Vox Day’s No Good Horrible Very Bad Week

Not the best week for our favourite evil-genius.oneyedD5

Sunday: The Hugo Awards didn’t collapse but instead voted for top-notch works. The multiple dark threats from 2015 amounted to little more than Space Raptor Butt Invasion aka the joke that backfired on the devilman Vox. Here he is in 2015.

 

Tonight will tell us one very important thing. It will give us the opportunity to see what their true numbers are and reveal the true extent of their fully mobilized strength. Last year, the maximum No Award vote was 1,100. This year it will be more, somewhere between 1,100 and 4,000.

Being SJWs, they doubled-down as per the Second Law, giving us the chance to break them once and for all. But even if we don’t, even if we only burn Munich instead of taking Berlin, even if they are successful in “sending a message”, what we hear will not be what they wish for us to hear. Because what we will hear is this: Next year, bring more puppies.

Ooops. I think I can spot where the brilliant plan fell down.

Tuesday: Vox is struggling to make sense of Space Raptor Butt Invasion. The Vox Xanatos gambit was this:

  • SJWs will either say they hate it and not vote for it and the Hugos will be all embarrassed that it was on the ballot.
  • Or the SJWs will say that they love it and hence have to vote for it and it will a Hugo and the Hugos will have “butt” in it ha, ha, ha I made them say “butt”

Unfortunately somehow in the complex psychological four-dimensional chess game that Vox was playing (which oddly looks like the reasoning of a 10-year-old playground bully with emotional difficulties), he missed this option:

  • Hugo voters will find Chuck Tingle hilarious, his baiting of Vox Day even more hilarious, embrace him as an ally and give him big cheers – but not vote him a Hugo because Space Raptor Butt Invasion isn’t really Hugo worthy.

Vox ends up fuming https://voxday.blogspot.com.au/2016/08/why-worldcon-changed-rules.html :

Apparently those folks appreciate Mr. Tingle just about as much as they appreciate me. Did I not tell you that would happen despite the SJW’s feigned joy over how terribly funny and brilliant they found Mr. Tingle’s work?

Those darn SJWs! They must have been pretending just to wind Vox up! Gosh, I wish that was true because it would be even funnier than the reality.

Wednesday: The massive post-Hugo sulk continues as the best reaction Vox can come up with is to try to be rude to Nnedi Okorafor. Ah! That is the brilliant four-dimensional chess gambit Vox was going to play along!

Thursday: Donald Trump goes all wibbly-wobbly on immigration. While arithmetic is not the Alt-Right’s strong suit, even Donald appears to have spotted that he needs a broader base than immigration-paranoia. As pivots go it was weak and incoherent but enough to cause a Vox-sulk and use the ‘c’ word: https://voxday.blogspot.com.au/2016/08/did-trump-cuck-on-immigration.html It’s all OK though because just doesn’t care.

I don’t actually care what he did or didn’t do, but since some of you obviously want to get into this, be my guest. But do it here, not in the other threads.

Thursday again: Things look up a bit for Vox, as Hillary Clinton makes a big deal about the alt-right. Sure it’s bad for Trump but a side-effect is an increased profile for the alt-right: https://voxday.blogspot.com.au/2016/08/hillary-live-stream.html

Friday: Coverage of Hillary’s speech in the mainstream media – but what’s this? Quotes from VDARE, Cernovich, Milo and assorted racists but no Vox. Heck even I was disappointed for him – I wanted to point at a quote and say ‘I had a stupid twitter argument with that guy!’ but ’twas not to be.

Saturday: OK timezone wise I’m not sure it is Saturday yet wherever Vox is. Thing is August 27 is about 30 days since the end of the Democratic National Convention. Here is Vox in early August:

As for the polls, I remind you of my previous assessment: they don’t mean ANYTHING until 30 days after the end of the second convention.

If there is no discernible Trump trend by then, it MIGHT be time to start considering the possibility of a Hillary win. In the meantime, pay no attention to the media’s attempt to establish a false narrative.

And this is what the polls look like now:

polls27082016

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-clinton

Ouch.

 

 

Advertisements

121 comments

  1. JJ

    Hahaha, VD says “Jerry Pournelle, who reportedly had the longest book-signing line at Worldcon”.

    Um, no, that would be George R.R. Martin, who had not one, but two signing sessions — both of which had queues as long as one of his ASoIaF novels. Next longest would have either been John Scalzi (whose reading room was eventually so full that the aisles were filled with people sitting on the floor, and packed around and outside the door at the back — and thank the gods there wasn’t a fire), or the powerhouse of Willis, Silverberg, and Niven, where as soon as they got an autograph, fans jumped in one of the other lines to get the next one. Pournelle’s signing line was not even close to the longest.

    Liked by 1 person

    • camestrosfelapton

      And it’s an odd point to make anyway. Say he is right, and Worldcon members really, really LIKE Jerry Pournelle and/or admire him – then the voting clearly isn’t malicious. Put another away, even with a clear favourable bias towards JP, he still lost.

      Liked by 3 people

      • JJ

        Yes, well, really, the idea that fans could heartily appreciate Chuck Tingle or Jerry Pournelle without feeling that their 2015 was deserving of a Hugo Award just seems to be a concept utterly beyond the 10-year-old VD’s limited comprehension.

        Liked by 2 people

    • RDF

      Um, no, that would be George R.R. Martin, who had not one, but two signing sessions — both of which had queues as long as one of his ASoIaF novels.

      Although probably less violence, and hopefully less incest and cannibalism.

      Like

      • JJ

        RDF: Although probably less violence, and hopefully less incest and cannibalism.

        *snort*

        One of the things which amuses me no end is that GRRM, contrary to the characters in his books, is just about one of the nicest, most kind guys in the world.

        Like

  2. greghullender

    I think the best statistically-based site to track the election polls is Sam Wang’s Princeton Election Consortium.

    http://election.princeton.edu/

    There is a LOT of data on this page, but if you want the quick, single-number summary, look at the “Bayesian” way up in the banner at the top of the page. As of this moment, he predicts Hillary has a 95% chance of winning in November.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Mark

    Remembering what Vox said and bringing it up later to see if he was right is such a *mean* tactic, Camestros.

    (I think a good indicator of when the Trump campaign has run out of outrage juice will be when VD starts casting around for his next topic)

    Liked by 1 person

  4. thephantom182

    “The Hugo Awards didn’t collapse but instead voted for top-notch works.”

