Again and Again on Antonelli

Another update on the Antonelli affair. For earlier posts, see:

1. Lou Antonelli Loses the Plot ... and Finds it Again
2. More on Antonelli ...
3. And Again on Antonelli
4. Hugo Odds and Sods ... and Casual Homophobia
5. The Antonelli Affair ... Again

At the end of last month, Lou Antonelli posted a couple of additional insights into his actions on facebook. First, with regard to allegations that he threw Carrie Cuinn under the bus, Antonelli writes:

A couple of last observations on the Setting the Record Straight front:

When I said a certain editor of a certain magazine rescinded the acceptance of a story over the David Gerrold incident, she said I made the information public so that she would be attacked by flying monkeys or something like that.

That's a lie.

I thought she would get credit for what she did, and I felt it would be a good example for other people in the future not to do what I did. I literally don't know anyone who would want to attack her for what she did. I mean, I don't know if what she says happened, happened. But that wasn't my intent.

As I have noted elsewhere, I believe Antonelli when he says that he did not intend to harm Carrie Cuinn when he made his post. However, does he really need to implicitly invalidate Cuinn's claims by writing "I don't know if what she says happened"? Why not just accept that it happened and apologize?

For what it is worth, Cuinn seems to have moved on in the best possible way, tweeting after the Hugo Awards were announced:

For the record, I emailed Lou Antonelli after the awards tonight and encouraged him to keep writing, share stories he loves, try again.

— Carrie Cuinn (@CarrieCuinn) August 23, 2015

Second, on the report that he tried to get a commentator fired, Antonelli writes:

There is a government lawyer who works in Washington D.C. who says that, after he called me - as well as Brad Torgersen, Larry Correia and John C. Wright - assholes on twitter I tried to get him fired.

That's a lie.

I called his office and complained about him, let them know what he did and what kind of person he is, and I did make a complaint. I never called for his termination.

As it happened, I was going through Washington D.C. on my way to the Ravencon convention at the time, and I thought that - to save postage - I would drop my complaint off where he worked. Someone let me know what you don't drop into a federal office building like you do a small county Courthouse in Texas, and I put my complaint in the mail.

In both these cases, these people accused me of "doxxing" them by disclosing their names, to preserve their delicate little sensibilities, I won't bring them up again.

It is hard for me to believe that Antonelli thought that complaining to a person's employer would not be viewed as an attempt to get them fired. And even if he was only trying to get them censured, it is still inappropriate behavior.

But maybe he really is that clueless? I don't know.  I kind of want to believe that he is simply clueless, because elsewhere on facebook Antonelli has proven to be quite amusing. Witness this:

Last month one of the Sad Puppy critics said on Twitter that "Lou Antonelli is a fascist dickbag and loathsome human being."

Later, I replied. "Hey, I live in Texas. Does that make me The Fascist Gun in the West?"

He later replied, "God help me, I actually laughed at this."

and this:

The way I've been attacked by some people in the science fiction community reminds me of something my Italian grandfather said a long, long time ago:

"I'm more proud of my enemies than my friends. My enemies spread my reputation. My friends just borrow money."

The Antonelli Affair ... Again

More information continues to bubble up about the Antonelli affair and Sasquan. Much of the recently revealed information concerns other people, beyond David Gerrold, who reported feeling harassed to the Con committee. As evidenced by Antonelli's attendance at the conference, the committee did not act on these concerns.

Most notably, Meg Frank, Events Deputy Division Head and the Co-Director of the Hugo Ceremony at Sasquan, posts that she reported that she felt harassed by Antonelli's actions. However, the Con committee was not supportive of her request, responding with "guilt trips, denial, victim blaming, sarcasm and dismissal." As a result, she resigned her position.

The Con committee apparently felt that Frank had not been harassed.

One of the vice-chairs, Glenn Glazer, attempted to guilt me into not pursuing the complaint, and one of the Operations Division Heads, Robbie Bourget told me flat out that I hadn’t been harassed.

Frank deserves credit for providing a pdf file of all of her correspondence documenting this event.

Natalie Luhrs, who I have mostly found to hold reasonable opinions, has opined that this is unacceptable behavior and that the community needs to remember these events and hold the Con committee accountable. She is specifically incensed by statements made by the Con head of operations, Robbie Bourget, including:

The first step in change is realising you were wrong. The second is public apology. Mr Antonelli has started on the road, who wants to tell him to piss off because we don't want him on our road? Remind me to probably de-friend you in that case. And, no, I am not a supporter of Lou's, the Sad Puppies, the Rabid Puppies or the rapidly becoming extremely rabid Anti-Puppies.

