Drobe :: The archives
About Drobe | Contact | RSS | Twitter | Tech docs | Downloads | BBC Micro

RISCDomain finale reviewed

By Martin Hansen. Published: 12th Dec 2003, 22:59:10 | Permalink | Printable

Martin Hansen peers at the last issue of ProAction's publication

Review One of the joys of being a RISC OS enthusiast has got to be the relentless rollercoaster ride that this platform has experienced for over the last twenty years. "Boom and bust"; Acorn certainly get my "been there, done that" award. White knuckle rides can be the thrill of a lifetime when you are in the driving seat, but for many, seeing Acorn crash and burn in 1998, left them feeling that RISC OS, after promising so much, was finished. Was it better to have loved and lost than never loved at all?

Whatever the answer, for many the affair was over. For all that, here we are with 2004 winking at us and an encouraging year all but over for those of us championing RISC OS. It has been a year that has confirmed to the faithful that RISC OS has a future. It began when Castle pulled the whitest rabbit I ever saw out of their hat and, to the surprise of us all, announced the Iyonix, the fastest RISC OS machine yet and available to buy immediately following the announcement.

Further surprises were in store when, in what some have come to view as the red corner of a boxing ring opposite Iyonix, the VirtualRiscPC was launched. Ladies and Gentlemen, winner of the cheekiest product of the year award 2003 is Virtual RiscPC. What a laugh. It takes hardware built to sustain the MicroSoft view of the world, and makes it speak RISC OS. How very, very funny.

Riscdomain logoWith all of these radical developments sweeping across RISC OS land and letting all know of better days to come, it is important that new users, flirting with RISC OS via VirtualRiscPC, are welcomed into a bright and positive community. In my view, we could do with bundling in with every Iyonix, and every Virtual RiscPC, a selection of RISC OS magazines. Cue entrance of issue 4 of RISCDomain, just published, and just grasped by my eager hand after only one bounce on my doormat this morning.

In many ways, this little A5, black and white publication gives a real flavour of how it should be:
  1. Start with news of program updates, tempting software price reductions, and a web-link of where to go to buy them.
  2. Tackle the Virtual RiscPC issue, giving it praise, while being kind to the Iyonix; the step on for the more serious RISC OS user.
  3. Review samples of top quality RISC OS software, emphasising on-going development, ease of use and the resulting productivity.
  4. Give extra emphasis to areas of RISC OS strength such as DTP, graphics and design.


Riscdomain frontpageRISC Domain has clearly been produced to help London RISC OS dealer APDL market their wares. This is not a criticism. It rather means that the magazine is produced with a steady eye on the hard edged reality of the current marketplace. While some may prefer a magazine to be a little more aloof I suspect that this magazine is here because other RISC OS publications are not doing what is required from APDL's point of view. So it is interesting to see VirtualRiscPC featured prominently on the front cover. Editor, David Bradforth, is very enthusiastic about this product. The sensible way forward with new customers is to present RISC OS emulation as a feature, in additional to MicroSoft Windows, that you really must have.

I think he has a point, but wisely does not dwell on the issue. It gets a mention and then we move swiftly on to reviews of the sort of software what will make people want RISC OS. They cover representatives from most areas; ArtWorks for graphic design, Rhapsody 4 for music, Descent 1 and 2 for games, and Mental Maths Olympics for education. The reviews are well written, by authors who clearly have used the packages extensively. DTP has always been a RISC OS strength and a separate 20 page, advert free, A4, colour covered supplement - produced by Foundation editor Richard Hallas - goes into considerable depth on the topic. Back in RISC Domain itself, a four page spread looks at using Sleuth 3 to convert scanned text sprite-files into text proper. Even as a seasoned RISC OS user, I found this interesting, didn't know about this product and, as a result, want it. It'll even be Iyonix compatible soon.

Riscdomain inside pageA summary. I think that David has done a good job in producing a slick, polished magazine that lets one know that things are happening on the RISC OS software front as well as with the hardware. APDL have a strong portfolio of software products and are actively developing several of them. Success attracts success. If I, like Martin Wuerthner, (author of ArtWorks 2) had a killer RISC OS app then I'd certainly want to advertise it in this magazine.

Although rumoured to be the last issue, my view is that when Mr. Bradforth gets the urge, another will appear. RISC Domain is full of common sense, and my suspicion is that he's just being sensible in not letting magazine production take over his life, which a bimonthly would easily do. Already a cat is out of the bag; one feature that is all laid out and ready to roll is pictured on the cover but not inside. We'll hear more from RISC Domain, mark my words.

Links


APDL website Dave Bradforth

Previous: "Thank you Roy Heslop"
Next: Christmas and winter usergroup meetings

Discussion

Viewing threaded comments | View comments unthreaded, listed by date | Skip to the end

I bought this RISCDomain via eBay due to the announcement listing among other things:

- Virtually a Risc PC (the details of Virtual Risc PC) - IYONIX-ready software (a roundup of what's available)

Well I must admit that I'm very unhappy to have spend UKP 2.99 plus UKP 2.00 postage for this issue since VirtualRPC doesn't even cover two pages and most of one is a picture. I did expect some info (a review or the like) on the product itself instead of just some general info and the statement that they didn't get it in time for the issues deadline - then it shouldn't have been announced in the eBay offer since that offer was just some two weeks prior to delivery and thus the editor must have known that something was amiss here!

Perhaps I'm just blind but the roundup of what's available as for IYONIX ready software seems to be missing completely!

Thus the two main features which made me buy this are missing. So in all I can't agree with the above summary since there are other features which have been announced - and probably got the odd user to order it - which I didn't locate in the magazine. For that UKP 4.99 (or UKP 3.99 in UK) is too much.

Yes, RISCDomain does seem to look into APDL offerings quite a bit but that's fine with me... and was to be expected due to the close relationship between APDL and ProAction.

I do hope that if plans are there to continue with RISCDomain - and I do think that it would be good to have more magazines for RISC OS - that announcement and contents list the same things.

HzN

 is a RISC OS Userhzn on 14/12/03 5:25PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

I bought it to see the review on R-Comp's Grapevine, because i wanted to see if it was worth getting. It wasnt even in the mag!!!

 is a RISC OS Userlittlewhitey on 14/12/03 5:43PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

just buy !grapevine - <review> it's good</review>

 is a RISC OS Userepistaxsis@work on 14/12/03 7:00PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

I must say, I had previously refrained from commenting on this news article, because of recent disagreements with the APDL organisation (whose nature I regret).

However, the two comments thus far (and one comment Martin very honestly makes in the article itself) sadly confirm what I suspected.

Some time ago (issue 1!) I did help publicise a visit by RiscDomain's editor to a user group for the purpose of showing and advertising the magazine.

Sadly, the marketing approach was based solely around insulting Acorn User (anyone ever heard of negative advertising?), not a tactic that's likely to be very effective from now on.

Also, issue 1 was also completely in black and white (like issue 4), and, from what I can recall, made up entirely of recycled articles (some years old!) plus a few adverts. Hardly a moral high ground from which to criticise Acorn User.

Two pounds for P&P inside the UK may be allowed by Ebay, but to me seems rather excessive for a single CD valued at 2.99ukp (without a proper jewel case, I imagine?) The materials for first class postage and packing cost about fifty pence, so whom are we paying one pound fifty for their time putting a CD inside a padded envelope?