    As usual, there’s a problem with the very first sentence.

    The voters did what they always do, they voted for the politically approved nominees. Vox’s problem is he didn’t have the power to bring more grief on the nominations. If he had, you boys would have given the lot to Noah like last year. But he still wins, because YOU are still talking about him.

    You should be like me. I never look at his site. It’s boring. And small, too. He linked one of my posts the other day, I got about a thousand hits more than usual. When Kate McMillan’s Small Dead Animals links me, I usually get around 2500.

    Sad Puppies point still stands as well, Camestros. WorldCon has devolved into a political action committee boosting works that focus on social justice to the exclusion of all else. Four years on, there is no doubt in anyone’s mind.

    Watching you contort in an effort to conceal something the size of a beached freighter with a hand towel, that’s quite a sight. What’s your plan for when the corpse starts to stink? Hot day comes along, that’s going to be pretty noticeable.

    Oh, and by the way, speaking of corpses. Here’s why Trump wants to build a fence, in case you think otherwise: http://phantomsoapbox.blogspot.ca/2016/08/the-actual-cost-of-obama-immigration.html My problem with Trump is that I don’t believe he’ll do what he says. He won’t really build a fence. Or more likely, people like Grog Hullblender will get all huffy, and he will wuss out.

    Food for thought, for all you Great Humanitarians. How many People Of Tan are you willing to sacrifice for your feeeelings of moral superiority?

    Like

    • Mark

      Ah, this is a sociology experiment into how many times you can make the same point, isn’t it? I assume we’re the control group, and you have another identity somewhere elseweb making credible points instead.

      Liked by 1 person

      • JJ

        Phantom’s strategy is to keep repeating the same claims, despite all the evidence we have given him to the contrary… I guess in the hope that we will forget that we gave him all that evidence? Or maybe in the hope that if he repeats it enough times, it will somehow magically become true? 😆

        Liked by 2 people

      • thephantom182

        Evidence, JJ? That’s a good one. The ‘quality’ argument you’ve all settled for is a tiny dish cloth thrown over the corpse of a blue whale.

        Behold as I refute thee: Redshirts.

        Like

      • camestrosfelapton

        Redshirts? A populist story that ties in with a popular TV franchise by a popular writer of MilSF? Your counter-argument is a novel that ticks so many Nutty-Nugget boxes that the *ONLY* reason the pups don’t praise to high-heaven is precisely because Vox Days has told them they have to hate Scalzi and Tor books?
        Wow, you really didn’t think that example through.

        Liked by 1 person

      • RDF

        Redshirts? A populist story that ties in with a popular TV franchise

        There you go – he hasn’t read the book. What a maroon.

        Like

      • thephantom182

        “Have you read Redshirts, Phantom?”

        Indeed, JJ. In hardcover. I quite enjoyed the “Old Man’s War” series, and hoped that Redshirts would be in the same vein.

        Sadly, the single most important feature of Redshirts is its blandness. I cannot remember a single detail. Whereas “Zoe’s Tale” for example was very memorable, and I read it over again sometimes when the mood strikes me.

        So when you boys tout QUALITY, it makes me giggle.

        Like

      • JJ

        Phantom: So when you boys tout QUALITY, it makes me giggle.

        In other words, you are claiming that you are the sole arbiter of what is quality, and what is not.

        Well, that explains why you don’t understand why certain books and stories are being nominating and winning. You are erroneously assuming that the Hugos should exactly mirror your own taste.

        Um… News Flash: that’s not how the Hugos work. If it was, they’d be called the Phantom Awards, and you’d be the only one allowed to nominate and vote.

        Fortunately, they’re the Hugo Awards, and your opinion only counts once, just like everyone else’s.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thephantom182

        JJ said: “In other words, you are claiming that you are the sole arbiter of what is quality, and what is not.”

        Well no, JJ. All I or any other Sad Puppy has done to date is express a preference that varied from the accepted WorldCon norm. A norm which closely follows political rather than literary principles.

        The objection by you and others has been that I dared to participate, bringing my eeeevile Puppy values to the Holy Precincts as it were. The reason “but QUALITY!” is all that is given.

        One year, the Best Thing Evar is Redshirts. A benign if forgettable tome, to be sure. This year, the high-toned grimdark/torture/death/hell Fifth Season is the Best Thing Evar. Therefore I would just like to point out that ‘quality’ seems to very conveniently change in definition year to year.

        I hope this clears up your misapprehension of what I’ve said. Repeatedly, and very clearly, I might add. A remedial reading course may be in your future, my boy.

        Like

      • camestrosfelapton

        //A norm which closely follows political rather than literary principles.//

        And your example is ‘Redshirts’?

        // The reason “but QUALITY!” is all that is given.//

        Well that and the hundred and one other reasons give in numerous blog posts. But yes quality is one: as in the lack of it in Sad Puppies 3.

        //Therefore I would just like to point out that ‘quality’ seems to very conveniently change in definition year to year.//

        So now your objection to the Hugos being not varied enough is that they are too varied?

        Really, are you trying to make any sense?

        Liked by 2 people

      • thephantom182

        “Really, are you trying to make any sense?”

        You’re trying to pretend that “Redshirts” was chosen because QUALITY! the same as Nora’s tome T5S. Which is silly.

        Voting Redshirts was politically expedient that year, and voting for T5S was expedient this year. Expedience is the word that connects those two, not QUALITY!!! Doesn’t have to be American Politics, might just be small ‘p’ Worldcon politics.

        Want me to say the same thing five more times, while you keep trying to pretend you don’t understand? It’s a ridiculous method of argumentation, you should eschew it.

        Meanwhile, the mountainous carp rots. Seagulls are here.

        Like

      • thephantom182

        I read your synopsis of The Fifth Season, and I’m sure you recall my thanking you for sparing me the experience. When the synopsis reveals the book will be unpleasant at best, I generally chose to leave it outside my brain rather than invite it in.

        Like

      • KasaObake

        What I’m hearing is that you’re a delicate snowflake too busy clutching pearls at what you deem to be unpleasant to actually go and read a *brilliant* book by an author who can create a compelling, character driven story.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Cora

      We get it, Phantom. You really, really hate Redshirts. But guess what? I think every single person here can point to one or several Hugo winners of the past five or ten or fifteen years that they really, really hated. For example, I really hated Blackout/All Clear and The Windup Girl and I’ve never liked a single book Vernor Vinge has written. But the fact that all those books won the Hugo doesn’t mean that there’s a conspiracy, just that Hugo voters had different tastes than me. It happens.

