The CGL situation p3 Options

[tristanh]

Right. They're so important, they're co-#1s!

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Jason H.

Kidding aside, it's tough on this side, we have one side of information, posted by people with agendas. These comments take a life of their own and spread, but we have nothing from the Catalyst side, a side with agendas as well, to refute the ever increasing amount of crap. I can understand not wanting to give the rumors weight, but a point has been reached now that -not- responding to the rumors has given them weight as well. Sure, it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation, but does Catalyst really want Frank's posts to be the major "word" out there on this subject?

Even something as simple as "we have people filling in for the office manager and bookkeeper until such time as we find a permanent replacement" could put to bed the theories of Loren overseeing his own repayment to the company. By not addressing it, people assume it must be true.

This post has been edited by tristanh: Mar 29 2010, 07:05 PM

[Crank]

Even something as simple as "we have people filling in for the office manager and bookkeeper until such time as we find a permanent replacement" could put to bed the theories of Loren overseeing his own repayment to the company. By not addressing it, people assume it must be true.

Its honestly none of our business who is overseeing it.

[tristanh]

Its honestly none of our business who is overseeing it.

While I agree with you, it's clear others don't, as the posts here show. The end result isn't helpful.

[otakusensei]

Not to stat a flame war, but it's a pretty common practice in churches to advise Christians not to act in such a way that appears to be incorrect. It's the basis of the idea that you don't want to get an apartment with someone of the opposite sex because people will assume that you are sleeping together.

The same theory extends here, CGL must be careful to appear to be doing everything they should. Part of that is keeping quiet and giving folks every reason to mind their own business, but part of it is also making sure it doesn't look like it's shacked up with some hussy.

Jason, it was real cute. But you really should consider asking them about a second press release, maybe some details. We're operating in a vacuum here; but like Star Wars, this is a loud one.

[JM Hardy]

Kidding aside, it's tough on this side, we have one side of information, posted by people with agendas. These comments take a life of their own and spread, but we have nothing from the Catalyst side, a side with agendas as well, to refute the ever increasing amount of crap. I can understand not wanting to give the rumors weight, but a point has been reached now that -not- responding to the rumors has given them weight as well. Sure, it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation, but does Catalyst really want Frank's posts to be the major "word" out there on this subject?

Even something as simple as "we have people filling in for the office manager and bookkeeper until such time as we find a permanent replacement" could put to bed the theories of Loren overseeing his own repayment to the company. By not addressing it, people assume it must be true.

Actually, people don't have to assume anything to be true, and I believe they can read the letter that has been posted here as well as Frank or me or anyone else. I would assume they would read this paragraph in its entirety:

That growth has not come without its obstacles, however, and by Q4 of 2009 the Catalyst Managers acknowledged that a co-mingling of funds between the personal and business had occurred involving the company’s primary shareholders, the Colemans. We immediately initiated an audit of the company's historical financial records, and designed a comprehensive plan to get Catalyst's production and payments back on schedule. This process took some three months of very long days, and was overseen by our Bookkeeper and Operations Manager, in conjunction with the Colemans.

and note that the "process" overseen by the bookkeeper and operations manager was the audit and the plan to get production and payments on schedule, not specifically the plan for repayment. I'd also assume they'd note the next paragraph:

With the completion of the audit it is clear that the breadth of what occurred was significant, and would require extensive changes to correct. A detailed plan was outlined for changing the organization of the company, as well as many procedures to establish a strong financial oversight and series of checks and balances to ensure this doesn’t happen again in the future. It also included a proposal for how the Colemans will begin paying back the money involved. All of those detailed findings and action plans were delivered to the pertinent parties on the 15th of March as a key step in our efforts to move forward with full disclosure and transparency. A series of discussions are currently underway on how best to proceed.

Which states that a plan has been developed with "checks and balances to ensure this doesn't happen again in the future." This was delivered to "pertinent parties," meaning more than the bookkeeper and operations manager have this information, so there are a range of people involved in analyzing this plan and making sure it is adequate.

What else does the letter say? Well, right after the line about people leaving, it says:

We’re already moving to try to find appropriate people to take on their work and responsibilities.

So the positions are going to be filled. But again, the letter never said the all duties of overseeing the new structures fell under the purview of the bookkeeper and operations manager. The duties of who will be overseeing what are contained in the plan, which is a confidential document. Frank's interpretation also made it sound like Loren and Randall were the only people left at Catalyst's central office, which is not the case.

One more quote: Later in the letter, it states:

a host of checks and balance are in the process of being put into place

Again, those checks and balances were not just the province of the bookkeeper and operations manager, and the letter never said they were.

