"Raksha" <Raksha@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:4119cd71.46911675@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 03:39:34 EST, sidecutter@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
("Orson
> \"Sidecutter\" Christian") wrote:
> That's exactly what I'm saying. I was front-and-center to witness it
> at BotCon 2002. You may recall (or you may not), that the "dinner
> exclusive" that year was nothing more than a couple of toys that were
> available in the stores already - and even if they weren't going to be
> released for another week, they were still exactly and precisely the
> same thing that would be available in the stores.
And yet how does that lessen the effort? While you rightly concede that
the
lack of actual exclusives was not 3H's fault (see the dichotomy? When it
was "3H" you can admit it may have been extenuating cir***stances. When
it's "1H", it must be Glen's ineptitude, automatically), you seem to be
missing the effort that was gone to for the fans. 3H got hold of toys
that
were not supposed to be in stores, according to Hasbro, until
August/September. So 3H made a *special arrangement* to get hold of some
of
these toys as a treat for the dinner attendees. He had no way to know,
and
no way to fix the situation, when these same toys showed up in retail
stores
about two weeks before the con happened. And if they had indeed not shown
up in stores until after the con, I have a very hard time believing you
would still ridicule the choice. I suspect, instead, that you would laud
3H
for going to the effort to get us something early like that when the
exclusive fell through.
And then there was
> an "advance preview" of the first episode of Armada. Oooh. Something
> *else* that was going to be available in the very near future, and for
> free.
And so was the Beast Machines preview in 99. I don't recall you harping
on
that. Seeing an episode of a show early is a special event. This stuff
is
generally not *allowed* to be seen outside the comapnies involved with it
until it's done, and for good reason. Showing this episodes shows exactly
how much effort and intent was put into the idea.
Now, by the time of the organizer's panel, everyone pretty well
> understood that the lack of an actual dinner exclusive had something
> to do with Hasbro or the animation studio or some-such, and happened
> at the last moment through no fault or control of the BotCon
> organizers. None the less, it was their responsibility to make it
> right in some manner.
Addressed above, moving on.
So one fan stood up and mentioned that the pair
> of non-exclusive toys and a cartoon episode really wasn't worth the
> $70 she had paid for the dinner, and whether there was going to be any
> kind of compensation or extra item sent out afterwards to those who
> attended. There were even some suggestions and ideas given, in the
> spirit of trying to help, not criticize. She wasn't rude, she wasn't
> loud, but she said her piece and she was *right* ... what those
> attendees got, was not what they were promised, and was not worth $70.
*schreech* I'm sorry. Please do show me a copy of the 2002 materiels
where
it was EVER promised that there would be *any* kind of dinner exclusive.
It
was not. Though exclusives may have been a tradition, they were *not* a
guarantee. And treating them as such is unfair. Instead, your fellow fan
chose to ignore all the hard work, effort, and intent of what we did get,
no
doubt through much last minute hard work from 3H themselves after the
exclusives fell through, and harp on the things they did for us unfairly.
If she had thought about the matter at all, she would have realized that
they tried to do something very special for us by getting us toys and a
show
early (without a no-cameras clause, to boot! That is NOT easy to do!),
and
were thwarted only by the bad timing of Wallyworld.
> She was cavalierly blown off by Glen, whereupon she left the room ...
> whereupon he made snide and heckling remarks about her. Highly
> unprofessional.
I'm sorry. I was AT that dinner. I do not recall any such remarks being
made about her, or any other fan at that event. Or maybe this is another
situation where you're taking one part of a statement, and presenting it
with the worst possible spin on it, like you tried to do with Glen's words
at the panel.
Almost even more revolting were those other fans who
> later said there was some outrage in somebody standing up and telling
> it like it was, as though it were a crime to complain about
> less-than-stellar customer service.
At the dinner, I think they're right to an extent. Rather than standing
up
and disrupting the event with these issues, they should have been handled
after the close of the dinner during the mingling time, or at the next
appropriate time and place, such as at the OTFCC tables in the dealer
room.
Standing up and whining because you didn't get a special present that was
never actually promised by anyone is bad form.
> I happen to know that this manner of thing has happened
> elsewhere as well. Again, completely unprofessional, especially when
> one is trying to present oneself as "official."
Based on how you've attempted to manhandle Glen's words this year, I think
I
require corroboration from a few other fans who *aren't* part of your
Glen-Haters group to confirm such things. I await someone to confirm that
Glen said anything nasty about that fan once she left the dinner.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.736 / Virus Database: 490 - Release Date: 8/9/2004
|
