Comments on: Don’t drink at the Hyatt http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2008/07/16/dont-drink-at-the-hyatt/ The News Blog of Comics Culture Tue, 02 Dec 2008 05:24:05 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.2 by: AndrewTunney http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2008/07/16/dont-drink-at-the-hyatt/#comment-2087591 Mon, 04 Aug 2008 10:39:14 +0000 http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2008/07/16/dont-drink-at-the-hyatt/#comment-2087591 Well, dang... I went to the Hyatt, got pretty nicely drunk, hung out with my friends who I only get to see once a year, had a great time and met Joss Whedon. Does that make me (and Joss too I guess) some kind of terrible wrong person? If it makes it any better though, I didn't tip. But that's because I'm English and I just forgot :( Well, dang… I went to the Hyatt, got pretty nicely drunk, hung out with my friends who I only get to see once a year, had a great time and met Joss Whedon.

Does that make me (and Joss too I guess) some kind of terrible wrong person?

If it makes it any better though, I didn’t tip. But that’s because I’m English and I just forgot :(

]]> by: taking tiger mountain » Blog Archive » Oh Hai, Internet. I See You Were Here While I Was Out - Post Comicon http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2008/07/16/dont-drink-at-the-hyatt/#comment-2075110 Sat, 02 Aug 2008 23:34:51 +0000 http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2008/07/16/dont-drink-at-the-hyatt/#comment-2075110 [...] Anyhoo, I was drinking a solitary whiskey on the rocks of the evening, sitting outside at the Hyatt (yeah, too lazy to adhere to the boycott…it’s ok I didn’t pay for the drink) checking Google Analytics out of nervous boredom. Thanks primarily to Demi of This Next and her massive Stumbleupon influence, I found myself with a sizable spike in traffic. Moments later, my friend Andrew came running up looking like he’d witnessed the birth of his child, when he’d actually bumped into a slightly inebriated Joss Whedon *and* had a chance to chat with him. [...] […] Anyhoo, I was drinking a solitary whiskey on the rocks of the evening, sitting outside at the Hyatt (yeah, too lazy to adhere to the boycott…it’s ok I didn’t pay for the drink) checking Google Analytics out of nervous boredom. Thanks primarily to Demi of This Next and her massive Stumbleupon influence, I found myself with a sizable spike in traffic. Moments later, my friend Andrew came running up looking like he’d witnessed the birth of his child, when he’d actually bumped into a slightly inebriated Joss Whedon *and* had a chance to chat with him. […]

]]> by: JWH http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2008/07/16/dont-drink-at-the-hyatt/#comment-2012966 Sat, 26 Jul 2008 03:15:07 +0000 http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2008/07/16/dont-drink-at-the-hyatt/#comment-2012966 If they don't buy any drinks there...so they aren't supporting the ass...and they are keeping paying customers from having a spot to sit and patronize the establishment...how are they not striking some sort of blow and are only keeping themselves from feeling like they are compromising their principles (with the implication clear that you think they are eschewing principles altogether)? If they don’t buy any drinks there…so they aren’t supporting the ass…and they are keeping paying customers from having a spot to sit and patronize the establishment…how are they not striking some sort of blow and are only keeping themselves from feeling like they are compromising their principles (with the implication clear that you think they are eschewing principles altogether)?

]]> by: David Campbell http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2008/07/16/dont-drink-at-the-hyatt/#comment-2012376 Sat, 26 Jul 2008 01:37:08 +0000 http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2008/07/16/dont-drink-at-the-hyatt/#comment-2012376 But if nobody knows it's a protest, it's not a protest. I think some people just want to hang out at the Hyatt bar with their friends and pros but feel guilty about it, so instead of a) really protesting or b) going to one of the dozens of much cooler bars in San Diego instead, they've come up with this idea so they can drink there without feeling like they're compromising their principles. But if nobody knows it’s a protest, it’s not a protest.

I think some people just want to hang out at the Hyatt bar with their friends and pros but feel guilty about it, so instead of a) really protesting or b) going to one of the dozens of much cooler bars in San Diego instead, they’ve come up with this idea so they can drink there without feeling like they’re compromising their principles.

