Guest Post: Origins Disgrace

This is a guest post by George Phillies, an author, gamer, and, well, you’ll see… You can find more about George’s work here, and he is the president of N3F, where you can subscribe for free fanzines that are delightfully focused only on the fantasy, fun, and frolics of fandom, leaving out the politics. You can also sign up there for a paid membership, which will support “The N3F began in April 1941, when all types of imaginative literature – including science fiction – were called fantasy. We’re one of the oldest science fiction and fantasy fan clubs still operating. In all the time since then, the N3F has undergone almost every combination of success and failure imaginable. At different times our membership has been in the hundreds, and other times under 10. It has produced some of Fandom’s most memorable fanzines and some of the worst crudzines. Its ranks hold professional writers as well as neofans (if you have to ask what a neofan is, you are one).” George didn’t ask me to include this bit, but I am, because given what we’re seeing with Origins and other cons recently, having somewhere you can hang out without first having to show how ‘woke’ you are is refreshing, and I for one am happy knowing that not every fan group out there is like the one that is in charge of Origins. 

Origins was launched by Simulations Publications, Incorporated and The Avalon Hill Company as a board wargaming convention. I remember when it happened.

Now, I am actually somewhat familiar with the board wargaming hobby and its history.

I started playing board wargames, what we now call hex-and-counter games, in 1958. That was when the first modern hex-and-counter board wargame was published. The equivalent in SF fandom would be to have subscribed to Amazing Stories in 1926, in time to receive the first issue hot off the presses.

In 1963, I played a computer wargame using what was perhaps the world’s first joystick. The computer in question, a PDP-1, is I gather now in the Boston Computer Museum.

In 1964, I founded what was probably the first college wargaming club, the MITWGS (now the MIT SGS).

Soon thereafter, I published the very first board wargaming fanzine, The Tank. We advertised in the world’s first and only board wargaming prozine, the Avalon Hill General. The Tank under my editorship was the first board wargaming magazine to publish a complete board wargame in one issue. (I designed it.) I later published a number of other game magazines, including The Guide To Wargaming Periodical Literature, History Of Wargaming Quarterly, the American Wargamer, Strategist, and Game!

In 1974, I published, in another zine I founded, this being the American Wargamer, a review of that new set of miniatures rules Dungeons & Dragons. The rules had been written by two friends of mine, people with whom I had corresponded for some years, Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson. I said that Gary and Dave had in fact not written a new set of miniatures rules. They had created a whole new branch of the hobby, to be compared in its importance with board wargames, miniatures, and diplomatic games. At the time I published this claim, it was unique and not widely believed. As it turned out, I was right.

I collect board wargames and their literature. My board wargame collection now approaches 6000 titles, a count that will probably be passed this year. I also collect board wargaming magazines. My collection occupies 16 four-drawer filing cabinets.

I therefore claim that I have some modest knowledge of the wargaming hobby.

If I think back to the early 1970s, and a meeting of the MITSGS, I am reminded that members might have very different political opinions. At a given meeting, we had several people who were far to the right, we had the student political analyst whose computer software in 1968 meant that the Technology Broadcasting System called the presidential election correctly and accurately well before any of the other networks did, I had my Battle of the Bulge opponent who spent his time between his moves reading Mao Tse-Tsung’s On Guerrilla Warfare, because after all he was a far left sort and should read the material written by far left politicians, and finally there was the young lady whose support of women’s liberation included her shaved-to-the-scalp haircut.  We were there to meet and play games, not to argue about politics, which we didn’t.

We now arrive at the present and the recent Origins action with respect to Larry Correia. He was a Guest of Honor at Origins, and then the invitation was retracted.  For wargamers, Correia is a gaming figure painter.  For SF fans, Correia is the creator of Monster Hunter International, the New York Times best-selling SF series.