Draw your own conclusions about who was fooling whom in the "eBay the best way to sell it" affair... but keep the comments of hzn and littlewhitey in mind.

Martin points out that "RISC Domain has clearly been produced to help London RISC OS dealer APDL to market their wares", and says that there's nothing wrong with this. True in itself, but where does "helping" with marketing end? Shouldn't announcements for the product clearly state its role as an advertisement for APDL, if that is the case?

The "RISC World" magazine is also produced by APDL. I subscribed to this for a year or two, but more recently the "matey" style and poor presentation (typing, spelling and grammar!) put me off. For a proper in depth magazine, I much prefer Foundation RISC User. After all, that's what CD's are there for - no word limit. RISC World really lacked in depth articles, even though I was keen to support it.

But the other concern is whether RISC World is subject to the same production requirements as Martin perceives RISC Domain was. After all, both are APDL productions, and at least some current RISC World subscribers have talked to me about the "three really big pieces of news" that RISC World apparently told them was the most important news, and to be released exclusively...

... can anyone tell me what these three important pieces of RISC OS news were?

The above *is* just an expression of some personal views (I'm surprised what some people think they can get away with, for a start!), but I think it's also about time we all realised that we shouldn't measure the quality of our magazines by the number of titles in production. I don't really think much of any magazine that is driven by a need to be an advertising vehicle for one RISC OS software house, viewpoint, or product area.

dgs

 is a RISC OS Userdgs on 14/12/03 7:54PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Hi dgs,

thanks for your comment... there is one thing that does surprise me a bit... "Two pounds for P&P inside the UK may be allowed by Ebay, but to me seems rather excessive for a single CD valued at 2.99ukp (without a proper jewel case, I imagine?)".

For the UKP 4.99 (2.99 plus postage to Germany) I didn't get a CD, but just a black/white photocopied 36 page A5 thing. OK, for some reason they threw in the DTP guide form Richard Hallas of which the first part is printed in that RISCDomain to fill up some 5 pages...

And after taking a second, closer look I found the "News roundup" feature with the subtitle "A quick roundup or RISC OS related news". I must have missed that one on my first round looking through RISCDomain - well it's just one page and just mentiones topologica being now sold by APDL/ProAction.

Well in all it's a new experience for me to pay for an advertisement leaflet :-)

HzN

 is a RISC OS Userhzn on 15/12/03 7:34AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

in reply to dgs

There is absolutely NO connection between Alligata media and APDL other than that we collected payment for and distributed the earlier issues of RISC Domain and that Alligata media is run by Dave Bradforth who is also involved with APDL in ProAction Software. I haven't seen a copy of this magazine, and don't know what's in it, so I don't know why you feel the need to try to involve APDL.

Similarly, although APDL is the publisher of RISC World it has its own independent editor and I am *very* careful not to interfere in the magazine's content. In fact, we often get complaints from readers that we don't publish enough reviews of APDL products, which, given the current state of the RISC OS market means we don't publish many software reviews at all.

I'm hoping you will have the grace to admit the innacuracy of your statement that "both are APDL productions".

BTW you actually subscribed to RISC World for just the first year, so your experience would seem to be nearly 3 years out of date. Both I and the editor like to think the magazine has improved quite a bit during that period.

 is a RISC OS Userapdl on 15/12/03 9:55AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

The DTP principles special produced by Alligata was outstanding. Its was heavily biased towards good dtp ;-)

 is a RISC OS Usermarkee174 on 15/12/03 11:01AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

hzn: Sorry, of course I meant "magazine" rather than CD. But yes, since you describe it as a leaflet, I doubt the postage costs will be (or *should* be) much higher.

apdl: I've no interest in nit-picking over whether the "publisher" or "producer" is the person who burns the CDs, the person who publishes the results by posting them, or the person whose name appears in the "editor" slot. Some of the contributor names seem to be made up anyway - it's all rather reminiscent of the last year or so of Acorn User under Tau, IMO.

The comments about RISC Domain being produced "to help London RISC OS dealer APDL market their wares" was made by Martin, not by me.

As for my RISC World subscription, I don't think I subscribed as soon as the magazine was started up anyway - in which case it wouldn't just have been "the first year". In any case, I do know people who are still subscribers, so I have seen recent issues. When I looked at it, it seemed to have got worse, not better. (Whether that's changed in the latest issue I don't know).

dgs

 is a RISC OS Userdgs on 15/12/03 1:43PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

I've subscribed to RISC world since day one and it has really improved in consistency and content in the last 2 years.

 is a RISC OS Usermarkee174 on 15/12/03 2:21PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

In reply to dgs' rant:

I made no reference to Martin's remark, not having seen the magazine I can't comment on its content. I was refering to your derogatory remarks about RISC Domain where you said "RISC World magazine is ALSO produced by APDL", which was clearly an attempt to associate APDL with RISC Domain. I note that you are not prepared to admit your mistake in this matter.

Mark: Thanks for your comment. Unlike other magazines ALL of the 'profits' from RISC World goes to the writers, so it's them you really have to thank. I'm sure they'll be glad that their efforrts are appreciated.

 is a RISC OS Userapdl on 15/12/03 3:01PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

apdl: So you're now suggesting that there is no connection between APDL and RISC Domain?

In your previous comment you suggested that there was one.

dgs

 is a RISC OS Userdgs on 15/12/03 4:02PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Dear dgs,

The RISCWorld subscriptions database shows you have -14 issues remaining. The last issue was number 23. So 23-14 is 9. So the last issue you subscribed to was number 9. Since we had 7 issues in the first volume, that means that you saw 2 issues of volume 2. And have not subscribed to the last 14 issues (over 2 years).

So lets have a look at some of your comments

"I subscribed to this for a year or two, but more recently the "matey" style and poor presentation (typing, spelling and grammar!) put me off."

Your subscription expired over 2 years ago, that doesn't sound like recent.

"But the other concern is whether RISC World is subject to the same production requirements as Martin perceives RISC Domain was. After all, both are APDL productions,"

What production requirements? I get no interference from APDL when editing RISCWorld.

If you don't like RISCWorld that's OK, I don't mind, after all you can't please everyone. Positive feedback is always welcome, so could you clarify the "it seemed to have got worse" statement from above as that's not what our readers tell me and if we do need to make improvements I need to know.

 is a RISC OS UserVirtualAcorn on 15/12/03 4:07PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

*in reply to dgs* I am not "suggesting that "there is no connection between APDL and (this issue) of RISC Domain, I'm stating it as a fact.

I would be grateful if you would explain where I have "suggested that there was one". I have explained that my ONLY connection with the earlier issues of the magazine was that I acted as distributor on behalf of Dave Bradforth, ie. the magazines were delivered to me by the printer, I took them out of the box and put them into envelopes and posted them to subscribers. Other than that I had no input into RISC Domain.

Perhaps at this point I ought to publicly declare that I devised, laid out and manufacture the Archive CD each year. As this is considerably greater involvelment than I have had with RISC Domain I assume you will now declare that I'm also some sort of co-publisher of Archive along with Paul Beverley? I don't think he'd be too happy with that conclusion.

