Making the move...

Marielle Lange mlange at
Sun Mar 19 17:17:22 EST 2006

> If you aren't happy with the tool, then just don't use it. It's  
> that simple.

It is not very wise to say so. If all dissatisfied persons on this  
list followed your advice, in the present context, this could cost  
runrev very many clients. My personal view on this is that it is  
better to express the reasons for dissatisfaction so that the  
problems can be resolved.

What I have seen on this list is that you just want to get rid of the  
persons who tell you there is a problem... and keep your problem. I  
am interested in using the excellent product that revolution is. I am  
not interested to have to accept to deal with problems like the  
present ones for the months to come for the priviledge to use it.

For the record, Richmond was banished. He was brought back only  
because I did intercede for him. The reason he ended up using cursed  
language is because of his growing frustration at being asked to shut  
it up on his discourse on open source. Honestly, your very biased and  
overtly hostile email is an invitation for insults. A proof of this  
is that you already received emails back when you wrote a similar  
email to a user who had the very stupid idea to do the same thing as  
me, express a criticism.

> 071769.html
> Why isn't Rev more popular?
> Jerry Saperstein runrev at
> Mon Dec 5 20:30:16 CST 2005
> 	Criticism of Revolution generally apparently is generally
> disapproved of here. I've seen a number of valid criticisms  
> dismissed in the
> same way as yours have been.

And what argument did you use to dismiss her claim... nothing but  
Innuendo and defamation, something *far too frequent* on this list.
> From: Chipp Walters <chipp at ...>
> Subject: Re: Why isn't Rev more popular?
> Newsgroups: gmane.comp.ide.revolution.user
> Date: 2005-12-06 04:59:20 GMT (14 weeks, 5 days, 16 hours and 35  
> minutes ago)
> You wouldn't be the Jerry Saperstein of Font Bank fame who was  
> accussed
> back in the 90's of stealing clipart intellectual property and  
> reselling
> it...would you? If so, how'd that turn out?

The fact that you discredited her in this unacceptable ways probably  
didn't help. She ended up insulting you. I won't insult you. But  
being in the position Richmond was put or Jerry was put, I understand  
their reaction. I don't approve it. But I understand how they came to  
explode. They did it because some not so acceptable means were used  
to discredit them and there was nothing they could say anymore to  
have the truth restored. Fortunately for me, it is probably less easy  
to discredit the person who contributed this to the community: 

I am a defender of runrev. And it is BECAUSE I am a defender of  
runrev that I do take the time to speak out and denounce problems  
that contribute to keep persons AWAY from this excellent product. I  
don't know what game you play Chipp, Dan, Richard, but it really  
looks like you are trying to prevent the members of the non profit  
community to express their views and describe their needs on this  
list. Anytime they do, they are discredited.

Richard said he was sorry to see freeGui not more popular.  
Apparently, he was not sorry defaming the freeGui project leader on  
the metacard list:
> While it's hard to find a post from you regarding Rev in any forum  
> which
> doesn't turn it into an opportunity to express your negative opinions
> about the product, in this case it seems Kevin chose to finish a  
> thread
> that was started here by writing to an entirely different list.  My
> apologies for thinking that this latest post from you was like the
> dozens before it.

For the record, Richmond didn't hack to the RR website. I am  
completely fed up to see the likes of you transform the truth on this  
list and discredit persons who have been deprived from the right to  
defend themselves. No hack was required to see the 2.7 announce, a  
simple search on google was enough. Richmond lacked of judgement, I  
agree. But he clearly didn't mean to do any harm. If he could access  
to this page, the error was the one of runrev's not his (the page,  
was NOT password protected and if you reached it via google, you had  
no way to know you were accessing information you were not supposed  
to access). The fact that he emailed a copy of the 2.7 announce on  
the list didn't justify to see him banish. Anybody else would have  
done so, there would have been no consequences (yes, I know, most  
persons wouldn't have done so, but that's a different issue).

