New Words from Lord British

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Fortran Dragon

unread,
Sep 7, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/7/98
to
[This followup was posted to rec.games.computer.ultima.dragons and a
copy was sent to the cited author.]

From the Void comes Carly Staehlin-Taylor bearing this piece of Light...
> Check out www.ultima-ascension.com for a new letter from Lord British.

If Richard Garriott thinks the CGW interview was for shit then he
really needs to answer it point by point. CGW was hardly engaging in
any sort of tabloid journalism. They presented the interview and didn't
try to spin anything at all. They went out on a limb and let the
_reader_ make up their own mind.

Heck, CGW even went to the effort to provide the *unexpurgated*
transcript to their readers on Gamespot. CGW is to congratulated for
endeavouring to present the facts concerning U:A.

By making veiled accusations, by being able to smear people
without providing any evidence or information to backup his comments, RG
makes himself appear as a PR cretin of the lowest order.

I also find his assumption that the Ultima fans will mindless
believe anything that he might say incredibly insulting. He needs to
provide facts and let *us* decide or else shut up. Long gone are the
days that the Ultima fans will accept whatever he says. Ultima VIII,
Ultima Online ('there is no lag'), and the long gestation of U:A are the
reasons why.

I found the interview quite good and the experiences mentioned
quite in line with typical business practices. Let me explain.

I think Richard Garriott is the typical creative programmer. He
was better at creating products than managing people in the typical
corporate manner. He knew how to attract and keep other creative people
to work on Origin's games, each contributing as a team in the best way
they knew how.

I think after Origin was purchased by EA, Origin had to accept
EA's bureaucratic ways (that is, 'professional management') of running
Origin like a typical business. Somewhere along the way I think RG went
to some quickie management school which emphasized being highly
competitive as a manager.

At that point I think RG started hiring managers that were more
concerned about being competitive than they were about turning out good
games. The creative people that simply wanted to create left because
they didn't want to be a part of the office politics.

Thus Origin lost the hold on the talent that they had. And Origin
suffered.

A love of Ultima and skill were no longer enough. You had to to
the office politics line or else be maltreated or fired.

You can see this in the interview with Denis Loubet where you can
tell he is still loyal to RG, but that the hyper-competitive management
environment drove creative people like Loubet out.

You can see this in the fact that Origin has several hundred
employees and turned out few games. By the fact that the Ultima IX team
was shifted to UO and few survived to return to U:A.

You can see this in the fact Origin hired clueless Ed Del Castillo
to run the project.

You can see this in the words of everyone that left the Ultima
IX/U:A project that has spoken out on the subject. They all love
Ultima, but were driven out by the poor management practices at Origin.

RG started to have a disconnect with his fans. Many of them had
grown up and had adult experiences in the business world. No longer
kids they could tell the shit from the shinola. He didn't recognize
that the Ultima fan world had changed. That they were smart enough to
figure things out.


The only thing that has given Origin any credibility has been your
(Carly Staehlin-Taylor) guts in coming to the fans where ever they are
and giving out honest answers.

I know that when you came here the people here decided to give you
an honest chance to earn our respect. I believe that so far you have
done that because you have been honest with us. We can see what you are
doing for what it is. That's great because it has allowed information
to flow back and forth between Origin and the fans and to start
rebuilding the trust destroyed by Origin over the past several years.

Unfortunately, remarks like the ones that Richard Garriott made
about CGW starts to undercut everything you have tried to do.

I hope RG and Origin moves quickly to either retract what RG said
and apologize to CGW (which in the latest issue mention that they are
taking a wait and see attempt and admitted to being prejudicial) or else
RG and Origin needs to back up their claims.

If they let the claims stand then Origin is grossly insulting the
fans of the Ultima games.

--

Fortran Dragon -==(UDIC)==- | "There isn't enough darkness in the world
-=[MT]=- | to quench the light of one small candle."
Hidalgo Trading Company: http://home.earthlink.net/~fortran/index.html

Christopher A Tew

unread,
Sep 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/8/98
to
On Mon, 7 Sep 1998 20:53:42 -0500, for...@earthlink.net (Fortran
Dragon) gave the newsgroup a high colonic:

> By making veiled accusations, by being able to smear people
>without providing any evidence or information to backup his comments, RG
>makes himself appear as a PR cretin of the lowest order.

Not even a PR cretin. Just a plain old garden variety cretin.

I get the feeling that if RG were to ever come into direct
uncensorable contact with Ultima fans, he'd be quickly eviscerated.


>
> I also find his assumption that the Ultima fans will mindless
>believe anything that he might say incredibly insulting. He needs to
>provide facts and let *us* decide or else shut up. Long gone are the
>days that the Ultima fans will accept whatever he says. Ultima VIII,
>Ultima Online ('there is no lag'), and the long gestation of U:A are the
>reasons why.

Yep. Origin shut Del Castillo up. Now they face the larger task of
gagging Garriott.


> I think Richard Garriott is the typical creative programmer.

Except that he rarely writes code anymore.

>He was better at creating products than managing people in the typical
>corporate manner. He knew how to attract and keep other creative people
>to work on Origin's games, each contributing as a team in the best way
>they knew how.

Right. But, unfortunately, he didn't attract people who could manage
projects and the people working on the projects, which is why OSI
eventually had to be sold to EA. Still, though, it seems that the
poor project management style is in place. "Nothing is set in stone
until it ships" (in regards to U9 design) is indicative of a creative
team who can't set priorities and limits.

> You can see this in the interview with Denis Loubet where you can
>tell he is still loyal to RG, but that the hyper-competitive management
>environment drove creative people like Loubet out.

And Mr. Mike, and Tony Z., and the people who were doing Technosaur
(this is one game that I honestly wish had come out...it would have
blown every other RTS game away, if its execution were correct. The
cancellation of this game was a real morale killer around OSI offices,
too, as everybody was pretty hyped up about it), and Warren f'n
Spector (who can head up a project like no other person in the
industry, IMO), and Dr. Cat/David Shapiro, and on and on and on. At
one time, OSI was damn near the Dream Team of computer gaming. Now?
It's just another muthafuckin' wannabe, yo.