The response people have been wanting is right there in the letter.

Jason H.

[urgru]

Considering that an official denial of anything stated would be simple and non-resource intensive, the silence we are hearing is deafening.

Putting on my legal hat, it's exceedingly unlikely that you're going to see Catalyst affirm or deny anything, anywhere until there's a final resolution of the license issue in May.

Consider some of these issues objectively. The company is clearly in a financial bind. The correspondence leaked and public comments made suggest that the Colemans are working to repay the company. As much as some may dislike this, it's likely the only viable option for Catalyst. Given that they're having trouble paying freelancers, they're likely lacking the funds necessary to effectively prosecute a civil suit. Even if Catalyst had the money, a legal action against the Colemans would drain their resources and reduce their ability to repay Catalyst.

A few folks have raised the thought that whatever happened was criminal. I'm not going to comment on the likelihood that the actions in question met the mens rea required for major fraud, but it's safe to say that criminal prosecution wouldn't be in Catalyt's best interests even if a prosecutable offense occurred. Initiation of a criminal investigation or prosecution would destroy any chance of repayment in a timely manner by driving the Colemans into the arms of criminal counsel who's first piece of advice will be "say nothing!" Even a successful prosecution would be a blow to CGL. Convicts on work release don't exactly rake in piles of cash. Restitution would be a slow drip of cash, not the relatively quick pour needed to get the company back on its feet.

Anyway, as to the "deafening silence" bit . . . Statements confirming or denying individual points being discussed here don't do anything to help Catalyst's short term bottom line, but DO run the risk of alienating the Colemans and ending their voluntary cooperation. That would be more of a shotgun to the face scenario than a gun to the foot. Something best avoided.

Unnecessary public statements could also put Catalyst in an awkward position in the future. Say a statement is released confirming the amount given by Frank, but later review of the books shows it to actually be 10% less. Catalyst would need to publish a correction, which keeps the hype cycle fed and makes focusing on things essential to the firm's survival more difficult. Or, say a later review shows that the amount is actually somewhat greater because of previously unanticipated tax consequences and that the company is in a position where it needs to sue to reclaim the difference between the now-larger amount and that voluntarily recaptured from the Colemans. Now you've got an annoying press release that opposing counsel can wield in negotiations and raise at trial (which they could anyway using discovered internal documents, of course, but publicly stating things makes it a much bigger pain).

Lots of other considerations come into play, but the most important thing (to most of us, at least) is that a solvent Catalyst is going to be able to pay the freelancers, while they're likely to recover NOTHING from a bankruptcy. They're not secured creditors; banks, printers and full time employees are going to be higher up the priority chain and walk away with most of the money.

In short, working with the Colemans and commenting publicly only when absolutely necessary is not only the smart thing to do, it's quite possibly the only way for Catalyst to move forward successfully and for the freelancers to get their checks. Ask yourself this: if they DON'T succeed in righting the ship, are you going to care how many press releases they put out?

Although I'd like to see the freelancers get their due, there's an extent to which all of this doesn't matter. BT and SR are both reasonably lucrative licenses and I think someone will probably be publishing books for both lines in the future. If Catalyst survives and prints solid product, I'll buy. If someone else gets the license and prints solid product, I'll buy. Quality, not press releases, will earn my gaming dollars.

@edit: typo (IMG:style_emoticons/default/frown.gif)

This post has been edited by urgru: Mar 29 2010, 07:54 PM

[JM Hardy]

Jason, it was real cute. But you really should consider asking them about a second press release, maybe some details. We're operating in a vacuum here; but like Star Wars, this is a loud one.

I'll be talking to management about continuing communications. However, you have to understand that the GAMA Trade Show was last week, and that event understandably took over management's attention for a time.

Jason H.

[Khyron]

You know, this is spiraling all out of control and this thread has turned into the worst of DumpShock.
It's full of people with personal vendettas, bandwagoning, wild speculations, attacks and anger.
Maybe we should all take a break before we shame ourselves any more.

All we know is that stuff happened and stuff is going to happen. We won't know more until IP renewal day.

[TLogan]

Yes, releasing information to the wild world outside does not help Catalyst/Freelancer relations. Of course it doesn't. However, I don't really care. Because having looked at what angry people have given me to "get back" at the company - I genuinely don't think there is a future for Catalyst. And I want that fact to be generally known, because I want Topps to know that.

At this point, my impression is....self righteous do gooder with an axe to grind.

For the past while I've been reading your posts on this issue and you've made personal attacks on the various parties involved and resorted to completely unsusbtantiated rumour to press your point.