Likewise, one of the vice chairs, Glenn Glazer, in response to a complaint on facebook, wrote:

I know Robbie quite well. She's being running Operations for cons for over thirty years (I was her second at ConFrancisco in '93) and in real life is a probation officer. You are fully entitled to have an opinion, but the objective truth is that she is highly qualified, IMHO more highly qualified than anyone in fandom, to make this kind of decision. What I really think is the problem is that many people can't separate "I decision I don't agree with." from "A bad decision." Those *are* different things.

Glazer's response has drawn particular censure:

@eilatan Wow, the flat-out credentialist put-down. Haven't seen such a shameless example in a while. @michaeldthomas

— P Nielsen Hayden (@pnh) August 29, 2015

Luhrs also links disapprovingly to an email by Bourget further detailing her qualifications and views:

As for my take, this entire exchange has deepened my respect for the people who run cons. They are faced with some very difficult problems. Sasquan elected to interpret their anti-harassment policy in a narrow legal sense as regards prohibiting attendance of the con; without evidence of harassment, a person will not be banned. Bourget makes clear in her email that allegations of harassment without enough evidence can be dealt with in other ways, such as by providing support on the ground to ensure that an accuser is protected from an alleged stalker. This seems reasonable, and the outcome at Sasquan seems to have been acceptable.

Throughout, the Sasquan committee was transparent about their decision making and responsive to questions about their reasoning. I think this is about as much as we can expect from a Con, and I am appreciative of the job that the committee does.

While I understand and respect the views of Luhrs and others, I think the Committee is correct in taking a narrow legal definition of harassment. A wider definition applied strictly is too open to abuse, and to apply it less strictly requires someone to make judgments as to which claims of harassment are to be actionable and which are not. What if someone complained that they felt unsafe around George R. R. Martin because his books, and their television adaptation, contained violent rape? Or if someone (not naming any names) reported that they felt harassed by the depictions of homosexuality depicted in The Legend of Korra?

And as for PNHs complaint of credentialism, I am, with some reservations, a big fan of credentials. And Bourget's seem to be perfect for this job given her work with the perpetrators of domestic violence (DV):

Kat, my work in UK Probation is with perpetrators of DV. I do assessments for Court every Thursday on just those offences. Harassment, Breach of Restraining Order, Breach of Non-Molestation Order, Assault, Criminal Damage. Seriously, I have been thanked by victims, white, black and asian, for the work I do with their abusive partners and ex-partners. I am more than slightly offended that you have assumed that I a) know nothing on the subject and b) do not have respect for the issues of minority groups. UK Probation, so far, is not at all like US Probation. And here's one very important point that I have learned. DV affects absolutely everyone. Statistically more women than men and more black women than white women and, in the UK, more asian women than black women. But, there are male on male DV cases, female on female, black on white, female on male, the full gamut. Each one has to be assessed on its own merits. On evidence specific to the incidents and the individuals, not on hearsay, not on what others think is happening but what both parties tell you balanced against likelihood of falsehoods and evidence gathered from written material by both parties (in this case).

Meanwhile, Lou Antonelli has published a blog post where he complains about not receiving an invitation to George R. R. Martin's Hugo Losers Party. As Martin noted in his report on the party, some people were not invited because he was not able to get an invitation to them. But Antonelli makes clear he talked with Martin at Sasquan, so he was evidently explicitly not invited. As George says, he had an explicit "no assholes" policy.

Antonelli then sends Martin a few choice words.  But seriously, Lou: after what happened, what did you expect?

(In yet another post, Antonelli comes across as more reasonable, thanking the committee for allowing him to attend).

And Again on Antonelli

The Antonelli saga continues ...

First, Carrie Cuinn, the Editor-in-Chief of Lakeside Circus, the journal that rescinded their offer to publish Antonelli's story, reported receiving rape and death threats:

Less than 12 hours before today's publishing decision led to getting emailed rape and death threats, because evil SJWs something something.