]]> by: JWH http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2008/07/16/dont-drink-at-the-hyatt/#comment-2011664 Fri, 25 Jul 2008 23:55:31 +0000 http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2008/07/16/dont-drink-at-the-hyatt/#comment-2011664 Ummm...Mr. Campbell, I actually think that would be a form of protesting. Just make sure to tip the servers as long as you're taking up space from other customers and it's copacetic and protesterrific. Ummm…Mr. Campbell, I actually think that would be a form of protesting. Just make sure to tip the servers as long as you’re taking up space from other customers and it’s copacetic and protesterrific.

]]> by: David Campbell http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2008/07/16/dont-drink-at-the-hyatt/#comment-2010717 Fri, 25 Jul 2008 21:28:06 +0000 http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2008/07/16/dont-drink-at-the-hyatt/#comment-2010717 Boycott? Absolutely. But don't show up at the Hyatt with your own booze and take up space that could be taken up by paying customers - that's not protesting, that's just being an asshole. Boycott? Absolutely. But don’t show up at the Hyatt with your own booze and take up space that could be taken up by paying customers - that’s not protesting, that’s just being an asshole.

]]> by: Jessica http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2008/07/16/dont-drink-at-the-hyatt/#comment-2010645 Fri, 25 Jul 2008 21:06:09 +0000 http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2008/07/16/dont-drink-at-the-hyatt/#comment-2010645 I am in full agreement with the boycott. I wont be spending my money at the Hyatt. But if you do still go, don't try to boycott by not tipping your server. They have nothing to do with Doug Manchesters donation, they are just making a living. I am in full agreement with the boycott. I wont be spending my money at the Hyatt. But if you do still go, don’t try to boycott by not tipping your server. They have nothing to do with Doug Manchesters donation, they are just making a living.

]]> by: kalinara http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2008/07/16/dont-drink-at-the-hyatt/#comment-2009455 Fri, 25 Jul 2008 17:42:36 +0000 http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2008/07/16/dont-drink-at-the-hyatt/#comment-2009455 <i>The vast majority of people don’t want to see a bunch of angry nerds yelling and waving signs outside of their hotel room</i> So...this would be a protest that would annoy the Hyatt customers, possibly drive away or negatively impair Hyatt's business, give them bad publicity and would make them uncomfortable. You're right. God forbid people be made uncomfortable by a protest! I think you may have missed the point of the whole endeavor. The vast majority of people don’t want to see a bunch of angry nerds yelling and waving signs outside of their hotel room

So…this would be a protest that would annoy the Hyatt customers, possibly drive away or negatively impair Hyatt’s business, give them bad publicity and would make them uncomfortable. You’re right. God forbid people be made uncomfortable by a protest!

I think you may have missed the point of the whole endeavor.

]]> by: Ken Lowery http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2008/07/16/dont-drink-at-the-hyatt/#comment-2009027 Fri, 25 Jul 2008 16:16:45 +0000 http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2008/07/16/dont-drink-at-the-hyatt/#comment-2009027 This is the stupidest, most cowardly and pathetic thread I have ever read. Spurgeon was funny, though. This is the stupidest, most cowardly and pathetic thread I have ever read.

Spurgeon was funny, though.

]]> by: jordan http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2008/07/16/dont-drink-at-the-hyatt/#comment-2004645 Fri, 25 Jul 2008 03:49:28 +0000 http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2008/07/16/dont-drink-at-the-hyatt/#comment-2004645 Hmmmm. Finally a hotel worth respecting. Glad I'm stayin there. Good place really. Nice, comfy with big fluffy pillow and donate to causes they feel strong about. I go to alot of places that give to causes that I could care less about.( "Save the slugs", "eat dirt save a cow", "Shower less save more water"). You know..all those idiotic leftist causes. But if I like the product, why wouldnt I frequent those places. Well...cause I'm ACTUALLY tolerant while I preach it less. While others (apparently our hostest included- sadly) PREACHES it and practices it less. I'll not only make a point to frequent the Hyatt MORE, but will promote it every chance I get. THANKS! AND HAVE GREAT CON EVERYONE. Hmmmm. Finally a hotel worth respecting. Glad I’m stayin there. Good place really. Nice, comfy with big fluffy pillow and donate to causes they feel strong about.
I go to alot of places that give to causes that I could care less about.( “Save the slugs”, “eat dirt save a cow”, “Shower less save more water”).

