Venom and supposedly sentient people

[jhetley]

One of the joys of SFWA membership would have to be the feet-of-clay phenomenon -- watching political debate (or any kind of debate, on any subject) degenerate into garden-variety Usenet flame-wars.  People you'd like to admire for their work, revealed as petty vicious beasts, probably the kind who cackle demonically while drowning kittens and pulling the wings off flies...

One of the things revealed by the tone of argument is that some members don't think a particular candidate had any right running for office at all.  Last time I checked, any "active" member could run for office.  No nominating petition required, no minimum standards of character or background.  Could be an active pedophile.

You don't like him/her/it, vote accordingly.  Get a life.

Comments

[starcat-jewel.livejournal.com]

He may have had the right to run for office, but he most assuredly didn't have any business doing so, given his past record. I think some people are conflating the two.

[jhetley.livejournal.com]

Eh. One of the first comments on his announcement was someone who said that 25% of SFWA membership would resign if he won. I pointed out that if those 25% _voted_, he couldn't win...

(For those outside the loop, less than 50% of eligible SFWA members bother to vote.)

I wouldn't have any _business_ running for office, either.

[otterdance.livejournal.com]

Who is the mysterious "he"? I'm so out of the loop, I don't even know where to find it anymore. Or should I phrase it "Who is it this time?"

[jhetley.livejournal.com]

"He" would be Dr. Andrew Burt. Who displays the attributes of a fool and an ass, but has yet to show horns and a tail...