      As for a lighter work like Redshirts winning in 2013 and a dark work like The Fifth Season winning in 2016, you are aware that the Hugo electorate changes every year, aren’t you? Sure, there is considerable overlap, but the people who voted for Redshirts in 2013 are not necessarily the same people who voted for The Fifth Season in 2016.

      Like

      • Lurkertype

        I voted for both of those!

        Also, I’m mad at the Puppies b/c if they hadn’t kept slating, the electorate wouldn’t have had to vote for Heuvelt, who I think is a TERRIBLE writer and gets to keep company with Teddy and his boys down below NA.

        Liked by 1 person

  5. iamzenu

    Phantom said: ” Vox’s problem is he didn’t have the power to bring more grief on the nominations. ”

    That’s because he is a nobody. That’s not likely to change.

    Like

    • thephantom182

      I know, Mr. Zenu sir. That’s what I said, isn’t it? (Do you guys really -read- these posts? I wonder.)

      But you are still talking about him. So he’s not really a nobody, is he? He’s mos-def Somebody, and it is y’all keeping him that way. The more you squeal about the Eeevil Racist Vox Day and how he’s ending the world, the more people who don’t like you are going to pile on his bandwagon.

      Have you ever heard a real pig squealing? I had an escaped one in my yard the other day. When the animal control guy came to lead her away, you could hear it for three blocks when he pulled on the leash. That’s what WorldCon sounds like over Vox Day.

      His dream endgame is to latch onto the coattails of GamerGate. If he can get that collection of cranky bastards to notice him, he’ll have 5,000 voters before you can say “holy crap’.

      But another way to look at it, is with just 160 voters, he’s completely disrupted WorldCon two years in a row. All I ever hear about is “Vox Day!” and how bad he is, and how he’s nobody.

      I don’t hear that about Bob the garbageman. Bob really is nobody.

      Like

      • camestrosfelapton

        Phantom – this is the low end of the food chain as far as SFF blogs go. Once upon a time Vox was commanding the attention of Hugo Award winners, last year he was debating Phillip Sandifer (popular blog but much more fringe than Scalzi), this year he is running away from the guy who draws silly pictures and talks to his delusional cat. That this corner of the net is still talking about him is not some notable victory for Vox.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thephantom182

        On the contrary, Camestros, you are far too modest. Your efforts here mirror the Great Minds of I09 and The Grauniad itself! You are riding the wave of the moment, my boy.

        Like

    • thephantom182

      Nobody reads the nominees. That’s the point. If they did, and voted their conscience, you wouldn’t see such a sharp split and you wouldn’t see No Award winning two categories. That -never- happened before last year, as far as I know.

      Its not about stories. Its about beating the interloper Puppies and driving them out.

      Like

      • camestrosfelapton

        //Nobody reads the nominees. That’s the point. //

        Oh, well it is a pretty daft point when you addressing people who clearly did read the nominees.

        //you wouldn’t see such a sharp split//

        Again that makes no sense – you are implying voters only have a narrow taste and then using the evidence that they DON’T as some sort of indication of something nefarious.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thephantom182

        Taste has nothing to do with it, Camestros. If it did, a turkey like Redshirts wouldn’t win, would it? How does that win if WorldCon taste runs to T5S? How does T5S win if Redshirts is It? One of these things is not like the other, Camestros.

        Therefore, its not about the story. QED.

        And I’m not saying its nefarious. I’m saying its politics, and you yourself have already agreed that it is. “Beating the puppies” is not about story. Its about beating the puppies. And you did. Attaboy.

        And really Camestros, I strongly doubt 7,000 people read T5S and thought it was the cat’s whiskers. NKJ’s sales figures do not support that kind of conclusion. They voted for reasons other than story on that front as well.

        It was more likely the snob value of being able to talk about the book like you read the whole thing and didn’t barf. The Strong Stomach award for surviving the most nauseating thing written in 2015. You totally win that one, dude. I skipped it.

        Like

      • Cora

        Taste has everything to do with it. You didn’t like Redshirts, as you keep pointing out, but plenty of other people did. Personally, I found it amusing, though it was not my top Hugo choice that year. I didn’t nominate it either.

        As for The Fifth Season, according to the Hugo voting stats,it wasn’t 7000 people who voted for it, since the total number of votes in that category was 2903, many of whom probably read the novel in the voter pack. The Fifth Season got 761 nominations, who we assume will have read the novel beforehand.

        Also, how can you know The Fifth Season was the most nauseating thing written in 2015, if you didn’t read it?

        Liked by 2 people

      • KasaObake

        *what* sales figures? Could you link to them so we can all see?

        In the meantime you can go look at the goodreads page for TFS where it currently has an average rating of 4.31, 4,234 5* reviews and 2,906 4* reviews…

        Liked by 2 people

      • thephantom182

        Cora said: “You didn’t like Redshirts, as you keep pointing out…”

        I bought Redshirts in hardcover and read it with no complaints. I just can’t remember it. At all. I’m comparing the bland pedestrian and forgettable fanfic book to the nightmare-on-a-bun NKJ book. One of them is not like the other. Therefore politics plays a role in the awarding of the hugo. I’m not trashing NKJ, or Scalzi for that matter. I’m saying the “QUALITY!!!” argument breaks down given those two examples only a couple of years apart. There arre others, of course. I just picked these two for convenience and high contrast.

        “The Fifth Season got 761 nominations, who we assume will have read the novel beforehand.”

        That assumption is what I am questioning. Absent evidence to the contrary, I prefer to remain in doubt due to that which I mentioned above.

        “Also, how can you know The Fifth Season was the most nauseating thing written in 2015, if you didn’t read it?”

        When you see roadkill, do you need to eat it to know if it will make you barf? A plot synopses that makes one queasy should be sufficient, don’t you think?

        But since you object to my admittedly broad brush, allow me to amend slightly. It was the most nauseating SF/F thing written in 2015 of which I am aware. There might be some other book that beats it. If so, I don’t know what that might be.

        KasaObake said: “*what* sales figures? Could you link to them so we can all see?”

        Sure, I’ll get right on that. Or you could try Google. I think you’ll find that regardless of reviews, something like Butcher’s Aeronaut’s Windlass outsells Nora’s T5S ten to one. Because people -say- they like grimdark, but they won’t pay money for it.