You know..all those idiotic leftist causes. But if I like the product, why wouldnt I frequent those places. Well…cause I’m ACTUALLY tolerant while I preach it less. While others (apparently our hostest included- sadly) PREACHES it and practices it less.

I’ll not only make a point to frequent the Hyatt MORE, but will promote it every chance I get.

THANKS! AND HAVE GREAT CON EVERYONE.

]]> by: ZEITGEIST / The American Comic Book Industry: Making The Easy Difficult Since 1938 http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2008/07/16/dont-drink-at-the-hyatt/#comment-1959659 Fri, 18 Jul 2008 23:07:41 +0000 http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2008/07/16/dont-drink-at-the-hyatt/#comment-1959659 [...] The American Comic Book Industry: Making The Easy Difficult Since 1938 The amount of needless agonizing and fussiness indulged in by members of the American comics industry and fan cultures when confronted with a potential ethical choice is always fun to watch, and this is doubly, perhaps triply true of the latest community brouhaha: the notion that comics industry scene-makers at the forthcoming San Diego Con might want to think about (gasp!) drinking someplace other than the bars owned by someone at this very moment openly supporting a specific political agenda with which they might strongly disagree. Poke around places like here and here and you see the usual dissembling and "not the boss of me" proclamations: let's do something "creative" instead of having to make the choice that seems to be presented to us, you're denying this person's right to free speech, I'll go but I won't like it/cooperate/buy as much as I might otherwise, our actions don't matter in the long run, you're hurting the people that are employed by this person, comics is a bunch of mob-minded lefties, for all you know the owners of the Westin could maintain a dungeon filled with nine-year-old sex slaves, and so on. As tends to be the case with comics folk post-1990 or so pressed to make some kind of simple decision that doesn't directly benefit them, the flailing about can be fairly awesome to behold. The issue as presented seems clear to me: whether or not to patronize a business when you learn the owner is supporting a stance on public policy that upsets people with whom you work and are thus asking you to consider another option. That seems like a clear decision to make with simple options in response: yes, no, I don't care. Even better, which bar to drink in is maybe the lowest set of stakes for a decision possible in this world. Easy, right? Apparently not. I'm baffled why it should take anything more than prominent people in the comics industry declaring they're uncomfortable with a business this year to make folks consider with seriousness and respect the courtesy of a bare-minimum effort to patronize another place until the situation shakes out. Instead, the response from many people seems to be finding ways to justify continued patronage as if this were a very, very precious thing. In fact, most of the rationalizing being done on behalf of continued patronage not only invests it with importance, it seems to presume one's decision to hang out and drink in a certain location comes as the fulfillment of an expectation for received business that no entity on earth should get to claim or have claimed on its behalf. The end result: no one simply disagrees. Rather, there seems to be a compulsion that one agree with the spirit of the objection being made and explain why they can't do anything about it. The problem is that the reasons floated to justify holding both positions don't make a lot of sense, or make much less sense than picking a side and seeing it through to conclusion. For instance, saying a decision to socialize elsewhere "only hurts the wait staff" is loopy. You're not withholding anything from those folks simply by walking past their place of business, not in the way you're asserting. You're simply patronizing another business with its own equally deserving-of-your-money wait staff whose majority-stakes owners have managed not to make a strident public stance that has your fellow industry members uncomfortable with going there. This bears underlining. There are people who need the money on the other side of every single decision to patronize or not patronize a business for every reason possible, from one based in an ethical choice or sympathy for another's position like this one to one based on simply liking the carpets more in one business over another. Why should the wait staff at the Hyatt not get your tip money because their boss supports a certain policy? Well, why should the wait staff at not-Hyatt not get your tip money because you drank at the Hyatt last year and the year before that? What did those not-Hyatt people ever do to you? Where are their champions? It's a made-up argument covered in a shoddy coat of freshman dorm hallway class politics. The person that argued that the Marriott's bar is too small to host enough people to be a suitable substitute may have sounded crass in comparison to the comics industry's freshly minted crew of Emma Goldmans, but that argument is at least driven by a standard that holds up to basic scrutiny. In the end it's not very surprising that people in comics make complicated a simple issue, because far too many people in comics faced with any issue at all shrug their shoulders, work like hell