>Tom,>>I've got to respectfully disagree with you. Bill cleatly>states in his original message:>>"I'm extremely disappointed that you apparently haven't>registered at OUR support forums to seek answers directly from>US - THE DEVELOPERS.>Caps added for emphasis).>>I think Bill made his affiliation quite clear. There is no>ambiquity whatsoever.>>-RickYes, but how many statements has Bill made on these forums without his affiliation being explicitly clear? For the dueling PhD's around here, that's a rhetorical question, mind you :)I think Tom's stance is completely reasonable. The people here rely on the opinions of others on this forum for their buying decisions, as it should be in any good community. For a developer of payware products, full disclosure should be absolutely compulsory at all times.My 2 pennies.GG

Tom has the right to insist on certain standards of behavior from Avsim members and we all have a duty to comply.But I still feel Tom went off the deep end in implying that Bill had been anything less than straightforward. Bill DID make his affiliation known. -Rick----------- My System -----------P4 @ 2.53 GHz / 1GB RAM / NVIDIA GeForce 6800XT, 256MB / Windows XP Home

Boy, somebody got their knuckles rapped on this thread!

"Finally, if you are truly unhappy and unwilling to ask for help or advice directly from Eaglesoft, might I respectfully suggest that you avail yourself of our extremely liberal, thirty-day, money back guarantee?Bill LeamingGauge Programming - 3d ModelingEaglesoft Development GroupPentium 4 @ 3.0GHz 800MHz FSB/ 2.75GB "Ultra" 800MHz DDR/ ATI X700 Pro PCIe 256MBNOTE: Unless explicitly stated in the post, everything written by my hand is MY opinion. I do NOT speak for any company, real or imagined..."Gee, between the final sentence containing "our extremely...", and the line "Eaglesoft Development Group" in the sig, I have absolutely NO doubt as to the fact that Bill is affiliated with Eaglesoft. Where's the problem?There may be something I'm not getting, but this seems heavy to me considering he was ultimately just trying to help the guy out. Robert

... nm

I agree. I really get sick of the kind of jeuvinile discourse you are referring to. It makes you want to put up a filter so that in the end nobody knows what is a real point of view and what is some kind of agenda.Sad.

Has anyone been able to help this guy out?

>Has anyone been able to help this guy out?We helped him on day one of this fiasco by offering a refund and it turned out to be a video driver issue with Vista along with some settings tweaks.He is now a member of our forums and appears to be satisfied...check our forums if you are concerned. Meanwhile, here is more on the FSX CII:-)http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...d=405016&page=2

>>There may be something I'm not getting, but this seems heavy>to me considering he was ultimately just trying to help the>guy out. >The sig was added after the fact.Feel free to stop me if I'm wrong here, but Bill essentially reprimanded the OP for voicing his opinion here on the AVSIM forums rather than specifically going to Eaglesoft's developers for assistance first (whatever that means). That's not a very helpful gesture, nor is his tone particularly courteous.This is a flight simming community, and everyone here has a right to voice their opinions, both good and bad, concerning payware releases. We all rely on the opinions of other people here so that we can make better buying decisions ourselves.Whether or not we choose to voice those opinions here or in the forums of the original developer is our prerogative, and not a breach of any consumer etiquette that I'm aware of.I don't see a need to elaborate any further.GG

Sheesh, Bill makes a mistake, get's reprimanded, and then folks come out of the woodwork...don't we all have some flying to do:-)

Moderators.Would you PLEASE lock this post. I had hoped this poison had died along with the thread, but obviously not. What was said was said. The guys been fixed up and he's happy. Let it go, for G's sake and get on with life. This is NO fun at all.

>Sheesh, Bill makes a mistake, get's reprimanded, and then>folks come out of the woodwork...don't we all have some flying>to do:-)LMAO! Yes we do.And yes, I vote for a lock too.

Don't you have some advertising to do, Ron? :(But jabs aside, I also want to clear things up, like all things partly for vanity's sake. The reason I mentioned I had some knowledge but not a phd - which unfortunately comes off as arrogant anyway - was to indicate that what I was saying was not authoritative nor in depth. It's hard to engage any academic topic in a forum which is not academic without sounding like a prig, but I felt it was necessary given the circumstances of someone misappropriating something close to my heart.And like most things said here, including criticisms of recent products, what I passionately argued should well be taken delicately, like whiskey with a little water. [EDIT: like this right now, I'm not trying to be a jerk but honest]I think most people here are accustomed to doing that already. It also permits greater character. Like Allcott for instance, who is the most adept mocker I have ever seen, which is a beautiful thing, IMO. Reminds me of Oscar Wilde.And what may seem like immature argument is mainly just a prevalent exercise that should be accepted, since it's not going to stop and hardly hurts; if it does, maybe those people should be less easily offended?Besides, there's enough cool-minded people around here for us hotheads to look up to, in all seriousness.

Wow, locked thread and you still feel the need to pontificate?:-)

Actually I started writing that before someone asked for the thread to be locked. How was I pontificating? If anyone's pontificating it's you, who constantly tries to dictate the course of things according to your own dogma. I just offered an attempt to set the record straight and my opinion, which I feel is pretty realistic and in good humor. Run along now and turn every thread into an advertisement or obnoxious defense of eaglesoft...