> You can see this in the fact Origin hired clueless Ed Del Castillo
>to run the project.

Who came up with the bright idea of hiring him?


> If they let the claims stand then Origin is grossly insulting the
>fans of the Ultima games.

Yes, well, it seems that OSI is hell bent for leather on fucking up,
anymore. I wonder if their hiring of Carly was just them fucking up
fucking up. Oh, well, we'll have to see.

One thing that's funny about the latest issue of CGW is that UA got
about 20 words while every other CRPG that is coming out Q498/Q199 got
mroe attention. I think that CGW's new "wait and see" attitude is
actually, "Well, if Garriott wants us to candy-coat our coverage of
his games, we'll just not cover UA at all. Oh, and forget about
UO:Second Age, too. We'll give it a passing mention under the
circulation statistics on page 298, in really small print so that we
don't lose any ad space for the porno games."

Carly, if you're reading, please tell Garriott that fucking with the
media in America is like fucking with a god. They have destroyed far
better people than he.

-Cat

--
Defending the universe from the evil of wack MCs,
The man known as Cat has said his peice.
TIKICAT AT LVDI DOT NET
------the bottom line------

Mark Asher

unread,
Sep 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/8/98
to
Christopher A Tew wrote in message <35f4ce84....@news3.lvdi.net>...

snip

>One thing that's funny about the latest issue of CGW is that UA got
>about 20 words while every other CRPG that is coming out Q498/Q199 got
>mroe attention. I think that CGW's new "wait and see" attitude is
>actually, "Well, if Garriott wants us to candy-coat our coverage of
>his games, we'll just not cover UA at all. Oh, and forget about
>UO:Second Age, too. We'll give it a passing mention under the
>circulation statistics on page 298, in really small print so that we
>don't lose any ad space for the porno games."


Given lead times, it's possible that CGW didn't have much info on Second Age
when they went to press. Also, given Garriott's statements about CGW, it's
possible Origin didn't send them any info beyond a press release.

About UA, since they covered it in their E3 roundup as one of the most
worrisome titles, I doubt they felt it warranted much coverage, unless they
were to repeat their already published misgivings.

I think the problem lies with Origin -- "It's an action-adventure game! No
wait, it's really a deep RPG." Sending the press mixed signals isn't the
best way to perk up their interest.

Mark Asher

Mark Patrick Witte

unread,
Sep 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/8/98
to
In article <35f4ce84....@news3.lvdi.net>,

Christopher A Tew <tik...@nospam.lvdi.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 7 Sep 1998 20:53:42 -0500, for...@earthlink.net (Fortran
>Dragon) gave the newsgroup a high colonic:

>Right. But, unfortunately, he didn't attract people who could manage


>projects and the people working on the projects, which is why OSI
>eventually had to be sold to EA. Still, though, it seems that the
>poor project management style is in place. "Nothing is set in stone
>until it ships" (in regards to U9 design) is indicative of a creative
>team who can't set priorities and limits.

Or else they've learned not to make definitive statements about what
will be in the game, for fear of sparking another major flamewark.

Carly Staehlin-Taylor

unread,
Sep 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/8/98
to

Fortran Dragon wrote in message ...

>[This followup was posted to rec.games.computer.ultima.dragons and a
>copy was sent to the cited author.]
>
<snip>

I just want to let you all know that I _am_ reading this thread. I prolly
won't make much mention, cuz RG is outta town right now and I can't ask him
what he wants to say in response. I actually haven't seen the article in
question, personally.. so if anyone has a copy and wants to email it to me,
I'd love to read it. :)

And -if- RG's comment in his letter is reactionary.. he is, afterall,
uman. -shrug-

-Carly

Fortran Dragon

unread,
Sep 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/8/98
to
From the Void comes Carly Staehlin-Taylor bearing this piece of Light...
[Snip]

> I just want to let you all know that I _am_ reading this thread. I prolly
> won't make much mention, cuz RG is outta town right now and I can't ask him
> what he wants to say in response. I actually haven't seen the article in
> question, personally.. so if anyone has a copy and wants to email it to me,
> I'd love to read it. :)

Check out http://www.gamespot.com/features/ultima9/index.html for the
unexpurgated version.



> And -if- RG's comment in his letter is reactionary.. he is, afterall,
> uman. -shrug-

He is also paid a lot of money to keep his temper. Standard practice
really for anyone claiming to be a professional.

Fortran Dragon

unread,
Sep 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/8/98
to
From the Void comes Christopher A Tew bearing this piece of Light...
[Snip]

> Not even a PR cretin. Just a plain old garden variety cretin.
>
> I get the feeling that if RG were to ever come into direct
> uncensorable contact with Ultima fans, he'd be quickly eviscerated.

Probably. I think RG is a reasonably charismatic person when met face
to face. That would explain the loyalty people have to him (and not to
Origin). It would also explain why he appears so high-handed in the
written word. He would be used to relying on his charisma to carry the
day, but that doesn't carry over to Usenet.

[Snip]


> Yep. Origin shut Del Castillo up. Now they face the larger task of
> gagging Garriott.

Or getting him to adapt to this changed world called the 'net.

[Snip]


> Except that he rarely writes code anymore.

True. I was thinking of Ultima IV when I wrote that.

To give him credit when he reached his limit, programming-wise, he
made the move to a team development environment. That's tough to do if you
are too involved with your creation. Especially considering the impact an
Ultima had on the industry in those days.

Ultima V, VI, and VII all show that at one time he was able to
submerse his own ego with regards to his creation in order to turn out
several quality games.

What happened with Ultima VIII and beyond is anybody's guess.

[Snip]


> Who came up with the bright idea of hiring him?

I don't know. I wonder if it was someone at EA or if it was RG
himself.


Well said on the rest.

Ben Flieger

unread,
Sep 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/8/98
to

Mark Asher wrote in message <35f52...@news.primary.net>...

>I think the problem lies with Origin -- "It's an action-adventure
game! No
>wait, it's really a deep RPG." Sending the press mixed signals isn't
the
>best way to perk up their interest.

