STEPvsKELADAN - ZX-ÆÏpÍÕÍ :)

It happened on a gloomy Friday, the 28 of February 1997. A minute to midnight
Evgeny Milun wrote to Sergei Novikov such a delightful letter that I consider it
to be my duty to comment it:

EM>>> No, I didn’t understand. Are you saying that when you publish programs you don't
EM>>> care about what computers they won't run on?
SN>> This was already written about in one of the first issues. The editors cannot
SN>> test the game on all computers from Robik to Profi. And it’s a pity for time
SN>>.
EM> I repeat again. Matvev asked for the names of the programs and our
EM> claims.

So if your computer is so buggy? HQ doesn't work, RS's doesn't work, SC128 doesn't work... It's time to change the computer.

YM>>>> Why are you alarmed because of this virus? Didn't they lose by chance?
YM>>>> Maybe they sent us their virus and didn’t make it to the finals? No one except you
YM>>>> spoke so much about this program...

EM>>> Do you know who? You are again trying to impose on everyone the idea “KELADAN
EM>>> did not reach the finals in VIRUS, and therefore he is attacking us because of
EM>>> him.”

SN>> “You are trying to impose the idea...” - this is interesting. Where in the phrase
SN>> is this stated? Nowhere. So there is no need for unfounded accusations here.

EM>The thought itself is a statement.

8-{}

EM>>> Moreover, it almost came to the Championship in Virus-2, in which
EM>>> that same area abuse was specially inserted,

SN>> ... which can be seen if you view Oberon 2 with a disc doctor. ;)

EM> Seriously???? Don’t you know that some distributors don’t
EM> fill the disk with zeros before writing anything to it?

What, again “you have to point your finger”? See, for example, the appendix to Oberon-1. There, in
one of the versions by Milun & Korolev contains an obscene phrase in relation to
Step. Enough? And this despite the fact that #1 came out in April, when there was no SPF #20 yet, but you hadn’t read SPF #18 (?). It should be added that in OBR2 you said that you had nothing special against Stepa, but only disagreed with his opinion. Plus, in the echo you said that before Glushkov’s letter and the dispute in the echo, you treated the editors of the SPF without much malice.

SN>> Where? Although _distributor of Spectrum programs by mail_ he is the best
SN>> in the world, due to the absence (?) of anyone else. _Publisher of the printed
SN>> magazine_ he is also the best in the world.

EM> How do you know??????? IFC told you this????????

Do you know another printed Spectrum magazine besides Review?

YM>>>> let's see. Then the program of the class Zv.Nasl. would be worth itabout 30
YM>>>> bucks per disc, which translated into rubles is about 170 thousand. If it were in
YM>>>> a color box

EM>>> Yes, but now, for example, the Land of Myths costs 30 thousand.

SN>> Not 25? So what? 5.5 bucks. Do you know Western prices? When the
SN>> Chase H.Q. sold for 19.95 bucks? And that was when! And not in
SN>> Russia, where prices have risen above world prices.

EM> Do you know the quality of “Country”? When you find out, then
EM> we'll talk.

What do you think, in the West, too, only great games were released at high prices?
Or, for example, Dizzy 7, which was worse than the previous ones, suddenly cost
several times more expensive than them (ten pounds!)

EM>>> Well, how many times do I need to repeat it - we didn’t distribute yours
EM>>> Heritage, they didn’t distribute it.

SN>> But they wanted: in Oberon-2 there was an advertisement for a hacked version with addresses where they could be bought
SN>>... And the copyright itself on this version: “(c)1995 Step,
SN>> (c)1996 Speed Co.” Quite impudent.

EM> I didn’t understand something. Why can SPF print whatever it wants, without reporting to anyone, but we can’t??

Don’t compare. It was not about materials, but about advertising a pirated version of the game. Or
have you seen ads in SPF like “I’m selling a hacked version of the game UFO 2. Version
5.4 by KOPYTO SOFT& COPPER FEET"?

