Log in

No account? Create an account
Danny Danger Oz [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Bum Coverage [Jan. 19th, 2009|12:51 pm]
[mood |cynicalcynical]

I've finally figured out what really bothered me about Ben Peek's hitting back at Russell's negative review of his book.

Ben thinks he was told of this bias against him by someone who then commented they don't remember doing so. They don't say they didn't tell him this, just that they don't remember doing it. And they mention that a lot of people had it in for Ben at the time.

So Ben's justification for his response is based on hearsay at best.
But it could easily be him mis-remembering what he was told, and about who, since he's not even sure who told him in the first place.
Or it could all be bullshit on Ben's part so that he feels he looks justified in acting pissy.

The silly thing is, Ben's single line comment on the review - "--though I suppose calling it a review might be a little kind." - is all that needed to be said. It made his point beautifully without making himself look like a dick.

He hasn't heard that Russell had it in for him from Russell himself, and the problem with basing such a response on undeclared personal bias is that the supposed bias is undeclared. There's no proof it ever existed, so there's no proof that he's justified in hitting out at Russell.

Given how he once went after someone he felt had no proof to back up their claims, it's all a bit hypocritical.

But this sets a nasty precendent. If someone tells him, either mistakenly, or falsely, that I want to have his love-child, then by his previous criteria for accuracy it must be true, and he's free to react accordingly without a shred of proof to back him up.

Ben, I have no undeclared urge to have your babies. Or even to have sex with you. Please never attempt to shag me.

Nothing personal dude, just covering my arse.

[User Picture]From: dalekboy
2009-01-19 12:03 pm (UTC)
Oh I remember, I was there for at least a couple of discussions of it. I was against it because I think being the Natcon rarely enhances a convention, and can actually hamstring a good one. It's why we've got this silly idea that all Swancons have to be five days long now, so many Easter cons in a row, people decided it had to be over Easter.

I think there should be one major question asked of any group bidding for the Natcon, it used to be asked in the old days - "If you don't get the Natcon, will you still run?"

Anyone not planning on running if they don't get the Natcon can just fuck off. They aren't interested in running a good con, they just want to run a Natcon.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: strangedave
2009-01-20 01:34 pm (UTC)
I think for some cons, it is reasonable for them not to want to run if they are not the Naton -- cons in states that do not have a strong history of cons otherwise, like Tasmania and (currently) Adelaide. If making a risky con the natcon will provide some guarantee of lifting a con out of the danger zone of possible financial fallure, I have no problem with them wanting a Natcon guarantee to run -- but if the con is in state that has a recent histtory of successful cons, such as Perth or Melbourne or Canberra, I agree, then the Natcon shoudln't be necessary.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)