Oh, nearly forgot, Paul has just asked me to make a Living with Technology magazine CD. Is that OK with you, or should I refuse?

 is a RISC OS Userapdl on 15/12/03 5:16PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

@HzN: "Well in all it's a new experience for me to pay for an advertisement leaflet"

And it certainly is for me too, since the last few issues of GAG News. :-(

 is a RISC OS UserJGZimmerle on 15/12/03 7:02PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

In reply to JGZimmerle:

Pity you think so - question is why you didn't tell the editor, i.e. me so that I know and can do something about it. It's hard to please the readers if they don't give feedback - and I do get feedback from the odd reader. I'd be happy to get your feedback by email.

As for "advertisement" GAG-News runs 32 A4 pages and has less than one page of advertisement. As for the other parts the readers of GAG-News are welcome to suggest features for articles, or to write or prepare them. And I don't advertise/offer GAG-News announcing features which then are not published. So perhaps there is a difference...

 is a RISC OS Userhzn on 15/12/03 8:31PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

@HzN: I never said there was no difference, in fact I have not even read RISC Domain, so I could not comment on it. In the past I have valued GAG News' balanced and mostly unbiased articles, however recent issues have been mostly praising the Iyonix and showing its strong points over the Omega and RiscPC while either not mentioning or doubting the strong points of these two machines. The result mostly looks like advertising for the Iyonix to me.

Now I appreciate the fact that you write most of the content of GAG News yourself, only have an Iyonix yourselfs and have to rely on other Omega owners for comparisons of these machines. Since Steffen Huber, who seems to be close to Castle (given that they commissioned him to produce their CD writing application), seems to be the only Omega and Iyonix owner contributing to GAG News ATM, I'm not surprised of the recent developments in the magazine.

Now I would very much like to offer you my assistance, but unfourtunately I don't have the time since I started my re-education (media design in audio and video) in Oktober.

 is a RISC OS UserJGZimmerle on 16/12/03 1:40PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Even with the three machines in front of them, how on earth does a reviewer conclude that an Omega or RISC PC is in any way comparable to an Iyonix?

 is a RISC OS UserJessFranco on 16/12/03 3:35PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Happy Christmas everyone. You know peace and goodwill to all folk etc etc etc.

All of you keep up the good work that you do do.

 is a RISC OS Userblahsnr on 16/12/03 7:38PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

JGZimmerle: I can understand some people wanting to see less of the Iyonix (the last Tau Press AU seems to talk about little else), but you've got to be realistic. ROUGOL, for example, is one of the largest RISC OS user groups, but only *one* of our members owns an Omega, and he's quite busy. If ROUGOL produced a magazine (as GAG does), how would the group force people to write articles about Omega, if they've never seen one? Would the group ask people not to write articles about the Iyonix, even though members who don't own an Iyonix now seem to be the minority? How can content relevant to the Omega be included in magazines, if it's MicroDigital policy not to talk to the press?

If it's Steffen's in depth article on Iyonix and Omega that upset you, then be open about it and say so. But that article has been quite widely released now, and I think it's pretty clear that it was comprehensive, detailed, and tried hard to acknowledge any possible plus points of the Omega.

The Risc PC isn't even manufactured any more. So a historical commentary on its strong points is all very well, but it's ridiculous to complain that it gets less coverage than the Iyonix.

If people were releasing things like TV cards, DVD players, and so on for the Omega (as they are for the Iyonix), then of course that would deserve equal coverage. But they're not.

VirtualAcorn: I already explained that I have seen recent RISC World issues, so all the stuff about negative subscription numbers is irrelevant. Actually two people commented to me about RISC World last night, they unsubscribed for pretty much the same reasons. I have no idea whether they provided feedback first or not, though.

apdl: If you state "as a fact" that there is no connection, and then in the very same comment tell us what the "only" connection is, you're causing even more confusion than there is already. As you'll have seen from some other people's comments, there *is* concern about the independence (or otherwise) of magazines. It's well worth learning from publications like Drobe, that take the trouble to be quite specific in making clear, for example, when the author of a product mentioned is also a Drobe contributor.

dgs

 is a RISC OS Userdgs on 16/12/03 8:04PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Dear dgs

Once again I ask you to clarify the "it seemed to have got worse" statement from above.

 is a RISC OS UserVirtualAcorn on 16/12/03 8:38PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

@dgs: I did not complain about the amount of coverage the Iyonix gets, but about the way that the comparisons were written. Things like questioning wether MicroDigital will produce further updates and telling the readers at the same time that it is certain that Castle will always produce updates, but written in such a way that it is not immediately obvious. We had to analyse the text before we noticed these things.

 is a RISC OS UserJGZimmerle on 16/12/03 10:59PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Okay, maybe I was a bit disapointed that most of the coverage seemed to be about the Iyonix, but then there are lots of things going on in the RISC OS market that are not Iyonix specific and so I wonder why there is so little coverage of these things.

 is a RISC OS UserJGZimmerle on 16/12/03 11:03PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

To JGZimmerle:

As for coverage of non-IYONIX things. Well in GAG and probably quite a few other publications news itmes are presented; in the last GAG-News that was 11 A4 pages with 3 columns and most news item not even running half a column. And there are other features not IYONIX-related in that issue as well. The problem for editors is that quite a bit of new things in the market are INOYIX-related in such that applications are upgraded to run on 32 bit and thus IYONIX does get some more coverage implicitely. BTW, in last GAG-News IYONIX-articles were very few, I'd say.

As for Steffens comparison of IYONIX and Omega which was first published in GAG-News he did try to be fair and to stick to facts. If you think that he has gotten things wrong or biased please do let us know. My problem as for writing for the Omega is that I don't have one and thus have to rely on outside infos for it and on what I see when I see one at a show.

To put it simple: I'd like to write about Omega and other things you might miss but for that to be possible I need information or even better articles (or the data for one). So perhaps it is no surprise that more is written about the offerings of the companies and users who publish infos (e.g. in comp.sys.acorn.annouce, Drobe, Iconbar, ...)

In good ol' Acorn times things were simpler since there was just one current computer available for RISC OS so it was affordable to have that one. Now there's several different RISC OS computers in the market, that is to say IYONIX pc and Omega as real and top-end current ones and the odd VirtualRPC-based one (seems to be new virtual ones appearing every month or so). Add the different RISC OS versions (4, Select, 5) to this ... too much variety and too expensive to have all of those at hand - so help is needed.

If your time is scarse perhaps this might help: There is no need to write full articles for GAG-News - I'm happy to get suggestions with some input and will then try to write the article around that. Or some pointer to something worthwhile to look at more closely. Thanks.

I guess that the above is true not only for GAG-News but for the odd other publication as well.

 is a RISC OS Userhzn on 17/12/03 7:17AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

In reply to dgs:

Stop wriggling. I have stated quite plainly that there is no connection between APDL, RISC World or myself and the latest issue of RISC Domain. Either withdraw your remark or back it up with facts.

 is a RISC OS Userapdl on 17/12/03 8:13AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

apdl: If accusing people of "ranting" and "wriggling" is your only response to the concerns that have been raised, then I imagine the concerns will remain. That's a pity for APDL, and for RISC World too.