EM> Should you quote Matveyev's phrase about the fact that "the opinion of the editors
EM> may not coincide with the opinion of the authors of individual articles"? It seems
EM> now it is _YOU_ who are trying to shut their mouths !!!!

What is the opinion of the editors? The editors themselves wanted to publish this material, especially since you, It seems that you are collaborating with SPEED CO. and you don’t have any special disagreements.
EM> And there was no mention of copyright!!!! Where did you get this line from? I don’t
EM> Interesting. See the advertising article: “Star Heritage v???
----------------------
(c)1995 STEP, (c)1996 Speed Co. "

Hasta la vista, Evgeny.
With God's blessing, Novikov Sergei

[smth was devastated...]

EM>>> When we wrote our commentary in the 2nd issue, we thought
EM>>> that the conflict was over - you say one thing in your magazine, we say something else in ours. All. Readers will decide for themselves who is right.

... look further...

EM>>> But... In the 20th we read a letter comparing us to the ground.
EM>>> There is no comment, despite the many, to put it mildly,
EM>>> inaccuracies. It was "one time". We (or rather I) wrote a response letter
EM>>> and began to wait for further events. And “two” happened - Online'64.
EM>>> That's when we were offended by you.

What does it mean that before Online 64 you were not offended by SPF? Then why, in the appendix
to the April (first) OBR, can one observe, to put it mildly, something different?

EM>>> Now “three things” happened - everyone who had anything to do with SPF
EM>>> began to “take me apart piece by piece” in this echo.

DG>> However, the composition of the Spectrophone _significantly_ has grown... Several times, I
DG>> I would say :-)

EM> The composition of our editorial team too. Just what does this prove?

What, IMHO, you did not understand. Dmitry, apparently, meant that you included too many
to the editorial board of the SPF without even asking their permission ;)

YM>>>> If you want, I’ll invite you tovacant position of "tester"? On
YM>>>> on a voluntary basis? That is, for free. Otherwise, you will have to raise
YM>>>> the price of the magazine and
EM>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^ and I already work on the Spectrum for free.
DG>> So you agree to the offer?
EM> Yes, how can I tell you. A year ago, in a letter to the SPF, I just proposed
EM> to introduce a section reviewing quality.

What is a REVIEW for??? There are already enough games covered in it. No more is required. By the way, you forgot that ZF doesn’t even have a review, but the magazine lives on, the magazine is read. Therefore, I don’t see the point in the section you proposed.

EM>>> Provide a statistical analysis of the topics of the letter and comment?
DG>> You look like a boy clutching a tennis ball in his fist and shouting
DG>> “Get down! I’ll throw a grenade!” ;) Don’t be offended, but stop threatening - if
DG>> you have arguments, bring them up without delay.

EM> I just don’t want to offend Matveev once again.

Look! Well, let's get on with it.

YM>>>> Secondly: the people working in PC-REVIEW will give you a thousand points head start
EM>>> And after that, you will claim that it is not you who are translating everything on the topic of
EM>>> professionalism???!!!
DG>> No, you just doubted it once again in the professionalism of people
DG>> much moredeserved.
EM> I doubted the professionalism of the author of the article into which they poked my nose
EM>. And the author, I repeat, is at odds with neither information theory nor
EM> with jurisprudence.

;)

EM>>> Then I am the king of England.
DG>> And can you prove it? ;)
EM> I can.

I knew it ;) Evgeny I. :)

SN> What, IMHO, you did not understand. Dmitry, apparently, meant that you too
SN> included too many people in the editorial board of the SPF, without even asking their permission ;)
And who is included there now?

[.....]

SN> And what about the REVIEW??? There are already enough games covered in it. No more
In the SPF-Review they simply say “this is the kind of game, it consists of this and that,
graphics - xx%, ..." And where is the “feedback” with the authors about glitches?
To say, for example, “the graphics do not shine with variety” is all the same, no matter what nothing to say.
SN> is required. By the way, you forgot that ZF doesn’t even have a review, but the magazine lives on,
SN> the magazine is read. Therefore, I don’t see the point in the section you proposed.
But, the SPF does not boast of its “law-abidingness” and “green light for author’s programs.”

