiple reasons she wrote in the post itself.

The notion...which nobody ever put forward. Ever. Even allowing you expansion from the exchange with me to the exchange in general with the other people involved.


You said she referenced "a whole bunch of stuff" in her post, but your definition of "a whole bunch of stuff" is all the stuff in the Twitter exchange.

Do you know the difference between only discussing one reason—though the exchange itself holds at least two (Lavie being anti-Hugo, my remark about whether it is acceptable to complain without voting)—and claiming that there is only one sole reason?


I think it's possible that she used the term "corrupt" because it was out there on the internet in places like File 770 and the first comment on Tor's Hugo winners post.

The word corrupt appears in the first link in this sentence: We have fannish communities with varied interests and tastes and while it’s typical of the age to assume the other side is biased and corrupt, in fact it’s everyone’s privilege to like what they like. That is, the word appears in a sentence that expresses agreement with Cheryl's own sentiments about the Hugos.

The word corrupt appears in that second link this sentence: A bit dispiriting that a process as corrupt as the Nebulas here echoes the decision of the largest gathering of Hugo voters in its history. What is corrupt? The Nebulas, not the Hugos. Cheryl Morgan does not seem to be a participant in the tor discussion; she's mentioned in File 770 in a broadly related context, but not otherwise.

On the other hand, she's part of the Twitter exchange, is clearly upset in her flounce with the "professionals"—not fan writers or pseudonymous commenters on blogs—and then quit a project she was doing with Lavie as part of her flounce. It's a rather extreme reach to suggest that by "professionals" who "have said things that can be taken to imply they think the process is corrupt" she meant a) a fan writer who said that the process wasn't corrupt, or b) a pseudonymous commenter saying that some other, significantly different process, is corrupt instead of the actual pros she was talking to the day before. "Possible" sure? It's also possible you're just a school psychology experiment, right?

[agent-mimi.livejournal.com]

Do you know the difference between only discussing one reason—though the exchange itself holds at least two (Lavie being anti-Hugo, my remark about whether it is acceptable to complain without voting)—and claiming that there is only one sole reason?

I wasn't passing judgment on your definition of "whole bunch of stuff," I was clarifying how you and I differ on said "stuff."

That is, the word appears in a sentence that expresses agreement with Cheryl's own sentiments about the Hugos.

Absolutely. It's an example of how someone expressing Cheryl's sentiments can come up with the word "corrupt" all on their own without getting it from you.

Your theory is rather labored: Cheryl has taken your metaphor "crooked game" and ignored multiple explanations as to its meaning, changed the phrase to "corrupt" and used it as part of a lie just so she could get out of Lavie's Travel Fund. She has just dumped Clarkesworld, SF Awards Watch, the Travel Fund, and the SF&F Translations Awards because of a couple of things you and Lavie said on Twitter.

But maybe it's not all about you, Nick. Neither you nor Lavie were quoted, she didn't mention Twitter, and none of you said the word "corrupt."

I think the Twitter exchange was the straw that broke the camel's back. You think it was the whole hay bale, the camel, and the road it walks.

...is clearly upset in her flounce with the "professionals"—not fan writers or pseudonymous commenters on blogs

Well, except for the fact that she mentions more than just professionals. Bolded by me:

Depressingly much of this has come, not just from outraged fans, but also from professionals in the field. ... And a few, I suspect, are trying to stir up controversy in the hope of getting more traffic to their blogs. ... Nothing I have seen has been directed at me, which is a big relief after the ridiculous nonsense last year.

Whoops, there she goes, mentioning fans and blogs and controversies of previous years.

(Reposted for typos and formatting.)

[nihilistic-kid.livejournal.com]

I was clarifying how you and I differ on said "stuff."

We don't differ. You imagine I do because you need some method to turn my objection into an exercise in ego rather than an exercise in simply reading Cheryl's comments in context.

It's an example of how someone expressing Cheryl's sentiments can come up with the word "corrupt" all on their own without getting it from you.

That's funny, because Cheryl's complaints are rather specific about who was saying that the Hugos were corrupt. She cited professionals over fans—it's no wild coincidence that the only pros named in her piece (except for listing Willis) were me and Lavie. Why not name Nora and Aliette, whom she only alludes to via their ethnicity? They didn't bug her.

