Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!att!linac!midway!gargoyle!igloo!learn From: learn@igloo.scum.com (Bill HMRP Vajk) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: Steve Jackson Games (was Re: "Bad" backups) Message-ID: <3051@igloo.scum.com> Date: 24 Nov 90 01:35:27 GMT References: <3014@igloo.scum.com> <60825@bbn.BBN.COM> <61026@bbn.BBN.COM> Organization: Igloo, Public access Unix, Northbrook IL Lines: 38 In article <61026@bbn.BBN.COM>, milliken@bbn.com (Walter Milliken) writes: < In article <3026@igloo.scum.com>, learn@igloo (Bill HMRP Vajk) writes: < >Excuse me, Walter. You seem to have missed the entire point of this segment < >of my article. No one, not even Steve Jackson, knows the magnitude of < >potential purchasers who have never previously contacted him and now will not < Naturally, this doesn't disprove your point, and it's certainly a < valid problem to be wary of. But I was simply stating that I < seriously doubt that it's been a major effect in this particular case, < and that other, much more obvious damage occurred. Progress at last. Now comes the really tough question. Why do you seem to wish to minimize the appearances of a detremental impact when you've agreed it is impossible to quantify this subject ? Obvious damage is bad. And if your market is not expanding, even if you don't know why, or have not had the sort of unnecessarily bad experience Steve Jackson Games has just had, you'd best start looking at a different business or product line right away. I suggest that if a single potential distributor had a change of heart as a result of the Secret Service raid, that damage has the potential of killing off the company in the longer term. If not, then most certainly a much longer growth cycle with a greatly reduced ROI. Please bear in mind that when one is reviewing damage, the obvious is important to the immediate response. A deeper analysis is necessary to predict the complete results. I can't help but wonder why Mr. Milliken attempts to wish away real damages. Bill Vajk