" Action adventure game without stats because stats are bad bad bad
bad stats no stats because stats are bad. No party because people
don't party that way no party no party party bad. Wait please wait.
Deep RPG with stats good stats everyone loves stats I love stats you
love stats we all scream for ice cream new party yes there is party
just not like party better new party."

At least there won't be any lag.

Ben Flieger

unread,
Sep 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/8/98
to

Fortran Dragon wrote in message ...
>From the Void comes Carly Staehlin-Taylor bearing this piece of
Light...
>[Snip]

>> I just want to let you all know that I _am_ reading this thread. I
prolly
>> won't make much mention, cuz RG is outta town right now and I can't
ask him
>> what he wants to say in response. I actually haven't seen the
article in
>> question, personally.. so if anyone has a copy and wants to email
it to me,
>> I'd love to read it. :)
>
> Check out http://www.gamespot.com/features/ultima9/index.html for
the
>unexpurgated version.
>
>> And -if- RG's comment in his letter is reactionary.. he is,
afterall,
>> uman. -shrug-
>
> He is also paid a lot of money to keep his temper. Standard
practice
>really for anyone claiming to be a professional.

Somebody hasn't run into Cleve or Derek Smart.

Werner

unread,
Sep 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/8/98
to
"Ben Flieger" <a...@primenet.com> wrote:

>
>
>Somebody hasn't run into Cleve or Derek Smart.

Where is Cleve btw. haven't heard anything from him lately. Is he
still going to release his game in 1997 wait maybe it was 1998 oh no
1999 :-). I also miss the Lord Marcus guy sort of, the RPG newsgroup
has become pretty boring without those two.


Werner

Phillip S Zibilich

unread,
Sep 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/8/98
to
Ben Flieger <a...@primenet.com> wrote:

<SNIP>


> At least there won't be any lag.

Unless the projected Sys. Req. are wrong, you're gonna' need a super
system to run it anywhere near smooth.

--
--------------------------------------
Darkling Dragon --==(UDIC)==-- --==(unSPLUT)==--
Phillip Zibilich \/ Ultima Dragon and
ps...@gnofn.org Emulation enthusiast
* Holder of one (1) Money Dragon Flame Point *
"Time is a play thing. But when
it breaks, you're fucked." -- psz
--------------------------------------

Jimmy Chan

unread,
Sep 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/8/98
to
Werner (we...@my-dejanews.com) wrote:
:#Where is Cleve btw. haven't heard anything from him lately. Is he
:#still going to release his game in 1997 wait maybe it was 1998 oh no
:#1999 :-). I also miss the Lord Marcus guy sort of, the RPG newsgroup
:#has become pretty boring without those two.

Well, so far looks like Grimoire is vaporware for 1998. With Cleve harping
about missed deadlines and such, guess what he says doesn't apply to
himself. As for his lapdog, hope Cleve finally has the leash on him,
probably hurts Cleve's reputation more than missed deadlines.

--
==============================ji...@hawaii.edu===============================

Fortran Dragon

unread,
Sep 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/8/98
to
From the Void comes Ben Flieger bearing this piece of Light...
[Snip]

> Somebody hasn't run into Cleve or Derek Smart.

That's why I said "standard practice". I rate those two as sub-
standard. :)

Mark Patrick Witte

unread,
Sep 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/9/98
to
In article <MPG.105f4ecff...@news.alt.net>,
Fortran Dragon <for...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>From the Void comes Carly Staehlin-Taylor bearing this piece of Light...
>[Snip]

>> And -if- RG's comment in his letter is reactionary.. he is, afterall,
>> uman. -shrug-
>
> He is also paid a lot of money to keep his temper. Standard practice
>really for anyone claiming to be a professional.

So he's not a pure "suit." I kind of like that.

Destrius

unread,
Sep 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/9/98
to
...and it was written on the heavens that on Tue, 08 Sep 1998 06:28:23 GMT,
the entity named Christopher A Tew (tik...@nospam.lvdi.net)
inscribed the following words in rec.games.computer.ultima.dragons:

-clip-


>Carly, if you're reading, please tell Garriott that fucking with the
>media in America is like fucking with a god. They have destroyed far
>better people than he.

-clip-

Edit and censor if neccessary. :)

--
+------------------------------------------+-------------------------+
| Destrius Dragon | |
| Official Mad Mage | "Am I dreaming of the |
| -=*[~UDIC~]*=- -=*[UnSPLUT!]*=- | butterfly, or is the |
| http://destrius.simplenet.com/email.html | butterfly dreaming |
| Follow instructions to email me... | of me...?" |
| Website: | |
| http://destrius.simplenet.com | ooO(...) |
+------------------------------------------+-------------------------+
UDIC: d+++ e+ N++ T-- Om+ U1234567!8!AWS'! u++ uC++++ uF-
uG++++ uLB+ uA+++ nC+ nR nH+ nP++ nI++ nPT++++
nS++++ nT-- wM wC+ wS wI+ wN+ o- y a16
---| 庄心宇 |---


Carly Staehlin-Taylor

unread,
Sep 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/9/98
to

Fortran Dragon wrote in message ...
>From the Void comes Mark Patrick Witte bearing this piece of Light...
>[Snip]

>> So he's not a pure "suit." I kind of like that.
>
> As a programmer working for yourself in a closet in your parents house
>(RG circa Ultima ][) I can understand that. As a Vice-President at Origin,
>I can't.


RG isn't a VP. His title is Executive Designer. That's it.

-Carly

Mark Asher

unread,
Sep 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/9/98
to

So does he take orders from execs within Origin, or does he call the
shots for Origin?

Mark Asher


Mike Kozlowski

unread,
Sep 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/9/98
to
In article <MPG.105e49d7d...@news.alt.net>,
Fortran Dragon <for...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> If Richard Garriott thinks the CGW interview was for shit then he
>really needs to answer it point by point. CGW was hardly engaging in
>any sort of tabloid journalism. They presented the interview and didn't
>try to spin anything at all. They went out on a limb and let the
>_reader_ make up their own mind.

Well, they did entitle the article "Death of Ultima." That hardly seems
completely objective...

> I hope RG and Origin moves quickly to either retract what RG said
>and apologize to CGW (which in the latest issue mention that they are
>taking a wait and see attempt and admitted to being prejudicial)

... and this admission makes the article's supposed objectivity even more
implausible.