        Like

      • JJ

        Phantom, you know, your claiming repeatedly that other people didn’t actually like the things that they nominated and voted for in the Hugos just makes you look incredibly silly and childish.

        Dishonest people believe that everyone else must be dishonest, too. I’m becoming convinced that the reason you think other people don’t actually like what they nominate and vote for is because this is how you yourself operate — and you simply can’t believe that other people operate differently.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thephantom182

        JJ, you are not one who should be bandying about words like “silly” and “childish”, given some of the things you’ve said over the years. You are the one trying to defend 7 categories no-awarded in two years, pretending its a quality issue when we all know its just politics.

        Instead of cheaply impugning my integrity with snide speculations, why don’t you go prove me wrong? Show how NKJ’s sales are through the roof, and how everybody is buying up the grimdark torture fic like gangbusters. Demonstrate to all the assembled that I made it up.

        Or not, because you can’t. Because we all know, grimdark doesn’t really sell all that well these days. It is the kale of SF/F. The thing people pretend to eat.

        Like

      • JJ

        Phantom, you really need to work on your logic. You know, there are courses you can take to help you with this.
        No Award =/= Politics
        No Award =/= Malice
        No Award = Not Hugo Quality
        Unobjectionable =/= Other people can’t possibly have loved this
        Grimdark =/= Other people can’t possibly have loved this
        I don’t want to read this =/= Other people can’t possibly have loved this
        I didn’t like the blurb on the book =/= Other people can’t possibly have loved this
        I didn’t like the book =/= Other people can’t possibly have loved this
        High sales =/= Quality     (Example Numero Uno: Fifty Shades of Grey)
        Low sales =/= Poor Quality
        All Hugo winners must be the same type of book =/= True

        By all means, please do attempt to supply a logical argument which actually refutes any of the above. So far, you have failed utterly to do so.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Mark

        “why don’t you go prove me wrong? Show how NKJ’s sales are through the roof, and how everybody is buying up the grimdark torture fic like gangbusters”

        Sigh. Fiiiine, I’ll take 5 secs to refute your claims, if you really insist.

        NK Jemisin, currently #35 in Fantasy in amazon.com Author Rank. Notable names on the same page are Larry at #30 and Terry Pratchett at #34. Now, I am NOT claiming amazon sales rank as a particularly useful arbiter of, well, anything, and the timing of having a new book out will be an influence, but if her sales were sweet FA she couldn’t be anywhere close to the top 100, could she?

        Now, you _could_ refute my refutation with, say, actual sales figures….if you had any, and weren’t just making stuff up.

        Liked by 1 person

      • KasaObake

        You’re asking me to do your own research for you, Phantom? No thanks. If you have the link paste it here.

        Or can’t you, because as always any evidence you find completely contradicts the point you’re trying to make?

        Just for fun I went to take a look at Larry’s goodreads pages too, and for Son of the Black Sword, which has been out a similar amount of time as TFS, he has 3k less overall reviews and a lower average…

        Butcher, naturally, has a great deal more reviews than both of them combined, but he is a major brand in fantasy.

        But I don’t conflate popularity with award winning quality, and luckily for me most serious awards don’t do that either, or Michael Bay’s cinematic turds would have garnered him a wall full of Oscars and Palme d’Ors.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thephantom182

        “Sigh. Fiiiine, I’ll take 5 secs to refute your claims, if you really insist.”

        Why thank you Mark. Very thoughtful. So NKJ, Super Author of the New Best Thing Evar! is right in there at the same level as ILOH Larry C, otherwise known as dude who’s not good enough to shine NKJs shoes, speaking in terms of QUALITY!!!111!!!

        This somewhat supports my contention Mark, because Nora is supposed to be All That, turbocharged, and she’s five down from the machine gun salesman.

        Where’s Butcher? What do his numbers look like? For that matter, how did Redshirts do at the box office? Better than T5S? Worse?

        See, if you want to refute somebody, you have to actually refute them.

        Like

      • Mark

        Phantom, the assertion is yours to prove. Specifically, you claimed “NKJ’s sales figures do not support that kind of conclusion” when it turns out you don’t actually have NKJs sales figures and were just making it up. Now you are demanding that her sales be even better than everyone else’s for you to believe people like her books in their own right?
        I’m not arguing quality= sales, *you* are arguing that in the face of multiple people confirming they judged T5S on quality, and the available evidence suggests that your argument falls over. Get some better evidence or a better argument.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thephantom182

        KasoBake said: “But I don’t conflate popularity with award winning quality, and luckily for me most serious awards don’t do that either, or Michael Bay’s cinematic turds would have garnered him a wall full of Oscars and Palme d’Ors.”

        Just for you, ducky, I will repeat myself again. Award winning quality: “Redshirts!” Or, since you mention, we could speak of the ridiculous turd from last year, “The World Turned Upside Down.” That one was so bad it actively annoyed me. It won because it was the only thing that wasn’t picked by the Puppies.

        Your Hugo Award Winning Quality is political expedience dressed in a sheep skin.

        Like

      • JJ

        There you go again, Phantom, making claims about the quality of certain works based on your personal opinion of them.

        Sorry, that doesn’t cut it. You’re going to actually have to provide objective evidence, not just your own personal claim that something wasn’t of Hugo quality.

        Liked by 1 person

      • camestrosfelapton

        “It won because it was the only thing that wasn’t picked by the Puppies.”

        It doesn’t help your case much to point at something that the Puppy nominees in the same category were worse than.

        Like

      • thephantom182

        “It doesn’t help your case much to point at something that the Puppy nominees in the same category were worse than.”

        All the Puppy nominees were better than that turkey. My shopping list is better. Even the fricking dinosaur poem was better, due to brevity mostly.

        The Puppy noms, had they been stories to make the very Angels weep with joy, would still have lost, and had Puppy noms swept the category it would have been No Awarded as the other FIVE categories were. As they were this year.

        None of those puffed up, preening poseurs read the Puppy noms. The interwebs were buzzing with bloggers vowing to no-award any Puppy pick, sight unseen. People were giving away memberships so “the poor” could vote against the Puppies.

        TWTUD won because it was the only thing they could vote for in the category, given politics. Absent that, it wouldn’t have gotten above #4.

        Like

      • JJ

        Here you are again, making baseless claims without any evidence to back them up.

