The author’s hypocrisy (part 4)

Debunking Buyers’ guide liars!!!! (part 4)

Unfortunately, various Commodore peripherals, such as disk drives and printers, were compatible with the Commodore 64, as well as with other Commodore computers, so the Commodore 64 got credit for that on the front cover of Issue 1, saying “every peripheral you’ll ever need”. There was no mention of the lack of a proper BASIC or DOS commands to manage printers or disks, though.

It might not a particularly user friendly DOS (so for once we’re actually looking at the author’s stated topic) but the C64 has one in ROM and it’s perfectly serviceable; this is more than many of the computers championed by the author can claim (especially since some didn’t even have a BASIC interpreter in their initial configuration) and, since most of those other computers load their DOS from a disk at start up, there’s nothing to stop the C64 doing exactly the same thing as well.

These grossly inaccurate or biased reviews are what doomed me to several months of mind numbing stress trying to program the Commodore 64. It was without any warning or what’s known as “informed consent”, so it was like rape!

Anybody who can make a “logical” leap link this one from sales of home computers to something as psychologically and emotionally damaging as rape has already done more than enough to write off their own idiotic argument.

Editors are supposed to delete or insert text as they feel appropriate, as well as make sure that everything fits into the same vein. I don’t think all the computers were reviewed by the same person, so they must have required editing for that reason alone.

Editors and sub editors maintain the “house style” of a publication but are invariably journalists rather than computer experts so they have to choose and then rely on the writers for the actual content; none of the editors would have noticed a “mistake”[1] because it wasn’t their field of expertise. An editor wouldn’t fix all the glaring technical errors in the author’s posts either.

Obviously a suitable fate would have been to be repeatedly mugged for at least £300 (including compensation) by various Commodore 64 owners, one after the other, who bought a Commodore 64 because of reading “The A-Z of Personal Computers “.

This, dear reader, is the author once more being a truly pathetic little man. Again, there have been millions of C64s sold and a product priced at that level does not sell in those quantities unless the majority of the people buying it are happy with their purchase; that includes the majority of people buying based on The A-Z Of Personal Computers review as well, so in this childlike fantasy world where readers turn up to abuse magazine editors over issues with content there will also be a significantly larger mob there to stop them.

Some misguided people might think that she shouldn’t be mugged because she’s a woman. To them I say that with equal rights comes equal responsibilities. If she didn’t want to be mugged or sued, then she shouldn’t had edited this crap!

Your correspondent feels that nobody should be assaulted regardless of gender or for any reason. But if we’re to believe that writing something with mistakes in is an open invitation to be beaten up by others, the author’s crap is riddled with errors… not that your correspondent would ever condone physical violence even towards such a pathetic individual as the author.

I think mine is a totally understandable reaction to being lumbered with a BASIC written 5 years before my computer was released, which doesn’t support its graphics or sound chips.

No, it isn’t understandable in the slightest. Most people who purchased a home computer thirty years ago have got on with their lives regardless of the experience they had. Certainly they don’t hold the kind of grudges exhibited by the author against their parents, the editors of magazines or computer company owners from that period.

Here she is interviewing graphics artist David Thorpe, who says he often programmed his screens using coordinates and in BASIC, although TMR claimed some time ago that the only sensible way to to this was to draw or paint them using a graphics package

It still wouldn’t prove anything of course, some people have edited graphics or indeed written entire programs in a machine code monitor in the past; that doesn’t ultimately make these options a sensible choice for the task in hand any more than hand delivering a birthday card by cycling from Land’s End to John ‘o Groats is the sensible choice compared to relying on the postal service.

But the author’s claim quoted above that the screens were built “using coordinates and in BASIC” is actually disproved by his own linked sources; David Thorpe very clearly states in both the video interview and the 2010 text-based one that he drew the images on graph paper but used a graphics package called Melbourne Draw for the process of putting them onto the Spectrum.

[1] The word “mistake” in quotation marks here because we’re talking about mistakes as defined by the author and his track record in that department is appalling.

This entry was posted in Debunking and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.