SN> What, again “you need to point a finger”? See, for example, the appendix to Oberon-1. There
SN> in one of the versions by Milun & Korolev contains an obscene phrase in relation to
Firstly, you still talked about Oberon-2. Secondly. Are you by any chance talking about
REBEL STAR? If yes, then I agree - it seems we've been there. But...
You know what my condition was when, after 3 days of persistent searching for a glitch (and at that time I was in a very “not working” mood for a number of
reasons), I suddenly discover that _JUST_ISN'T_ENOUGH_ one intro. And remembering how the SPF “stubbornly” does not like intros, and how they like to talk about laws and authors, etc. I came to the only conclusion - SPF _KICKED OUT_
intro and did not test the program after that. Actually, I already said all this in the 1st. And in the 2nd this was meant when apologizing.
SN> yu
SN> to Step. Enough? And this despite the fact that #1 came out in April, when there was no SPF #20 yet, but you had not yet read SPF #18 (?). It should be added that in
SN> OBR2 you said that you had nothing special against Stepa, and
SN> you only disagreed with his opinion. Plus, in the echo, you said that before Glushkov’s letter
SN> and the dispute in the echo, you treated the editors of the SPF without much malice.
And besides “this” program, you can cite at least one morean example of "dis-
loyalty" ?

SN>> And what about the REVIEW??? There are already enough games covered in it. More and no

EM> In the SPF-Review it simply says “this is the game, it consists of this
EM> and that, graphics - xx%, ..." And where is the “feedback” from the authors
EM> regarding glitches? To say, for example, “the graphics do not shine
EM> with variety” is the same as saying nothing.

And you should write “the menu is constantly glitchy, the sprites twitch, the letter E in the menu #nn
is drawn in the opposite direction”? This is _few_ interesting.

EM> Once again I’ll ask about the same thing - have you seen this law in your eyes? I am yes.

Law? B-( Yes, I don’t really care, I didn’t look for him and I don’t even want to see him :(

SN>> Oberon-1. There, one of the versions by Milun & Korolev contains
SN>> an obscene phrase in relation to Step.

EM> First of all, you still talked about Oberon-2.

View the disk with Oberon-2 in the disc doctor. There are at least 2 swear words in the appendix. Those. caring about the “purity” of the Virus, you allow
“bad language” in your journal.

EM> Secondly. Are you by any chance talking about REBEL STAR? If yes, then I agree -
EM> it seems we have gone there. But... You know what my
EM> state was like, when after 3 days of persistent search for a glitch (and at that time
EM> I was in a very “not working” mood for a number of reasons) I
EM> suddenly discover that _JUST_ISN’T_ENOUGH_ one intro.
EM> And remembering how the SPF “stubbornly” does not like intros, and how they
EM> like to talk about laws and authors, etc. I came to the only
EM> conclusion - SPF _KICKED_ out the intro and didn’t test the program after that.

EVERYTHING GOES FOR EVERYONE (except you).

SN>> And this despite the fact that #1 came out in April, when it had not yet

SN>>> And this despite the fact that #1 came out in April, when there was no SPF #20 yet, but you haven’t read SPF #18 (?). It should be added
SN>>> that in OBR2 you said that you have nothing special against Stepa, and
SN>>> you only disagree with his opinion. Plus, in the echo you said that before Glushkov’s letter and the dispute in the echo, you treated the editors of the SPF without much malice.
EM>> And besides “this” program, can you give at least one more
EM>> example of “disloyalty”?

SN> Law? B-( Yes, I don’t really care, I didn’t look for him and I don’t even want to see him
SN> :(

Original point of view (especially under this title).

Andrew

SN> Law? B-( Yes, I somehow don’t give a damn, I didn’t look for him and don’t even want to see him :(
Wait a minute. You (and SPF) accuse me of violating the copyright law, lecture me about how I’m saying everything wrong about the meaning of copyright, give me an example of an article from PC Review, and now it turns out that not only have you not seen this law, but you also don’t want to know anything about it.
It’s not good to do that.

Good luck !