--
Michael Kozlowski m...@cs.wisc.edu
Recommended SF (Updated 8/6): http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~mlk/sfbooks.html

Mark Asher

unread,
Sep 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/9/98
to
On 9 Sep 1998 20:50:46 GMT, mkoz...@guy.ssc.wisc.edu (Mike Kozlowski)
wrote:

>In article <MPG.105e49d7d...@news.alt.net>,
>Fortran Dragon <for...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> If Richard Garriott thinks the CGW interview was for shit then he
>>really needs to answer it point by point. CGW was hardly engaging in
>>any sort of tabloid journalism. They presented the interview and didn't
>>try to spin anything at all. They went out on a limb and let the
>>_reader_ make up their own mind.
>
>Well, they did entitle the article "Death of Ultima." That hardly seems
>completely objective...

It's related to what McShanny had to say -- it's completely relevant
in context. Not necessarily factually correct, mind you, but it fits
with the interview.

>> I hope RG and Origin moves quickly to either retract what RG said
>>and apologize to CGW (which in the latest issue mention that they are
>>taking a wait and see attempt and admitted to being prejudicial)
>
>... and this admission makes the article's supposed objectivity even more
>implausible.

How can an interview be objective? Isn't it by definition one person's
opinion?

Most of the time we get interviews with the game designers which are
completely subjective PR pitches telling us how great the game is
going to be, how innovative, etc. Now we get one negative interview
and suddenly CGW is at fault? Hell, I'd rather have more of these than
the former.

I'm still waiting for Garriott to tell us what he specifically
objected to in the interview. His complaining is pretty baseless
unless he's willing to rebut.

Mark Asher

Fortran Dragon

unread,
Sep 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/9/98
to
From the Void comes Carly Staehlin-Taylor bearing this piece of Light...
[Snip]

> RG isn't a VP. His title is Executive Designer. That's it.

He was at one time I believe. Of course as a founder of Origin I
imagine that he can give himself any title he likes. :)

Fortran Dragon

unread,
Sep 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/9/98
to
From the Void comes Mike Kozlowski bearing this piece of Light...
[Snip]

> Well, they did entitle the article "Death of Ultima." That hardly seems
> completely objective...

Yes, they did, but does a title always bear the complete weight of
objectivity for an interview? Might not the interview itself help with
that objectivity.

[Snip]


> ... and this admission makes the article's supposed objectivity even more
> implausible.

Given that it was an interview with a former Origin employee
rather than an article by CGW, how much objectivity was CGW supposed to
claim?

Fortran Dragon

unread,
Sep 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/9/98
to
From the Void comes ch...@icat.rmci.net bearing this piece of Light...
[Snip]
> This would surprise you, how?

I'm hoping that Origin has answered the clue phone. Ms. Staehlin-
Taylor's presence her is a big step in the right direction.

Instead of wasting our time with continued feuding I'd rather see
us working together to make a great game, one worthy of the name Ultima.

Sheldon Nylander

unread,
Sep 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/9/98
to
Mark Patrick Witte wrote:

> In article <MPG.105f4ecff...@news.alt.net>,
> Fortran Dragon <for...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >From the Void comes Carly Staehlin-Taylor bearing this piece of Light...
> >[Snip]
>


> >> And -if- RG's comment in his letter is reactionary.. he is, afterall,
> >> uman. -shrug-
> >
> > He is also paid a lot of money to keep his temper. Standard practice
> >really for anyone claiming to be a professional.
>

> So he's not a pure "suit." I kind of like that.

Given what I've seen of him and the way he dresses, I don't know what you would
call him...

--
Dalboz Dragon
<<UDIC>>
ICQ: 14285834
--------------
d+++ e-- N+ T- Om+ U147 u- uC+ uF++ uG++ uLB+ uA++++ nC+ nH+ nI++ nPT nS+ nT+
oA+++ y a20
--------------
"It fits in a post-redereconstructionalist/surrealist sort of way." - Cat

Jonric

unread,
Sep 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/10/98
to
In article <35f6f90d....@gatekeeper.impacttech.com>,

ma...@cdmnet.com (Mark Asher) wrote:
> On 9 Sep 1998 20:50:46 GMT, mkoz...@guy.ssc.wisc.edu (Mike Kozlowski)
> wrote:
>
> >In article <MPG.105e49d7d...@news.alt.net>,

> >Fortran Dragon <for...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >> If Richard Garriott thinks the CGW interview was for shit then he
> >>really needs to answer it point by point. CGW was hardly engaging in
> >>any sort of tabloid journalism. They presented the interview and didn't
> >>try to spin anything at all. They went out on a limb and let the
> >>_reader_ make up their own mind.
> >
> >Well, they did entitle the article "Death of Ultima." That hardly seems
> >completely objective...
>
> It's related to what McShanny had to say -- it's completely relevant
> in context. Not necessarily factually correct, mind you, but it fits
> with the interview.
>
> >> I hope RG and Origin moves quickly to either retract what RG said
> >>and apologize to CGW (which in the latest issue mention that they are
> >>taking a wait and see attempt and admitted to being prejudicial)
> >
> >... and this admission makes the article's supposed objectivity even more
> >implausible.
>
> How can an interview be objective? Isn't it by definition one person's
> opinion?

If we accept the assumption that an interview is not by its nature objective,
what label should we use if parts of an interview have been edited out so
that the impression it gives is not quite the same as the whole interview?
How about "even less objective"?


>
> Most of the time we get interviews with the game designers which are
> completely subjective PR pitches telling us how great the game is
> going to be, how innovative, etc. Now we get one negative interview
> and suddenly CGW is at fault? Hell, I'd rather have more of these than
> the former.

It strikes me that the PR pitches you mention are irrelevent. The article
was objective or it was not. It was accurate or it was not. CGW
deliberately chose a not fully accurate title that would sensationalize the
interview or they did not. _If_ the interview was overly critical - or if it
was too soft - having published any number of overly positive pieces does not
change that.

Jonric

The Vault Network
http://www.vaultnetwork.com
The web's most popular resource for CRPG news & information
Plus interviews, previews, reviews, editorials and more....

