Current mood:

OMGWTF

insert ironic icon here
Remember that Harlan Ellison wank? Of course you do. The whole thing is still going on, having spawned lots of discussion, wanky and otherwise, half-assed apologies and their retractions, as well as a livejournal community. (Which, as we all know, is the absolute height of seriousness. /mild sarcasm)

However, that's not the wank this time.

This post starts out like a well-researched, well, wank report, with quotes and links and a bit of commentary. The first thing you notice (besides a somewhat confusing reference to a certain Mr. Goldberg, which I would appreciate someone clearing up, if they can figure it out * ), however, is a lot of edits--some very famous names who have asked for their links/quotes to be removed. Fine, whatever, I think. Famous names don't want their material on someone else's blog.

Then I got to the comments.

Wow.

Accusations of misquoting, copyright violations, plaigirism, and threats to be banned from the SFWA for the author (David Moles). Epecially amusing in the light of reviewing Crystalwank and the initial brouhaha over JF's TOS.

Please remove the quotations from the SFWA private groups, David. Quoting from those newsgroups is a violation of the posters' privacy.

Thanks.

Michael

—— Michael Capobianco

***
Michael, I will remove the comments of any poster who asks me to.

—— David Moles

***
David, that's not how it works. Those newsgroups are private, and members who post there do so assuming that their words will go no further. It would create an extremely unfortunate situation if members started quoting material from those private newsgroups at will on the Internet, effectively destroying the private nature of the discourse there. Surely you understand that.

If you notify members in advance of your intentions and ask for permission, of course there would be no problem.

Again, please remove those posts, and, if you wish to quote from those newsgroups, ask permission first.

Michael

—— Michael Capobianco

***
Michael:

No, you don't get how it works. The folks who have a right to bitch at David are those he quoted. Now, I'm not a member of SFWA (although what better incentive to get published and pay dues than to have a virtual front-row seat to flame wars?), so I don't know what sort of user agreement the folks who use the forums sign. Said agreement might well give an SFWA official or administrator the right to request that these comments be taken down as well (and if that's the case and you are one of those people, consider this entire comment moot).

But other folks, including you and me, can tell David, "ooh, you did a bad, bad thing, and you're gonna be in so much trouble!" But we have no power to make him take the comments down, regardless of our opinions on the subject (and I'm not disagreeing that there was a privacy violation, although anyone who hasn't come across a variation of the net.rule, "don't say anything anywhere online that you wouldn't be comfortable with the entire world reading" hasn't been online for very long). There are no citizen's arrests when dealing with copyright or privacy issues.

—— Adam Lipkin

***
Mr. Feist, I’ve removed my quotation of your post. I’ve already been suspended from SFF.Net. As for your other points, you seem to be under several misapprehensions: that I did this for my own amusement, that I think this is about Harlan Ellison, and that you can post a comment on my blog and expect me to take it down for you. If you wanted to communicate with me privately, you should have sent an email (as several other people have) — my address is not hard to find.

—— David Moles

***
You God-damned punk, take that down. You're in violation of SFWA rules, SFF Net rules, and the rules of decent human behavior. Who the fuck do you think you are?

I'm glad they kicked you off SFF Net. Some of us wanted them to kick you out of SFWA. With any luck it could still happen, especially if you keep fucking around like this.

—— William Sanders

***
Copyright violations? Doesn't anybody here know how to play this game? Hello, excerpted quotations for purpose of legitimate commentary or review?

—— Teresa Nielsen Hayden

***
I'm also very interested to see the way several individuals in the comments--mostly men, I notice--are distracting from a very disturbing issue by whining about being quoted. Had they said these things verbally they would have no standing. Since it's written, even though they were not writing for pay, they can play these pedantic little games. User agreement or no, forum intentions or no, what David did was quote something he *heard in a conversation.* Somehow that has become more important than the fact that a woman was sexually assaulted (let's not gild the lily here) in a very public place, which I'm 99 percent certain is not a coincidence. It also doesn't help that everyone demanding their quotes removed was in the "discouraging" category, meaning they were cheering on this garbage. Shame on you, little boys. Grow up.

—— Dana

***
How about sticking to the truth. A sexual assault did not not not take place.
It's inflammatory rhetoric like that that makes some of us (yes females!) furious.

>>>Somehow that has become more important than the fact that a woman was sexually assaulted (let's not gild the lily here) in a very public place,

—— Ellen Datlow

***
Ellen;

Sexual assault and abuse is any type of sexual activity that you do not agree to, including:

* inappropriate touching

That's a direct quote from the US Department of Health & Human Services, here.

—— Caz

***
I'm sorry to hear that because using that term too often and too easily trivializes it into meaningless.

—— Ellen Datlow

***

By using very strong language, people are declaring their intention not to allow this issue to be minimalized. Though the catalyst is what happened at the Hugos, that's not the whole story. Harlan could not have acted in that way if he had any sense that there would be consequences for it. He clearly felt all would be well. And, as far as he is concerned so far, all is well.

Except, of course, the fact that Connie Willis hasn't taken him off the stake, or however he phrased it in the latest batch of ravings. Of course, you could still be right: I hear he likes attention. (wink)

—— Gwenda

***
Shalanna,
I'm afraid you've nailed the biggest problem with this whole thread--David's quoted almost _everyone_ out of context to promote his own agenda.

—— Ellen Datlow

EDIT: The original comments, as saved by Google cache and found by a helpful anonymouse. *cheeses*

William Sanders takes the floor and is even more of an ass than thought possible. So. There was no coercion, there was no pressure, there was no intimidation, there was absolutely no element of "you've got to put up with this because I'm The Man" - and therefore there was no sexual harassment. (you have to use the previous and next buttons to get around on that forum)


There's more, but my eyes are crossing and I really don't want to break my keyboard by repeated headdesking. If I get blackballed by the big names of the SFWA, will you all still buy any self-published books I may have yet to write?

Thanks to the mouse for the tip off. EDIT: frequentmouse caught it first. Mea maxima culpa.</a>

* The reference is to a Mark Goldberg on the HE board: thanks to stasha for figuring it out. In my defense, I had been reading Lee's reaction post before getting the notification about this wank.

Obligatory full disclaimer here: I'm of the opinion that this type of incident is symptomatic of a broader and more vicious sexism, and I am, frankly, glad to see it getting aired in at least a semi-public arena.