        TWTUD won because it was the best thing in that category, thanks to the Puppies. If they had actually put some worthy entries on the ballot in that category, something else probably would have won. (NB: I No Awarded TWTUD, as well as the other entries in that category — but it was still the best entry in that category.)

        Also, still waiting for a legitimate justification as to why any of the No Awarded entries were Hugo-worthy and should have been given a rocket. Funny that you don’t seem to be able to provide one.

        Liked by 1 person

      • camestrosfelapton

        A really not very smart thing to say on a blog that did read the Puppy noms – particularly from a person who has boasted of not reading stuff.

        If you are going to just make up stuff from thin air can it not at least be entertaining and original?

        Liked by 1 person

      • Mark

        “If you are going to just make up stuff from thin air can it not at least be entertaining and original?”

        *Shakes Magic 8 Ball*
        ‘All signs point to No’

        Liked by 1 person

      • KasaObake

        Okay so you object to Redshirts, a popular novel by a popular author, winning on the grounds that it isn’t high quality enough but you want Larry “Nuke Cthulhu Again” Correia to win because he’s a popular author of fun books you enjoy. You’re dismissing TFS sight unseen so your whining about perceived quality here is ridiculous, as you have, quite literally, no idea what you’re talking about.

        While we’re on the subject of political expedience, once again Phantom, can you stop dithering and give me an answer on why an unabashedly political and religious agenda from the Puppies is a-ok but books you don’t like (and in many cases haven’t read to make that judgement on) winning awards is terrible and political?

        Liked by 1 person

  6. RD F

    Phantom : Taste has nothing to do with it, Camestros. If it did, a turkey like Redshirts wouldn’t win, would it? How does that win if WorldCon taste runs to T5S? How does T5S win if Redshirts is It?

    “We object to the stultifying sameness of Pink SF! Also, we object to two books which are good in different ways winning in different years!

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Bbz

    @phantom
    You claim that no one reads the nominees, which is patently silly.
    It seems that you yourself don’t read widely, which makes your investment in the Hugo’s curious. Why do you care about the results of a literary award?

    Liked by 2 people

    • iamzenu

      Because it isn’t about SFF for the Vox/Correia minions. It is an extension of the culture war for them. For Vox/Correia it is just niche marketing to sell books to a fringe group.

      One of the things about Butcher (who Correia keeps trying to co-opt) is how positive he is in his reactions to the awards. He is very complimentary of the talents of his competition. He is a person of class. I read his “Aeronaut’s Windlass” and didn’t much care for it; maybe I just don’t like steampunk. But I was glad to see him finish above “No Award”. His “Dresden Series” is absolutely great but I hated the pups throwing book 15 onto the ballot. It really wasn’t fair. But still… no whining from Butcher.

      The new “series award” passed the meeting this year. I hope it gets ratified next year.

      Liked by 1 person

    • thephantom182

      “You claim that no one reads the nominees, which is patently silly.”

      Hyperbole, obviously. I’m saying they voted irrespective of what they read, because story is unimportant.

      Also, I don’t know how to break it to you, but people lie about stuff sometimes. Like saying they read everything and voted for the quality, but really they voted for X because it wasn’t a Puppy pick. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

      Like

      • delagar

        Dear phantom: Not only did I read N.K. Jemisin’s The Fifth Season — some of it in my local Starbucks — and love it to pieces, I also pre-ordered the sequel, the Obelisk Gate, and read it in one delicious gulp. Some day, maybe, you will actually read these wonderful books and see what a fool you are making of yourself.

        I really do recommend them highly. Jemisin is an amazing talent, writing at the top of her game in this trilology.

        Until the day comes, however, when you quit passing judgment on works you haven’t read, may I give you a second piece of advice? Don’t project your own failings on other people, or at least not so transparently.

        We can all see you, you know.

        Liked by 2 people

      • thephantom182

        delagar said: “Until the day comes, however, when you quit passing judgment on works you haven’t read, may I give you a second piece of advice? Don’t project your own failings on other people, or at least not so transparently.”

        Five no-award categories last year, two this year. More in two years than in the entire history of the Hugos. One of the most successful editors in the business, no-awarded -twice-. Politics, I do believe, accounts for this anomaly rather nicely. Also malice, but the Assterisks of 2015 stand in ample proof of that.

        But QUALITY!!!11!!! comes the cry in defense. And yet, Redshirts. Unobjectionable to be sure, but also unremarkable in the extreme. Therefore, politics not quality. There are more examples, you can think of a few I’m sure.

        People seem to be unable to address this one thing, preferring instead to attack my character. Odd behavior, but common of late.

        While I do have my failings, projecting things onto other people tends not to be one of them. It’s nice that you like T5S. I’m disinclined to read it because while people tell me it is beautifully written, the characters are people I don’t want to read about, doing things I don’t want to read about. This is my personal preference, for which I make no apologies.

        No doubt you’d feel the same about some of my enthusiasms. That’s not what we are talking about here.

        Like

      • Nigel

        ‘And yet, Redshirts. Unobjectionable to be sure, but also unremarkable in the extreme. Therefore, politics not quality.’

        Er, how so? Show your work. Identify and account for other hypotheses. Use direct quotations from original sources where possible.Extrapolate using only pertinent data.

        Like

      • Cora

        Why do you find it so had to accept that other people may have enjoyed something you didn’t like? People have different tastes. For example, I have no problem believing that many people out there genuinely enjoy Larry Correia’s books, whereas I found the one I tried nigh unreadable.

        Regarding the no awards, I have never blanket no awarded all slate picks neither this year nor last. However, a lot of the slate nominees were of poor quality IMO. Should I vote for something I don’t like just to make the puppies happy? Coincidentally, I have also no awarded works that were not on any slates, simply because I don’t believe they are award worthy.

        Liked by 1 person

      • delagar

        Dear phantom: I’m a Hugo voter. I read the have works which the pups (both kind) put up, via the slates, for the past three years.

        Someone, I don’t remember who, said the worst thing the puppies have done is make the works of other puppies available to be read. For the most part, I agree that’s true. Not every work on the pup’s slate in 2014 an 2015 was sub-standard. A few were actually readable. But none were Hugo-worthy. And — frankly? — some were just laughably bad. (I am thinking now of Vox Day’s silly piece; but also of JCW’s over-written and pretentious nonsense, of which I read every single word.)

