Splash 15 ch04 Self Defense

From C64 Diskmag Wiki
Revision as of 18:32, 22 June 2007 by Ymgve (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ←Older revision | view current revision (diff) | Newer revision→ (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

           SELF DEFENSE

   okey,in fact having to write do
wn such a chapter was not ment to
happen in any splash as we wanted
to stay 'objective' but people as-
ked us to do it...sorry for that!

   anyway...first of all we should
spent a few words to some of our
very beloved friends that seemed
so much annoyed about our opinions
and felt themselves so easy to at-
tack splash.in fact a mag,especia-
lly splash certainly   isn't the
place to discuss such a matter as
we at least TRY TO BE OBJECTIVE,
but since all the trouble was men-
tioned in their very own mags,it's
certainly not our responsibility
to put this funny and CHILDISH
manner on this stage.
   the problem comes from the 'mag
reviews' chapter of splash 12 whe-
re internal was reviewed.the prob-
lem is not only the internal revi-
ew;remix of clique didn't also li-
ke my(the bus)ideas about mag out-
fits that he felt himself to  com-
ment on that.now look,in there it
was not written as:

  "the lamest thing that a mag can
do is to take graphics and musics
from other groups"


   "...of course some graphics and
musics can be made by other people
out of the group but if all musics
are composed and ALL graphics are
drawn by others(even if they are
exclusive),that's what i call lame

   CHANGING the words into the di-
rection you like won't bring you
any use;the truth lies so clearly
that you can't fake it.those two
sentences are completely different
and even if they look like the sa-
me,there's a very critical diffe-
rence summaried by the word ALL!

   i had written those sentences
after reading someone saying that
everyone could make a mag and see-
ing a mag that was completely done
by other group members(even the
CODE) so i wanted to say that if u
want to call a mag  YOURS  then it
must have been done by you.that's
the same for the demos i think. i-
magine a demo by acy containing g-
raphics,musics and coding by other
people,isn't it lame? intros are
more flexible but mags should be
considered the same way i bet.per-
haps it would better to mention co
ding there but i didn't want to
point that mag,as the names're not
important! certainly script wasn't
thought to be attacted there,i had
not seen any issues since the 10th
one,your mag didn't even come to
my mind.and if i wanted to mean
you,well,you are the latest one
in this scene that we will be  af-
raid of,people are less scared  f-
rom the things that they know many
things about...
   also,there's no place that   we
said "we are the best in turkiye"
(yes,in most intros mr.dj writes:
the very best acy(tr not mentioned
) but so what?we also call oursel-
ves 'awful' and who does not write
things like'we rule',we kick ass?)
during the past two years,because
in order to use the adjectives li-
ke "better" or "the best of..."
there should be some other groups
to compare with.clique has never
seen seen as a rival from our po-
int of view in any sort of activi-
vity.we are a cracking and a demo
group that usually does a lot than
releasing a mag once a while.and
certainly there's one point you're
right about.we certainly do not
care much about the scene. imagine
we are the top in the cracking gr-
oup charts,"so what?" it won't br-
ing anything to us.and we are not
doing this job to enter the charts
only.if we DID SO,there would be
NO reason for us to stay in the s-
cene for 3.5 years,got it?
   yes mate,acting matured is not
talking about it.for example,one
way is not forgetting what you've
   "i know it's lame to say,'vote
for us',but please see the amount
of work we put in this mag and vo-
ve for us if you think we really
deserve it!"

   this kind of stuff was repeated
over and over on the days that ma-
ny people could not see script be-
cause of a coding problem and scr-
ipt fell of the charts.remember?

   "there has never been any time
that i asked people to vote for
             from script 14

   well remix,we will certainly be
respectful to your opinions but
please make it clear,which one is

   there are some other points i
want to express.in the mag reviews
part of splash 12,there was no ac-
cusation or blaming to any mag or
any group.you seem to have looked
quite hard to find something to
get pissed off and finally you've
found it,but that is your problem.
you have answered the accusations
that weren't made against anybody,
even internal.so,you felt yourself
very free to comment on that and
even leaving your objectivity asi-
de for the first time!(ha-ha-ha)
   choosing the hardest words pos-
sible and then saying "this is not
attcking or slagging" is no diffe-
rent than smacking one on the eye,
and saying "take it easy,i didn't
mean to hurt you at all".got it?
that's not a MATURED behaviour at
all.you looked very like a little
bully who's waiting anyone to do
something which he can make up a
fight out of it.the point we could
not understand why you waited so
long to do that.perhaps,we weren't
worth before,but since splash is
in the charts now,you decided that
this is the time! here i want cle-
ar that there's no reason for you
to worry about us,we are the fly
that will irritate but won't harm!
take splash easy...
   there's a last thing to say for
you that there wasn't such a sen-
tence in the review as

  "long editorials are lame..."