Of course, there are folks out there who were annoyed about the Sad Puppies, the Rabid Puppies, et tedious cetera.  However, the reason the invitation was retracted, as given by the organizers, was “”Unfortunately, when he was recommended I was unaware of some personal views that are specifically unaligned with the philosophy of our show and the organization.  I want to thank those of you that brought this error to our attention.  Origins is an inclusive and family friendly event.  We focus on fun and gaming, not discourse and controversy. I felt it necessary to recent his invitation to participate in the show.” That reason clearly has nothing to do with the Sad Puppies.

In my opinion, the conduct of the Origins convention organizers has disgraced our entire wargaming hobby.  Prior generations would have greeted news of the Origins actions with contempt, assuming that disbelief in such an absurd action could have been overcome. The convention organizers should be ashamed of themselves.

Having said that, what might fellow wargamers who agree with me do about the situation? Of course, it would be polite for a few people who know them to warn the other guests of honor of what is going on, so that they are not taken by surprise.

There are folks who propose that professional SF writers should stop attending conventions, or, at least, most conventions. That might have a positive effect.  It also might shut those writers deeper into a ghetto of their own making.  That’s what happens in the future, and as Casey Stengel once said, it is difficult to predict the future, especially before it happens.

Having said that, I would urge gamers to find out who the officers and members of GAMA are. Find the ones that you know.  Learn if they know what is going on.   If they do, tell them, entirely politely, that they made a mistake, that they have disgraced the hobby, and that they should be ashamed of themselves.  And remind them that some mistakes can be corrected.


  1. Well, if I ever need books on wargaming design, now i know where to do. Wish I’d had them 20 years ago….wish the editors had them, too…

    My first wargame was, technically, Axis and Allies, and my parents got me Panzerblitz at a yard sale afterwards. The previous owner had never even separated the counters…

  2. This is merely the latest in a series of attempts by virtue signaling social justice bullies to exclude those they disagree with from all sorts of fan conventions. They twist partial truths or outright lies to demonize folks who are really only guilty of having expressed opinions that the bullies don’t like.
    Convention committees, and in particular their chairs, hate controversy. Particularly when it might require them to add on more security, or might even get them barred from returning to the convention venue in the future.
    The real danger lies in the simple truth that once you allow a few extremists to pick and choose who can attend your function you only encourage them to worse in the future. Your nice little get together enters a death spiral as attendees are either barred or refuse to attend in response to obvious bias and extreme bullying by a select few.
    To borrow a common phrase, this is why we cannot have nice things any more. This is how you kill any and all sorts of fan based conventions.

        1. You wouldn’t like to see Kratman’s most viable path to the Whitehouse.

          (Clinton’s people in the FBI assassinate Trump and just miss Pence. Pence needs someone that can be absolutely trusted not to be on Clinton’s side. Then…)

          Except on the big screen.

  3. Does anyone know what he was accused of doing/saying/thinking? It’s a rather poor sort of virtue signalling that doesn’t signal a particular virtue. This is so vague it almost sounds like it’s trying to hide the fact that someone had a personal beef with him.

    1. Bingo… four years ago Larry fisked some nonsense by a boyfriend. Girlfriend held a grudge. No virtue, just empty signalling.

      I like … I think it was Mad Mike’s suggestion … that anyone who feels “unsafe” at an event should immediately have their membership canceled and their money refunded… for their own protection.

      1. I thought his suggestion was to do that to anyone who went public with such an accusation. My impression was that he thought it was okay for people to go through channels with a complaint. This one definitely seems to have gone through channels.

        1. no, she didnt have a legitimate complaint. she was worried about teh feelz because Larry dared contest the deep thinkings of her son-of-a-billionaire finacee

      1. Thank you. That was very helpful.

        If that’s really all it was, it surprises me that they caved in so easily. Normally that doesn’t seem to happen until after someone makes a big public fuss. Con organizers don’t like things that mess up their plans, I suspect, so there usually needs to be at least some hue and cry before they’ll drop someone. This time, it seems like the con itself announced it before anyone else knew anyone had a problem. (Or did I just miss the “hue and cry” part?)

