Yes, that's why I'm writing all this stuff, I'm totally disinterested in it...(???)
> What is unreasonable about copyrighting _any_ Gloranthan piece, whether
> it appears out of Greg's mouth or on his website? In your zeal to
> portray Issaries as Evil Control Freaks, you seem to be arguing,
> effectively, for some sort of IPR free-for-all.
Not Evil at all, merely misguided (better put a smiley on that) :)...
I don't think Issaries is intending to screw over anybody at all, however, that does not preclude "being screwed over" from being the final result anyway.
> > Here's how you can get completely around the
> > selling of shares, undertake your risky business plan, and offer the
> > contributors a chance at actually getting back their "investment" + more in
> > return:
>
> > Initiate: $100
> > One scenario pack/year free ($10-$20 value; 5-10 years to "break even")
>
> For once, Brian, I agree with you. A scheme _on such lines_ (leaving
> aside the pragmatics and exact economics) would have a much better
> 'feel' than the current one. (I've already said so, mind you, so I
> can agree with you without it _entirely_ wrecking my self-image.)
You've alluded to it, true. As for the self-image comment, it really surprised me coming from you. I've come to terms with the fact that my posts will be rebuffed and reviled, but as the paragraph above points out, you are one of the most even-handed people on the digest. I guess your "stanchest of the staunch" trait overcame your "even-handed" trait... :/
> Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 10:06:04 -0800
> From: Eric Rowe <rowe_at_chaosium.com>
> Subject: Correction of some of Brian's Points (+vent)
>
> Why? Because the law says so. The share selling plan would still work if
> this was a bigger project. Unfortunately, you need about $200,000 to
> just start selling stock in this manner. Kind of silly when you're only
> looking for a quarter of that. Bad lawyers can screw anyone.
The only difference in the plan I proposed and the current plan is that in my plan, everyone has "opportunity", while in the current plan, only Heros do. If what you say is true, then the Hero level is already a violation, and should not be offered.
> >I believe I already stated my intentions to do just that...as for the
> >cost benefits, you're saying they don't add up as if it's ex cathedra;
> >however, Issaries is not portraying it the way you're reporting it (yet
> >somehow it's supposedly understood by all?). That's the issue. Company
> >spokemen have already pointed out to us how these benefits are worth *more*
> >than the donations tendered.
>
> Brian, I am not a Company spokesman.
If you're not playing a company spokesman role for Issaries, then might I suggest that your posts of inside info and updates on the company's doings do tend to paint you in that light?
> As to your statement that I said the benefits are worth *more* than
> the donations tendered, this is an unfair misrepresentation of what
> was said. I had stated that if you only look at the cost to value
> comparison at the $100 level the new GTA looked a little better than
> the original. To state that somehow I meant this to mean that at all
> levels you get your money's worth is flat out untruth and detracts
> from any valid points you may try to make. Lies reduce credibility.
As do exaggerations. Clearly I was not "lying"...if your claim is that I misrepresented what you said, then perhaps what you said was too easy to mis-interpret (much like the GTA announcement itself). As long as we're in this general area though, I'm curious to hear how it is that you reconcile saying on the one hand that a 10% discount is a valuable thing, then turn around a few days later and say it means nothing because other retailers will offer 20%-30% anyway. Since you're not a company spokesman, I'll give Issaries the benefit of the doubt on this one...
Actually, let me retract that insinuation, because as I've said all along, I don't think anyone is trying to maliciously mislead anybody, I just think you fumbled your "basic logic" roll and blurted out 2 totally contradictory statements.
> Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 09:48:49 -0800
> From: David Dunham <dunham_at_pensee.com>
> Subject: Re: GTA
>
> This isn't "touchy-feely" (to use an Alexism), but Brian Tickler wrote
>
> > it gets you completely around the "shares" issue by
> > providing "dividends" the longer Issaries is able to publish. It becomes
> > a bet on the part of the investor
>
> Please reread the quote from the legal advisor at
> <http://www.glorantha.com/inc/noStock.html>. You can't even set up
> something that *looks* like an investment, because it risks being treated
> as one.
As I said before, the Hero level already provides everything I proposed, except to a lesser degree. What you're telling me is that the Hero level donation is an illegal investment.
End of The Glorantha Digest V6 #457
Powered by hypermail