   leave the sentence,there wasn't
even a mean to that! i just comp-
lained that the editorials conta-
ined so much useless text that one
missed the useful stuff that was
contained within the pages.and a-
gain it was about internal's edi-
torial,not about script,got it?
i don't think that"long editorials
are crap" but writing useless text
through the editorial and the mag
just to have more 'blocks of text'
is crap! and this is MY opinion.
why do you care so much?
   yes dude,you kept on saying th-
at you do not care about the scene
at all but a single review in spl-
ash made you explode,you wasted da
valuable space for us just trying
to give some comment on that.leave
the things about yourself,you even
care so much about things  bother-
ing other people.we do not give da
half of the care you give to the
scene.we do our work and do not
care about what you or other peop-
le are busy with.it's the friend-
ship(familiar word?) we gain thro-
ugh swapping that makes us produce
something.of course,you can say"we
all should do this for fun"and la-
ter spend tragic words like "don't
swap originals" but our way of fr-
iendship is much more different.
those people doing splash are not
interested in being MEGA-TOP-ELITE
in anyway,leave first release cra-
   so remix,stop acting mr.smart,
that's the way one looks so child-
ish.the upper words're all answers
to your 'accusations' made through
script 14.we usually don't give a
damn what people'think'about us,
but your words gave us the right
to defend ourselves(n'even myself)
you were wrong and you had to be
   of course,we don't say we know
better than you do,we can not for
sure.you know the best,you do the
best and you are the one that's
entitled to comment on anything
you like as your ideas shine..    u like


   so, you should understand that
we love the peace you want to MAKE
US RUIN and what ever you do,it
will not be enough...
   this is not the anti note you
wanted to have,this is the answer
you needed to have...

   anyway,now more about internal:
firstly,after seeing the things
matt/wow wrote in internal 17,i
sent him a letter which i also to-
ld him that we would not make a
seperate chapter for this matter.
but,after having read the things
remix/clique wrote,there were a
lot of things to say,and they  wo-
uld take so much space in any  ot-
her chapter,so this became a chap-
ter itself.
   before all,i want to excuse for
reviewing their mag,but i did not
know that they didn't want anyone
to review their mag.in the  inter-
nal i was there ain't such a thing
,perhaps i missed it through all
the mess.
   look,in the review i made,there
is no sort of an attack against
internal.from the things you have
wrote,i got a feeling that you
either haven't read my review pro-
perly or you have some kind of an
understanding problem.
   i did not say that "internal
editorial is crap" or "long edito-
rials are lame"
   i have just told that the mag,
and the editorial is full of so
much useless text that the reader
can miss anything worth to read,
got it? i told that filling the
mag with useless text just in or-
der to have 'more blocks of text'
is crap.understand? and this is my
idea,a SUBJECTIVE approach.
   and about objectivity,there is
the point that made me think you
have not read it properly,there
i have said:

  "objectivity:here's a point that
i can not say anything.the editors
aren't interested in being object-
ive.i have to CONGRAGULATE them
for this original and personal id-
ea but this DOESN'T mean that i
AGREE with them.and since they
kept on saying that they are a %99
subjective mag i cannot give some-
thing higher than %1..."

   isn't this so clear.i apprecia-
ted them for their approach but i
do not have to agree.this is a ve-
ry democratic comment eh?
   i also told them that they sh-
ould KEEP ON THEIR WAY if they li-
ke to.splash 12 is here,anyone can
ask for it to see the plain truth.
and the review of the mag certain-
ly shows my personal values,even
if you don't like them,you've to
show some kind of respect.
   about objectivity,yes,we belie-
ve that a mag should have it but
that's something hard to achieve..
according to me no mag today is
quite objective(including us,i'd
give something like 70-80).but
old corruption and mamba certainly
did it well.anyhow,this is a way
people try not to take any sides
when commenting on something,and
even NOT COMMENTING.see,revieving
something without any personal va-
lues is hard,so it reflects the
ideas of the reviewer,and you sho-
uldn't care so much pals...
   if they didn't grow the matter
with writing a special chapter  a-
gainst us,i wouldn't be bothering
to answer back.but,it's the child-
ish behaviour,the editors kept on
showing that left us no chance el-
   eistenin/wow's words were quite
reasonable,but he certainly didn't
read the review and i believe he
would take care of the others if
he did.(so don't believe what ot-
hers are telling you pal,including
remix...) but,there's a point i
could not understand...eistein re-
commended us not to make mag revi-
ews and told that people should de
cide themselves what to think abo-
ut a mag! nice approach,and a cre-
ative critisizm.but then,imagine
my surprise when i saw that there
was a chapter in internal(same is-
sue) with MAG REVIEWS!!! strange
or what...you did the thing you
recommended us not to do!

   in fact the trouble comes out
of the problem that people can not
take critisizm.a review is a revi-
ew  and you must not care so much
as you did.for example,our mag has
been reviewed many times,even with
the worst comments,even with pre-
jeduces.but we have never reacted
on any of them in anyway.who cares
for which reason?
   the thing that made me write
those words are the crap written
by matt of wow in internal 17.you
must be ashamed of the aggressive
and childish manner you have show-
ed pal! in fact i've told you in
the letter so i won't be writing
much more,if you wanna slow down,
read the review again(perhaps you
can understand that there's no at-
tacking there).i also tried hard
to explain all the crap here,so
i won't be writing more.enough!

   so come on everybody  and  res-
pect each other's opinions!

          the boss / accuracy
           from splash staff

  hey hey ! here's mr.dj of accu-
racy to bring you a last minute
note... some minutes ago the boss
called me and told that he got a
letter today from matt/wow where
he wrote that he was sorry coz
there was nothing more than just a
misunderstood. so the problems are
solved. i thank my old pal matt
coz now i'm glad to see the prob
is over before it get bigger!
Personal tools