        This would make more sense if the rich boyfriend were bankrolling the con. 🙂


          Amanda links to a blog, Victory Girls, that has a screenshot of a twitter communication.

          If there was a financial interest, couldn’t Origins have been informed directly without needing a public presentation?

          They ask for evidence, she gives a sob story about not wanting to put it out on the internet again. They accept.

          Larry’s fisking of the guy’s “Gencon is Racist” article has been on the internet and public since it was posted.

          If the “Gencon is Racist” guy has been using his wealth to get Larry blacklisted, this is the first obvious sign. I’ve also not heard that he is trying to run a con he wouldn’t see as racist.

          I think the pattern better fits the idea that this is counter-puppies than anything else.

        2. The speed with which the Nebula Board heaved you under the bus should have been a clue, Greg. There’s nothing but naked politics and hate behind all this crap, it has never been about anything else. Some of the politics are national, some of it is Fan politics, but it is ALL political.

          1. It was Locus, not the Nebulas, but I understand what you’re saying. However, one big difference is that Locus was in regular e-mail communication with me, and we jointly agreed that I should withdraw from the Locus Recommended Reading List committee. They didn’t spring it on me, and I even got to announce it first. It had been an honor (albeit unpaid) to be named to the committee, and it was humiliating to have to step down, but I clearly had no choice at that point.

            I would say, though, that this wasn’t really political. It was a bunch of thin-skinned authors who were mad at me for giving them bad reviews (or, in a couple of cases, for giving their friends bad reviews). They just dug through my reviews until they found a weapon they could use.

            What bothers me the most is that I gave them the weapon. Rocket Stack Rank‘s reviews are supposed to be solely about the content of the stories. There shouldn’t have ever been anything political in there nor anything that could be described as a “Microaggression.” (What, in my day, we’d have called “left-handed compliments.”) They definitely found things that violated my own principles. (Stuff I wrote because I was ticked at something in the story.)

            The key difference is that I’m a liberal, so they could have just sent me private e-mail saying, “are you sure this is what you want to be saying?” And I’d have thought about it a bit, said, “oops, you’re right,” and changed it. (It was only 6 or 7 posts out of many thousands.) Instead, the unhappy authors made a big production out of it, and 80% of what they said was pure slander. But because of the 20% that was true, there wasn’t much I could do about it. And that was exactly how they wanted it. To this day they’ve refused to contact me directly about this or anything else. They don’t want me to fix things; they want Rocket Stack Rank to go away, and they’re very upfront about that on Twitter.

            So we fixed the problems. Apologized for the things Eric and I both agreed were wrong. Refuted the things that weren’t true at all. And then waited for it to blow over. Which it did.

            But it wasn’t politics in the usual sense. They don’t really object to my politics. This was entirely about negative reviews. Nothing else. What never occurred to me was that they’d be willing to silence a gay voice on an important committee just out of spite over reviews of their stories.

            If readership at the site had dropped off, I think we’d have given up and called it a day. But readership actually increased. (Doubled for a while.) We’ve got thousands of regular readers and tens of thousands of occasional ones now. And they nominated us for a Best Fanzine Hugo again this year, even though we never even suggested that anyone should do so. That was a pretty solid vote of confidence from our readers, and, in the end, that meant more to us than anything else.

            1. But it wasn’t politics in the usual sense. They don’t really object to my politics. This was entirely about negative reviews.

              What you are calling “politics in the usual sense” is what Phantom called “national politics”. What he is calling “Fan politics” is exactly this: they didn’t like some negative reviews, and mounted a political campaign to make you look bad, making 80% of it up because they couldn’t actually dig up enough real dirt. (And about that 20% of factual stuff: most lies are wrapped around a kernel of truth to make them more believable. They’re. Still. Lies. Always, ALWAYS keep that in mind: someone who will take 20% truth and mix it with 80% lies CANNOT BE TRUSTED.)