— Carrie Cuinn (@CarrieCuinn) August 9, 2015

She also reported on August 10th that she has been hounded by an internet hate-mob over the rescission. Apparently, Antonelli had posted an edited version of the letter that she had sent him, and had withheld important information:

When he posted the letter, he didn’t mention I’d sent it before he posted his apology. He removed the line about me hearing the podcast. He also added the name of my magazine, and my title. In short, he shared it, but he shared a version of it, that he’d edited. His post garnered 30+ comments from his fans, saying I was a bitch, a tool of the SJW mob, I was retaliating after the fact (of his apology), I was uneducated and unfit to be an editor (because I’m going back to school). The letter was referenced in other conversations he had online (including at File 770), with similar comments.

At no time did Mr. Antonelli correct anyone, or suggest they stop attacking me, even when some of the comments mentioned looking me up online, researching me, reading my blog, etc.

By later that same day, I was getting emails which contained both the same sort of comments as had been posted online, and threats of physical violence. (I won’t quote them because I’ve spoken to my local police department and the matter is under investigation.) I contacted Mr. Antonelli, told him specifically that I was receiving threats, and asked him to please ask his fans to stop.

To his credit, Antonelli did so on facebook:

Ok, if anyone I know out there is contacting Carrie Cuinn and castigating her for the decision not to publish my story, knock it off. She and Lakeside Circus have their right to free expression, also. Lambasting her is certainly not helping things.

People have, understandably, criticized this for the opening sentence which may be taken to imply that he is doubting what Cuinn is reporting. However, I think that is incorrect; I believe he is qualifying the statement believing that anyone he knows would not do such a thing. His use of the words "castigating" and "lambasting" does, however, downplay the threats she received.

He then followed this with a longer apology:

I want to make it clear than when I posted about Carrie Cuinn and Lakeside Circus' decision taking back their decision to publish a story of mine, I meant it as a cautionary tale - don't be a jackass like I was, because there are repercussions. Experience is a hard teacher. I don't begrudge the decision at all. I apologized to David Gerrold because I realized I did something stupid and I made a mistake. But I didn't think I made a mistake in revealing Cuinn's decision. Fact was. I thought people would commend her for it, and I thought there would be some people who would like to give her credit for it.

Now she says she's gotten threats over the revelation. That's not why I posted it! So I'm sorry again, in this case, because it never occurred to me her action would be seen negatively.

She said on her blog:

"He dragged me up in front of his fans and made a target of me. He knew people were defensive and angry on his behalf, and he gave them me as a target. Doing that, he took away my safety, too." I had no such intention. I mean, I hope I don't have any fans who would do such a thing. They're certainly no friends of mine. As for knowing people were defensive and angry on my behalf - I don't know if she had access to my subconscious, but I certainly didn't know that. I've been feeling pretty stupid and lonely myself. I don't have any followers in science fiction. A few friends, a few fans - certainly no followers. I literally don't know anyone who would do anything I would tell them to do. I've asked for advice, I've asked for help, but I've never given anybody any orders. If anyone has attacked Cuinn, I'm sorry if I gave them the idea. That didn't even occur to me. I thought people would applaud her action. I really regret what I did in relation to Dave Gerrold and the convention, and I completely understand what Cuinn did. Another whack from the fraternity paddle to keep me straight.

That's it. I don't know what else to say. Except I intend to say a lot less in the future. I'm sorry, Carrie, if that happened because of me, it didn't even occur to me.

For what it is worth, I think Antonelli is being honest here and I think his apology is a pretty decent one.

Second, the person (named Aaron Pound) that Antonelli tried to have fired updated his blog post on August 11th with new information about the encounter.

The entire text of his e-mail was as follows:

Geez, you're a LAWYER for the GOVERNMENT and you call me an ASSHOLE? I have a news bulletin for you, 98 percent of average Americans would say you're an asshole "prima facie".

My parents immigrated from Europe in the wake of the devastation of World War II. They didn't speak English. I was the first member of my family to be a U.S. citizen, complete a public school education, and attend college. I've had to work hard all my life, and I certainly never had a job with the government. I've been treated like trash by privileged Americans like you all my life.

I'll be in D.C. later this week, I have family members who live in Great Falls. I'll stop by the GSA and drop off copies of your Twitter insult. I think people need to know what kind of person you are. As a taxpayer, I resent having my pocket picked for your benefit.

and later:

I'll also note that this was his first communication to me following my single tweet. He escalated from "someone called me an asshole on social media" to "I'll try to get them into trouble at their workplace" right off the bat. Antonelli isn't someone who responded in a measured manner and slowly rose to this kind of threat. No, he's the sort of person who's first reaction is to threaten to do this sort of thing. Anyone who wants to see Antonelli admitting to doing this and issuing some rather inane self-serving justifications can read this comment thread from File770.