In your third comment on Martin's article, you specifically told us what you thought the "only" connection between APDL and issues of RISCDomain was. (So there *is* at least one connection, what a surprise).

Martin (an independent reviewer) told us all what his impression of the latest RISC Domain issue was, as concerns APDL. The 10th December announcement about RISCDomain 4 was sent from "apdl-proaction.co.uk". And so on. "Stop wriggling" indeed!

hzn, by contrast, seems well able to respond to comments about (alleged) bias of GAG's magazine, in some detail, perfectly calmly and without resorting to that sort of bluster. Another good example for you to learn from - and some good ideas for all publications, I think.

dgs

 is a RISC OS Userdgs on 17/12/03 9:25PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Dear dgs,

For the third time I ask you to clarify the "it seemed to have got worse" statement you made earlier.

I would also like a clarification of exactly what you mean by "...I imagine the concerns will remain. That's a pity for APDL and for RISCWorld too." What exactly are you trying to suggest? What concerns have been raised about RISCWorld? None have been raised to me. If you are questioning my independance as an editor then please say so directly without trying to hide behind artificial "concerns".

I note that earlier you described the facts about your RISCWorld subscription as "irrelevant", I also note with interest that you did not feel able to contradict these facts. Regretfully I am reaching the conclusion that as far as you are concerned all facts are "irrelevant". To clarify RISCWorlds position.

1. It's published by APDL (who it seems you don't like). 2. It has an independant editor (me, who's integrity you seem happy to question). 3. It does include APDL software in every issue (we cover mount an item from the APDL back catalogue). 4. As editor I commision the articles and are responsible for each issue. 5. I supply the completed editorial to APDL, who then add the adverts and usenet items. 6. APDL are then allowed to check spelling and grammar and to check the HTML for errors. 7. APDL are not allowed to make editorial changes unless I approve them. 6. APDL duplicate and mail out the CD's

The above is fact. I would therefore like you to explain the "concerns" about RISCWorld. As for some of your other comments, for example "After all, that's what CD's are there for - no word limit.". The last issue of RISCWorld had around 60,000 words of articles/editorial.

I am unhappy that someone like yourself, who should be acting as an ambassador for the platform, seems to think that their role is best served by innuendo and by insulting the integrity of those who work hard for the benefit of the RISC OS platform as a whole.

To conclude I am forced to agree with Dave Holden, either back up the allegations you are making with regard to RISCWorld and my position as editor with some facts, or withdraw the statements you have made.

Aaron

 is a RISC OS UserVirtualAcorn on 17/12/03 11:07PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Dear dgs,

Sorry, I am back again having just noticed another strange comment you have made.

"In your third comment on Martin's article, you specifically told us what you thought the "only" connection between APDL and issues of RISCDomain was. (So there is at least one connection, what a surprise)."

Given the size of the RISC OS market I would be very surprised if there was not at least one connection between any two RISC OS companies picked at random.

Aaron

 is a RISC OS UserVirtualAcorn on 17/12/03 11:14PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

VirtualAcorn: If you believe that I am "insulting the integrity of those who work hard for the benefit of the RISC OS platform", then this discussion abandoned any useful purpose some time ago.

Other magazines (i.e. GAG) seem to have been able to participate in comments on this article without any such nonsense or wounded pride.

I notice that 'apdl' (does that mean 'APDL-ProAction', or APDL, or Dave Holden, or a holding company?) has now commented on the latest Drobe software news article, saying "please get your facts right" in distinguishing between 'ProAction' and 'Alligata Media'. Why does David Bradforth need two different company names just for RISC OS products? Why the very similar name to 'RiscAction' ? Are you really *surprised* that people view all this garbled nonsense with some suspicion?

I assume 'VirtualAcorn' is yet another company with no connection to any of the... etc etc

dgs

 is a RISC OS Userdgs on 17/12/03 11:55PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Just to add to the argy-bargy, I've posted details of the magazine's contents here: [link]

 is a RISC OS Usermonkeyson on 18/12/03 1:28AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

monkeyson: Thanks for posting that summary, it adds real facts to other contributors' vagueness.

So much for APDL not knowing anything about the magazine!

If Drobe can manage a better "news roundup" for free, why can't 'RISCwhatever' try harder?

I really didn't realise they were still reprinting large amounts of old material!

dgs

 is a RISC OS Userdgs on 18/12/03 1:40AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

In reply to dgs:

You are correct, I was scrupulous in describing my my "involvement" by declaring that I actually stuffed RISC Domain isses 1 to 3 into envelopes. And now you've found an even more tenuous "link". There was an APDL advert in RISC Domaim. Wow! Does that mean that APDL is joined at the hip with Acorn User (another mag in which we've advertised recently). I think John Cartmell should be told.

Your attemp at diversion isn't going to work. You have stated that I had some sort of significant involvement with this latest issue of RISC Domain. I have stated that I did not. Back up your statement with fact, not innuendo, or withdraw it, please. If you don't have the good grace to do that, at the very least stop compounding your mistake.

 is a RISC OS Userapdl on 18/12/03 08:27AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Dear dgs

"If you believe that I am "insulting the integrity of those who work hard for the benefit of the RISC OS platform", then this discussion abandoned any useful purpose some time ago."

Then what are you doing? What is the purpose of your implications with regard to RISCWorld?

"Other magazines (i.e. GAG) seem to have been able to participate in comments on this article without any such nonsense or wounded pride."

Once again I simply ask you to provide some facts, I don't think that is at all unreasonable given your continued attacks on RISCWorld, a magazine that you do not subscribe to.

"WI notice that 'apdl' (does that mean 'APDL-ProAction', or APDL, or Dave Holden, or a holding company?) has now commented on the latest Drobe software news article, saying "please get your facts right" in distinguishing between 'ProAction' and 'Alligata Media'. Why does David Bradforth need two different company names just for RISC OS products?"

Ask Dave Bradforth.

"Why the very similar name to 'RiscAction' ? Are you really surprised that people view all this garbled nonsense with some suspicion?"

Sorry? What "garbled nonsense". You dragged me into this with your attack on RISCWorld and it's editorial independance. An attack that you have been totally unable to back up with any facts whatsover. Indeed every time I provide you with some solid facts you either say they are "irrelevant" or conveniently ignore them. I also not that you have not attempted to answer any of my questions and simply continue with your mindless bluster.

"I assume 'VirtualAcorn' is yet another company with no connection to any of the... etc etc"

I am very surprised that the chairman of the AAUG has not heard of VirtualAcorn, we do have a website. As almost everyone else knows I run VirtualAcorn and also edit RISCWorld. So once again either provide some facts to back up your snide innuendos with regard to RISCWorld, or withdraw the comments you have made and apologise.

 is a RISC OS UserVirtualAcorn on 18/12/03 10:36AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

apdl: Actually I don't think I used the words "significant involvement" at all. Nice try, though.

VirtualAcorn: There's no reason why I should go into greater detail on why I do or don't like RISC World. In fact I've already gone into more detail than in my original comment (partly based on what I've been told by other people who've stopped their RISC World subscriptions), but you disagree. I've made some suggestions with regard to ensuring editorial independence, but you and David apparently don't think they're relevant or necessary.

dgs

 is a RISC OS Userdgs on 18/12/03 11:47AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

In reply to dgs:

As it seems to have distracted you somewhat from the point, ignore the word "significant" and show some evidence of any involvement with the latest issue.

 is a RISC OS Userapdl on 18/12/03 11:51AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Dear dgs

"In fact I've already gone into more detail than in my original comment (partly based on what I've been told by other people who've stopped their RISC World subscriptions), but you disagree."