We all know you don't like CGL....and "don't like" is, from what I can see, putting it mildly...but you burnt your bridges with the game a long time ago. Even were it to go to another company, the only way to guarantee that the game would go in a direction you would like it to is to run it yourself.

Maybe that's your plan....badmouth CGL so much so that Topps pulls the license, gives it to someone else...in this case you...and have CGL pass the unpublished works to the new company. Doesn't really matter what you say, after all....dirt sticks.

This bit about "informing Topps" for example is the latest. Topps is a company which holds the license to SR. Guess what?...they don't need you to tell them on a fan forum stuff that A: they already know and B: that you know they know.

You are trying to make yourself look like a white knight. Instead, you're looking like a putz. And by doing this publically, by acting so unprofessionally, you make yourself that much more difficult to hire or trust professionally. Now people will wonder...if I send him an email in confidence, will he publish it?

Because I genuinely believe that the best thing for Shadowrun's future is for Topps to give the license to someone else. Pretty much anyone else, because right now Catalyst does not have the money to pay contracting fees and printing costs to bring out product.

Unless you have the actual accounting books, this is nothing more or less than unsubstantiated rumour. You don't know CGLs financial situation right now. Theres no way on earth you could know unless you were high up in the company. Why keep trying to discredit the company? Why try to bring it down? You have a personal axe to grind because the company didn't take the game in the direction you wanted....I know that, you know that, we ALL know that....but has your hatred gotten so deep that you need to spread this sort of unsubstantiated rumour?

Changes that Randall Bills has said that he has received a sign from God that he will not make.

First - he didn't say that.
Second - do you have that much hate against Randall Bills that you denigrate his personal beliefs? Make fun of his religion? You should feel ashamed of yourself.
Third - can you make one post without a personal attack?
Fourth - a perfect example of my point. You are making things up, misquoting people and putting a bad spin on events. The only person this seems to be helping is you. You finally got a place you can vent your rage with the company.

I do not believe that this approach is compatible with Catalyst continuing to be a viable entity.

Viable or not, keeping things private is the usual way things are done. Companies do not tend to discuss financial matters with the public.

Because as things currently stand, only a new company with the Shadowrun license could enter into serious negotiations to buy up the contracts to print the material that was written.

This is a falsehood. SR has done very well under CGL. EVen then, various issues could very well conspire against any new company picking up certain material. They may, for example, want to take the game in a new direction.

The absolute worst thing for the continued printing of Shadowrun books is to have a crippled company that lacks the funds to print materials be left holding the license while the fate of profits from years past languish in multi-year court settlements. That is virtually the only plausible scenario that involves the Sixth World Almanac actually languishing in development hell.

That appears to be because you are ignoring all the others.

Right now, it appears all you are doing is slinging mud and it in the hope that some of it will stick. There are people here who will no doubt believe every word you say. There are others who have heard your point of view before and will be much more skeptical.

What do you want? Control of the game yourself? That actually wouldn't surprise me...you'd finally get the chance to determine the direction of the game.

Randall Bills says that he does not intend to punish the guilty party.

That depends on if there IS a guilty party. You keep assuming the worst...and then announcing your assumption as Gospel truth. Given how CGL started, the explanation given is perfectly plausible. Its not even the stupidest accounting mistake I've seen. CGL started off small and has enjoyed very rapid growth. It would not be the first company to expand so fast certain procedures that worked well at one scale/time didn't turn out to be such good choices.

And if Topps knows that, it can give the license to someone else who can pitch a realistic plan. And a new license holder can pay the writers for their work and get that work printed.

As can CGL.

Not the revenge fantasies of the people sending me material, but creating a future where Shadowrun is in the hands of a financially solvent company that is not being headed up by an admitted thief.

Speaking of fantasy....revenge or not....this ending to your post is a good example. You assume the Loren Coleman embezzled the company and you posit a situation where he has admitted being a thief.

I'm aware of neither.

[Octopiii]

Actually, people don't have to assume anything to be true, and I believe they can read the letter that has been posted here as well as Frank or me or anyone else. I would assume they would read this paragraph in its entirety:
-snip-
and note that the "process" overseen by the bookkeeper and operations manager was the audit and the plan to get production and payments on schedule, not specifically the plan for repayment.

The letter does not address the reasons behind the resignations of both parties. The term "process" includes the plan for repayment, if not specifically, then as part of the entire restructuring.

