From: fafhrd@clubzen.fidonet.org (Fafhrd)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.anime
Subject: Re: Flame Fest?  What Flame Fest?
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 13:55:03 PST
Organization: Club Zen BBS - Fidonet/Internet - +1 408 734 2289

jkim@jingoro.Eng.Sun.COM (Jun Kim) writes:

> In article <1992Jul21.155145.19729@sura.net> wbarnes@sura.net (Bill Barnes) w
> >
> >So far, from what I've seen, Medinnus is trying to be polite and
> >receptive to a merger/reunion/whatever you call it between the two
> >anime cons.  
> 
> Well, as far as I can see, it's more of a takeover.  When one wants to use
> a pretty euphemism for "takeover", one uses "merger".  I've seen it one
> too many times.
> 
> >He has made one indirect slam against Mike (about him
> >being a behind-the- scenes kind of organizer - whatever that means - a
> >practice David doesn't like for reasons of his own) which he has
> >apologized for.  He has also apologized for the fact his real name
> >isn't in his signature and promises to fix that.  He claims to respect
> >Mike and has no reason to engage in a net.fisticuffs with him.  On the
> >other hand, one wonders about why he choose the 4th of July for his
> >AnimeCon.  It could be sort of a, "BWAHAHAHA!! We're stealing your
> >space, Mike!" or it could be meant as an implicit, "Look, since it's
> >going to be on the same days in the same town, why don't we get
> >together to make one, true con?"  I can only hope it's the latter. 
> 
> Well then, he needs to consider the choice of there being no AnimeCon
> as much as he wants Mike to consider the choice of there being no AE.
> It seems clear enough to me that he has not done this, and is not
> seriously considering it... since:
> 
> >also the matter of his comment about why he feels his con is the best,
> >which could be construed as another indirect (and perhaps unintentional)
> >jab at Mike and co.
> 
> Look, it seems plain to me that Medinnus is not a bad fellow per se, but
> after accepting his post has basically taken himself as a valiant warrior
> for the AnimeCon forces, and wants to make sure AC's PR here on the net
> is a good one, and that AE/Mike T's PR is a bit more shaky.  Which is fine.
> But to me, his apologies and explanations sound a bit too coy.  Like
> "oops, I forgot this!" or "Gee, did I do that?"  Not to say that it
> wasn't legitimate.  I'm  going to try to believe that.  However, more
> statements like those should not be coming from someone who is obviusly
> trying to be quite "political" (in my book).  Someone looking out to
> not "slam" people can do a much better job with only a little more
> effort.  At least more effort than just saying "I'm not trying to slam
> anyone."
> 
> >
> >Mike, for his part, from the one post of his on the subject, seems intent
> >not to baited by criticism into a flamefest, which is fine by me.  However,
> >I really *really* hope this doesn't mean he's going to be close-minded about
> >a reconcilliation between his group and David's.  As David readily admits,
> >two cons in the same place at nearly the same time does no one any good.
> >I'm presuming Mike recognizes the wisdom of this.
> >
> 
> The only reason that I'm replying here is that it seems to me that you too
> are taking sides here.  It seems that you doubt Mike as much as I doubt
> Medinnus.  Again, this is fine, but I feel kinda uncomfortable with the
> notion that your original intent appeared to be one of pure objectivity
> and not "taking sides".  I'm nit-picking, I know, and I realize if there
> is a bias on your part, it is subtle.  But it is just this:  I think
> both "sides" know exactly what is going on and what the ramifications are,
> and to doubt their ability to see this is underestimating everyone involved.
> I think everyone knows exactly what they are doing.  So we need to look 
> very hard at the initiators of the turmoil to understand their motivations.
> And the best way to do this is to watch their actions, not just their words.
> Words are very cheap without actions to back them up.  And so far, I don't
> like their actions.  I guess I'm too much of a skeptic to give people "the
> benifit of the doubt" until they can prove to me they deserve it.  It just
> might cost too much if I was wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Jun Kim                                    jkim@jingoro.Eng.Sun.Com
> Sun Microsystems           "It's amazing that that tiny little brain of his 
> Mountain View, CA           can generate enough energy to keep his legs movin

Your article is reasoned and well-thought out. However, I would like to 
make two points. 

First, my ignorence of the anonymous bit was indeed a mistake, and is in 
the process of being corrected. I don't think that ANYONE thinks of me as 
anonymous now. I perceived a mistake, and I corrected it.

Second, not to put too fine a point on it, but if I my motivations were 
to mislead people on-line, I would do so in a much more subtle manner. 
It's just not worth my time to lie, or run a "dirty politics" game. Yes, 
I stayed out of the John/Mike wars, working as Chairman's Troubleshooter 
in '91 and as Dealers Liaison in '92. And, yes, I am devoted to running 
AC '93. And no, I don't consider the possibility of not running it, for 
any number of reasons.

I have played con politics for a long time. I admit that, and I also 
admit that I ENJOY running conventions, politics and all. But I'd like to 
think that I do so for the right reasons: so the fans can have the best 
possible conventiuon. 

Sincerely,

David Medinnus

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fafhrd -> (fafhrd@clubzen.fidonet.org)