Latest features include 7-Part Baldur's Gate Primer, Deus Ex team interview,
first-ever preview of Planescape Torment, Third World Interview et al.

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum

Mark Asher

unread,
Sep 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/10/98
to
On Thu, 10 Sep 1998 05:17:59 GMT, "Jonric" <jon...@vaultnetwork.com>
wrote:

>In article <35f6f90d....@gatekeeper.impacttech.com>,
> ma...@cdmnet.com (Mark Asher) wrote:

snip

>> How can an interview be objective? Isn't it by definition one person's
>> opinion?
>
>If we accept the assumption that an interview is not by its nature objective,
>what label should we use if parts of an interview have been edited out so
>that the impression it gives is not quite the same as the whole interview?
>How about "even less objective"?

How about not. How about assuming that the magazine, if it's editing
the interview, is trying to be objective and is only presenting the
most interesting parts of the interview. I assume that you've
conducted interviews and edited them, probably to the point of
correcting the grammar of the people you interviewed. Does that make
you "less objective" for doing so? Are you biased?

>> Most of the time we get interviews with the game designers which are
>> completely subjective PR pitches telling us how great the game is
>> going to be, how innovative, etc. Now we get one negative interview
>> and suddenly CGW is at fault? Hell, I'd rather have more of these than
>> the former.
>
>It strikes me that the PR pitches you mention are irrelevent. The article
>was objective or it was not.

I think it was objective, as much as an interview can be. But you're
just playing with words here in a tiresome manner. If I interview a
politician, my interview can be completely objective, but the
politician's remarks are completely subjective. That's all that's
going on in the interview. McShaffry's comments are subjective. Big
deal.

>It was accurate or it was not. CGW
>deliberately chose a not fully accurate title that would sensationalize the
>interview or they did not.

I think the title they chose was fine. After all, U9 is dead, and
Ascension has taken its place.

> _If_ the interview was overly critical - or if it
>was too soft - having published any number of overly positive pieces does not
>change that.

How can the remarks of the person being interviewed be attributed to
CGW? It's McShaffry who was either overly critical or too soft, not
CGW.

Mark Asher

MdmeDis

unread,
Sep 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/10/98
to
In article <6t7ne7$n0e$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, jon...@vaultnetwork.com
says...

> In article <35f6f90d....@gatekeeper.impacttech.com>,
> ma...@cdmnet.com (Mark Asher) wrote:
> > On 9 Sep 1998 20:50:46 GMT, mkoz...@guy.ssc.wisc.edu (Mike Kozlowski)
> > wrote:
> >
> > >In article <MPG.105e49d7d...@news.alt.net>,
> > >Fortran Dragon <for...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >> If Richard Garriott thinks the CGW interview was for shit then he
> > >>really needs to answer it point by point. CGW was hardly engaging in
> > >>any sort of tabloid journalism. They presented the interview and didn't
> > >>try to spin anything at all. They went out on a limb and let the
> > >>_reader_ make up their own mind.
> > >
> > >Well, they did entitle the article "Death of Ultima." That hardly seems
> > >completely objective...
> >
> > It's related to what McShanny had to say -- it's completely relevant
> > in context. Not necessarily factually correct, mind you, but it fits
> > with the interview.
> >
> > >> I hope RG and Origin moves quickly to either retract what RG said
> > >>and apologize to CGW (which in the latest issue mention that they are
> > >>taking a wait and see attempt and admitted to being prejudicial)
> > >
> > >... and this admission makes the article's supposed objectivity even more
> > >implausible.
> >
> > How can an interview be objective? Isn't it by definition one person's
> > opinion?
>
> If we accept the assumption that an interview is not by its nature objective,
> what label should we use if parts of an interview have been edited out so
> that the impression it gives is not quite the same as the whole interview?
> How about "even less objective"?

In this case it doesn't matter - CGW made the interview available in its
entirety on the net, so anyone can see how it was edited.

--
Disoriented Dragon
-==(UDIC)==-

D'ya ever have those days when you think
maybe its you, and not the rest of the world
that's fucked up?

Carly Staehlin-Taylor

unread,
Sep 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/10/98
to

Mark Asher wrote in message
<35f6e863....@gatekeeper.impacttech.com>...

>On Wed, 9 Sep 1998 15:35:16 -0500, "Carly Staehlin-Taylor"
><ctaylor.or...@nospam.figure.it.out.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>RG isn't a VP. His title is Executive Designer. That's it.
>
>So does he take orders from execs within Origin, or does he call the
>shots for Origin?
>
>Mark Asher
>
Okay.. sorry I was wrong. I was going offa the book they gave me when I was
hired, which only lists RG as "Executive Designer" but I called up HR just
to make sure I wasn't talking smack.. and it turns out I was. Eeeep!
Anyhow.. Richard does have a Senior VP title, but Executive Designer is
really what he's doing. And yes, he does take orders from other Execs at
Origin. There is a team of executives at OSI that "call the shots" so to
speak, and he is a part of the team.

Sorry for the *mis*information.

-Carly

Carly Staehlin-Taylor

unread,
Sep 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/10/98
to

Fortran Dragon wrote in message ...

> He was at one time I believe. Of course as a founder of Origin I


>imagine that he can give himself any title he likes. :)


Touche'. ;)
-carly

MdmeDis

unread,
Sep 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/10/98
to
In article <6t6pn6$15gi$1...@news.doit.wisc.edu>, mkoz...@guy.ssc.wisc.edu
says...

> In article <MPG.105e49d7d...@news.alt.net>,
> Fortran Dragon <for...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > If Richard Garriott thinks the CGW interview was for shit then he
> >really needs to answer it point by point. CGW was hardly engaging in
> >any sort of tabloid journalism. They presented the interview and didn't
> >try to spin anything at all. They went out on a limb and let the
> >_reader_ make up their own mind.
>
> Well, they did entitle the article "Death of Ultima." That hardly seems
> completely objective...
>
> > I hope RG and Origin moves quickly to either retract what RG said
> >and apologize to CGW (which in the latest issue mention that they are
> >taking a wait and see attempt and admitted to being prejudicial)
>
> ... and this admission makes the article's supposed objectivity even more
> implausible.