One might note that in the linked comment thread, Antonelli announces that far from dropping the matter because everyone other than him reacted like he had gone way overboard, he had decided to wait until closer to the 2016 political campaigns, because he wanted to get his representative to engage in a Congressional investigation into the matter. One might also note that for someone who claims to be libertarian in sentiment, he's pretty quick to run to the authorities over trivialities. Like most internet libertarians, he's a closet authoritarian at heart and a fan of jackbooted thugs so long as they are his jackbooted thugs. Just to be clear here: I called him an asshole on Twitter, he then confirmed my assessment with his behavior, and he thinks that this deserves to be investigated by Congress. Let that sink in before reading further.

I think it is fair to say that this does not make Antonelli look good. In fact, it makes him look like an asshole. I am not sure, however, that I can agree fully with Pound's conclusion:

Don't think for a second that the effect of Antonelli's actions is unintentional: He is a bully who has repeatedly attempted to intimidate and threaten others because they did things he did not like. He only backed off his threats against me when it became clear they were not going to work. He only apologized to Gerrold when it became clear that he was facing widespread criticism for his actions. He only told his fans to stop harassing Cuinn when it became clear that their attacks on her would harm his image. There's nothing surprising about his behavior: Antonelli threatens and blusters until it becomes clear it isn't going to work, then he moves on to a different target to start again. And the larger point is that Antonelli is just acting in the same manner as most of the other Sad Puppy authors, flying off the handle in vicious outrage at imagined provocations. Antonelli's lying, his underhanded tactics, and his attempts to smear others are all simply par for the course for the Sad Puppy leaders. He's not a terrible author - his work is merely mediocre - but like so many of the authors connected with the Sad Puppies, his actions over the course of 2015 have proved that he is someone that is probably too dangerous to try to work with.

Except maybe the last part ... Antonelli is probably too dangerous to work with.

Third, I came across Jim Hines's March 6th 2012 post about Antonelli's behavior when running for VP of the SFWA.

While I was leaning toward voting for Swirsky already, what solidified my decision tonight was an exchange in Antonelli’s blog where he had posted his platform. Author Nisi Shawl expressed being offended by his use of the phrase “Canine-Americans” to describe his dogs. Antonelli responded by calling her concerns esoteric, politically correct bullshit, and saying she takes herself way too seriously.

I’m not posting this with the intention of dropping the internet on Antonelli’s blog. But … well, I guess I take stuff way too seriously too.

To start with, I get really sick of white folks lecturing people of color on what they should and shouldn’t take offense to when it comes to issues of race and ethnicity. If you don’t get it, that’s one thing. I don’t believe there’s any shame in saying “I don’t understand.”

But this is a condescending, insulting, and flat-out shitty way to respond when someone calls you on something.

I get that it’s hard. I’ve been called out on stuff before too. Sometimes I’ve agreed, sometimes I haven’t understood, and sometimes I’ve thought about it and decided I didn’t agree. None of those responses require you to disrespect or insult the other person.

More to the point, whether you agree with someone or not, this is an utterly unacceptable way for a potential officer in an organization to respond to the concerns of a member.

Nisi Shawl's statement, Antonelli's response and non-apology, can all be found in the comments following the announcement of Antonelli's candidature. Once again, this reflects very poorly on Antonelli.

Fourth, Natalie Luhrs weighed in on August 10th with a more in-depth summary of Antonelli's past behavior. Most of what Luhrs reports on has been covered elsewhere and so there is no need to repeat it. One interesting tidbit, as much for what it revelas about the minds of Antonelli's detractors as for what it reveals about Antonelli, is this lengthy excerpt from an email to Luhrs about interactions at Armadillocon:

A man I’d never seen before walks up to Antonelli and congratulates him on his nomination. This guy wasn’t very tall, maybe 5’9″ tops, but he had one of those big booming Texas male voices that fills a room. It was impossible not to hear him, and honestly, he didn’t care who in the room did hear. He wasn’t hiding anything.

And he starts talking to Antonelli about how well this year’s puppy campaign turned out, and how plans were well underway for next year. Strange puppy did most of the talking, but Antonelli wasn’t arguing with him or trying to send him away. There was an obligatory slam against the SJW scum getting their comeuppance, and someone arrived to have Antonelli sign something. Strange puppy wandered away.

