From: "Ted White" <twhite8 at cox.net>
To: "WSFA members" <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: 2007 Worldcon
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 20:41:18 -0400
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Kling" <jkling at nasw.org>
To: "WSFA members" <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004 8:17 PM
Subject: [WSFA] Re: 2007 Worldcon

> Sunday, August 22, 2004, 5:04:13 PM, you wrote:
>
> > Generally speaking, it's also a poorly done convention.  One of the
> > most notable one being ConDiego (1990)  which managed to typo it's name
> > in it's own souvenir book.  And apparently things only got worse. Which
> > caused this to become a popular phrase:  "Your name is ConDiego
Montoya.
> > You kill my weekend. Prepare to die."
>
> Damn, that's funny.

But I wish Mike would learn the difference between the possessive "its" and
the contraction for "it is."  (Twice in one sentence....)

> > Since the likelyhood of actually removing NASFiC from the WSFS
> > Constitution is pretty darn small, the only other alternative I could
> > think of last year was to vote in the NASFiC site selection, voting for
> > No NASFiC.  Well, it's going to Seattle, & I'm not.
>
> > But con going fans like to go to cons; wave some cheese in front of
> > them and off they go . . .
>
> Interesting. So why is it that NASFic is consistently run poorly. I
> assume that different people are involved each year?

It's a poor-second convention, a "losercon" for those who can't get to the
Worldcon.   But it usually (unless the Worldcon is in Australia) costs as
much to get to (unless you live close by) as the foreign Worldcon, given
modern airfairs.   Because NASFiC gets no respect, it isn't run very well;
the people running it have bought into its no-respect status.

--Ted White