Actually what I said was "If you don't like RISCWorld, that's OK I don't mind." You keep trying to skirt the issue. it's very simple. You have tried to imply that there is some question about RISCWorld's editorial independance. I have publically provided details on how RISCWorld is produced and have stated that "APDL are not allowed to make editorial changes unless I approve them."

So yet again I ask you to provide some evidence with regard to your comments on RISCWorld editorial indpendance, or to withdraw the comments you have made and apologise.

Aaron

 is a RISC OS UserVirtualAcorn on 18/12/03 1:19PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

VirtualAcorn: What I said was that there were concerns. From my point of view, your attitude towards the issue has in some ways reinforced them, rather than removed them. I don't know what editorial changes APDL have made that you *have* approved, but either way it's still a concern.

apdl: You seem to be going round in circles. Please re-read my comments. Where did I state that APDL had "significant involvement with this latest issue", as opposed to RISC Domain in general ?

dgs

 is a RISC OS Userdgs on 18/12/03 4:15PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Anyone for a game of tennis, chaps ?

 is a RISC OS Usermartin on 18/12/03 4:19PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Dear dgs,

Once again I ask what "concerns"? How has my attititude re-inforced these "concerns"? You also said

"...I don't know what editorial changes APDL have made that you have approved"

It seems to me that you are expressing doubts about my independance as an editor, and hence about my integrity. I have provided a number of facts on this issue, none of which you have refuted, you on the other hand have provided no facts at all. Yet again I am forced yet again to ask you to back up your allegations with some facts or withdraw them and aplogise.

Aaron

 is a RISC OS UserVirtualAcorn on 18/12/03 4:55PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

In reply to dgs:

You state in your original post "RISC World is also produced by APDL". Note use of word "also". How can that be interpretted in any other way but as an attempt to suggest that APDL is in some way associated with RISC Domain.

Now, once again, justify the remark or withdraw it.

I'm not "going round in circles", I'm requeting an answer. I'm just not getting one.

 is a RISC OS Userapdl on 18/12/03 6:18PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

apdl: I'll ask again. Where did I state that APDL had "significant involvement with this latest issue", as opposed to RISC Domain in general?

VirtualAcorn: The concern was whether RISC World is biased in favour of products sold by APDL, in the same way that some people perceive RISC Domain is.

If you take the time to read through the information kindly provided by Mr Holden, you will notice that the APDL involvement in RISC World is *greater* than the APDL involvement in the RISC Domain issue that was described as "an advertisement leaflet" and "produced to help APDL market their wares".

dgs

 is a RISC OS Userdgs on 18/12/03 7:22PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Dear dgs,

"VirtualAcorn: The concern was whether RISC World is biased in favour of products sold by APDL, in the same way that some people perceive RISC Domain is."

Right, now I understand what you were trying to get at, although you still have not provided any facts. I can solve any potential concern very easily. APDL do not influence the editorial content of RISCWorld. APDL publishes the magazine, APDL produce the CDs, APDL mails the CDs out, APDL takes the subscriptions, APDL run adverts in RISCWorld (as they do in other magazines).

APDL do not control the editorial contents of each or any issue, if that was the case then I would not be involved. When I took over RISCWorld it was on the condition that I had absolute control over editorial content. In all my time as editor no one else has questioned my absolute role as editor, or indeed my integrity.

So I will say it again, APDL do not influence the editorial in RISCWorld, RISCWorld is not biased in favour of products sold by APDL, as I said earlier we do feature APDL products, we cover mount full applications from the APDL back catalogue and give them away to our readers.

This leaves you with two choices, you can either stop your innuendos and accept that RISCWorld is not biased in favour of products sold by APDL and apologise to myself and to Dave Holden, or you can call me a liar and provide evidence to support this.

Aaron

 is a RISC OS UserVirtualAcorn on 19/12/03 00:09AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

VirtualAcorn: Why is it, that it has taken you so long to "understand" what was made quite clear right at the beginning, in my original comment?

If the question had never been asked before, then it's probably good timing that it *was* finally asked!

You've stated your point of view about bias or lack of it, I think I will leave it up to readers to make up their own minds on your answer - especially based upon what you and David Holden have said in this thread!

You can make all the demands you like that people should call each other liars and so forth, I guess that's what forums are here for. Whether such demands are taken seriously or not, is another thing.

dgs

 is a RISC OS Userdgs on 19/12/03 00:43AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Dear dgs,

I have told you that there is no editorial bias in RISCWorld. From your last posting it would seem that you do not believe me. Lets deal with your last posting.

"If the question had never been asked before, then it's probably good timing that it was finally asked!"

Perhaps the question has never been asked because there is no bias? You have provided no evidence to support what you are saying.

"You've stated your point of view about bias or lack of it"

It's not a point of view, as editor I state it as a fact.

"I think I will leave it up to readers to make up their own minds on your answer - especially based upon what you and David Holden have said in this thread!"

Indeed readers (or should I say subscribers) should indeed make up their own minds, since no one else has ever suggested that there might be a bias I conclude that they have already made up their minds about RISCWorld.

No doubt you will have no objection if they also make up their own minds about you based on your comments.

So yet again will you either provide some facts to back up your innuendo, or withdraw your comments with regard to RISCWorld and apologise.

Aaron

 is a RISC OS UserVirtualAcorn on 19/12/03 01:42AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

VirtualAcorn: You seem not able to read, or at least understand, my answers to your questions.

A discussion about perceptions is one thing, a stuck record is another.

dgs

 is a RISC OS Userdgs on 19/12/03 02:31AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

In reply to dgs:

You now seem to be trying to say that you have never said that APDL has any involvement with the latest issue of RISC Domain (I asked you to ignore the word "significant", but you've sneaked it back in).

If that's the case, why have you been trying all this time to imply that I do?

Does that mean that you're finally admitting that what I stated originally is true, that APDL had no involvement with the final issue of RISC Domain, (which is a pretty simple question) or are you going to procrastinate and try to avoid a straight answer yet again?

 is a RISC OS Userapdl on 19/12/03 08:23AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

In reply to dgs:

I've just noticed your rather strange comment to Aaron where you say "the APDL involvement in RISC World is greater than the APDL involvement in the RISC Domain issue..".

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. Of course it's greater. As I've been saying all along, and you finally seem to have accepted, I have *no* involvement with that issue of RISC Domain, but it's no great secret that APDL publish and distribute RISC World. It says so clearly on the front of every CD.

 is a RISC OS Userapdl on 19/12/03 08:30AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Dear dgs,

"You seem not able to read, or at least understand, my answers to your questions. A discussion about perceptions is one thing, a stuck record is another. "

I have explained the editorial postion with regard to RISCWorld at length, I keep asking you questions, so you are correct it is a stuck record, it's stuck as you seem unable to answer questions, or provide any facts to back up your innuendo.