There is a distinct difference between an article and an editorial. Had
CGW given a negative editorial based on that interview, RG would have
had far more reason to scream like a raped ape. As it was, they
published an interview - only if they did not give RG an opportunity for
a similar interview could objectivity even be questioned.

Jonric

unread,
Sep 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/10/98
to
In article <MPG.1061cd67c...@news.alt.net>,

mdm...@earthlink.net (MdmeDis) wrote:
> > >
> > > How can an interview be objective? Isn't it by definition one person's
> > > opinion?
> >
> > If we accept the assumption that an interview is not by its nature
objective,
> > what label should we use if parts of an interview have been edited out so
> > that the impression it gives is not quite the same as the whole interview?
> > How about "even less objective"?
>
> In this case it doesn't matter - CGW made the interview available in its
> entirety on the net, so anyone can see how it was edited.


It only doesn't matter to those people who were made aware of the complete
version. Anyone who saw only the edited CGW version did not get a completely
accurate picture of the larger interview.

Jonric

unread,
Sep 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/10/98
to
In article <35f7fe6c...@gatekeeper.impacttech.com>,

ma...@cdmnet.com (Mark Asher) wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Sep 1998 05:17:59 GMT, "Jonric" <jon...@vaultnetwork.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <35f6f90d....@gatekeeper.impacttech.com>,
> > ma...@cdmnet.com (Mark Asher) wrote:
>
> snip

>
> >> How can an interview be objective? Isn't it by definition one person's
> >> opinion?
> >
> >If we accept the assumption that an interview is not by its nature objective,
> >what label should we use if parts of an interview have been edited out so
> >that the impression it gives is not quite the same as the whole interview?
> >How about "even less objective"?
>
> How about not. How about assuming that the magazine, if it's editing
> the interview, is trying to be objective and is only presenting the
> most interesting parts of the interview. I assume that you've
> conducted interviews and edited them, probably to the point of
> correcting the grammar of the people you interviewed. Does that make
> you "less objective" for doing so? Are you biased?

Are you suggesting that only presenting the most interesting parts is the best
way to be objective?

Are you also suggesting that correcting grammar and editing out parts of an
interview introduce equal amounts of bias? The printed version of the
interview did not quite give the same impression as the web version (NB. I
did _not_ say it was way off, just not quite the same). Bringing in a
reference to correcting grammar - a very different form of editing - does not
change that.

>
> >> Most of the time we get interviews with the game designers which are
> >> completely subjective PR pitches telling us how great the game is
> >> going to be, how innovative, etc. Now we get one negative interview
> >> and suddenly CGW is at fault? Hell, I'd rather have more of these than
> >> the former.
> >
> >It strikes me that the PR pitches you mention are irrelevent. The article
> >was objective or it was not.
>
> I think it was objective, as much as an interview can be. But you're
> just playing with words here in a tiresome manner. If I interview a
> politician, my interview can be completely objective, but the
> politician's remarks are completely subjective. That's all that's
> going on in the interview. McShaffry's comments are subjective. Big
> deal.

So you're saying they only presented the most interesting parts, but that they
determined what these parts were without using any subjective or personal
judgements, only objective criteria?

>
> >It was accurate or it was not. CGW
> >deliberately chose a not fully accurate title that would sensationalize the
> >interview or they did not.
>
> I think the title they chose was fine. After all, U9 is dead, and
> Ascension has taken its place.
>
> > _If_ the interview was overly critical - or if it
> >was too soft - having published any number of overly positive pieces does not
> >change that.
>
> How can the remarks of the person being interviewed be attributed to
> CGW? It's McShaffry who was either overly critical or too soft, not
> CGW.

What can only be attributed to CGW is the choice of which remarks to print and
which not, and what to title the piece. If their choices caused the printed
version not quite to mirror the full one, then that can only be attributed to
them too.

Fortran Dragon

unread,
Sep 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/10/98
to
From the Void comes Jonric bearing this piece of Light...
[Snip]

> It only doesn't matter to those people who were made aware of the complete
> version. Anyone who saw only the edited CGW version did not get a completely
> accurate picture of the larger interview.

How many of CGW's subscribers don't have 'net access?

MdmeDis

unread,
Sep 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/10/98
to
In article <6t9hfa$5q7$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, jon...@vaultnetwork.com
says...

> In article <MPG.1061cd67c...@news.alt.net>,
> mdm...@earthlink.net (MdmeDis) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > How can an interview be objective? Isn't it by definition one person's
> > > > opinion?

> > > If we accept the assumption that an interview is not by its nature
> objective,
> > > what label should we use if parts of an interview have been edited out so
> > > that the impression it gives is not quite the same as the whole interview?
> > > How about "even less objective"?

> > In this case it doesn't matter - CGW made the interview available in its


> > entirety on the net, so anyone can see how it was edited.
>
>

> It only doesn't matter to those people who were made aware of the complete
> version. Anyone who saw only the edited CGW version did not get a completely
> accurate picture of the larger interview.

I read both - I saw no facts that were different. I'd be interested to
hear which ones you saw that were different, or painted a different
picture.

Are you trying to tell me that editing an article is not standard
practice? Origin reviews and edits interviews it gives before it will
allow them to be published, so please stop trying to sound so
sanctimonious about the whole thing.

MdmeDis

unread,
Sep 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/10/98
to
In article <6t9q5b$j9j$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, jon...@vaultnetwork.com
says...
> In article <MPG.1061d07b5...@news.alt.net>,
> mdm...@earthlink.net (MdmeDis) wrote:

> > There is a distinct difference between an article and an editorial. Had
> > CGW given a negative editorial based on that interview, RG would have
> > had far more reason to scream like a raped ape. As it was, they
> > published an interview - only if they did not give RG an opportunity for
> > a similar interview could objectivity even be questioned.
>
>

> As it was, CGW published _selected parts of an interview_, not the whole
> thing. Those parts were not completely representative in terms of what Mike
> McShaffry said overall - close, but not spot on. And as soon as you start
> taking interview content out, especially if you don't ask the interviewee,
> you start becoming less than completely objective. I don't blame CGW at all
> for editing it. Magazines have page limits, and it's someone's job to decide
> what and how to edit content to fit. But subjectivity does enter into these
> decisions.