to come up with a wacky, left-field solution or to make cloudy the waters, and then end up doing what's most convenient for them or most flattering to their sense of self and place. Too many comics folk fight harder for the right to walk their own path than ever fight for anything that matters, if only to someone else. I expect the Hyatt's bars to be packed. [...] […] The American Comic Book Industry: Making The Easy Difficult Since 1938 The amount of needless agonizing and fussiness indulged in by members of the American comics industry and fan cultures when confronted with a potential ethical choice is always fun to watch, and this is doubly, perhaps triply true of the latest community brouhaha: the notion that comics industry scene-makers at the forthcoming San Diego Con might want to think about (gasp!) drinking someplace other than the bars owned by someone at this very moment openly supporting a specific political agenda with which they might strongly disagree. Poke around places like here and here and you see the usual dissembling and “not the boss of me” proclamations: let’s do something “creative” instead of having to make the choice that seems to be presented to us, you’re denying this person’s right to free speech, I’ll go but I won’t like it/cooperate/buy as much as I might otherwise, our actions don’t matter in the long run, you’re hurting the people that are employed by this person, comics is a bunch of mob-minded lefties, for all you know the owners of the Westin could maintain a dungeon filled with nine-year-old sex slaves, and so on. As tends to be the case with comics folk post-1990 or so pressed to make some kind of simple decision that doesn’t directly benefit them, the flailing about can be fairly awesome to behold. The issue as presented seems clear to me: whether or not to patronize a business when you learn the owner is supporting a stance on public policy that upsets people with whom you work and are thus asking you to consider another option. That seems like a clear decision to make with simple options in response: yes, no, I don’t care. Even better, which bar to drink in is maybe the lowest set of stakes for a decision possible in this world. Easy, right? Apparently not. I’m baffled why it should take anything more than prominent people in the comics industry declaring they’re uncomfortable with a business this year to make folks consider with seriousness and respect the courtesy of a bare-minimum effort to patronize another place until the situation shakes out. Instead, the response from many people seems to be finding ways to justify continued patronage as if this were a very, very precious thing. In fact, most of the rationalizing being done on behalf of continued patronage not only invests it with importance, it seems to presume one’s decision to hang out and drink in a certain location comes as the fulfillment of an expectation for received business that no entity on earth should get to claim or have claimed on its behalf. The end result: no one simply disagrees. Rather, there seems to be a compulsion that one agree with the spirit of the objection being made and explain why they can’t do anything about it. The problem is that the reasons floated to justify holding both positions don’t make a lot of sense, or make much less sense than picking a side and seeing it through to conclusion. For instance, saying a decision to socialize elsewhere “only hurts the wait staff” is loopy. You’re not withholding anything from those folks simply by walking past their place of business, not in the way you’re asserting. You’re simply patronizing another business with its own equally deserving-of-your-money wait staff whose majority-stakes owners have managed not to make a strident public stance that has your fellow industry members uncomfortable with going there. This bears underlining. There are people who need the money on the other side of every single decision to patronize or not patronize a business for every reason possible, from one based in an ethical choice or sympathy for another’s position like this one to one based on simply liking the carpets more in one business over another. Why should the wait staff at the Hyatt not get your tip money because their boss supports a certain policy? Well, why should the wait staff at not-Hyatt not get your tip money because you drank at the Hyatt last year and the year before that? What did those not-Hyatt people ever do to you? Where are their champions? It’s a made-up argument covered in a shoddy coat of freshman dorm hallway class politics. The person that argued that the Marriott’s bar is too small to host enough people to be a suitable substitute may have sounded crass in comparison to the comics industry’s freshly minted crew of Emma Goldmans, but that argument is at least driven by a standard that holds up to basic scrutiny. In the end it’s not very surprising that people in comics make complicated a simple issue, because far too many people in comics faced with any issue at all shrug their shoulders, work like hell to come up with a wacky, left-field solution or to make cloudy the waters, and then end up doing what’s most convenient for them or most flattering to their sense of self and place. Too many comics folk fight harder for the right to walk their own path than ever fight for anything that matters, if only to someone else. I expect the Hyatt’s bars to be packed. […]