Cheryl has taken your metaphor "crooked game" and ignored multiple explanations as to its meaning, changed the phrase to "corrupt" and used it as part of a lie just so she could get out of Lavie's Travel Fund. She has just dumped Clarkesworld, SF Awards Watch, the Travel Fund, and the SF&F Translations Awards because of a couple of things you and Lavie said on Twitter.

Not quite my theory. But yes, she did ignore multiple explanations as to its meaning—as did you, btw, since you found them insufficient as they didn't come from me. And she didn't change the word to corrupt out of nowhere—Farah had introduced that term in the Twitter exchange. And hmm, let's see: after Lavie mocked something Cheryl was heavily involved in, she pulled out of a project she identifies as Lavie's (the travel fund). After mentioning how "We" did so well as to get my name on the ballot for Japanese SF, she drops out of the Translation award—which she had contacted me about from the very beginning, had me on a WFC panel about, and for which I've made donations of books for a raffle. And then she's out of other stuff too. That's how high dudgeon works. As pointed out on Genreville, she's thrown up her hands before. Yes, other things are going on—including things outside of the usual viper's nest of Hugo stuff—she lost a friend and project partner, for example. But clearly, she's referring to the Twitter exchange when she's talking about professionals talking about corruption, and bloggers looking for traffic.

Depressingly much of this has come, not just from outraged fans, but also from professionals in the field.

I'm sorry, if you can look at this sentence and think that the main target of her ire isn't professionals, there's nothing at all I can do to help you.

And a few, I suspect, are trying to stir up controversy in the hope of getting more traffic to their blogs.

I'm sorry, if you can look at this sentence and suggest that she might be talking about a pseudonymous comment on tor.com rather than, say, actual bloggers who are also pros—say, the obscure pro blog Lavie linked to, which started that Twitter exchange in the first place (and which was in response to something Scalzi wrote, and which Scalzi responded to, thus, yes, getting Damien many more hits than usual), I'm afraid you are truly beyond help.

[agent-mimi.livejournal.com]

You imagine I do because you need some method to turn my objection into an exercise in ego rather than an exercise in simply reading Cheryl's comments in context.

Hilarious.


"Depressingly much of this has come, not just from outraged fans, but also from professionals in the field."

I'm sorry, if you can look at this sentence and think that the main target of her ire isn't professionals, there's nothing at all I can do to help you.

Main target, yes. Only target, no.


"And a few, I suspect, are trying to stir up controversy in the hope of getting more traffic to their blogs."

I'm sorry, if you can look at this sentence and suggest that she might be talking about a pseudonymous comment on tor.com

I never connected that sentence with anything said on tor.com. The links I gave to Tor and File 770 were part of my speculation that Cheryl may have used the word "corrupt" independently and not because of that silly cliche you used on Twitter. Further, you think she mentioned you and Lavie specifically to link her blog post to you two. Sure, it's possible. I speculate it might not be for that reason, which I have said before, so I won't bother repeating myself.


the obscure pro blog Lavie linked to, which started that Twitter exchange in the first place (and which was in response to something Scalzi wrote, and which Scalzi responded to, thus, yes, getting Damien many more hits than usual), I'm afraid you are truly beyond help.

I'm sure that blog is one of the blogs Cheryl was referring to. See, Cheryl doesn't reference A blog, she says A FEW BLOGS, and I took her word for it. Multiple blogs. You didn't, and you have your reasons, which I understand. I just don't agree with them.


This has actually been pretty enlightening for me. For several years, I've read the comments you've posted to the 'net, and it seems you're always fighting with someone, being insulting, sarcastic and bitchy. As I said to dd_b back when this segment of the thread started, I used to think this was your shtick. I assumed you did this in part because it was the character trait that gained you significant internet notoriety -- and frankly, the traits of premature conflagration coupled with dishonest discourse has gotten a lot of people in the SF/F world notoriety.

However, over the years I've come to suspect that you are quite unable to discuss something maturely. You continuously resort to the "you're stupid, you can't read" insults, or such as with jamesenge, the "you suck at your job" insult. When jamesenge mentioned your ad hominem attack, you attacked him for noticing you had made ad hominem attacks! Come on, Nick, that is teenager stuff. Well, so is the idea that someone who disagrees with you is obviously stupid, and so is the tendency to start a weak internet insult with "I'm sorry," which I'm a bit disheartened to see you resort to. It's all so silly, Nick, and I don't know why you bother with it.