[…]

Fast forward to the Hugo panel on Saturday night and a packed room. Panelists were Antonelli, mod Michelle Munzler, editor Jacob Weisman, Justin Landon, and Marguerite Reed. The mod deserves a medal for keeping things as civil as they were.

So Antonelli is outnumbered and he knows it. He plays the humble card, the “I didn’t know what the puppies were up to” card, the yeah, maybe I got the nomination the wrong way but I wasn’t going to turn it down card. Because of the conversation I’d heard–steam was coming out of my ears. I knew he was lying through his teeth.

Marguerite Reed doesn’t pull any punches. She let him do the humble bit for a few minutes and asked him flat out, if he’d said the following: “In a time when typical literary s-f is dystopian slipstream pornography, it’s nice to be reminded that there is still core s-f out there.”

And Antonelli’s face…changed. The kindly, slightly embarrassed grandfather vanished, replaced by this calculating, sly…evil looking man. He looked Marguerite Reed in the eye and said “A man’s entitled to his opinion.”

For me that was really chilling and an eye opener. In that split second it was very clear he hated her, hated me, you–all of us. He didn’t have to know us, or to have read a single thing any of us had written. To Lou Antonelli we are all part of some vast conspiracy that keeps men like him, men who write real SF, from getting the acclaim he feels they so justly deserve. He hated us solely because we existed, and we dare to think ourselves his equal.

If I had any doubts that what I’d felt then was a misinterpretation, this blog post he wrote three days ago put them to rest.

You can’t reason with that kind of unthinking, blind hatred. You can’t change their minds, or try to be friends with any of the puppies, because for them–not you, them–it’s an all or nothing proposition. It’s not a difference of opinion, or taste in choosing what to read or nominate for an award, it’s ideology. The only thing that would EVER be good enough for them would be for you become a true believer.

Then they’d find a way to beat you up over it, because […] was right. They are abusers and they glory in it.

I don't think this report reflects badly on Antonelli at all. He did not explicitly disagree with the man who approached him to congratulate the puppies? So what. Why should he have? He does not seem to have expressed agreement, either. Instead, he seems to have acted solely to ensure a pleasant interaction with the fan. I won't judge him for that.

And as for his comments on the panel, I agree that he is entitled to his opinion. You don't have to be a card carrying puppy to agree with some of their stated opinions. I frankly doubt Antonelli, or most anyone else associated with the puppies, expected things to turn out as they did. And as for the writers impression that Antonelli let his mask slip and out peeked a "sly, evil looking man", I think they were seeing what they wanted to see.

So what are we to make of all this?  Antonelli is clearly a troubled individual with a filthy temper. At best, we can say that he is prone to act rashly and often displays poor judgment. I believe he clearly did try to get Aaron Pound in trouble, and he should be condemned for that. As for the rest, I think he mostly showed bad judgment and perhaps also some callous disregard for the effects his statements may have on people. But I think at the core he is truly sorry for some of the things that his actions have wrought. I hope for reconciliation at some point in the future.

More on Antonelli ... and a Personal Apology to Tempest Bradford

More thoughts following on from yesterdays post about Lou Antonelli after a nights sleep, a morning's research, and a (quite fair) schooling on twitter. As you will see, I have had cause to change my views significantly.

First, I think it would be tremendously helpful if Antonelli would post an exact copy of the letter he sent to Spokane PD, as well as an exact copy of the letter he sent to redress the problem. There seems to me to a big difference between writing to say that David Gerrold is "insane and a public danger and needs to be watched" and that he is "inciting to violence" and "he belongs in a secure psychiatric facility", which is what he said on the podcast, and writing to say that the police should "be aware of the controversy and possibility of people getting, uhh, maybe too enthused", which is what he reportedly said to Lou Berger and "expressing some concerns over potential security issues at the upcoming Sasquan" which is what he says he did in his apology.

Second, if Antonelli wants to be forgiven, he should also apologize to the blogger he tried to have fired. And for any other things he has done which have caused offense in this whole mess.

Third, I do not suggest that we (i.e. fandom) simply "forgive and forget" what Antonelli has done. We should never forget. And forgiveness will take time. Indeed, in light of his past record of apologies discussed next, it is going to take a long period of improved behavior on his part before we should even think of forgiving him. I hope that one day he will prove worthy of that forgiveness.