As we all know everything is edited, by your reasoning subjective
editing enters into anything and everything we read - CGW has differed
in only one respect that I can from common practice - it made available
the whole thing, so in this case they cannot be accused of subjectivity.

Bjoern-Falko Andreas

unread,
Sep 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/11/98
to
Fortran Dragon wrote:
>
> From the Void comes Jonric bearing this piece of Light...
> [Snip]
> > It only doesn't matter to those people who were made aware of the complete
> > version. Anyone who saw only the edited CGW version did not get a completely
> > accurate picture of the larger interview.
>
> How many of CGW's subscribers don't have 'net access?
Given the latest stats, a dwindeling minority....

B.R.

> Fortran Dragon -==(UDIC)==- | "There isn't enough darkness in the world

--
I wonder about the purpose of this .signature file. I've found no
man-page dealing with it. How do I quit vi? ZZ :q erm ESC first, you
dummy

Jonric

unread,
Sep 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/11/98
to
> In article <6t6pn6$15gi$1...@news.doit.wisc.edu>, mkoz...@guy.ssc.wisc.edu
> says...
> > In article <MPG.105e49d7d...@news.alt.net>,
> > Fortran Dragon <for...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > > If Richard Garriott thinks the CGW interview was for shit then he
> > >really needs to answer it point by point. CGW was hardly engaging in
> > >any sort of tabloid journalism. They presented the interview and didn't
> > >try to spin anything at all. They went out on a limb and let the
> > >_reader_ make up their own mind.
> >
> > Well, they did entitle the article "Death of Ultima." That hardly seems
> > completely objective...
> >
> > > I hope RG and Origin moves quickly to either retract what RG said
> > >and apologize to CGW (which in the latest issue mention that they are
> > >taking a wait and see attempt and admitted to being prejudicial)
> >
> > ... and this admission makes the article's supposed objectivity even more
> > implausible.
>
> There is a distinct difference between an article and an editorial. Had
> CGW given a negative editorial based on that interview, RG would have
> had far more reason to scream like a raped ape. As it was, they
> published an interview - only if they did not give RG an opportunity for
> a similar interview could objectivity even be questioned.


As it was, CGW published _selected parts of an interview_, not the whole
thing. Those parts were not completely representative in terms of what Mike
McShaffry said overall - close, but not spot on. And as soon as you start
taking interview content out, especially if you don't ask the interviewee,
you start becoming less than completely objective. I don't blame CGW at all
for editing it. Magazines have page limits, and it's someone's job to decide
what and how to edit content to fit. But subjectivity does enter into these
decisions.

Jonric

Christopher A Tew

unread,
Sep 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/11/98
to
On Fri, 11 Sep 1998 00:16:43 GMT, "Jonric" <jon...@vaultnetwork.com>
gave the newsgroup a high colonic:

>
>As it was, CGW published _selected parts of an interview_, not the whole
>thing. Those parts were not completely representative in terms of what Mike
>McShaffry said overall - close, but not spot on. And as soon as you start
>taking interview content out, especially if you don't ask the interviewee,
>you start becoming less than completely objective. I don't blame CGW at all
>for editing it. Magazines have page limits, and it's someone's job to decide
>what and how to edit content to fit. But subjectivity does enter into these
>decisions.

Usually, the subjectivity has to do with what fits within the scope of
the interview and what doesn't. Unless the interview is completely
buchered, there isn't really a problem.

Oh, and also, what you said about CGW basically applies to every
single magazine out there. They all edit interviews. <shrug>


-Cat
--
Defending the universe from the evil of wack MCs,
The man known as Cat has said his piece.
TIKICAT AT LVDI DOT NET
------Get well, Hacksaw!------

Jonric

unread,
Sep 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/11/98
to
In article <MPG.10620e8eb...@news.alt.net>,

for...@earthlink.net (Fortran Dragon) wrote:
> From the Void comes Jonric bearing this piece of Light...
> [Snip]
> > It only doesn't matter to those people who were made aware of the complete
> > version. Anyone who saw only the edited CGW version did not get a
completely
> > accurate picture of the larger interview.
>
> How many of CGW's subscribers don't have 'net access?

Neither of us knows. If you're assuming/implying that these people should be
ignored because they are relatively few in number, we don't know how many they
are.

If there are relatively few people actively expressing concern about U:A not
being a classic Ultima, should these people be ignored as well? 8-)

Jonric

unread,
Sep 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/11/98
to
In article <MPG.10622075e...@news.alt.net>,
mdm...@earthlink.net (MdmeDis) wrote:

> > It only doesn't matter to those people who were made aware of the complete
> > version. Anyone who saw only the edited CGW version did not get a
completely
> > accurate picture of the larger interview.
>

> I read both - I saw no facts that were different. I'd be interested to
> hear which ones you saw that were different, or painted a different
> picture.

"Not a completely accurate picture" and "no facts that were different" are not
mutually exclusive. Are you saying the printed interview was a shorter but
completely representative of the full version?


>
> Are you trying to tell me that editing an article is not standard
> practice? Origin reviews and edits interviews it gives before it will
> allow them to be published, so please stop trying to sound so
> sanctimonious about the whole thing.

I'll be sure to watch your posts for tips on how to do that. And what
relevance does Origin's reviewing and editing of _other_ interviews have to
this one?

Jonric

unread,
Sep 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/11/98
to
In article <MPG.1062543a4...@news.alt.net>,
mdm...@earthlink.net (MdmeDis) wrote:
> In article <6t9q5b$j9j$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, jon...@vaultnetwork.com
> says...