              The Wikipedia article on politics says that the word “refers to achieving and exercising positions of governance—organized control over a human community, particularly a state”. But politics also happens at the city level, at the neighborhood level (home owners’ associations are political bodies too), and at the level of SF/F fan organizations. Any time you have one group of people exercising any kind of decision-making power: what authors get into an anthology, who gets invited as a GoH to a con… that’s politics on the small scale. As you found out when people lied about your work to discredit you. That’s politics, pure and simple. Not national politics, no: but you really need to expand your idea of what “politics” means, because the same dynamics apply at all the levels of human endeavor. Politics always creeps in when you have people who put personal power above acting with integrity. Such people are not to be trusted: they will stab you in the back the minute they perceive a benefit. Always keep that in mind.

              1. In that sense, yeah, it was politics. But usually people talk about someone being excluded for being conservative, liberal, anarchist, communist, whatever. That kind of politics. This was much more petty than that.

                And you’re certainly right that the most effective lies usually have a kernel of truth. Ordinary people will often look at the first part, see that it’s true, and then assume that the rest must be true too. And when you try to explain yourself, it really hamstrings you to have to say “well, it’s not as bad as it looks.”

                For us, it really came down to what would serve our readers the best. We focused on fixing what was really wrong; what we both agreed amounted to us letting our readers down. And once it was clear our readers weren’t going to abandon us, we decided we’d let the rest of it go. Besides, what were we going to do? Sue someone? Whom? Staving authors? Struggling magazines? Would that really advance our goal of promoting short speculative fiction? No. So we opted to turn the other cheek instead.

                I even pride myself on still giving fair reviews to the authors who signed that letter. Our readers expect honest, impartial reviews, and I’d be letting them down if I recommended against a good story just because the author stabbed me in the back once.

                As for trust, you’re certainly right there, but trust isn’t really part of the relationship between authors and reviewers anyway.

                1. but trust isn’t really part of the relationship between authors and reviewers anyway.

                  I would disagree. One’s reputation is built in trust and one’s consistent performance. Your readership trusts your fairness, but once you surrender that fairness in the face of politically driven complaint, you lose that trust.

                  This is how it was before; where you could trust a regular editorial to have a certain viewpoint or opinion, even if you disagreed with individual articles, you could at least then understand it’s because ‘this editor/writer is like this, and will consistently be like this, and I can trust that consistency.’

                  1. @Shadowdancer Ah. When I say “trust” isn’t part of the relationship between authors and reviewers, I’m really reacting to a certain school of thought that insists that reviewers have an obligation to help authors promote their stories. In this view, reviewers who write negative reviews (or even write the “wrong kind” of positive reviews) are committing “textual violence” against the authors. The whole idea that reviewers have any obligations to writers at all needs to be resisted. Reviewers have an obligation to readers, and we should work hard to earn their trust. Even if they disagree with our reviews, they should still trust that we are honest (i.e. that this is really how we feel about the story; we’re not lying) and impartial (i.e. that the identity of the author had no influence on the review).

                    That said, I do believe there are ways for authors and reviewers to interact positively, and I wrote a blog post about it.


                    I’ll also say that most authors have been swell. It’s just a few who have problems. But those few are passionate.

                    1. Reviewers have an obligation to readers, and we should work hard to earn their trust. Even if they disagree with our reviews, they should still trust that we are honest (i.e. that this is really how we feel about the story; we’re not lying) and impartial (i.e. that the identity of the author had no influence on the review).

                      In this we are in full agreement.

