Sorry for multiple posting earlier, multi-tasking at my age on this equipment, shudder...
Anywho:I'm more than happy to give my source material and it'll always be from a UK perspective, from the era in question, using quotes etc from the players involved, rather than some un-named coder or Atari source.Do i have any idea if they were being 100% honest to the UK media?, not a scooby, but, it's all i have to go on from that era.
I must admit, the very idea of a forum poster like myself basically being 'told' what i could or could'nt do, concerning posting on an era i lived through, did make me chuckle.Marty, i love your RG articles and mate when your in the realms of paid-for work, legal contract's with publisher etc, yep, you might need to get multiple sources etc on-board before you commit to anything and i'm honestly only too well aware of how things researchers are told for articles/books can be untrue, if you look through the forum, you'll see i informed JD that when System 3 told him the ST version of Myth was indeed finished and released, just what a crock of sh*t that was.We only saw a demo.on ST thanks to ZERO magazine (UK magazine).
Regarding my XE posts:The 'facts' are, this is the message Atari UK were sending out, that's 100% true, i can fwd you the very articles if you like, ditto the point about the UK TV advert being pulled, it's all there.Time and date stamped, so sorry chap, but these just are not mistakes.
No offence meant, but you really jumped the gun somewhat.you did take the stance of someone who was writing for paid for publication, understandable given your background, but of no relevance to myself and whilst i welcome the advice on how to go about doing such paid for work, as i posted elsewhere when folks very kindly said i should write a 'gritty' PS1 VS Saturn article, it's not my skill-set, nor something i wish to do.
Lairds article was most welcome in RG magazine, all i'm doing is adding few extra layers of background info, as TV advert not mentioned, nor the P.R message Atari Uk were sending out.I've a few more odds n sodds to add, but i'll not be ringing up old publishing houses etc to 'check' anything, just for a forum post.
My 'beef' if any is basically this:
Had i posted blah Blah Blah Atari said this, Atari said that and not named sources, then yep, i'd expect folks to question just where i was getting my claims from, but if you check my posts in say the Jaguar/3DO/PS1/Saturn threads, you'll see i give industry quotes from the key people, from the era's involved.
People can then make their own minds up, i'm not saying what Joe Blogs, P.R manager said was true then, but using your logic Marty, people writing for RG articles should'nt interview coders, P.R people, M.D's etc for the article, let alone quote them, as too much time has passed and they need to speak to at least 3 sources.For what? a 4-page article that a % are going to go..WAHHHH too much Atari/Sony/Nintendo...at anyway?
Look, you guys do great work for RG magazine, if you did'nt, i would'nt be a subscriber, but you know it's fine if we mere ex-Atari gamers, have a crack at adding stuff your articles did'nt bring up, another angle on things etc, anything that adds to the coverage is a good thing, right?, but sometimes, you need to realise that your on a paid-for platform, we're just looking back at times gone by and sometimes, just sometimes seem to have resources (flawed as they potentially may be) that you guys don't and we're happy to share with the community and have zero interest in getting paid for it or using it to bolster a C.V etc, that's all i'm saying.