Re: My Final post on the PBM Report

From: kmgraphiks@aol.com (KMGraphiks)

Date: Sun, 02 Aug 1998 00:00:00 +0000

I'd like to thank Bill Bowersox for rekindling a thread that hasn't been
missed. I really hope this is his last post on the matter, but I doubt it.

>First, I think I understand some of the confusion. This argument is being
>carried out in two locations. Half is being posted on Rec.games.pbm, the other
>half on AOL, in the Galactic Prisoners section of the PBM area.
> Second, wow, out of town for a few days my mailbox filled up.... I am glad to
>see that The PBM Report has decided to change its article on GP. It appears
now
>that he is going to print a non-slanderous article.

I stand by my posts, both here and on AOL. Any reasonable person I think would
agree that I was just trying to do an Update article without whitewashing the
past. Of course 'most' of the GP players that posted don't fall into this
category.

>I think the original discussion about US Flagship has gotten off track. A bad
>Rumor was written. A response was written by Grandel inc., disputing the
rumor.
>Flagship mis-represtened that letter, that's when the lawyer was involved. The
>lawyer was not involved because of the Rumor that was printed; he was involved
>because the mis-printed Grandel Inc letter. Can you sue because of a rumor,
>sometimes (happens to tabloids). But you can definitely sue if you are
>attributed quotes that you did not say.

Grandel seemed to be very quick to unleash his legal team (his son) because of
a slightly negative comment. If there was any legal basis for him to sue
because FS altered his letters or misquoted him I'm sure he would have done it.

>Imagine you run a PBM Company. You pay for ads in a mag. Only 1/2 of them ever
>see print. They say they forgot about the others, and they'd print them. They
>never see print. This same magazine has a listing that they maintain. It is
not
>ads. In it they print the prices for your start-up and turns to low. After
>writing to them for over a year, they finally change it. EVERY player who
wrote
>to you wanting to play your game from that listing never plays because they
are
>disgusted at you because they feel that you intentionally had low prices
>printed, just to trick players into joining. Now, this same magazine takes a
>letter you wrote, and edits it so that none of your points are supported by
the
>facts, and the last two paragraphs are completely made up. This is what
>happened to Grandel Inc at the hands of US Flagship

I'm amazed that you present all this as fact. Were you an employee of Grandel
at the time with personal knowledge of all this? Or are you a loyal player
quoting what Grandel has told you?
Again, if there was illegal activity going on I'm sure Grandel would have sued.

If anyone is interested, Bob Bost, the editor of FS at the time has publicly
posted in the AOL Galactic Prisoners 4 folder that there were no letter
alterations and no grudges against Grandel.

>Some of you may think that I am over-reaction in my reaction to the PBM
Report.
>But every GP player who I've talked to and who has read what Ken's said agrees
>that the PBM Report *was* (is?) actively trying to get information to write a
>negative article based solely on the flagship lies.

That's right, I have nothing better to do than pick on a classic PBM game that
I've never played and hardly ever heard of. An Update article was just a 'good
idea'. Judging by the number of people that remember the 'controversy'AND the
number of people that haven't even heard of the game, mentioning it in the
article is a 'good idea'. It would speak to both groups of people. It
establishes the game on the relatively short PBM timeline and perhaps explains
why Grandel and GP has pulled away from public scrutiny the last six years. I
found the controversy, the updated game information and the player testimonials
very interesting and thought my readers would as well.

>The PBM Report/ Ken says that he has never heard of a PBM Company acting
>against another PBM Company. He is either lying, or really hasn't a clue as to
>what happens behind the curtain in the industry. I mentioned to him the ballot
>stuffing scandal involving Adventures By Mail and he ignores it. That leads me
>to believe that he does know what's going on, but chooses not to acknowledge
it
>unless he thinks he can make money at it.

Besides attacking the PBMR, another strategy of Bill's is to deflect attention
from GP by painting other PBM companies as villains (And if I don't admit that
they are villains then I must be one too). I don't "know" that AbM stuffed
ballots. I can barely remember something of this nature a few years back...and
didn't know the company name. If you have proof or records then present them.
If this is your example of how you claim some PBM companies plot the downfall
of other PBM companies then I'm not impressed.

>I am sure that I will now be remembered as I travel from game to game. I will
>carry my "notoriety" with pride because I know I stood up for what was right.
I
>doubt that I have increased the level of honesty in the PBM industry, but at
>least I have tried. I think that I have done all that a single PBM player can
do.

What you've really done is 'try' to trash the PBM Report and the rest of the
industry in the hopes of protecting your favorite PBM game from any unwanted
publicity. Your "notoriety" may indeed follow you, just don't claim you were
trying to help the PBM industry.

>Again, I am glad that The PBM Report now *seems* to be changing it's original
>article, and *appears* to be willing to print only the facts.

Yes, I've downplayed and sugar-coated the 1992 situation in the article so that
even you can swallow it (I'm very proud). Now it all comes down to whether I
can stomach printing it or not.

Ken Mitchell
Ken Mitchell Graphics
The PBM Report
http://www.tightbeam.com/pbm-report

References

My Final post on the PBM Report
maxnbr1@aol.com (MAXNBR1)
Sat, 01 Aug 1998 00:00:00 +0000

Referenced By

My Final post on the PBM Report
maxnbr1@aol.com (MAXNBR1)
Sat, 01 Aug 1998 00:00:00 +0000