                      With regards the authors, speaking as one myself, I do not expect that everyone will enjoy my writing. There are a few individuals whose criticisms I dismiss as being fueled entirely by personal hatreds and dislikes, and thus are suspect when they give ‘review’ of my work; but in general, if a person does not like my writing, it is merely a matter of taste, and not to be taken personally. The latter is the professional way to handle it, or alternately, discuss (as John Ringo did with the original OH JOHN RINGO NO review of the Keldar series. He was thoroughly professional about the replies, and very friendly about it, contrary to portrayals of him regarding the series going around now.)

                      “Textual violence”? All the actual what.

                    2. I did music reviews when I was in college the first time. Very honest music reviews. I pointed out that one recital performer had selected a piece that did not fit her range and that had hurt the overall quality of the performance. I got hate voice-mails and threats from her friends.

                      One of the music faculty and I were discussing something later and he said, “Dr [name] should not have let [singer] use that piece. It really did not fit her range.” I felt better, a little.

            2. Locus, not Nebula. My mistake. They all kind of blend into one mud-coloured picture for me these days.

              Greg Hullender said: “However, one big difference is that Locus was in regular e-mail communication with me, and we jointly agreed that I should withdraw from the Locus Recommended Reading List committee.”

              If it hadn’t been political, Locus wouldn’t have heaved you under the bus, Greg. Which was as great an affront to SF fans as Correia and Ringo being dis-invited to cons, if my opinion counts for anything.

              My thinking is, if the authors in question had been straight and white, you’d be on that committee today. The complaint was fact-free and a fabrication of the lowest, cheapest sort. What mattered was the person making the complaint, not its content.

              And the Locus board caved like a house of cards, didn’t they? Despite the communication etc. Would they have done that for white male complaints?

              No fricking way.

              I rest my case. And a good thing too, it was getting heavy!

              1. Actually, we’ve gotten a good bit of quiet support from black authors and LGBT authors whom we had previously got to know personally at conventions. No one brave enough to speak up in public, of course, but it’s asking a lot to expect an author to say something against another author on behalf of a reviewer.

                I haven’t actually counted, but I’m pretty sure most of the authors who signed that letter are straight and white. At least one of them shamelessly used it as an opportunity to promote his own story, which I had given 5 stars. A blizzard of visitors came to Rocket Stack Rank, read my glowing review of his story, and exited via the link to read it free online. More than those visiting all the problematic reviews combined. He picked up several hundred new readers this way. Now that’s the way to do virtue signalling!

                But, hey, we benefited too, assuming you ignore the pain and humiliation part. I’ll bet half the people who read that review are still RSR readers. We did direct them to a cool story, after all. And no one who reads the site regularly could possibly believe the crap they said about us.

                1. “No one brave enough to speak up in public, of course, but it’s asking a lot to expect an author to say something against another author on behalf of a reviewer.”

                  This is Science Fiction fandom Greg, it’s not the debate over legalizing homosexuality, just ferinstance. As in, nobody is going to jail depending on how it turns out.

                  I disagree that its asking a lot for an author to support a well known, impartial, prolific reviewer such as yourself. As an author I’d value a review from such a person, because it would help me make my stories better. Plus it is a shitlocker of work doing all those reviews, that alone demands respect. Maybe not agreement, maybe not admiration, but definitely respect.

                  But here we have a well know, well respected reviewer from the non-Puppy side of the very small little room that is fandom, getting chucked under the bus over something that, as you say above, plenty of people on your non-Puppy side consider to be bullshit. But are too chickenshit to say out loud. So they’re secretly supporting you, but publicly NOT supporting you, which frankly, Greg, is horse shit.

                  While it is nice to see a traffic increase due to a scandal, I’m sure it would be nicer if that traffic didn’t come at the cost of having your reputation besmirched by a bunch of no-talent try-hards.

                  I am speaking as a distant observer with no dog in the fight, as it were. I already don’t care about the Locus list and treat it as a do-not-read list, like the Hugos.

                  It would be nice for me, as a fan, to see a long standing pillar of SF fandom like Locus behave with a little bit of individual honor, some dignity, and some institutional integrity. Then at least I could see that the Locus board has people on it that -honestly- disagree with my fan faction. That -honestly- exclude my favorite authors due to things which they consider important.