]]> by: ZEITGEIST / The American Comic Book Industry: Making The Easy Difficult Since 1938 http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2008/07/16/dont-drink-at-the-hyatt/#comment-1959656 Fri, 18 Jul 2008 23:06:37 +0000 http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2008/07/16/dont-drink-at-the-hyatt/#comment-1959656 [...] The American Comic Book Industry: Making The Easy Difficult Since 1938 The amount of needless agonizing and fussiness indulged in by members of the American comics industry and fan cultures when confronted with a potential ethical choice is always fun to watch, and this is doubly, perhaps triply true of the latest community brouhaha: the notion that comics industry scene-makers at the forthcoming San Diego Con might want to think about (gasp!) drinking someplace other than the bars owned by someone at this very moment openly supporting a specific political agenda with which they might strongly disagree. Poke around places like here and here and you see the usual dissembling and "not the boss of me" proclamations: let's do something "creative" instead of having to make the choice that seems to be presented to us, you're denying this person's right to free speech, I'll go but I won't like it/cooperate/buy as much as I might otherwise, our actions don't matter in the long run, you're hurting the people that are employed by this person, comics is a bunch of mob-minded lefties, for all you know the owners of the Westin could maintain a dungeon filled with nine-year-old sex slaves, and so on. As tends to be the case with comics folk post-1990 or so pressed to make some kind of simple decision that doesn't directly benefit them, the flailing about can be fairly awesome to behold. The issue as presented seems clear to me: whether or not to patronize a business when you learn the owner is supporting a stance on public policy that upsets people with whom you work and are thus asking you to consider another option. That seems like a clear decision to make with simple options in response: yes, no, I don't care. Even better, which bar to drink in is maybe the lowest set of stakes for a decision possible in this world. Easy, right? Apparently not. I'm baffled why it should take anything more than prominent people in the comics industry declaring they're uncomfortable with a business this year to make folks consider with seriousness and respect the courtesy of a bare-minimum effort to patronize another place until the situation shakes out. Instead, the response from many people seems to be finding ways to justify continued patronage as if this were a very, very precious thing. In fact, most of the rationalizing being done on behalf of continued patronage not only invests it with importance, it seems to presume one's decision to hang out and drink in a certain location comes as the fulfillment of an expectation for received business that no entity on earth should get to claim or have claimed on its behalf. The end result: no one simply disagrees. Rather, there seems to be a compulsion that one agree with the spirit of the objection being made and explain why they can't do anything about it. The problem is that the reasons floated to justify holding both positions don't make a lot of sense, or make much less sense than picking a side and seeing it through to conclusion. For instance, saying a decision to socialize elsewhere "only hurts the wait staff" is loopy. You're not withholding anything from those folks simply by walking past their place of business, not in the way you're asserting. You're simply patronizing another business with its own equally deserving-of-your-money wait staff whose majority-stakes owners have managed not to make a strident public stance that has your fellow industry members uncomfortable with going there. This bears underlining. There are people who need the money on the other side of every single decision to patronize or not patronize a business for every reason possible, from one based in an ethical choice or sympathy for another's position like this one to one based on simply liking the carpets more in one business over another. Why should the wait staff at the Hyatt not get your tip money because their boss supports a certain policy? Well, why should the wait staff at not-Hyatt not get your tip money because you drank at the Hyatt last year and the year before that? What did those not-Hyatt people ever do to you? Where are their champions? It's a made-up argument covered in a shoddy coat of freshman dorm hallway class politics. The person that argued that the Marriott's bar is too small to host enough people to be a suitable substitute may have sounded crass in comparison to the comics industry's freshly minted crew of Emma Goldmans, but that argument is at least driven by a standard that holds up to basic scrutiny. In the end it's not very surprising that people in comics make complicated a simple issue, because far too many people in comics faced with any issue at all shrug their shoulders, work like hell to come up with a wacky, left-field solution or to make cloudy the waters, and then end up doing what's most convenient for them or most flattering to their sense of self and place. Too many comics folk fight harder for the right to walk their own path than ever fight for anything that matters, if only to someone else. I expect the Hyatt's bars to be packed. Update: Since about a half-dozen have you have asked, the owner of the Hyatt does have a small ownership stake in the Marriott as well, a property he originally developed. The primary owners and operators, however, is the Host Hotels and Resorts group. As far as I know, nobody in the comics industry has expressed you extend your decision-making process to