Yet again, provide some some facts, or withdraw and apologise

Aaron

 is a RISC OS UserVirtualAcorn on 19/12/03 12:06AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

apdl: "trying all this time to imply" ? I think this discussion would be shorter and simpler if you discussed what I've actually *said* , rather than what you've decided that I'm "trying to imply".

"I'm not quite sure what you mean by this" - is that code for admitting that my statement is correct?

VirtualAcorn: I don't believe I've missed out any questions. You now seem to be putting forward demands, not questions.

dgs

 is a RISC OS Userdgs on 19/12/03 12:45AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

In reply to dgs:

So, lets get this straight. You have not said or implied that there was any connection between myself or APDL and the latest issue of RISC World. If this is the case then you presumably accept that my statement that there is no such connection is true.

Please don't procrastinate any more, forget about where I got the idea, just answer the question. It's not difficult, either you accept what I say or you don't. If you don't, justify it.

 is a RISC OS Userapdl on 19/12/03 1:59PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Dear dgs,

"I don't believe I've missed out any questions. You now seem to be putting forward demands, not questions."

I am simply asking for you to back up what you are saying with some facts. I have stated that there is no editorial bias in RISCWorld, the fact that you are continuing to post strongly implies that you don't believe me. Do you believe me? When trying to state a postion it is normal to provide some facts to explain how any conclusion was reached. I have stated a number of facts about how RISCWorld is produced, you have not contradicted these, but how could you, since they are absolute fact.

So provide some facts of your own, or withdraw and apologise.

Aaron

 is a RISC OS UserVirtualAcorn on 19/12/03 2:04PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

apdl: I am happy to believe that APDL were not involved in pressing or distributing the CDs for the latest issue of RISC Domain.

As for the rest;

(1) One purchaser described the issue in question as "an advertising leaflet". The *majority* of the adverts in said leaflet were from APDL. (And apparently one from VirtualAcorn, obviously no connection there ;-) )

(2) At least some of the adverts for RISC Domain were posted from the domain "apdl-proaction.co.uk". The editor of RISC Domain, David Bradforth, markets and sells ProAction products (and others?) through APDL.

(3) Even those sections of the magazine that weren't obviously adverts taken out by APDL or VirtualAcorn, covered ProAction or APDL or APDL/ProAction products disproportionately as against other products. (IMO; see the complete contents list on The Iconbar).

I will leave it up to you as to whether you describe that as a "connection", or just as an "advertising opportunity".

dgs

 is a RISC OS Userdgs on 19/12/03 8:40PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Dear dgs,

I see you have responded to APDL, yet have managed to miss my posting from earlier. You may remember that you said...

"I don't believe I've missed out any questions."

Well you seem to have ignored my last posting which contained a simple enough question, "Do you believe me?"

So that's a question that you haven't answered, so yet again I have to repeat myself, I state as a fact that APDL have no editorial control over RISCWorld, nor is there any bias in favour of APDL products, do you believe me?

If not then why not publically say so, if you do believe me then simply withdraw your comments and apologise. If a public apology is too difficult for you then I am happy to accept a private apology, and that will end the matter.

Aaron

 is a RISC OS UserVirtualAcorn on 20/12/03 00:07AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Dear VirtualAcorn,

Have no fear, you have not been missed out.

dgs

 is a RISC OS Userdgs on 20/12/03 00:20AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Dear dgs,

"Have no fear, you have not been missed out. "

Ok then, where is the answer to my most recent question? I state as a fact that APDL have no editorial control over RISCWorld, nor is there any bias in favour of APDL products, do you believe me?

Aaron

 is a RISC OS UserVirtualAcorn on 20/12/03 00:26AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

In reply to dgs:

"I am happy to believe that APDL were not involved in pressing or distributing the CDs for the latest issue of RISC Domain"

This is perhaps the first undeniable fact in the entire thread - for RISC Domain 4 was supplied on paper only. ;)

 is a RISC OS Usermonkeyson on 20/12/03 00:30AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

monkeyson: Thanks for point out this minor flaw :-) (Glad someone is still awake).

In a sudden attack of generosity, I'm *also* happy to believe that APDL didn't print the leaflet, either.

dgs

 is a RISC OS Userdgs on 20/12/03 00:32AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

In reply to dgs:

Still looking for a way out without answering the question.

I have stated that APDL had no involvement with the latest issue of RISC Domain. Either you accept that, or not. If not, then cite evidence, not innuendo.

Now, once again, (it's not a trick question), do you accept that APDL had no involvement in the latest issue of RISC Domain or not ?

 is a RISC OS Userapdl on 20/12/03 08:04AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

apdl: It was described as an "advertising leaflet", and the majority of the adverts were from APDL. I'd see that as an involvement, yes.

dgs

 is a RISC OS Userdgs on 20/12/03 08:54AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

VirtualAcorn: You were desperate for some facts to chew over, it seems. Here they are:

(1) David Holden has admitted that APDL have substantially *more* involvement in the production of RISC World, than they do in an issue of RISC Domain that purchasers described as "an advertising leaflet" and "produced to help London RISC OS dealer APDL market their wares".

(2) It has been implied that APDL could make editorial changes to RISC World issues, if they asked your permission first. (It hasn't been specified that this *hasn't* yet happened, perhaps you could clarify that).

(3) It has been admitted that APDL's involvement in RISC World is not simply limited to burning the CDs, then packaging, marketing and selling the product (as would be the case, for example, if you just sent David a CD image to burn). Instead, you send material to APDL, to which they then add other material in order to produce the issue.

(4) When RISC World was launched, a number of public commitments were made about its position in the market. One of them, naturally, was about its editorial independence. But at least one of the other commitments made at the same time, has not been kept.

(5) I don't believe it is easy for an editor to retain a completely impartial viewpoint on the merits (or even relevance) of other developers' products, when the editor is the proprietor of a company producing a product aiming at competing with them.

(6) At least one long-standing RISC World subscriber told me that in his opinion, RISC World consistently provides less coverage of some products which compete with some of those APDL sell, which could also be seen as potential competitors to Virtual Acorn. (The Iyonix was the specific example mentioned).

(7) The publisher (if that's the right word) of RISC World, APDL, have seemed very reticent in this thread to admit certain facts about another magazine with connections to APDL. Specifically, we only found out that APDL advertised very heavily in the latest issue of RISC Domain, when someone went to the trouble of posting a complete listing of the magazine's contents. If APDL were being completely open about any involvement with the magazine, one would've thought they would have made clear, right at the start, that they advertised in the issue.

(8) The above seven points, taken together, give me (as a potential subscriber) concern about subscribing to RISC World as published by APDL.

Those are the facts. If you can establish to my satisfaction that any one of those items is untrue or unreasonable, I will (as you so enjoy saying) withdraw it and apologise for it.

Otherwise...

dgs

 is a RISC OS Userdgs on 20/12/03 09:12AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

In reply to dgs:

So, you're now resorting to quoting someone else's *opinion* and citing it as fact.

Once again, I state that I had no involvement with the latest issue of RISC Domain. Do you accept this or not?

 is a RISC OS Userapdl on 20/12/03 09:49AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

apdl: No, the opinion I read was then backed up by the listing of the RISC Domain issue's contents, that was provided in The Icon Bar's forums.

