mormont

For those wondering what Scot is talking about:

https://www.wsfs.org/2024/01/31/announcements-from-worldcon-intellectual-property/?fbclid=IwAR0iwThAaHtNwxRAIgqDXZmH7FEPRVIHeDNP48s5n9D03buk-i5kCQEoz8k

Quote

 

W.I.P. takes very seriously the recent complaints about the 2023 Hugo Award process and complaints about comments made by persons holding official positions in W.I.P. In connection with these concerns, W.I.P. announces the actions listed below. There may be other actions taken or to be taken that are not in this announcement.

Dave McCarty has resigned as a Director of W.I.P.
Kevin Standlee has resigned as Chair of the W.I.P. Board of Directors (BoD).
W.I.P. has censured or reprimanded the following persons, listed in alphabetic order, for the reason given:
Dave McCarty – censured for his public comments that have led to harm of the goodwill and value of our marks and for actions of the Hugo Administration Committee of the Chengdu Worldcon that he presided over.
Chen Shi – censured for actions of the Hugo Administration Committee of the Chengdu Worldcon that he presided over.
Kevin Standlee – reprimanded for public comments that mistakenly led people to believe that we are not servicing our marks.
Ben Yalow – censured for actions of the Hugo Administration Committee of the Chengdu Worldcon that he presided over.

 

9 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Are there people who would seek to have the Trademark declared invalid… for shits and giggles?

To put that another way, are there people out there with a grudge against the WSFS and/or the Hugo awards?

But it probably would be too much bother for most of them.

I expect to see some sort of motion about all this at the business meeting, and the Chengdu awards will forever have a mental asterisk in the memories of those who care, but that's about as far as any of this will go IMO.

45 minutes ago, Ran said:

That said, someone should be starting to organize a bid for 2028. They should have started last year, really, but still.

This might be the key weakness, though: there aren't that many someones around.

Running a WorldCon these days is an expensive, risky, difficult, thankless task. If we had healthier contests and more interest in hosting, I don't think the notion of bids from Tel Aviv or Uganda would be a threat. Chengdu probably couldn't have been stopped, mind you.

[mod] Right, I think we've had enough of this, particularly dismal, iteration of this thread.

Furthermore I think we should take a break before starting a new one, because the discussion is degenerating fast. 

Let's leave it for the weekend, please. [/mod]

Bold of you to assume Trump takes showers. 

(Regular ones, I mean.)

1 hour ago, kissdbyfire said:

I don’t get it… I mean, there was low republican turnout in Iowa but in the general he’d benefit from low dem turnout, and I don’t quite see how the two connect? I’m probably missing something here.

Honestly, it's because 'the Iowa caucus is largely meaningless and we can't read anything much into it' is not a line you can write many stories about. 

4 hours ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

But yet that's cool for the Israeli government? Everyone agrees they are appalling as well.

Do they?

The last couple of pages show that while there's an agreement that Netanyahu is appalling, there's considerable disagreement over whether how he and his government have chosen to prosecute this operation against Hamas is appalling. That's where the discussion is, and that there isn't a parallel discussion about how Hamas have chosen to operate is surely not a surprise?

2 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

One of the most amazing and mind-boggling aspects of Trumpmania is his fan base’s utter disconnect from reality.

Rationality, rather. 

When Trump supporters talk about his 'strength', they're not talking about facts. They're talking about emotions. Their emotional reaction to him, specifically. That's what they mean. Sure, the reality is he's a ludicrous blowhard who only talks tough and picks on the weak. But that's enough. 

6 minutes ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

No, but again, Hamas is a governing body and they also need to be held to a reasonable standard. 

The problem here is not the standards Hamas are being held to, but your perception of the standard and whether they are being held to it. They are!

Nothing is achieved by people who all agree that Hamas are appalling, repeatedly saying so, just for the sake of saying so. But you've heard numerous people say that before, and keep coming back to make the same point just the same. Why?

10 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Heh, that could change rather quickly if Mango wins in November. 

There is a strain of thought among some on the left, disappointingly, that Trump as an isolationist would be less willing to foot the bill for Israeli bombing of Gaza. I think that's naive myself: if Trump thinks it's giving Democrats a problem, he'll go right on paying.

Paying the bill or not, though, he'll be enthusiastically encouraging and praising Netanyahu and certainly not allowing the UN or anyone else to intervene. 

Is bombing the Houthis doing anything for the Yemenis? No.

Is Houthi piracy of Red Sea traffic doing anything for the Palestinians? Also no.

The Houthis are kidnapping and attempting to kill innocent sailors who have nothing to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That's what this is about, for me. As a moral justification, I don't find it to be weak.

You know, the slavery issue might be one that can be debated, though certainly there's no evidence the Houthis are taking any action against the practice.

What's not debatable is that the Houthis are Islamists, are dedicated to the destruction of Israel, are undeniably anti-Semitic, and while better than some other Islamists are also definitely not promoters of the rights of women, LGBT+ folks and democratic rights. They are allies of Hamas and share quite a lot in their world view. They are, in short, not good people. They support a Palestinian state, certainly, but not in a form I'd like to see. And they are currently engaged in a campaign of piracy and terrorism. They are not the good guys.

So I binged this last night, which is something I've not done with a series for a while but it's easy here. I really did like it, though I have some criticisms.

Thoughts:

- This is not really a DD side series in the way Punisher was to start with, despite Kingpin and DD being in it. The feel is similar but also quite Disney-Marvel in places.