For the record, Xavier doesn't really have the opportunity to defend  
himself on this list because Kevin recently sent him an email to tell  
Xavier that if he tried to defend himself, he would be kicked out of  
the list. He choose not to do so because this would simply have  
prolonged the conflict for no positive outcome. He choose to leave  
because he knew he had no chance to be treated in an honourful way.  
For the record, I have seen some of you write on the improve list  
(where Xavier has no access) that Xavier *knowingly* cheated  
revolution. For the record, runrev doesn't even as a proof that  
Xavier cheated them at all. If you check up the emails posted on the  
list you will see that the first For the record, here are Xavier's  
post on the list:

xavier.bury at at Thu Feb 16 01:16:11 CST 2006 wrote  
on the metacard list:
> As an enterprise user, i never got a wiff of a test cycle or beta   
> release...
> Xavier Bury

xavier.bury at at Thu Feb 16 01:39:16 CST 2006 wrote  
on the metacard list:
> For some reason, and after lots of asking my studio license was  
> inserted in the list.
> Then it was removed by Heather - and she never looked if i wasn't  
> also an enterprise user.
> [...]
> im seriously displeased at this level....
> ---------------------=---------------------
> Xavier Bury

It is possible that Xavier used the revolution engine to update his  
metacard version. But what the facts are is (1) Xavier has a valid  
paid license (I don't know for what version, possibly runrev 2.5),  
(2) it couldn't be proven he cheated at all, and (3) if communication  
with runrev had been better, Xavier wouldn't have *UNKNOWINGLY* used  
his copy beyond license terms.

So, runrev, is it possible to reassure your very many non profit  
clients here that when such problems arise, they can be expected to  
receive a *FAIR* treatment and not be expelled from the list with for  
only argument "we cannot prove that you have cheated us, but we are  
sure you cheated us and therefore we will act accordingly". I don't  
know if you realise that such methods are *morally unacceptable*.  
Either you have no proof either you have one. You cannot act as if  
you had a proof when you have none. I don't know what the laws are in  
your country but in mine (Belgium) a person is innocent unless you  
can prove him guilty.

> If you aren't happy with the tool, then just don't use it. It's  
> that simple.

And yes, Chipp, that's the problem. I have recently come to the  
conclusion that I should better not use it, despite the fact I have a  
full enterprise license. Because too many things happen in this  
community that I find *VERY* difficult to accept. I find *VERY*  
difficult to accept the very unpleasant feeling to be right in  
Orwell's fiction, where what is called the ministry of truth is in  
fact the ministry of lies.

Dan's email on Ruby was WOW. Very kindly, as usual, he went to check  
up some very popular resource out there, and came back to tell us  
that it was not worth checking up. Ruby was *far too complex*,  
*nothing useful could be done with it*, *revolution could be used the  
same way Ruby is*. But know that I am *very* uncomfortable with your  
practices within *this* community, where you too often take advantage  
of the credulity of the users.

Richard's email was similarly full of zealotry. For the foreigners on  
this list:
'Zealotry denotes zeal in excess, referring to cases where activism  
and ambition in relation to an ideology have become excessive to the  
point of being harmful to others, oneself, and one's own cause.' For the record if you read what  
he declared to be his favorite book, McConnell, you will see page  
139-142 that an element seen important to produce efficient libraries  
is good encapsulation. What his tutorial recommend is *EXACTLY* the  
opposite. There are ways to achieve good encapsulation with  
revolution, which could be used to design a very powerful library of  
reusable widgets, but I have *NEVER* seen them mentioned by Richard.

I am personally NOT interested in this kind of zealotry and one-sided  

I do like revolution, this is an incredible tool, but like many other  
users I am aware of the fact that it presents strengths as well as  
weaknesses and that a few things could be improved. I am not  
interested in not using a product I paid for. What I am interested is  
in becoming a more satisfied customer. My understanding is that  
runrev doesn't want me to stop using their product (at least their  
attitude suggested they wanted me to continue to use them). They are  
themselves aware of a few flaws associated with the choices made over  
the years and claim to have every intention to progressively address  
these flaws in the future. At least, I very much hope so and I very  
much need to be reassured on this pretty soon.... I take the time to  
write this email because the two last emails from the runrev  
executives gave me hope.

If I am right, then the information in this email will be used to act  
in an honourful way. If I am wrong, then, other users deserve to know  
what to expect. I sincerely hope to be right.


Marielle Lange (PhD),  Psycholinguist

Alternative emails: mlange at,

Easy access to lexical databases                    http://
Supporting Education Technologists              http://

More information about the Use-livecode mailing list