        So, unlike you, yes, I read and judged the works that were up on the ballot. So far as I can tell, most Hugo voters (who aren’t puppies) have taken this road.

        tl;dr: You’re projecting, phantom. But that does seems to be common failing among you pups.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Mark

        “Someone, I don’t remember who, said the worst thing the puppies have done is make the works of other puppies available to be read.”

        I’m pretty sure that was Aaron, but it’s such a good phrase that many have repeated it 🙂

        Liked by 1 person

  8. RDF

    Five no-award categories last year, two this year. More in two years than in the entire history of the Hugos. One of the most successful editors in the business, no-awarded -twice-. Politics, I do believe, accounts for this anomaly rather nicely.

    Riiiiight – it has nothing to do with a slate which clogged the nominees with works ranging from the mediocre to the outright crappy. According to Phantom, using “No Award” is inherently faulty – when it was written in specifically to allow for years when people felt no candidate work met the required standard.

    Prove me wrong, Phantom. Why don’t you do something you have singularly failed to do – argue FOR the merits of works that were passed over for “No Award”. Explain to us why they were Hugo-worthy works, rather than simply continuing to whine about politics.

    But we know you’re not going to do that, are you?

    Liked by 3 people

    • thephantom182

      “Riiiiight – it has nothing to do with a slate which clogged the nominees with works ranging from the mediocre to the outright crappy.”

      The World Turned Upside Down. Not repeating myself again for you, latecomer. Camestros will become irritable I’m sure.

      Like

      • RD F

        You’re so brilliant you can’t even give the correct name for the story you’re touting?

        Well, isn’t that *special*…

        Like

      • Cora

        “The Day the World Turned Upside Down” only very narrowly beat No Award, because it was a weak story. If the overall ballot hadn’t been inundated with low quality puppy slate picks, it’s highly unlikely that “The Day the World Turned Upside Down” would have one.

        FYI, I ranked one slate story “The Triple Sun” above “The Day the World Turned Upside Down”, because it was one of the better slate nominees and actually amusing.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thephantom182

        “FYI, I ranked one slate story “The Triple Sun” above “The Day the World Turned Upside Down”, because it was one of the better slate nominees and actually amusing.”

        YES, finally. Cora, most of the voters last year were not like you. They voted -politically-, the quality of the story made zero difference. This year was certainly no different.

        That being my point. You appear to be one of the remarkably few people who actually care about the stuff you vote for. Good on you.

        Like

      • JJ

        Phantom: Cora, most of the voters last year were not like you. They voted -politically-, the quality of the story made zero difference. This year was certainly no different.

        Phantom, you are just making shit up. You are pretending to know why people voted the way they did, despite them saying something very different from what you are claiming.

        Either provide evidence that you are psychic and can read minds, or actual evidence that people voted for reasons other than why they say they voted. If you can’t do either of those things (and of course you can’t, or you would have done so by now), then STOP MAKING FALSE CLAIMS about other peoples’ motivations.

        Liked by 1 person

      • camestrosfelapton

        Your point is wandering all over the place. So now the people who put TDWTUD below No Award (me for example) are not political and the people who put a Sad Puppy nominee in the same category below No Award (me for example) ARE political.

        Like

      • thephantom182

        “Your point is wandering all over the place.”

        My point is steady, as the needle pointing North. It is your brain which wanders sir. The fever, no doubt. Partake of a libation and rest, that your reason may return from wherever it wandered off to. Alaska would be my guess.

        Cora is the only person here not trying to pretend that TWTUD is anything other than a political pick, and she clearly doesn’t like Puppies. Kudos to her, say I.

        Like

      • JJ

        Phantom: Cora is the only person here not trying to pretend that TWTUD is anything other than a political pick

        Several people here have explained to you why they did or did not vote for TDTWTUD, and NONE of those reasons are about politics. YOU ARE A REALLY BAD LISTENER.

        Like

      • thephantom182

        “YOU ARE A REALLY BAD LISTENER.”

        Actually, I’m ignoring you in the hopes that you will either shut up or say something interesting.

        “Several people here have explained to you why they did or did not vote for TDTWTUD, and NONE of those reasons are about politics.”

        Yes, several people are trying to pretend that five awards to Noah last year and two this year were not in any way political. This is so patently false as to be hilarious.

        While these particular individuals may have the high standards they claim (and I have no reason to think otherwise I hasten to add), WorldCon as a whole clearly did not. Booing and hissing every puppy pick during the awards? Cheering wildly for every No Award?

        The “But QUALITY!!!” thing is busted. Get over it.

        Like

      • JJ

        Phantom: several people are trying to pretend that five awards to Noah last year and two this year were not in any way political.

        Aaaaaand…. we’re back to you pretending to be a psychic mind-reader who knows what people are actually thinking rather than what they are actually saying. To avoid looking like a Puppy projecting their own behavior on others, you will need to provide documentation and evidence that you actually have these skills, or that these people actually think something different from what they’re saying (and like I said, of course you don’t or you’d have provided it already.

        Phantom: WorldCon as a whole clearly did not. Booing and hissing every puppy pick during the awards? Cheering wildly for every No Award?

        Worldcon members were incredibly polite to Puppy picks, especially during the awards this year. None of this happened, this year or last year. Which you would know — if you had actually watched the videos of the ceremony. And why shouldn’t Worldcon members applaud when execrable crap which has been gamed onto the ballot does not get an award?

        You know, you keep repeating the same tired lies over and over. Doing so has not made them true. It will not ever make them true. Seriously, I can’t believe that you don’t have something better to do with your life than posting the same lies over and over.

        Like

      • thephantom182

        “Worldcon members were incredibly polite to Puppy picks, especially during the awards this year. None of this happened, this year or last year. Which you would know — if you had actually watched the videos of the ceremony.”

        So you’re really going to go with “There was no cheering for No Award last year” for real?

        Allrighty then. Kinda puts everything else you’ve said in context, JJ. Its late, I’m taking my lyin’ self off to bed.

        Like

      • JJ

        Phantom: So you’re really going to go with “There was no cheering for No Award last year” for real?

        Ah, so you’re openly admitting now that that is the one thing in your claims which might actually have some basis in fact. Well, that’s progress. Maybe we can hope that someday you’ll abandon your lies altogether.

        And I’ll say it again: Why shouldn’t Worldcon members cheer when execrable crap which has been gamed onto the ballot does not get an award? What is wrong with their being happy that horrible-quality crap does not get an award?

