Firstly, It's my firm belief that the correct response of a convention committee hearing criticism of their convention, or its current or previous committees, is to prove those critics wrong by running a great event.
Secondly, it seems to me that banning your critic from your event, refusing to enter into any online discussion on the matter, and refusing to discuss it with any other persons, seems (on the face of it) to be a little odd.
Thirdly and finally, I'm trying to remember any occasion when a committee has banned a critic and then refused to discuss it, and then gone on to find that their public image has improved in any way. No success yet.
Anonymous comment spam:
2011-01-29 19:21 (from 220.127.116.11)
2011-03-05 20:59 (from 18.104.22.168)