Re: What Apple II on-line and print publications are available today?

[spec@vax2.concordia.ca (Mitchell Spector)]

In article rubywand@swbell.net writes...

>Nathan Mates writes ...
>>
>> In article <1JUL199803171781@vax2.concordia.ca>,
>> Mitchell Spector <spec@vax2.concordia.ca> wrote:
>> >    I doubt you missed much either. During the final year or so its run,
>> >it they made a switch from magazine format to a B&W newsletter. Plus the
>> >level of misinformation that got printed was totally unacceptable for a
>> >commercial publication, not to mention lacked any professionalism IMHO.
>>
>>    Misinformation & lies. And the editor was Jeff Hurlburt, aka
>> Rubywanker. Sounds just like how things are going now. Leopards just
>> can't change their spots, it seems.
>
>     Piffle; II Alive was a perfectly fine Apple II publication from the
>beginning through the final issue.

    I have to disagree, it started off as a fair to average Apple II
publication in 1993, and then quickly went downhill from there. That
is even overlooking drop in number of pages, or all the silly filler
like pages of clip-art or crossword puzzles--or excessive advertising
from its publisher.

>And, speaking of misinformation-- or, more likely in the above cases,
>simple ignorance-- the format switch occurred well before the final year

    I said "during the final year *or so* of its run". That implies
I wasn't sure exactly when the change took place, leaving open some
room to add or subtract time to that 1 year estimate.

>and the issues employed shadings of black, white, and a color, not plain B&W.

    I consider that B&W (or technically, B&W with blue shading). It
did add some nice highlighting, but you would be incorrect to state
it was a printed color publication. II Alive _the magazine_ was in
color, but II Alive the newsletter was B&W with blue hightlights.

>     Sure, we made mistakes. When we did, we admitted them and tried to
>get corrections out to our readers here and in later issues. When a
>couple writers complained, justly, of over-editing, the editing was
>changed.

    There was only one issue following my complaint, although you
did do a nicer job of editing in that final issue (double checking
with me what corrections were to be made, and for the most part,
leaving most of my original article intact). If it continued past
1996, I probably would still be contributing articles to this day,
though I must admit, it felt more like a usergroup newsletter than
a commercial publication (perhaps because I knew all the people
writing for it?). :)

Mitchell Spector
spec@vax2.concordia.ca