Fourth, K. Tempest Bradford and others have pointed out to me that Antonelli has a history of making fake apologies. I was not aware of this last night, but as Tempest points out it is quite easy to find the details online. I should have done my research. Jim C. Hines and Natalie Luhrs provide good summaries.

Obviously, this casts a whole new light on Antonelli's apology. In it, he says:

I need to ponder the hurt I have caused. To give me time to think, after Sasquan I am taking a half-year hiatus from attending any conventions and/or submitting any fiction.

I hope he takes that commitment seriously. Forgiveness needs to be earned.

Fifth, I owe Tempest a big apology. This morning I tweeted:

@LouAntonelli loses the plot, @tinytempest loses her nut, and fans of SFF lose all hope of reconciliation.

Clearly, this implied that I thought Tempest shared the blame for the discord in SFF. This was not what I meant. I apologize for what I wrote, and I apologize to Tempest for the harm that it caused. I will be more careful in future.

Sixth, Tempest was quite clearly justified in "losing her nut." She does a great job explaining her point of view in her facebook post. I had not thought carefully about the points she makes in her step 1, and I have evidently tripped up on step 3. Mea culpa.

Seventh, I do sincerely hope for some sort of reconciliation in SFF. I hope that some of the participants in the Controversy will step up and earn their forgiveness. That includes Lou Antonelli and Benjanun Sriduangkaew (someone who has made big strides in this area, becomes more sympathetic the more I learn about her, and to whom I also owe an apology).

Lou Antonelli Loses the Plot ... and Finds it Again

As mentioned before, I started this blog after the Hugo Awards controversy, first, re-awakened my interest in SFF and, second, stoked my outrage with what I perceived to be the poor quality of the debate surrounding its aftermath. It had been my intent to write short pieces summarizing some of the key protagonists and their views. Events over the past few days have led me to begin with Lou Antonelli.

This post will be long (and as events keep evolving, in several parts) and reflect my understanding of the issues and people involved. Corrections and clarifications to what follows would be greatly appreciated.

Lou Antonelli is a journalist and science fiction writer from Texas who, since he started in 2003, has published roughly one hundred stories. In 2015 he was nominated for two Hugo Awards: (i) best short story for “On A Spiritual Plain” (Sci Phi Journal #2, 11-2014); and, (ii) Best Related Work for Letters from Gardner (The Merry Blacksmith Press). Both pieces of work appeared on the Sad Puppies Slate and on the Rabid Puppies Slate, and there have been allegations that Antonelli was disingenuous in his public statements about his knowledge of being included on both slates.

By some accounts, Antonelli has a bit of a temper, and can overreact. As evidence for the latter, apparently in response to being called an asshole on the web (I haven't been able to track down the original exchange), he contacted a blogger's place of employment and tried to get them fired:

My one brush with Antonelli took place after I had opined on Twitter that the reason many people don't like the authors who form the core of the "Sad Puppy" group are assholes, including him in the bunch. He reacted by confirming that he is, in fact, an asshole. Despite my tweeting on my personal twitter account, Antonelli took it upon himself to track down my work e-mail and phone number, first e-mailing a poorly thought out threat to come down to my workplace and do something or other, and then telephoning my office to confirm I was employed there. This didn't go anywhere, since no one I work for or with regarded his outrage as anything other than the ravings of a clearly unbalanced fool, but it does show that, like most of the Sad Puppy proponents, Antonelli is poorly regarded not for his politics, but rather for the fact that he is a jerk.

Then, on August 1st, Antonelli appeared on the Superversive SF podcast and said the following about David Gerrold [the transcription comes from Jim C Hines's facebook page and quotes from 1:00:28 in the audio file]

I really didn’t know much about [Gerrold] before the Hugo nominations came out. Following his discourse and his level of discourse as a result, I personally wrote a letter addressed to the police chief in Spokane and said I thought the man was insane and a public danger and needs to be watched when the convention’s going on, and I mean it. I attached my business card. I said this guy’s inciting to violence. Somebody—a weak-minded might attack somebody because of his relentless strength of abuse. I think, honestly, I think he belongs in a secure psychiatric facility.

To my ear, it was not clear in the podcast whether Antonelli was entirely serious and other participants---John C. Wright and L. Jagi Lamplighter---quite reasonably tried to defuse the comments. However, Antonelli later confirmed it to Lou Berger (in comments)

I asked Lou Antonelli if he really wrote the Spokane PD and he replied:

"I said I thought Gerrold's on-line comments were so intemperate they were an incitement to violence, which is what I believe. I wanted them to know in case there were any disruptions at the convention."