- After this and the Marvels, Feige might want to ask the marketing department to come up with a new tactic and depart from 'hey, remember this other property?'

- I've heard the series is patched together from a longer version and overall it does feel like that. In particular, I will be astonished if there aren't a number of Devery Jacobs' scenes that were cut, because her character makes no real sense if there aren't. But also, another major character clearly should be in the flashbacks but just turns up in the modern day with no context. The plot seems mostly intact? but I think there are scenes missing, without a doubt.

- Half the first episode is introduction with limited new material. I thought Spotlight was supposed to be 'you don't need to catch up'?

- Not only the Choctaw background, but setting virtually the whole thing in Echo's home town, gives the series a very distinct feel for place and is helpful in giving it an identity. I really liked all of that.

- The mid credit scene is a swerve tonally and feels wedged in.

- Some great performances here. Alaqua Cox is good and of course D'Onofrio is great, but I really enjoyed Chaske Spencer and Tantoo Cardinal, and Graham Greene is a treasure.

- The main story beat, of Echo finding her identity with her roots rather than the powerful white man who's basically been abusing and gaslighting her since she was a child, isn't original and isn't subtle but it's strong and pulled off well.

- Fair warning, some of you may be disappointed at the lack of action scenes. I was expecting more fights to be honest.

Overall it's not the best thing Marvel have done, for sure, but it's solid and fun.

Add me to that list, Pebs.

2 hours ago, Conflicting Thought said:

is it? i was under the impression that they are not stealing or kidnapping for ransom or things like that

Your impression is wrong, then. The Houthis have boarded ships and taken them and their crews back to their bases. That’s kidnapping and theft. Piracy and terrorism. 

That they’re using a political cause, a valid and important one that I sympathise with, as the excuse, does not justify what they’re doing. In fact it makes it worse. 

24 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

Come on, lets be honest, the US doesn't give a shit about those sailors

That's not the question. The question is, do you?

8 hours ago, GrimTuesday said:

shipping delays

I see this meme going around a lot from people who should know better.

It’s not ‘shipping delays’. The Houthis aren’t slow-walking customs inspections here. It’s piracy. It’s attempting to murder innocent civilian sailors, most of whom are from third world countries who have never done anything to the Houthis, because they work on ships the Houthis have decided are fair targets. The only reason none of them have died yet is because the missiles and drones were intercepted. 

What Israel is doing is appalling but it is not remotely a justification for what the Houthis are doing, nor for minimising what the Houthis are doing. 

6 hours ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

I've heard this. Some speculation about Yahweh being a god of war in an earlier pantheon... with a consort. 

Asherah, yes. Yahweh basically took over her cult and she was forgotten for thousands of years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asherah

Imagine how pissed she must be.

The notion that Brits haven't heard of Yemen is a bit patronising and odd. This survey, which is back in 2018, finds that 58% of Brits knew that there was a war in Yemen then, so presumably, they'd heard of the place. 

https://humanappeal.org.uk/news/2018/10/42-of-the-uk-don-t-know-there-is-a-war-in-yemen-finds-uk-ngo-human-appeal-and-yougov

While Sunak is undoubtedly going to hope to get a bit of a bounce from this, it will be minimal and I don't see that he could really be accused of doing it for that reason. I don't doubt that any British PM would be doing the same. I actually, for once, agree that this is necessary. 

The flaw in Christie's campaign was that it was focused on how the other candidates (particularly Trump) were unfit for office, but Christie himself was also unfit for office. 

Well, there weren't votes in it until it had been on the telly.

3 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

And that is why you are in the position you are in. Those are terrible reasons for picking a candidate. You might as well go with Taylor Swift and Kim K. 

Also, not for nothing  but there would be fucking uproar on this board if more qualified candidates in another field were getting overlooked for some of the reasons trying to justify this here. The hypocrisy is rife.

The irony is that this conversation started because people are concerned about the electoral appeal of a candidate who fits your 'qualified' criteria to a T. Has been President and Vice-President, extensive political experience, etc.

42 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

How? She has never held any job of consequence remotely like the presidency.

Barack faced the same criticism and that worked out OK. Besides, there really isn’t a job remotely like the Presidency, except maybe VP? And it’s important to democracy that voters be able to select someone they consider suitable even if they don’t have relevant experience. That’s one of the key differences between elected and appointed posts.

Michelle Obama is more than just Barack’s wife: she’s a respected lawyer with a long career of public service, experience of campaigning, knowledge of government and the respect of millions. If she were interested , she’d be a good candidate. Heck, if she’d been interested, Biden might even have stood aside last time out. But she’s not, of course, so the point is moot. Just wanted to make the point that her qualifications are not the issue. 

Michelle Obama is absolutely qualified to be President, IMO. Whether a black woman can win is another issue, but she’s undoubtedly the one black woman who could, apart from maybe Oprah Winfrey. 

Of course if she won there would be a violent reaction, but there will be anyway, no matter what happens. The only question is the scale. 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

That sounds like an odd idea with the Golden Company as a company with their honor and integrity couldn't possibly risk having a number of smaller contingents of their men ending up on different sides.

That's not how any of this works.

The GC presumably take on unrelated contracts, probably not long term, and are presumably going to be allowed to withdraw if for some unforeseen reason they wind up facing another GC employer - which is pretty unlikely. As an argument for why they must always act as a single unit and why the notion that they take on multiple contracts is 'odd', it's feather-light, I'm afraid.

You'd have to ask GRRM if fighting in these areas regularly require companies of 10,000 mercenaries - it might - but my point was there's no particular need to assume that it does.