Wolfe at conventions

The Urth list — 2 messages, 2 voices, 27 Jul 2003
https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/4118

Steve Case27 Jul 2003, 05:32original
All this talk of proposed Wolfe symposiums or whatnot has me wondering: where can one hope to run into Wolfe around the Chicago area? I mean, he lives around here, doesn't he? I've never been to a 'con before. Is it worth attending some in the Chicago area in the hopes of running into Mr. Wolfe? -Steve (who, if he had to decide on a Vironese name, would pick Badger)
silk tree27 Jul 2003, 14:37original

↳ follows, by subject match Steve Case

2 quoted lines
On Sunday, July 27, 2003, at 12:32 AM, Steve Case wrote: All this talk of proposed Wolfe symposiums or whatnot has me wondering: where can one hope to run into Wolfe around theChicagoarea? I mean, he lives around here, doesn’t he? I’ve never been to a ‘con before. Is it worth attending some in theChicagoarea in the hopes of running into Mr. Wolfe?
I've seen him at WindyCon. He signed some books and was on some panels -- one including mixing genres. He's not listed as a guest at this year's WindyCon, at least on this page: http://www.windycon.org/guests.asp Btw, when I first joined the list a long time ago, and people were talking about whether the ghost was real, I reported that at this con, he said the ghost was real. After being here for more than a year or so, and reading the discussions, I do not think you can take this to mean that he said it was a real ghost. :) It could be a real something or the other, but I can't actually remember if he explicitly said it was a real ghost. Otoh, maybe I'm being silly.
1 quoted line
 -Steve (who, if he had to decide on a Vironese name, would pick Badger)
Sign Badger then! :) mimosa

Exported from an unofficial mirror of a public mailing list. Copyright in each message remains with the person who wrote it. Email addresses are obscured as `user at host`, the form the original archive published. This file was rebuilt from parsed fields rather than retained headers, so it is faithful in content but not byte-exact.