I dont remeber ever stating that Mr. Johns was out to <eventually
destroy free speech on the internet>. I simply pointed out that his
article was a blast at anyone who responds to software developers
with less than an articulate tongue(pen). It would then follow that if
Mr. Johns had his way then all those who either cannot write with
diplomacy or otherwise express themselves in a manner to Mr. Johns
liking should shut up. This is the inference, no the fact. The whole tone
and thesis was of the :fragile balance" between customer and developer.
As for the "hidden agenda". It is not hidden at all. Mr.Johns takes the
public podium and tells us not to bug the developers or else they may
take their ball and go home. Now, if we all shut up will Mr.Johns? No,
and may he keep on writing. I referred to his ideas as having more than
a ring of censorship. If he's telling me to shut up then how much clearer
can it be? We didn't yell fire in a crowded theater. We just voiced our
opinion to the powers that be. A right Mr. Johns exercises in his Sim News
article. And I have the right to disagree with him.
I have no malice or anger towards Mr. Johns. I just think his article is
off base. Developers who would run away from releasing a product because
someone flames them don't exist. If I infringe on Segas' license to Daytona
how in the world will that keep Papyrus/Sierra from releasing it when the
license expires?
Ahhh Tony, dont throw in the towel. I like your leagues race summaries.
Regards,
Greg
Greg, You're right about the fact that if you infringe on Daytona's
rights, it may not affect Papyrus, but it will get you in a boatload of
legal trouble :).
Adam
Papyrus
Ya know, i'm getting sick of these morons in here. It's bad enough we
lost Jed, do you want to lose Tony now too?
It seems as though my kill file is getting rather large lately <g>
Keith Speroni
http://www.geocities.com/motorcity/2172
I tried to send you an e-mail, Greg, but Compuserve didn't like the
address in the reply-to section, sooooooooooooo... apologies to all.
shooting through ***space:
Excuse me, Greg, but have I ever ONCE told anyone to shut up? Okay,
dumb question, since in your mind I have. However, I defy you or
ANYONE to provide ANY proof that I am telling people to shut up, not
to express an opinion, or anything else to that effect, either in my
SRN article or in any other forum. Your insinuation is not only
defaming but quite insulting. I don't deny your right to voice an
opinion, but I DO take great exception to character assassination -- I
don't have to take that quietly any more than anyone else.
To get back to the matter at hand, you really misrepresent my argument
here. Tell me if you can differentiate the following fictional
articles:
"dear ed and adam, ect. you guys suck, your just trying to rip us
off, im gonna post the daytona patch and the track pack on my site and
then everyone can get it for free because im kewl"
...not at a comment like this:
"ed why cant papyrus listen to the people that buy their sims? we've
asked for months for an update but there isnt one. i'm not going to
buy any of your products again"
What these two posts have in common is that they are both flames. The
difference is that the latter is a CONSTRUCTIVE flame, while the
former is a non-constructive flame PLUS an advocation of software
piracy. Yes, even constructive flames are dismaying and irritating.
But if it has a point, that takes issue with a situation that needs
solving, then however bluntly or simply put it serves a useful purpose
(here we actually agree on something). But tell me, Greg, what
purpose would a flame like the first one serve? Some might say to
"intimidate" the companies into hurrying the release of a product.
Uh-huh. Right. What it ACTUALLY does is tell software companies that
their presence on the Internet is a liability, not an advantage.
Certainly that does not stop them from going ahead with their releases
(for instance, Daytona for NASCAR Racing) but it DOES significantly
reduce their enthusiasm to participate in Internet forums.
I'd disagree with you here, since your e-mail was quite a bit more
inflammatory than your Usenet post that I'm replying to -- telling me
that I have a hidden agenda to be a power broker in sim racing because
of sponsoring the RFD? That I violate people's free speech by voicing
an opinion against piracy and useless flaming? You have a right to
your opinion, Greg, but I have a right to defend myself and my
motives. I can't force anyone to change their minds or make them shut
up any more than I can tell Niagra Falls to flow upwards instead of
down. All I can do is voice an opinion. You have the right to
disagree. But IMHO your "hidden agenda" theory, while patently
insulting to me personally, also discredits your argument as paranoia.
I'd be foolish to think this reply is going to end it all, but I've
said my peace. I'm satisfied that I spoke my mind to my satisfaction,
and this is the last I'm personally going to say about it.
--
IWCCCARS Project Coordinator
[link lost in import]
Hawaii: IWCCCARS
> I have no malice or anger towards Mr. Johns. I just think his article is
>off base. Developers who would run away from releasing a product because
>someone flames them don't exist. If I infringe on Segas' license to Daytona
>how in the world will that keep Papyrus/Sierra from releasing it when the
>license expires?
Developers and companies maybe, but I do think that a lot of the little
personal touches and details that we all love come not from the marketing
guys who would release the product either way, but from the programmers that
really care about the product and care in a smaller way about pleasing us fans.
The programmers are the ones who stay up the latenights making sure that the
track has the right feel to it, that you will have the spotters you asked
for and that there is a towtruck to pull you back to the pits.
When you flame the programmer and give him/her a bad attitude about the
customer in general, you are likely to get a much poorer product, and
when you do this you are not hurting just yourself but us all.
There are ways of explaining deficiencies and problems with tact...
Useless flaming does nothing more than show lack of thinking, and I
doubt if it gets better results than a more careful thought-out post would
do better.
Think about it if you were in their shoes before you flame them.
Cheers.
--John
--
-------------------
John (Joao) Silva
http://weber.u.washington.edu/~jsilva
Seattle, Washington USA.
Sorry all didn't mean to call everyone morons just the people ruining
it for us.
Keith Speroni
