STEPvsKELADAN - ZX-formum :)

Hello Dmitry !

Tuesday March 04 1997 17:58, Dmitry Grigoryev ─── Evgeny Milun:

[......]
EM>>>> When we wrote our comment in the 2nd issue, we thought
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
EM>>>> that the conflict is over - you say one thing in your journal, we -
EM>>>> another in ours. All. Readers will decide for themselves who is right.
[.....]
EM>>>> But... In the 20th we read a letter comparing us to the ground.
DG>>> The 20th issue of Spectrophone was released a month earlier than the 2nd issue of Oberon.

EM>> Do you happen to have eye diseases? In my letter, which
[.....]
DG> You have a disease... of other parts of the body. The fact is that Glushkov's article
DG> is _in no way_ connected with your commentary on Oberon 2, as you are trying
DG> to show.
Sorry for the impropriety, but go get checked. I wrote in Russian: our commentary in the 2nd refers to the commentary in the 18th SPF; to Glushkov’s letter - our letter, sent by me before the new year, which, in your words, “still will not be published.”
That’s it, on this topic I don’t want to talk to you anymore.

EM>>>> There is no comment, despite the many, to put it mildly,
EM>>>> inaccuracies. It was "one time".
[.....]
DG> There was _a lot_reasonable thoughts. So far you have only been able to find fault with
DG> floppy disks and Lozinsky. And everything he said to you was
DG> correct. And why there was no comment, you’ve already been told.
Then read my second letter again - there I talk about “Matveev didn’t like” the OS, there I talk about Profi, there I talk about terminology, there
I talk about a lot more. This time. And two - that’s what I said: the letter seemed
“not criminal”, because... in it we personally were presented in an unflattering light.
“Why was there no comment?” I also said.

EM>>>> We (or rather, I) wrote a response letter and began to wait for further
EM>>>> events. And “two” happened - Online'64. That's when we took offense at you.
DM>>> The review in ON-LINE #64 was published before you (or rather, you)
[.....]
EM>> But: (1) the same person takes part in their creation - you;
EM>> (2) your comment appeared just a week (!!) after that how
EM>> Oberon was given to (a) Magic Soft and (b) Spectrophone.
DG> (0) - I proved that my review is not related to your second letter.
Sorry. Did I really say that? I said that your review is related to
our comment!!!

DG> (1) - in the creation of which I take part - this is minecase. To prove my bias with this
DG> is at least stupid. ON-LINE is an independent publication,
DG> take this as an axiom, as I see, you cannot understand this. B
Naturally. And not only me - everyone who knows how to multiply two by two and is familiar
with all the "materials on the case".
DG> "Presentation" there was not a single disapproving word about your "comment
DG> comment" - I condemned your arrogance and showed your inconsistency
^^^^^^^^^^^ You should have said directly - such "evidence" I wouldn’t miss it.
DG> as “professionals”, I expressed exclusively my opinion, as I do
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ do you still insist on this topic?
DG> the review is always caused only by Oberon 2... I won’t repeat it again
DG>. (2) - what does this prove? I’m on good terms with both (a) and (b) and
DG> I can still list many letters of the alphabet :) Are you saying that for
DG> a week I couldn’t get this magazine in Moscow and write a review on it?
DG> You’re a funny guy :)
So, you yourself said (even in Online’74) that our magazine is “terribly not "is popular." And the people are “fed up”, and distributors no longer want to sell it. And with a “filthy broom” they sweep away the “spirit” from the capitalOBERONA".

[.....]
DG>>> This is the 4th time I’ve heard this accusation from you :(
DG>>> Milun - I demand proof or a _public_ apology :-I
EM>> Not before I’m convinced of this myself!
DG> First you had to be convinced, and only then accuse. Admit that your phrase about
DG> that I wrote the review without seeing Oberon, and under the dictation of Step, no more
DG> than the speculation of your inflamed imagination and apologize.
About the inflamed imagination - it became inflamed again, and “gave birth” to my
ultimatum. In addition, you probably forgot that I have the right to demand it. from
explanations, and only then you (if your explanations satisfy me).

EM>> At least, not before I read Online.
DG> Have a nice time.
Same to you.

EM>> In addition, I presented my evidence.
DG> I successfully refuted them, by the way, you are legally savvy. ours,
You refuted them ???!!! I have never heard a greater lie in my life!!! You didn’t even
mention them!!!
DG> does the phrase “presumption of innocence” tell you anything? It’s not me, but you who accused me, so why are you putting forward only indirect evidence?
EM>> And if yours don’t convince me, then, I'm afraid _YOU_ will apologize.
DG> And I don't have to prove anything to you - you accused me ofbias.
Let's see.

EM>>>> Now “three things” have happened - everyone who has anything to do with SPF
EM>>>> began to “take me apart piece by piece” in this echo.
DG>>> However, the composition of Spectrophone has _significantly_ grown... Several times, I
DG>>> I would say :-)
EM>> Composition our editors too. Just what does this prove?
DG> That your sense of humor is not all right :(
Really? Then, ha-ha-ha-ha-ha.