        Like

      • thephantom182

        JJ said: “And I’ll say it again: Why shouldn’t Worldcon members cheer when execrable crap which has been gamed onto the ballot does not get an award? What is wrong with their being happy that horrible-quality crap does not get an award?”

        Sportsmanship? Not a thing among the SJWs, apparently.

        Like

      • JJ

        Phantom: Sportsmanship? Not a thing among the SJWs, apparently.

        You mean the kind of “Sportsmanship” as defined by Pupppies? The kind where they exploited a known vulnerability to cheat their entries onto the ballot?

        Sorry, Phantom, arguments from the Puppies about “Sportsmanship” are a joke. You’ll have to come up with a legitimate reason as to why it was not okay for Worldcon members to cheer when Hugo awards did not go to inferior, poorly-written works.

        Like

      • RD F

        Sportsmanship? Not a thing among the SJWs, apparently.

        To quote your Moron-in-Chief : “Point 12: The Alt-Right doesn’t care what you think of it.”

        For someone who doesn’t care, you Puppies sure spend an awful amount of time whimpering that no-one seems to love you when you deliberately shit all over the floor…

        Like

      • thephantom182

        Sportsmanship is an end in itself, sir. Something which reliably escapes SJWs and Leftists of all stripes.

        I follow no man, and certainly not the pitiful Vox Day.

        None of which alters in any detail the well publicized doings of WorldCon, which remain entirely politically motivated. Please see above.

        Like

      • JJ

        Phantom: None of which alters in any detail the well publicized doings of WorldCon, which remain entirely politically motivated. Please see above.

        Yes, yes, I and everyone else here have already refuted all the false arguments you’ve made above about “political” motivations. You’re going to have to come up with something new, something which actually makes sense.

        You know, if the Puppies had actually put quality works onto the ballot last year, and the voters had No-Awarded them, you might be able to claim “politics”. But as it was, they put crap onto the ballot, which was No Awarded due to lack of quality.

        And you know, if the Puppies had actually put quality works onto the ballot this year — oh wait, they did! And those quality works not only did not get No Awarded, 3 of those works and 1 of the people which the Puppies slated, actually took home Hugo rockets!

        So clearly, it is all about quality with the Worldcon voters. You just can’t bear to admit that you were wrong. 😀

        Like

      • RDF

        I follow no man, and certainly not the pitiful Vox Day.

        So you *claim*.

        The problem here is that

        a, we’ve discovered what you SAY isn’t all that trustworthy AND

        b, your ACTIONS are those of a minion with his tongue so far up said Moron’s ass that you can taste his food for him.

        Like

      • JJ

        supplanter: I am surprised how much people enjoy arguing with Phantom.

        I enjoy watching him squirm and flounder about every time someone points out the flaws and falsehoods in his claims.

        He’s like a very small child who keeps insisting that he’s right long after he’s been proven wrong. 😀

        Like

      • thephantom182

        “Yes, yes, I and everyone else here have already refuted all the false arguments you’ve made above about “political” motivations.”

        Is that what you think you’ve done? Refuted false arguments? If by ‘refute’ you mean stamp your feet and have a tantrum, then I will agree that’s exactly what’s gone on here JJ.

        Like

  9. Lurkertype

    I hope phantom didn’t vote this year, since he’s so adamant about never, ever reading at least one of the Best Novel finalists — the one that won by a landslide. After all, he thinks people who don’t read everything shouldn’t vote!

    I’m sorry he’s such a pearl-clutching special snowflake that he can’t even consider reading a gripping, moving, amazing, heartfelt book like “Fifth Season”. I finished it and the next day, read it again. I also preordered and read “Obelisk Gate” in one gulp, and would have preordered the finale if it was possible, when I’ll read all three of them in a row. I guess it’s a good thing Camestros put all those trigger warnings on it so p. didn’t have to get out of his safe space.

    Like

    • KasaObake

      At the risk of sounding like everyone’s favourite maniacal sooperjeenyus I do find it… amusing… at how much the Puppies and Puppy-adjacents project their own behaviour onto the SJZucchinis.

      Like

  10. Bbz

    There is a glut of chocolate chip zucchini bread in my freezer. I will relabel it as special Social Justice Zucchini Bread when serving righty friends and family.

    Like

  11. MilitantlyAardvark

    “Sportsmanship is an end in itself, sir. Something which reliably escapes SJWs and Leftists of all stripes.”

    Says the Littlest Puppy Who Couldn’t Impose A Slate Of Mediocre Dreck On Others. Phantom seems to have trouble with words and their meanings. Perhaps that explains his inability to defend his views with anything like evidence or logic.

    Like

    • thephantom182

      “Says the Littlest Puppy Who Couldn’t Impose A Slate Of Mediocre Dreck On Others.”

      1: Sad Puppies is not a slate, this year particularly.
      2: “Mediocre Dreck” did extremely well at the Dragons yesterday, so your “QUALITY!!1!! argument is looking rather threadbare old son. All that stuff you love to say is crap ran away with it. The majority of Fandom, given a chance to vote in a free and open award, pretty much just told y’all to pound salt.

      WorldCon: Politics politics über alles, über alles in der Welt!

      Like

      • thephantom182

        Odd that we did so well yesterday then, when politics were not a factor.

        It is true that there was no discernable slate voting against the Sad Puppies this year. Well, except for Editor Long Form, of course. That’s because you were all busy slate voting against the Rabids. Note the one constant, slate voting. Which, last I checked the Bleating Myriad at Glyer’s, was supposed to be “bad”.

        So really, it is all politics, Camestros. The extent to which it is politics can be seen in the extensive flip-out in all the usual places, and the profound silence at TOR.com when all others are flipping out.

        For my part, I do not want to be reading some politically correct checklist masquerading as fiction. The Dragons just awarded a bunch of books I’ve either read or at least heard of, by a bunch of authors who don’t run around whinging they can’t get ahead because of The Man. One winner doesn’t even have a fricking publisher, its a self-pub. That’s something I’m interested in.

        Maybe if NKJ stops “examining themes of slavery” and other gross topics in her work, she’ll write something fun enough to get a Dragon nom.

        Like

      • camestrosfelapton

        “Odd that we did so well yesterday then, when politics were not a factor.”