                  Instead, what I see is them rolling over after one of the shortest, dumbest Shirtstorm campaigns I’ve ever seen. They don’t have the courage to stick up for one of their own guys and defend him against lying idiots.

                  Rinse and repeat for John Ringo and Larry Correia, Uncle Timmy and Roy Truesdale, another reviewer, who got kicked out of a con for saying “snowflake” in a panel. A repeating pattern of abusive behavior.

                  This is poison for fandom. People will STOP GOING to cons, they will STOP BUYING books, and it won’t take long. I already have, but I’m old, anti-social and intolerant. (Also cranky and mean.~:) Thin edge of the Fan bell curve. Watch what happens when the median hump arrives.

              2. Something we learned from this is that authors have mutual support groups. Authors who attended, say, Clarion, together form lasting bonds, but that’s not the only way they group together. You can see this in action on Twitter, where they post and encourage one another.

                They’re not that different from the Sad Puppies in that respect. They don’t have slates (I don’t think), but they’re definitely mutual support groups and are fiercely protective of one another.

                We first noticed this about two years ago when a couple of authors started complaining about the negative reviews they got on Rocket Stack Rank. Part of the problem is that people who never write novels aren’t used to seeing negative reviews. Except for RSR most short fiction reviewers don’t say a word about stories they didn’t like. In fact, they often don’t even finish reading them. But I read everything in the magazines I review and I review everything I read–even if I hated it.

                This particular author grouping (which does include some excellent authors) began tweeting back and forth to each other about how terrible it was. Adding to this was a jealous rival reviewer (and would-be author) who assured them that it was immoral to write negative reviews, or even to express an opinion about what a story was supposed to mean. They picked up on that narrative and did a pretty good job of convincing each other of it.

                In hindsight, we probably shouldn’t have ignored them as long as we did.

                Anyway, these support groups are extremely important to authors. Asking an author to go against his/her support group to support someone they barely know really is asking a lot. They have little to gain and more to lose than we do. Note that you rarely if ever see one Puppy stand up and tell the others that one of them did something wrong. It’s just how support groups work.

                As for Truesdale, I was at the panel you’re talking about. I agree that what he did didn’t merit kicking him out of the con, but he grossly abused his position as moderator of the panel. We came to hear about the state of short SFF, and he certainly could have included questions for the panel about whether political correctness and virtue signalling were lowering the quality of stories. But what he actually did was started by reading a speech. Ever sit and listen to someone reading a speech? Someone who doesn’t read aloud very well? After about five or ten minutes of this, Sheila Williams from Asimov’s shouted him down and he stopped. Good thing too. From the stack of paper he was holding, he had a good 45 minutes of material.

                Funny thing is, after that, the panel actually did discuss his issues and a few others, and he did a fine job of moderating. (Unsurprisingly, the rest of the panelists were unanimous that the problem he worried about doesn’t exist.) Even so, I think any con would be advised not to let him moderate a panel again, but I think throwing him out was excessive.

          1. It just seems there has to be more to it than this. To borrow Phantom’s expression, I don’t have a dog in this fight, but it seems to me that someone inside the con must really hate him for some other reason. The rest of this is just the excuse (and a very flimsy one, in my opinion). As George said, it’s hard to see this having any connection to the Puppies, given the nature of the con. But I’m finding it hard to believe that it’s really about a four-year-old fisk.

            1. Dude, you’re really, really hoping that it wasn’t all that it was, that something so ridiculously petty did all that, but it is. You’re hoping your side isn’t that horrible. But yeah, it was simply that petty, and the con was that spineless. The bitch who did all this had a personal grudge, because Larry fisked a slanderous, whingy article her billionaire boyfriend wrote, portraying a convention as racist. Everyone else just hopped on the bandwagon with their torches, and are now crowing about it.