that property. Still, if you're looking to get at Doug Manchester in all his endeavors, his ownership stake may make a difference to you deciding to go there as well. [...] […] The American Comic Book Industry: Making The Easy Difficult Since 1938 The amount of needless agonizing and fussiness indulged in by members of the American comics industry and fan cultures when confronted with a potential ethical choice is always fun to watch, and this is doubly, perhaps triply true of the latest community brouhaha: the notion that comics industry scene-makers at the forthcoming San Diego Con might want to think about (gasp!) drinking someplace other than the bars owned by someone at this very moment openly supporting a specific political agenda with which they might strongly disagree. Poke around places like here and here and you see the usual dissembling and “not the boss of me” proclamations: let’s do something “creative” instead of having to make the choice that seems to be presented to us, you’re denying this person’s right to free speech, I’ll go but I won’t like it/cooperate/buy as much as I might otherwise, our actions don’t matter in the long run, you’re hurting the people that are employed by this person, comics is a bunch of mob-minded lefties, for all you know the owners of the Westin could maintain a dungeon filled with nine-year-old sex slaves, and so on. As tends to be the case with comics folk post-1990 or so pressed to make some kind of simple decision that doesn’t directly benefit them, the flailing about can be fairly awesome to behold. The issue as presented seems clear to me: whether or not to patronize a business when you learn the owner is supporting a stance on public policy that upsets people with whom you work and are thus asking you to consider another option. That seems like a clear decision to make with simple options in response: yes, no, I don’t care. Even better, which bar to drink in is maybe the lowest set of stakes for a decision possible in this world. Easy, right? Apparently not. I’m baffled why it should take anything more than prominent people in the comics industry declaring they’re uncomfortable with a business this year to make folks consider with seriousness and respect the courtesy of a bare-minimum effort to patronize another place until the situation shakes out. Instead, the response from many people seems to be finding ways to justify continued patronage as if this were a very, very precious thing. In fact, most of the rationalizing being done on behalf of continued patronage not only invests it with importance, it seems to presume one’s decision to hang out and drink in a certain location comes as the fulfillment of an expectation for received business that no entity on earth should get to claim or have claimed on its behalf. The end result: no one simply disagrees. Rather, there seems to be a compulsion that one agree with the spirit of the objection being made and explain why they can’t do anything about it. The problem is that the reasons floated to justify holding both positions don’t make a lot of sense, or make much less sense than picking a side and seeing it through to conclusion. For instance, saying a decision to socialize elsewhere “only hurts the wait staff” is loopy. You’re not withholding anything from those folks simply by walking past their place of business, not in the way you’re asserting. You’re simply patronizing another business with its own equally deserving-of-your-money wait staff whose majority-stakes owners have managed not to make a strident public stance that has your fellow industry members uncomfortable with going there. This bears underlining. There are people who need the money on the other side of every single decision to patronize or not patronize a business for every reason possible, from one based in an ethical choice or sympathy for another’s position like this one to one based on simply liking the carpets more in one business over another. Why should the wait staff at the Hyatt not get your tip money because their boss supports a certain policy? Well, why should the wait staff at not-Hyatt not get your tip money because you drank at the Hyatt last year and the year before that? What did those not-Hyatt people ever do to you? Where are their champions? It’s a made-up argument covered in a shoddy coat of freshman dorm hallway class politics. The person that argued that the Marriott’s bar is too small to host enough people to be a suitable substitute may have sounded crass in comparison to the comics industry’s freshly minted crew of Emma Goldmans, but that argument is at least driven by a standard that holds up to basic scrutiny. In the end it’s not very surprising that people in comics make complicated a simple issue, because far too many people in comics faced with any issue at all shrug their shoulders, work like hell to come up with a wacky, left-field solution or to make cloudy the waters, and then end up doing what’s most convenient for them or most flattering to their sense of self and place. Too many comics folk fight harder for the right to walk their own path than ever fight for anything that matters, if only to someone else. I expect the Hyatt’s bars to be packed. Update: Since about a half-dozen have you have asked, the owner of the Hyatt does have a small ownership stake in the Marriott as well, a property he originally developed. The primary owners and operators, however, is the Host Hotels and Resorts group. As far as I know, nobody in the comics industry has expressed you extend your decision-making process to that property. Still, if you’re looking to get at Doug Manchester in all his endeavors, his ownership stake may make a difference to you deciding to go there as well. […]

