From: wbarnes@sura.net (Bill Barnes)
Subject: Re: Flame Fest?  What Flame Fest?
Organization: SURAnet, College Park, MD, USA, NA, Earth, Milky Way
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 20:41:26 GMT

In article <l6on3jINN6ja@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> jkim@jingoro.Eng.Sun.COM (Jun Kim) writes:
>In article <1992Jul21.155145.19729@sura.net> wbarnes@sura.net (Bill Barnes) writes:
>>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.

I haven't, so I guess that accounts for my optimism/naivity in the matter.
David seemed like he was all sweetness and light - which are usually
the people who slip a knife between your shoulder blades.

>>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:

Actually, I got the impression that the idea was to have one joint
con which would belong equally to both of them (AnimeExpoCon?).  Or
am I reading in too much good samaritianism into Dave's motives?
(David, wanna come forward and defend yourself s'more? 8^)

>>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.
			 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
He is?  I never really got that impression, partly due to his apologetic
(obsequious?) nature, partly due to the fact that it seems to me fairly
obvious that Mike has a lot more popular support in netland than Dave,
if only due to the fact he's been hanging around here a lot longer.  So
any attempts to defame Mike and his crew comes off looking pretty under-
handed and get booed off: notice the number of people who leapt to their
defense when some of brin's comments rubbed the wrong way.

>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."

Up until now, I've been giving Dave the benefit of the doubt, since I
have no real reason not to (that and the fact that since I'm not going
to either AnimeExpo/Con and am largely unaffected by their proceedings,
it doesn't matter much to me personally what becomes of them, so I can
afford to be lenient 8^).  However, I will agree that some of his statements,
rather than have a "Golly gee" kind of honesty to them smack more of a
sly used car salesman.  But until I have a reason to actively distrust
him (or a reason to care more about these anime cons, like the possibility
I can go 8^), I'll continue to give him the benefit of the doubt.

>>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.

Well, I'm trying really hard not to have any bias against Mike, but
you have to admit, the majority of posts on the subject have come from
Dave - I only remember reading one post from Mike that directly
pertained and all it seemed to indicate was, "We're rollin' along."
It's difficult to form an objective opinion on a matter when only one
side of the argument says anything.  Again, until I have reason to
believe otherwise, I will presume that Dave is being honest with his
claim that Mike hasn't responded to him on the matter in some time.
If Mike wants to come forward to present his view, I will be more than
willing to listen to him and take what he says at face value for the
moment (unless he says something that directly contradicts something Dave
said, in which case I'm in a bit of a dilemma and need to make a judgement
call 8-).

>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.

Probably true, but I thought I would start with the most neutral
ground I can think of before accusing people of having oversized egos
or major conflict of interests or outright lying or anything like
that.  It's sort of a quirk of mine: be nice at first, then get nasty.
8-> [Shut up, Joe.]

>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.

I try to give people I don't know the benefit of the doubt (at least on the
net - I tend to be more critical in person).  To tell the truth, I haven't
been terribly impressed by anyone's actions either, but that's partially
due to the fact I haven't seen them doing much, at least towards a peaceful
solution.  Since I don't have all the facts on the matter, I am attempting
to avoid being too judgemental.  It ain't easy.  8-]

Well, we can always hope these people will do what's right for anime fandom
(whatever that is, and which mustn't be confused with what they *think* is
right for anime fandom).  But I'm probably being silly again...
-- 
Bill "Whassamatter?!  Can't you take a joke?!" Barnes   wbarnes@sura.net
Disclaimer:  The author apologizes for any thought-provoking material he may
	     have accidentally included and promises not to do it again.
Datclaimer:  My employers wouldn't WANT to share some of my opinions.