> One assumes that you meant "libel"?
> Why would they be sued for libel, anyway? Who have they libelled?
> Misrepresented, maybe, but hardly a case of libel, surely?
8-)
Your right the publishers have *probably* not libelled anyone, I was
just exagerating my point, eg:- the fact that GC *allegedly* had agreed
to, and has given this interview, and now we have Mr Rich stating the
exact opposite to what GC *allegedly* said in the interview?
Mr Rich stated "The stories and statements on the Internet and in the UK
and US magazines are speculation and rumour" - surely this means that he
is saying the article is not correct? or, he is saying what GC
*allegedly* said was not correct?
He *must* be saying one or the other? GC appears to be saying GP3 *is*
coming, Microprose (through Mr Rich) is saying it is not!!!
Confused, you will be?
I personally put more weight behind what GC says, than what Mr Rich
says? We shall see......
8-)
*Peter* 8-)
(NB: remove asterix to e-mail)