        In what way were politics not a factor? You just said “we did so well” – now as far as I’m aware you were not an author nominated for a Dragon – so who is “we”?
        What you mean is that your faction did well. I’m happy for your faction – I hope it brings healing to your factions pain. But the very fact that you can see that you have a faction and that it did well strongly suggests where the source of politics in this argument is coming from.

        “The Dragons just awarded a bunch of books I’ve either read or at least heard of, by a bunch of authors who don’t run around whinging they can’t get ahead because of The Man. ”

        Um, Larry, JCW and Cole all HAVE very loudly run around whinging that they can’t get ahead because of The Man (or the SJW conspiracy). Oh right – I forgot – it doesn’t count when they do it.

        “Maybe if NKJ stops “examining themes of slavery” and other gross topics in her work, she’ll write something fun enough to get a Dragon nom.”

        She got two Dragon Nominations – and without any campaigning for one at all.

        It might help Phantom, if you take a few deep breaths before typing.

        Like

      • Mark

        “Maybe if NKJ stops “examining themes of slavery” and other gross topics in her work, she’ll write something fun enough to get a Dragon nom.”

        Umm, she did get a Dragon nom. Seriously, can you stop typing for 5 seconds and actually google what you’ve already written to check if it’s true?

        Like

      • thephantom182

        “Um, Larry, JCW and Cole all HAVE very loudly run around whinging that they can’t get ahead because of The Man (or the SJW conspiracy). Oh right – I forgot – it doesn’t count when they do it.”

        I believe JCW was complaining that employees of his publisher were calling him a racist, and LC mostly talks about what kind of tank he’s going to buy to drive around on the mountain he bought.

        It might help if you didn’t blatantly make stuff up about people.

        Like

      • camestrosfelapton

        Seriously Phantom are you going to now pretend that 3.5 sad puppy campaigns vociferously complaining about ‘literati’ or ‘SJW’ bias NEVER happened. Yes, I get those campaigns were embarrassing but seriously you can’t just demand we all forget about them.

        Like

      • thephantom182

        “Seriously Phantom are you going to now pretend that 3.5 sad puppy campaigns vociferously complaining about ‘literati’ or ‘SJW’ bias NEVER happened.”

        Oh, I see. You’re pretending you didn’t understand what I wrote. Fail.

        Like

      • camestrosfelapton

        Nope. I understood what you wrote:
        “it might help if you didn’t blatantly make stuff up about people.”

        Except, you, me and everybody here and elsewhere know that Larry and crew really have been whinging about the topics I described.

        The question is why are you now pretending that they didn’t? I wonder if you’ll change the subject again.

        Like

  12. Lee

    I’m comparing the bland pedestrian and forgettable fanfic book to the nightmare-on-a-bun NKJ book. One of them is not like the other. Therefore politics plays a role in the awarding of the hugo.

    Dude. If that’s what passes for “logic” in your thinking, you seriously need a course in same. Just because YOU only like one kind of story doesn’t mean that everyone else is so limited.

    Also, repeating the same lies over and over again won’t magically make them true, no matter what the Republicans tell you.

    Like

    • thephantom182

      Because ‘Republicans’ is totally about books and nothing to do with politics, right Lee?

      BTW I’m a CANADIAN, please -read- the comments before blathering on, won’t you?

      Like

  13. Aaron Pound

    I’m comparing the bland pedestrian and forgettable fanfic book to the nightmare-on-a-bun NKJ book. One of them is not like the other. Therefore politics plays a role in the awarding of the hugo.

    Or perhaps you could consider that Hugo voters as a group, don’t have monolithic tastes, and might enjoy a wide range of things.

    Like

  14. Chris Helps

    The internet identity phantom182 is repeatedly and vehemently claiming, with the air of a matter of inarguable fact, that TFS (which received extravagantly glowing reviews from major mainstream media like the New York Times and the Washington Post) is a book of significantly poor literary quality – despite freely admitting that they have never read the book.

    This seems such blatantly trollish behavior that I’m genuinely puzzled as to why people here continue to engage the perpetrator in reasoned debate, which to me seems to me to legitimize an otherwise patently risible and indefensible position.

    Like

      • thephantom182

        As I said above, I read your review. The list of themes and topics covered was nauseating, as was the cover blurb. You read it, so I don’t have to. A public service, sir.

        Like

      • supplanter

        How many people voted in the Dragon Awards? How many people nominated? What were the tallies for the individual works at each stage?

        Like

    • thephantom182

      Chris Helps said: “The internet identity phantom182 is repeatedly and vehemently claiming, with the air of a matter of inarguable fact, that TFS is a book of significantly poor literary quality.”

      That is profoundly incorrect.

      I said T5S was undoubtedly of very high literary quality, given that the cover blurb alone gave rise to such strong feelings in me, the reader. However since those feelings were mostly revulsion at the themes and topics of the book, I decided not to read it. It didn’t seem like fun.

      I am quite sure NKJ is a powerful author. I am quite sure T5S is a powerful book. One which I am quite sure I will never read. Unless I suddenly need to be pushed into a depression for a few weeks. Then it’ll be the first thing I reach for.

      I claimed the book “Redshirts”, which I have read, was of poor literary quality, and found the awarding of a Hugo to both books to be indicative of something other than judging based on quality. Or QUALITY!!!! where JJ is concerned.

      Please try to keep these things straight, in future. Try -reading- the comments.

      Like

  15. RDF

    Compare and contrast:

    “I follow no man, and certainly not the pitiful Vox Day.” – The Phantom, September 2, 2016 – 8:53 am

    “Odd that we did so well yesterday then, when politics were not a factor.” – The Phantom, September 6, 2016 – 5:44 am

    So, Phantom, what’s Vox’s dinner taste like tonight?

    Like

    • thephantom182

      Go look at my website, and see if you can find all the places where I say what a loyal follower of Vox I am. Then report back here, with page and paragraph. Hint, I did link him one time. While you’re at it, find all the places where I say “national IQ average” is a thing.

      Also, some evidence supporting your claim that the Dragons were politically motivated/biased/controlled would be interesting.

      There’s your homework, off you go.

      Like

      • RDF

        Go look at my website, and see if you can find all the places where I say what a loyal follower of Vox I am.

        No need – I’m willing to go by your words here – ““Odd that WE did so well yesterday then”, remember?

        Also, some evidence supporting your claim that the Dragons were politically motivated/biased/controlled would be interesting.

        Speaking of needing evidence – what claim would this be that went out under my name?

        Like