Caineach wrote:Again, can you point me to some of these original reasonable complaints? I quoted earlier from the Sad Puppies 2 slate post. Was that reasonable?MMCJawa wrote:
at any rate I think it best we not go into the motivation and pros and cons of the sad puppies. This year they did distinguish themselves from the rabid puppies by not doing a voting slate and don't seem (IMHO) to be trolling the Hugos.
Although I am curious to see the reactions of the personalities involved. So far I can only find, from that faction, Larry Correia, who blames the Chuck Tingle nom on the Hugo's voting No Award. Which...err...yeah..doesn't make sense to me.
It's clear though, even if there was maybe a bit uncertainty last year, that the Rabid puppies slate is much more problematic, and almost certainly their efforts on putting tripe like dinosaur erotica on the nom lists will ensure that the proposed voting changes will pass this year.
They never were trolling the Hugos. Seriously.
I think Synova's comment about Straw Larry from Larry's post sums up a lot of the Sad Puppies feelings. They ignored Sad Puppies complaints when reasonable people were complaining, then mocked and made fun of them, so now they get the unreasonable people who just want to see them burn.
Yes. Calling some of the things I've seen nominated outside of the puppies screed is a compliment to excrement.