]]> by: ~chris http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2008/07/16/dont-drink-at-the-hyatt/#comment-1957698 Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:30:46 +0000 http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2008/07/16/dont-drink-at-the-hyatt/#comment-1957698 You mean GET A CALIFORNIAN TO VOTE <b>NO</b> ON THIS. :) Chris (a <i>Local</i> ;) Californian non-liberal who believes in the separation of marriage and state) You mean GET A CALIFORNIAN TO VOTE NO ON THIS. :)

Chris (a Local ;) Californian non-liberal who believes in the separation of marriage and state)

]]> by: Brian Wood http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2008/07/16/dont-drink-at-the-hyatt/#comment-1957034 Fri, 18 Jul 2008 13:41:54 +0000 http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2008/07/16/dont-drink-at-the-hyatt/#comment-1957034 I will also say one last thing: The Prop 8 is going to a vote. The best thing anyone can do, the most effective and immediate influence anyone can have is not a boycott, not a fundraiser, not a protest, not a wedding... but rather GET A CALIFORNIAN TO VOTE ON THIS. I will also say one last thing:

The Prop 8 is going to a vote. The best thing anyone can do, the most effective and immediate influence anyone can have is not a boycott, not a fundraiser, not a protest, not a wedding… but rather GET A CALIFORNIAN TO VOTE ON THIS.

]]> by: Jarod http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2008/07/16/dont-drink-at-the-hyatt/#comment-1953052 Fri, 18 Jul 2008 01:10:04 +0000 http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2008/07/16/dont-drink-at-the-hyatt/#comment-1953052 Katherine, I'm not sure what "teh ghey" is, but my problem would be with some kind of visual demonstration at the Hyatt. The vast majority of people don't want to see a bunch of angry nerds yelling and waving signs outside of their hotel room. Prism Comics has a booth inside the show, and they are probably looked upon by most people as any other independent publisher. There's a huge difference between a legitimate business at a booth inside a convention center and a bunch of obnoxious protesters marching outside your hotel. The best way to voice your concern would be to not give the Hyatt your business, like many others have said. Protesters only make people angry, and not for the right reasons. People who see protesters waiving signs won't care one ounce what some CEO decides to do with his money. The only thing they will get angry about is that they have to wade through a bunch of angry nerds if they want to go to their room. That's what would drive families (and many other people) from the show. Just tell your friends not to go the Hyatt bar for drinks. Katherine,

I’m not sure what “teh ghey” is, but my problem would be with some kind of visual demonstration at the Hyatt. The vast majority of people don’t want to see a bunch of angry nerds yelling and waving signs outside of their hotel room. Prism Comics has a booth inside the show, and they are probably looked upon by most people as any other independent publisher. There’s a huge difference between a legitimate business at a booth inside a convention center and a bunch of obnoxious protesters marching outside your hotel.