DG> [missed...]
EM>>>> Well, how many times do I have to repeat it - we didn’t spread your Heritage,
DM>>> So why did you present it in Oberon 2????? And even so pompous?
EM>> “Opinion of the authors of individual articles ....” - the presentation was made by
EM>> representative of SPEED Co.

DG> Member of the editorial board and writing under the dictation of the Stars of Keladan
DG> group :)))) The last, of course, is a joke. In general, you better not use “our
DG> methods of argument” - you become predictable :)
And you don’t?

DG>>> Ahh! So you're pirates, not hackers? Why didn’t you say it right away?
EM>> Soon I’ll get used to your jokes,
DG> I sincerely hope :)
EM>> but for now, confirm if I understood correctly - you’re pretending that you don’t
EM>> know how a hacker differs from a pirate.
DG> That’s not correct. And I'm not pretending.If you restore programs, if
DG> you break protections - you are hackers. If you violate copyright by distributing hacked
DG> - pirates. If at the same time you insult the authors, whom you deprive
DG> of remuneration for their work, you are lamer. If you are going to sell
Who did we offend, and how? (Now I will always demand complete information from you.)

DG> discs with Spectrophone and Oberon in one bottle ("thunder moon" -
DG> you say...), then... think about it yourself. Naturally, the boundaries of these four
DG> concepts are more blurred than in my definitions.
Wow, how I spoke. And I even remembered about the “thunder moon”. Well, read it again: “the authors have the right to the program, but have no right to its
carrier.” Do you draw your own conclusions about who is trying to insult whom, or should you
help me?

EM>>>> And thirdly. And many copies of ZH have been sold over the past two months
EM>>>> ?
DG>>> Why are you interested in this?
EM>> But because. (read my letter to you, as well as the dispute in this echo about
EM>> about copyrighted programs on emulators)
DG> Ah! So I didn’t understand you - it means that you were going to send the money received from the sale of
DG> the hacked ZH to the authors? :-0 And read the argument yourself -
DG> came to the conclusion that the emulators will make do :) In my opinion,STEP not
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ sorry, I think I missed something. Was there an official vote? Or are you authorized to speak for
everyone? Personally, I believe that “emulators” also have the right to play new
games. Any questions? No questions, very good.
DG> authorized SPEED Co. remove protection and distribute ZH with
DG> inscription STEP/SPEED Co. Only the authors have the right to decide such matters. The fact that in
DG> Samara they stopped buying ZH is not an indicator. However, you don’t distribute DG, so relax :)
Then why are you “wiping all this” for me here? To “earn an extra
point”?

EM>>>> Yes??? Then I can just as well say that with your attacks on us,
EM>>>> systems engineers, you insult _ALL_ systems engineers. And also all of
EM>>>> Samara, etc.
DG>>> As they say, turned it upside down ;)
EM>> I just applied your method of argument.
DG> It’s better not to - it turns out badly.
Nothing of the kind - it goes in and out as it should. But, I understand you - it’s very difficult when people talk to you like that. Well, it’s okay, be patient -
I’m patient.

EM>> And if you said “turned it over”, then this once again proves that I
EM>> am right.
DG> Oh... Now, if only I had run overthroughout Samara, then you might decide that I
DG> ran into you and all the systems engineers in Samara. Is it clear now? :(
No. Are you giving me free lessons in “turning over”? Okay, I’ll become an obedient student, and I bow to your experience.

DG>>> Wait, you’ll get tired of commenting on every letter published in
DG>>> Oberon - you’ll understand...
EM>> But they’re still ours commented.
DG> When you don't "use our methods", your whole argument comes down to
DG> a few words "they commented on us, but he didn't. ABYDNHO :("
Nevermind, sensei, I'm learning quickly.

YM>>>>> First of all: which magazine do you trust? Read him.
EM>>>> If you don’t like our service, go to another store. (Conversation in a soviet
EM>>>> store somewhere in 1985)
DG>>> In my opinion, the correct statement...
EM>> For the times of the USSR, and for stores in the USSR.
DG> Correct for the times of a market economy If you don’t like it. magazin -
DG> go to the next one. If there is none next door, open your own. That's what you did...
Absolutely right. But since it is “mine”, they tried to cover it up.

DG> [missed...]

EM>> I doubted the professionalism of the author of the article that they poked me into nose.And the author, I repeat, is at odds with neither information theory,
EM>> nor with jurisprudence. At least in his article.
DG> But the devil knows :) His statements seem to me much less nonsense than
DG> yours on the same subject, not to mention the style of presentation...
Yes? What about my style? And then, “his reasons.” And you, not “arguments”, but
saw the law?

[.....]

EM>>>> Then I am the king of England.

DG> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
DG>>> And can you prove it? ;)
EM>> I can.
DG> Really?
True.

DG> [missing...]
EM>> Wrong again. I keep an eye on my thoughts, but all of you try to read between the lines. Even when these lines are not there. :(
DG> Even when we quote you, there are still “no lines”?
And when I (quote you). Don’t you try to find “between the lines” in your statements? And then, the beginning of this message doesn’t talk about “simple
quoting”, rather it’s “your own interpretation”.

Good luck! Evgeny.