In the absence of any evidence to contradict that, I stand by my view.

dgs

 is a RISC OS Userdgs on 20/12/03 10:31AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

In reply to dgs:

Your view? Which is what, precisely ?

So far what we've had from you is innuendo and vague accusations, all made in public and obviously intended to be detrimental to myself and APDL. I'm making a clear, unequivacal statement to refute this. I had no involvement with the latest issue of RISC World. Now answer. Do you accept this or not ? If not, are you prepared to back up your public accusation with fact ?

 is a RISC OS Userapdl on 20/12/03 11:42AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

apdl: Stop wriggling. I've already answered your question about "involvement", above. (8:54 this morning).

dgs

 is a RISC OS Userdgs on 20/12/03 3:32PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

apdl: Incidentally, why do you believe it would be detrimental to APDL, for people to perceive that there was a connection between APDL and RISC Domain? Has the reader feedback you've seen, made you suspect it might not be a very good magazine? :-)

dgs

 is a RISC OS Userdgs on 20/12/03 3:38PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

In reply to dgs:

Still ducking and weaving.

You have answered nothing. The question is; do you accept my assertion that I have noting to do with the latest issue of RISC Domain or not ? If not, cite facts to back it up. You made the accusation - back it up or withdraw.

 is a RISC OS Userapdl on 20/12/03 3:57PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Dear dgs,

Dealing with your points in order.

1. Yes, but I have already said this publically, please re-read my earlier postings.

2. It has not been implied that APDL could make editorial changes to RISCWorld. It has been stated that they cannot make any changes with out getting my permission to do so. The only changes I have ever agreed to have been related to spelling or grammar. APDL have never asked for changes beyond that because Dave knows I would refuse.

3. Yes, they add the adverts and the usenet stuff, but once again you know all this because I said so. APDL publish RISCWorld, but they do not edit it.

4. I would be interested to know what commitments that were made at launch have been broken. Also note that I was not the editor at the time of launch. But then since you subscribed at the time you know that already.

5. Well you might have difficulty, I don't have problems keeping an impartial viewpoint. That's something I learnt doing my degree.

6. Which "products which compete with some APDL sell", once again vague un-credited opinion with no back up, which you are trying to dress up as fact. I am flattered that you think VA and the Iyonix could be potential competitors. For my views on this subject check out the last issue.

7. Sorry I have no idea what you are trying to get at here, or what the relevance is. I am not APDL.

"(8) The above seven points, taken together, give me (as a potential subscriber) concern about subscribing to RISC World as published by APDL."

OK, lets examine your concerns in order and simplify the language

1. APDL have involvement in RISCWorld (they publish it so how can they not be involved) 2. APDL could make editorial changes (but they have never asked and even if they did I would refuse) 3. APDL publish RISCWorld (ie they take the editorial and add all the other bits such as adverts) 4. The editor has changed. 5. The editor has another job. 6. APDL might have products that compete with others. 7. APDL advertise.

"Those are the facts. If you can establish to my satisfaction that any one of those items is untrue or unreasonable, I will (as you so enjoy saying) withdraw it and apologise for it."

I ought to point out that the only facts you have presented are those which you have already been told. Indeed at least one of the points isn't fact at all but yet more un-backed up opinion. I do not need to establish anything to your satisfaction, you need to supply some facts to back up your innuendo. Something that you continually fail to do.

"Otherwise..."

Otherwise what? I note that you still have not answered one of my earlier questions, which was "Do you believe me?" Well it's a simply yes/no job. Either way you still have not provided any facts, simply repeated what I have already told you. So we are still in the same position, back up your innuendo or withdraw and apologise.

Aaron

 is a RISC OS UserVirtualAcorn on 20/12/03 5:35PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

apdl: I've said that I don't accept that assertion, and I've said why.

Now, are you going to tell us that the adverts weren't there?

Or are you just going to claim that taking out all those adverts (more adverts than all other companies put together, remember) isn't an involvement between APDL and the magazine?

dgs

 is a RISC OS Userdgs on 20/12/03 5:43PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

VirtualAcorn: I see that you have failed to establish that any of the items I listed (1) through (8) are unreasonable.

As for whether I "believe" you - tell me why I should.

Just because you tell me that I have to?

dgs

 is a RISC OS Userdgs on 20/12/03 5:59PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

In reply to dgs:

I accept that the adverts are there. I haven't seen a copy of the magazine, but I see no reason to doubt that they exist.

However, I suggest you take a look at (say) Computer Shoppper or, closer to home, Acorn User, Acorn Publisher or Archive. They also have adverts, sometimes APDL adverts, so I don't see how the "fact" of APDL adverts "proves" anything, other than that they are there.

Once again, I ask you to answer the question. Do you or do you not accept my statement that I had no involvement with the latest issue of RISC Domain ? If you don't, either stop posting speculation and innuendo or offer something tangible to back up your malicious remarks.

 is a RISC OS Userapdl on 21/12/03 08:12AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

apdl: I very much doubt that Computer Shopper ever had an issue where nearly 60% of the adverts were from APDL; nor that copies of Qercus or Archive will appear that could be described just as "advertising leaflets".

You ask what the preponderence of APDL adverts in the latest issue of RISC Domain "proves". Unless you're suggesting that David Bradforth inserted the adverts without contact with you, and without expectation of payment, it proves to *my* satisfaction that you had some connection with that issue.

However much you may squirm and wriggle, and protest that APDL has a similar connection with ten thousand other magazines, it doesn't change that fact.

It would have been better if you had been open enough to admit the advertising connection when the possibility of your involvement was originally brought up; rather than waiting for our simian friend to uncover it publically. It seems you were more than happy to allow Drobe readers to be misled by conveniently omitting to mention it.

dgs

 is a RISC OS Userdgs on 21/12/03 3:11PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Dear dgs,

"I see that you have failed to establish that any of the items I listed (1) through (8) are unreasonable. As for whether I "believe" you - tell me why I should. Just because you tell me that I have to?"

How is one to establish that a fact is unreasonable? Taking point 1, as I said before APDL publishes RISCWorld, ergo they must be involved. The point is simple, you tried to imply that APDL might have some influence over the editorial in RISCWorld, I have told you that this is not the case. In order to back this up I have explained how the editorial process works for RISCWorld.

You on the other hand have offered no facts, beyond those that I have already told you.

Either you believe me or you don't. I have not said that you have to believe me, what I have asked is do you believe me? So given your inability to back up your comments with any evidence whatsoever this still leaves you with two choices. Either you believe me in which case you should apologise and withdraw your comments, or you don't believe me in which case you should explain why and provide factual evidence to back this up.

Aaron

 is a RISC OS UserVirtualAcorn on 21/12/03 3:30PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

VirtualAcorn: The comments I made are conveniently numbered (1) to (8). I have made no other claims about RISC World in this thread. When you can prove that any one of those items is untrue and unreasonable, I will apologise and withdraw it.

Setting up a strawman argument of what I supposedly "tried to imply" isn't going to help you at all.

If you want to manufacture claims that I haven't made, and then argue with yourself about whether they're true or not, that's fine by me.

I notice that David Holden was also quite keen on this "tried to imply" stuff a couple of days ago. What a curious coincidence.

