Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!mintaka!ogicse!ucsd!sdcc6!sdbio2!cleland
From: cleland@sdbio2.ucsd.edu (Thomas Cleland)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer
Subject: Re: AC TECH is looking for "review board" volunteers
Message-ID: <19271@sdcc6.ucsd.edu>
Date: 11 May 91 04:03:44 GMT
References: <4873@orbit.cts.com>
Sender: news@sdcc6.ucsd.edu
Reply-To: cleland@sdbio2.ucsd.edu (Thomas Cleland)
Organization: University of California, San Diego
Lines: 53

>Gee, this is wonderful.  in the latest AC there was a
>knock-down-drag-through-the-mud-AmigaWorld-is-the-Anti-Christ-of-publications
>and the turn around and copy the AmigaWorld Tech Journals lead. 

I don't think AW has any special claim to the concept of
"technical review staff".  I think AC Tech should have had one
before now, but better late than never, and no shame because the
other journal did it first.

>I looked
>through the AC tech journal and thought to myself "so what's so tech about
>this?"  I mean, it was filled with beginners articles that have always been in
>the regular AC.  while the AmigaWorld Tech Journal had helpful thought out
>articles for those that already know quite a bit about the machine, but don't
>happen to have any experience in that particular area.

I agree that the quality of articles in AC Techs issue #1 and #2
varied somewhat widely.  I think there were some excellent
articles therein.  I agree that the AW V1#1 was a better, albeit
smaller, effort--but then they had Commodore people writing for
them.  Money talks to a certain degree, and I think AW,
as a publication of enormous IDG, has more of that.

> I will NEVER buy
>another issue of AC since the last editorial and found the AC Tech Journal to
>be worthless.  i had previously liked AC, felt they covered some areas that
>were left out by many other publications, but AC's Attitude lately has been so
>hypocritical that it offends my sensibilities.  well, sorry for the bandwidth,
>but i just felt that needed to be said.
>
I respect your opinion but must disagree.  Despite the good
quality of AmigaWorld Tech Journal, AmigaWorld magazine proper
has offended my sensibilities a few times too often.  I
cancelled my subscription when I figured out that whenever I
knew something about a topic, AW got it significantly wrong.  I
find their approach very cosmetic, containing very little useful
information, and of course their cutesy style is legendary.

Not that this explains the AC editor's actions.  But if the
facts he mentioned are true, then I find his response justified.
If you withhold a story for the benefit of the Amiga community
in general, and a competitor runs it against the wishes of CBM,
then an editorial is the appropriate response/explanation.  No
problem there.

>| UUCP: {amdahl!tcnet, crash}!orbit!pnet51!chucks | "I know he's come back |
>| ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!chucks@nosc.mil        | from the dead, but do  |
>| INET: chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org                  | you really think he's  |


-- 
Thom Cleland         // 
tcleland@ucsd.edu  \X/   I'm having fun now.