Jacques napisał/a:And having read you wished death to someone, it says 1000x more than is needed.
To complement what Albert already posted, here's the email Sal forwarded me in December last year when he was gravely ill:
One hardly knows where to begin here, but - aside from the peak schadenfreude on display - the idea that Sal had to point out the 'music gaps' and/or that they were only made manifest by YouTube encoding or specialised analytical equipment is laughable. I remember the remarks concerning chaotic scene transitions and - latterly - glitching music; commentators became frustrated not by flaws in pre-release software, but because the author appeared totally unaware of said flaws, and - when pressed on the matter - was absolutely unwilling to acknowledge their existence, resorting to such ridiculous extremes as accusing viewers of playing the YT video back at half-speed in an attempt to magnify problems that were already impossible to overlook anyway.
The normal transaction is that one offers one's work for appraisal (and I assume anyone publicising a YouTube video of their game wants it to be appraised), receives constructive criticism, separates bugs from feature requests and subjective value judgements, acknowledges any issues, and fixes the problems. But if the author is capable of bearing a grudge regarding comments on 'gaps in the music' (something which would have long ago been forgotten by all observers had Peter himself not taken every available opportunity to remind them) for three or four years, such that he is determined to this day to 'throw it back in their faces' by way of vengeance, I have to wonder why they participate in online activities of any kind, given how badly they react to bug reports and constructive criticism.
Instead of blaming a specious AtariAge conspiracy for the negative feedback received regarding game presentation, bugs, cartridge labels, etc, it might be better to blame the game presentation, bugs, and cartridge labels, as well as the flagrant shilling employed to misrepresent the public reaction to demos and products. I don't think Peter is personally sympathetic to the kind of victim-status endlessly peddled in today's society by those incapable of being criticised, and yet he seeks to 'play the victim' in exactly the same way. Speaking for myself, it's not that I have any particular desire to endlessly regurgitate a synopsis of events which happened three years ago, and it would have faded from memory by now had Peter not persisted in sending me DMs, emails and friend requests using sock-puppet Facebook and email accounts to get around the fact I had blocked his main account and - latterly - each sock-puppet account from which I received unsolicited messages. Well, let's call it what it is: spam. Normally spam is impersonal and goes in the junk mail folder, but since I knew (and have known for three years) damn well who was originating all this stuff, I'm afraid it has to be dealt with at source.