Please either address what's actually been said (not what you can *pretend* has been implied), or apologise and withdraw your comments.

Congratulations on your degree, by the way.

dgs

 is a RISC OS Userdgs on 21/12/03 4:11PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Dear dgs,

Please try and read what has been said. As I said earlier how can a fact be unreasonable. How am I supposed to "prove" that APDL don't publish RISCWorld? It's true, it's a fact.

The point is still the same, this is what you said.

"But the other concern is whether RISC World is subject to the same production requirements as Martin perceives RISC Domain was."

Well the only production requirements are that it can be duplicated and comes in on budget. Beyond that I have full editorial control. APDL have no influence over the editorial in RISCWorld. I keep telling you this.

However you keep trying to twist and turn and try to get away without either justifying your continued attacks on myself and Dave Holden, or withdrawing your comments and apologising. You continually avoid answering questions, you ignore what has been said and you come up with increasingly odd statements in a futile attempt to get yourself off the hook.

You should stop beating around the bush and trying to avoid the question. As I keep saying it's very simple, either you believe me when I say APDL have no editorial influence or control over RISCWorld, or you don't. If you do believe me then withdraw and apologise, if you don't believe me then simply say so and explain why.

Lets see if you can answer the question, "Do you believe me?" in your next posting, or will you try to find yet another tortuous way of avoiding the issue.

Aaron

 is a RISC OS UserVirtualAcorn on 21/12/03 5:37PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

VirtualAcorn: I have no idea whether to believe it or not.

"As I said earlier how can a fact be unreasonable."

Exactly.

dgs

 is a RISC OS Userdgs on 21/12/03 6:24PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

In reply to dgs:

You really are beginning to scrape the bottom of the barrel in a desparate attempt to justify your innuendo.

Advertising does *not* constitute "involvement" in a magazine.

Once again, I ask if you accept my assertion that I was not involved with the last issue of RISC Domain. I strongly suggest you stop making malicious remarks with the intend damage the reputation of myself and my business.

 is a RISC OS Userapdl on 21/12/03 6:37PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Dear dgs,

As I said "or will you try to find yet another tortuous way of avoiding the issue.", which resulted in you saying...

"I have no idea whether to believe it or not."

Well either you believe what I have said, or you don't. So simply make a choice. I will say it yet again, APDL have no editorial control over RISCWorld. If you do not believe this then simply say so and explain why.

If my credability is in doubt then take some time to ask others in the RISC OS community about me. As many know I started out with the Acorn Atom, I wrote a number of freeware/shareware apps in the 80's and early 90's. I have worked for a number of RISC OS companies over the years, and for the last 13 years I have earned my living in the RISC OS/Acorn market. I was one of the beta testers for Artworks and Impression, I was asked to work with Acorns Professional sales division to help with the sale of RISC OS based DTP systems. I worked with RISC OS Ltd on the font aspects of RISC OS 4. As iSV products I wrote a number of RISC OS packages, including DrawWorks and FontFiend.

RISC OS is my OS of choice. I run the company accounts on RISC OS (using Prophet), I handle my perssonal accounts on RISC OS, I use Impression as my main word processor, if someone sends me a Word document I open it with Techwriter.

So I say to you again, either you believe it when I say that APDL have no editorial control over RISCWorld, or you don't believe me, the choice is yours.

Aaron

 is a RISC OS UserVirtualAcorn on 22/12/03 01:00AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

apdl: "Advertising does *not* constitute 'involvement' in a magazine."

Not necessarily in an editorial sense, no. But I wouldn't see it as justifying a claim that someone "had nothing at all to do with this issue", if that person placed nearly 60% of the adverts in the issue.

It seems that's the only point on which we still disagree, on this topic.

Have a good Christmas.

dgs

 is a RISC OS Userdgs on 22/12/03 6:57PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

VirtualAcorn: Thank you for enlightening us about your involvement with the Acorn Atom and many other things. It's nice to hear that RISC OS is your OS of choice, that's true for many other people here as well.

None of that changes what I've already said, though.

dgs

 is a RISC OS Userdgs on 22/12/03 7:03PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Dear dgs,

Stop procrastinating. I have told you APDL have no editorial control over RISCWorld, do you believe me or not? Now are you going to accept that and apologise, or are you going disagree and say why? Or perhaps you will continue trying to avoid the issue. Anyone want to take any bets?

Aaron

 is a RISC OS UserVirtualAcorn on 22/12/03 11:42PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

VirtualAcorn: I've answered your question already.

If you are unwilling to accept the answer, there is little point my repeating it.

dgs

 is a RISC OS Userdgs on 23/12/03 02:39AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Dear dgs, Avoiding the issue it is then. I think that it is a great shame that you no not have the good grace to admit when you are wrong. So are you going to withdraw and apologise.

Aaron

 is a RISC OS UserVirtualAcorn on 23/12/03 09:22AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Isn't this over yet?

 is a RISC OS Usermonkeyson on 23/12/03 10:54AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

monkeyson: Several days ago, I think :-)

dgs

 is a RISC OS Userdgs on 23/12/03 1:43PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Dear Phil,

Sorry, I am just seeing if I can dgs to answer a question.

Dear dgs,

So are you going to answer the question? Do you believe me? I don't mind if you don't but it would be nice to get an answer from you.

Aaron

 is a RISC OS UserVirtualAcorn on 23/12/03 4:45PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

VirtualAcorn:

dgs has already answered your question: "I have no idea whether to believe it or not".

'Yes' or 'no' are not the only answers to a question.

 is a RISC OS Userfylfot on 23/12/03 8:04PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Please login before posting a comment. Use the form on the right to do so or create a free account.

Search the archives

Today's featured article

  • Being a DJ with RISC OS
    The people want entertaining. Jon Wright has the solution
     36 comments, latest by jonix on 25/11/03 10:42PM. Published: 22 Nov 2003

  • Random article

  • RiscPCs were fab, says Wordwise author
    Knowledge of Acorn seems to stop at 1998, though
     3 comments, latest by guestx on 3/12/05 4:15PM. Published: 1 Dec 2005

  • Useful links

    News and media:
    IconbarMyRISCOSArcSiteRISCOScodeANSC.S.A.AnnounceArchiveQercusRiscWorldDrag'n'DropGAG-News

    Top developers:
    RISCOS LtdRISC OS OpenMW SoftwareR-CompAdvantage SixVirtualAcorn

    Dealers:
    CJE MicrosAPDLCastlea4X-AmpleLiquid SiliconWebmonster

    Usergroups:
    WROCCRONENKACCIRUGSASAUGROUGOLRONWUGMUGWAUGGAGRISCOS.be

    Useful:
    RISCOS.org.ukRISCOS.orgRISCOS.infoFilebaseChris Why's Acorn/RISC OS collectionNetSurf

    Non-RISC OS:
    The RegisterThe InquirerApple InsiderBBC NewsSky NewsGoogle Newsxkcddiodesign


    © 1999-2009 The Drobe Team. Some rights reserved, click here for more information
    Powered by MiniDrobeCMS, based on J4U | Statistics
    "An increasing number of Drobe articles don't relate to RISC OS. Who cares if the Finn brothers sell Sibelius to a bunch of yanks"
    Page generated in 0.8491 seconds.