The best way to voice your concern would be to not give the Hyatt your business, like many others have said. Protesters only make people angry, and not for the right reasons. People who see protesters waiving signs won’t care one ounce what some CEO decides to do with his money. The only thing they will get angry about is that they have to wade through a bunch of angry nerds if they want to go to their room.

That’s what would drive families (and many other people) from the show. Just tell your friends not to go the Hyatt bar for drinks.

]]> by: Chip Mosher http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2008/07/16/dont-drink-at-the-hyatt/#comment-1951621 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 19:37:42 +0000 http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2008/07/16/dont-drink-at-the-hyatt/#comment-1951621 If going to SDCC for the last 20 years (I missed maybe 5 years) has taught me ANYTHING it is to celebrate the diversity of the industry and the human race in general. I find comic folks some of the most tolerate and open people and industry around. It's why our DRINK UP is open to everyone. Which is now more relevant than before. I don't understand those who aren't tolerate - but I won't be intolerant to them. Look forward to seeing you all at the show. If going to SDCC for the last 20 years (I missed maybe 5 years) has taught me ANYTHING it is to celebrate the diversity of the industry and the human race in general. I find comic folks some of the most tolerate and open people and industry around. It’s why our DRINK UP is open to everyone. Which is now more relevant than before.

I don’t understand those who aren’t tolerate - but I won’t be intolerant to them. Look forward to seeing you all at the show.

]]> by: Tom Spurgeon http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2008/07/16/dont-drink-at-the-hyatt/#comment-1951473 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 18:45:06 +0000 http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2008/07/16/dont-drink-at-the-hyatt/#comment-1951473 Sorry, Eric, I noticed it, too; I even have a master's in history so it's pretty inexcusable. Plus I lived in Lancaster for two years! Ridiculous. In my defense, I was writing really quickly so I could get back to plotting the downfall of working class people. I am sure if we looked hard enough all the owners of all the hotels hold some political view with which we do not agree. And that they all have people working for them in some capacity who need the money. I can't imagine anything more beside the point, but I also can't imagine anything more Sisyphean than convincing the people that think these are relevant points otherwise. Sorry, Eric, I noticed it, too; I even have a master’s in history so it’s pretty inexcusable. Plus I lived in Lancaster for two years! Ridiculous.

In my defense, I was writing really quickly so I could get back to plotting the downfall of working class people.

I am sure if we looked hard enough all the owners of all the hotels hold some political view with which we do not agree. And that they all have people working for them in some capacity who need the money. I can’t imagine anything more beside the point, but I also can’t imagine anything more Sisyphean than convincing the people that think these are relevant points otherwise.

]]> by: Katherine Keller http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2008/07/16/dont-drink-at-the-hyatt/#comment-1951292 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 18:01:01 +0000 http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2008/07/16/dont-drink-at-the-hyatt/#comment-1951292 Jarod, Is your problem with the protest or with teh ghey? Because <a href="http://prismcomics.org/" rel="nofollow">Prism Comics has had a booth at the con for over 5 years now and con attendance certainly hasn't suffered because of it. Jarod,

Is your problem with the protest or with teh ghey?

Because Prism Comics has had a booth at the con for over 5 years now and con attendance certainly hasn’t suffered because of it.

]]> by: Katie Moody http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2008/07/16/dont-drink-at-the-hyatt/#comment-1951092 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 17:34:10 +0000 http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2008/07/16/dont-drink-at-the-hyatt/#comment-1951092 Also re: family friendliness, this is a BAR we're talking about, after all. I doubt many parents were planning to spirit their minors in. Also re: family friendliness, this is a BAR we’re talking about, after all. I doubt many parents were planning to spirit their minors in.

]]> by: ericshanower http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2008/07/16/dont-drink-at-the-hyatt/#comment-1951044 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 17:27:38 +0000 http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2008/07/16/dont-drink-at-the-hyatt/#comment-1951044 It's <i>Alexander</i> Hamilton, not Andrew. And how appropriate a name to bring up in this context. It’s Alexander Hamilton, not Andrew. And how appropriate a name to bring up in this context.

]]>