He's a newspaper editor, he says, and has been attacked and roughed up in his office over a political dispute. When I asked him if he wrote that David was a "dangerous criminal," he replied:

"No, I just suggested they (the PD) be aware of the controversy and possibility of people getting, uhh, maybe too enthused."

So it appears that he merely wanted to inform that there is an ongoing divide in process and, even though he believes David to be a pro, he's concerned that somebody on David's "side" will escalate and do something stupid.

At the time, there was no indication of what comments by Gerrold had set Antonelli off, and Gerrold said he could recall nothing that might have been misinterpreted this way (see the comments). Later, Gerrold suggested that it may refer to intemperate comments made by other posters following an older blog post of his about the Hugo Awards.

In a relatively short amount of time, Antonelli offered an apology to Gerrold on Jim C Hines's facebook page:

Thanks for your polite request for an explanation. I’ve thought about what to say, which is painful to admit.

It’s become public that on July 1st I wrote a letter to the chief of the Spokane Police Department expressing some concerns over potential security issues at the upcoming Sasquan.

I’m sorry for what I did. Without looking at the big picture I reacted in a manner that I thought I was being treated. It was stupid and wrong. My subsequent participation on a podcast was also a mistake because the environment further fueled my fear and I lashed out again.

I’m sorry I bothered the Spokane PD. They probably are ready to throw the butterfly net over ME when I enter the city. And I’m sorry and apologize to David Gerrold. He probably understands why I did what I did better than I do.

I need to ponder the hurt I have caused. To give me time to think, after Sasquan I am taking a half-year hiatus from attending any conventions and/or submitting any fiction.
I think I’ve become my own crazy uncle ...

Antonelli also followed up the apology (further in the comments) by promising to write to the Spokane police to clear up the mess.

In my opinion, this is a pretty good apology. It accepts responsibility and, together with the commitment to contact Spokane PD, outlines a plan for atonement. It is certainly than the apology offered by Irene Gallo in response to her now famous "neo-nazi" rant:

There are two extreme right-wing to neo-nazi groups, called the Sad Puppies and the Rabid Puppies respectively, that are calling for the end of social justice in science fiction and fantasy. They are unrepentantly racist, sexist and homophobic. A noisy few but they’ve been able to gather some Gamergate folks around them and elect a slate of bad-to-reprehensible works on this year’s Hugo ballot.

who apologized to anyone hurt by her remarks without apologizing for the remarks themselves:

About my Sad/Rabid Puppies comments: They were solely mine. This is my personal page; I do not speak on behalf of Tor Books or Tor.com. I realize I painted too broad a brush and hurt some individuals, some of whom are published by Tor Books and some of whom are Hugo Award winners. I apologize to anyone hurt by my comments.

And it is far far better than the apology offered by Brad Torgersen following his homophobic tweet about John Scalzi:

which amounted to an apology for insinuating that Scalzi is gay, and not for suggesting that there is something wrong with being gay:

Antonelli has begun to face professional consequences as indicated in his following facebook post:

Oh, from the Actions Have Consequences Dept., Lakeside Circus has revoked its signed contract for my story "Message Found Written on an End Roll of Newsprint":

---

Mr. Antonelli,

I have just become aware of comments you made regarding contacting the police about David Gerrold, over his comments about the Hugo Awards.

While your stance on, and involvement in, the Hugo voting slates is, we feel, a personal choice, and outside of our interests, taking this action moves away from protected speech, and into a concrete effort to threaten someone's safety and livelihood.

Because of this, we will not be publishing your story in our next issue, and would suggest that we are unlikely to be a good fit for your work in the future.

Thank you.

Carrie Cuinn
Editor-in-Chief

---

You do stupid and bad stuff, you get slapped.

Again, I thought Antonelli responded to this in about the best way possible.

Let's make no mistake: what Antonelli did was wrong. Very wrong. Nothing that has happened can excuse what he did, although placing it in the context of his newspaper work and the many intemperate comments made by both sides of the Hugo Controversy does make it somewhat more understandable. The profession should not forget, and forgiveness will take some time. But forgiveness is what the profession and fandom need, and I was pleased to see David Gerrold accept Antonelli's apology, and to see John Scalzi and many others take the moral high road following the apology. I said as much on twitter. And in doing so, apparently earned a spanking from K. Tempest Bradford. More on that tomorrow.