> > In article <MPG.1061d07b5...@news.alt.net>,
> > mdm...@earthlink.net (MdmeDis) wrote:
>
> > > There is a distinct difference between an article and an editorial. Had
> > > CGW given a negative editorial based on that interview, RG would have
> > > had far more reason to scream like a raped ape. As it was, they
> > > published an interview - only if they did not give RG an opportunity for
> > > a similar interview could objectivity even be questioned.
> >
> >
> > As it was, CGW published _selected parts of an interview_, not the whole
> > thing. Those parts were not completely representative in terms of what
Mike
> > McShaffry said overall - close, but not spot on. And as soon as you start
> > taking interview content out, especially if you don't ask the interviewee,
> > you start becoming less than completely objective. I don't blame CGW at all
> > for editing it. Magazines have page limits, and it's someone's job to
decide
> > what and how to edit content to fit. But subjectivity does enter into these
> > decisions.
>
> As we all know everything is edited, by your reasoning subjective
> editing enters into anything and everything we read - CGW has differed
> in only one respect that I can from common practice - it made available
> the whole thing, so in this case they cannot be accused of subjectivity.
>

So when do you draw the line? Is releasing the full piece two weeks later
soon enough not to accuse them of subjectivity? A month? A year? 10 years?
Four weeks, two days, five hours and 16 minutes? How long?

Jonric

unread,
Sep 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/11/98
to
In article <35f87541....@news3.lvdi.net>,

tik...@nospam.lvdi.net (Christopher A Tew) wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Sep 1998 00:16:43 GMT, "Jonric" <jon...@vaultnetwork.com>
> gave the newsgroup a high colonic:
>
> >
> >As it was, CGW published _selected parts of an interview_, not the whole
> >thing. Those parts were not completely representative in terms of what
Mike
> >McShaffry said overall - close, but not spot on. And as soon as you start
> >taking interview content out, especially if you don't ask the interviewee,
> >you start becoming less than completely objective. I don't blame CGW at all
> >for editing it. Magazines have page limits, and it's someone's job to decide
> >what and how to edit content to fit. But subjectivity does enter into these
> >decisions.
>
> Usually, the subjectivity has to do with what fits within the scope of
> the interview and what doesn't. Unless the interview is completely
> buchered, there isn't really a problem.

Basically agreed. In this case, the editing was IMO "close but not spot on."
No problem, just not done completely objectively (which might be impossible
once you get past correcting things like typos and spelling errors).

>
> Oh, and also, what you said about CGW basically applies to every
> single magazine out there. They all edit interviews. <shrug>
>

Probably true. I suspect relatively few magazine interviews get published
without some editing of content. Page limits do that to you.

Fortran Dragon

unread,
Sep 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/11/98
to
From the Void comes Jonric bearing this piece of Light...
[Snip]
> As it was, CGW published _selected parts of an interview_, not the whole
> thing. Those parts were not completely representative in terms of what Mike
> McShaffry said overall - close, but not spot on. And as soon as you start
> taking interview content out, especially if you don't ask the interviewee,
> you start becoming less than completely objective. I don't blame CGW at all
> for editing it. Magazines have page limits, and it's someone's job to decide
> what and how to edit content to fit. But subjectivity does enter into these
> decisions.

Then what parts would you have left in. given the room you had, to
make the interview "spot on"?

--

Fortran Dragon -==(UDIC)==- | "There isn't enough darkness in the world

Mark Asher

unread,
Sep 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/11/98
to
On Thu, 10 Sep 1998 22:25:14 GMT, "Jonric" <jon...@vaultnetwork.com>
wrote:

>> How about not. How about assuming that the magazine, if it's editing
>> the interview, is trying to be objective and is only presenting the
>> most interesting parts of the interview. I assume that you've
>> conducted interviews and edited them, probably to the point of
>> correcting the grammar of the people you interviewed. Does that make
>> you "less objective" for doing so? Are you biased?
>
>Are you suggesting that only presenting the most interesting parts is the best
>way to be objective?

I'm suggesting that editing an interview for reasons of space and
interest in no way means that the editing isn't being done as
objectively as possible.

We can go round and round if you want. Humans were involved, so yes,
subjective editing decisions were made. But this doesn't mean that the
people involved did not make a good faith effort to be as objective as
possible.

Just forget all this dumb dancing around the issue. You have both the
edited and the full versions you can compare. The real issue you seem
to be implying is that CGW edited the interview to paint Origin in a
bad light. Please, show us what was edited out that supports this
viewpoint.

>Are you also suggesting that correcting grammar and editing out parts of an
>interview introduce equal amounts of bias? The printed version of the
>interview did not quite give the same impression as the web version (NB. I
>did _not_ say it was way off, just not quite the same). Bringing in a
>reference to correcting grammar - a very different form of editing - does not
>change that.

I made that point to show that all interviews are edited. What exactly
are you driving at? Just answer this question for me: After reading
both versions of the interview, do you think CGW was doing their best
to be objective, or do you think they had an agenda they were
pursuing? Isn't this the important issue? All this discussion of
whether edited interviews are objective or not is specious.

Mark Asher

Fortran Dragon

unread,
Sep 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/11/98
to
From the Void comes Jonric bearing this piece of Light...
[Snip]
> Neither of us knows. If you're assuming/implying that these people should be
> ignored because they are relatively few in number, we don't know how many they
> are.

No, you are the one implying things. I just asked a question about
how many people subscribing to CGW had 'net access.

You see, you implied that CGW shortchanged their non-internet access
readers that are interested in Ultima IX/Ultima: Ascension. Since you
raised the point as a Bad Thing (tm) then it is incumbent upon you to give
us a rough estimate of the number of people effected.

Before anyone can gauge the effect we would need to have an idea of
the percentage of CGW's total readership that would actually care about the
topic. Otherwise, talking about the people that only read the CGW printed
article is a fairly worthless thing.

[Snip]


> If there are relatively few people actively expressing concern about U:A not
> being a classic Ultima, should these people be ignored as well? 8-)

Well, first you have to show an apples to apples comparison before I
can answer your question. Your point deals with an activist group whereas
my question deals with a passive group.

Fortran Dragon

unread,
Sep 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/11/98
to
From the Void comes Jonric bearing this piece of Light...
[Snip]
> And what
> relevance does Origin's reviewing and editing of _other_ interviews have to
> this one?

I would imagine that if Origin reviews and/or edits other interviews
then any complaining from Origin or by Origin supporters about the CGW
interview would be complete hypocrisy.

MdmeDis

unread,
Sep 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/11/98