              1. You may be right. However, I’m not sure the Origins people qualify as “my side” since I’m not a gamer, so I really don’t know anything about the people involved.

                I’ll agree that a number of people on my side are still mad at Larry about the whole Puppy thing, and so they’re “crowing,” but I think we all agree that this had nothing to do with the puppies.

                The other thing is, I never saw the bandwagon or the torches. It looked at though the con folded at the first complaint from anyone. That is new, I think. Up until now, there’s a phase where they say, “we stand behind our invited guest” and then there’s a second phase when they say just how far behind they meant. 🙂 Unless I missed it, they seem to have skipped the first phase this time.

                1. I think we all agree that this had nothing to do with the puppies.

                  I wouldn’t go so far as to say “nothing” to do with the Sad Puppies. True, there has not yet been any evidence that the Origins comcon was primarily motivated by puppy hatred. (Though they carefully avoided saying just which of Larry’s opinions they disliked, so I can’t yet rule that out either.) But I do think that a number of the people who jumped on the slander bandwagon did so because the target was Larry Correia, the Evil Puppyist. And from what you’ve said about people “still mad at Larry about the whole Puppy thing”, I think you’d agree. So I don’t think claiming this has “nothing” to do with the puppies is supported by the available evidence.

          1. And they shorted him $300 bucks when the check finally showed up. So classy.

    1. George, did you read this letter from John Ward? This makes it sound like he chatted with his exhibitors and sponsors, not fans or attendees, and then made the decision on his own–without any outside pressure.

        1. George, not to put too fine a point on it, but if you took all the SF fans out of wargaming, you’d be able to hold the convention in a broom closet. It’s a huge overlap, so sailing above the fray is not a long term viable option.

          Frankly, you remind me of all the hunters who think they’d still be able to keep their deer rifles if all the “scary black rifle shooters” would go away.

      1. Is that the same email where John Ward says he only got 20 emails from Larry Correia’s fans?

        I would think, given that MGC got more comments on the matter than that, and given that other members of the Origins board of directors were appealing to Larry to call off his hell-hounds, anything Mr. Ward has to say on the matter is… open to question. That’s polite, right?

        1. Yeah, that’s the one. (I guess I can’t post links here.) He doesn’t actually say that anyone asked him to drop Larry. Just that he looked into it, talked with exhibitors and sponsors, and then decided Larry was “too polarizing.” He goes on to talk about people who contacted him after he made his decision, but (from the sound of it) there was no “mob” in this case.

          And, trust me; I know what a mob looks like. 🙂

            1. Given their actions so far, ‘both are lying’ is not farfetched. She made accusations and slander and refused to back them up with any evidence, pretending that it was ‘traumatizing’, and he lied flat out about why the dis-invite happened (and refused to answer questions when asked, thus refusing to provide evidence of claims.)

          1. “He goes on to talk about people who contacted him after he made his decision, but (from the sound of it) there was no “mob” in this case.”

            Why were the other con managers complaining to Larry that their email servers were melting then? Sounds like there certainly was a mob. Two mobs, in fact. The Pro-Correia one, and the SJW one.

            Obviously nobody contacted him before he made his decision, he didn’t tell anyone. He decided based on one complaint from a snowflake on Twitter, and then casually announced it on Farcebook without ever contacting Correia at all.

            Why do you think George Philles is pissed? The guy is like 80 years old, he doesn’t give a crap about Sad Puppies.

            1. Mummph!

              I am a stripling youth of 70! Well, 71 in July.

              With respect to Sad Puppies, readers should consider retaliating for Larry Correia by doing it again, if need be under a different name.

          2. FYI You *can* post links, but one at a time; if there are multiple links it goes into moderation for a while; until someone with admin marks it as ‘not spam’. It is okay to post more than once with a relevant link that is germane to the discussion. Usually the comment is (link) (short description of link/continuing contribution to discussion.)

Comments are closed.