First, too many people on the panel (6). Any three of whom would have covered the topic adequately and with less clique-ism. When you've got people who are sufficiently aggressive as to drown out Cory Doctorow you know you're doing something wrong. (Cory took it in good humor, never fear.)
Second, elitism is so last decade. The number of statement of the form "I can't wait until steampunk stops being trendy so I can go back to having my cool obscure interest to myself" was just full-on tiresome. "Thou shalt not stop liking a band just because they've come popular."
Third, faux-Victorian manners are fun as long as you're not using them to be a raving asshole, particularly to an audience member. ESPECIALLY when said audience member is a younger female. And when you're called on it, the proper response is to apologize, not bluster and make excuses.
Finally, learn some history, children. Steampunk was not formulated as a response to the negativity of cyberpunk. Doctorow and I couldn't be certain if it was the first such novel, but certainly the novel for which the term "Steampunk" was coined was The Difference Engine by Bruce Sterling and William Gibson. Who, I can personally assure you, were not writing in reaction to the genre they'd helped create.
By sheer coincidence I happen to be reading Sterling's Shaping Things. This book-essay discusses different types of created items and the social systems that support them. It uses a language of Artifacts, Machines, Products, and Gizmos. Relevant to this posting, Artifacts are hand-crafted things supported by an artisan culture. Gizmos are feature-laden, highly customized manipulable objects. Artifacts are used by hunter-farmers; people with an infrastructure of gizmos are "end users."
It occurs to me that steampunks are end users rejecting gizmo culture and reaching back for the artifact notions of creation, while retaining the "kit bashing" customization sensibilities of the gizmo culture they're rejecting.
And now I have more of Pi-con to enjoy...