Which states that a plan has been developed with "checks and balances to ensure this doesn't happen again in the future." This was delivered to "pertinent parties," meaning more than the bookkeeper and operations manager have this information, so there are a range of people involved in analyzing this plan and making sure it is adequate.

"pertinent parties" is a weasel phrase and means nothing.

So the positions are going to be filled. But again, the letter never said the all duties of overseeing the new structures fell under the purview of the bookkeeper and operations manager. The duties of who will be overseeing what are contained in the plan, which is a confidential document. Frank's interpretation also made it sound like Loren and Randall were the only people left at Catalyst's central office, which is not the case.

Yes, the letter stated that "pertinent parties" will be overseeing the new structure. Which could be: Loren and Randall only, everyone with an ownership issue in Catalyst, employees that Loren and Randall hire, employees that the entire ownership hires, or employees that a third party contracted to adjudicate the issue hires.

Regardless, I'm surprised you base your support for "there needs to be no rebuttal" argument is to quote the letter that Frank got banned for posting and which was contained in the thread that was deleted. You can see where we would like some sort of official communication; you've now just stated that the only straight answers we're going to be receiving are leaked documents issued by Frank, who risks a perma-ban (not that he cares much, I imagine) for bothering to do so.

[urgru]

The letter does not address the reasons behind the resignations of both parties.

It's a violation of law for an employer to discuss private personnel matters in essentially every jurisdiction. Catalyst CAN'T say more than they have.

"pertinent parties" is a weasel phrase and means nothing.

Again, contracts and the law aren't your friend. Boilerplate agreements with silent investors would prevent Catalyst from revealing they exist, let alone naming them. Something to the effect of "The information has been disclosed to X, Y, and three others" reveals the existence of others with equity stakes, in violation of those agreements.

Frank isn't constrained by law or the operation of contracts. As has been noted elsewhere, he's essentially judgment proof. To make a somewhat out of context analogy, he's waging an asymmetric war.

[X-Kalibur]

Quick note: Frank took a warning/suspension for attacking a religious belief, not posting the letter. Some may try to argue that the email falls under the piracy clause but I believe that claim will hold no water.

[Octopiii]

Putting on my legal hat, it's exceedingly unlikely that you're going to see Catalyst affirm or deny anything, anywhere until there's a final resolution of the license issue in May.

Consider some of these issues objectively. The company is clearly in a financial bind. The correspondence leaked and public comments made suggest that the Colemans are working to repay the company. As much as some may dislike this, it's likely the only viable option for Catalyst. Given that they're having trouble paying freelancers, they're likely lacking the funds necessary to effectively prosecute a civil suit. Even if Catalyst had the money, a legal action against the Colemans would drain their resources and reduce their ability to repay Catalyst.

"If I sue him to get my money back, he will have less money to repay me" is a silly argument.

A few folks have raised the thought that whatever happened was criminal. I'm not going to comment on the likelihood that the actions in question met the mens rea required for major fraud, but it's safe to say that criminal prosecution wouldn't be in Catalyt's best interests even if a prosecutable offense occurred. Initiation of a criminal investigation or prosecution would destroy any chance of repayment in a timely manner by driving the Colemans into the arms of criminal counsel who's first piece of advice will be "say nothing!" Even a successful prosecution would be a blow to CGL. Convicts on work release don't exactly rake in piles of cash. Restitution would be a slow drip of cash, not the relatively quick pour needed to get the company back on its feet.

There is no privilege against self-incrimination in a civil case. Furthermore, a private RICO action holds for treble damages + attorneys fees if you can prove by a preponderance of the evidence (not a terribly high standard compared to a criminal case) some of the predicate federal crimes violated. Anyone who continues to assist, cover-up, etc any such violation can be named as a co-defendent. Yeah, I wouldn't want to be a bookkeeper for Catalyst either after discovering (an alleged) fraud and the subsequent lack of consequences against Coleman.

Anyway, as to the "deafening silence" bit . . . Statements confirming or denying individual points being discussed here don't do anything to help Catalyst's short term bottom line, but DO run the risk of alienating the Colemans and ending their voluntary cooperation. That would be more of a shotgun to the face scenario than a gun to the foot. Something best avoided.

You don't want to alienate people who have the bargaining chips. The Colemans have the money, so what we can infer from your logic is that Catalyst is so strapped for cash that without ASAP repayment of at least some of the funds they will have significant liquidity issues.

Lots of other considerations come into play, but the most important thing (to most of us, at least) is that a solvent Catalyst is going to be able to pay the freelancers, while they're likely to recover NOTHING from a bankruptcy. They're not secured creditors; banks, printers and full time employees are going to be higher up the priority chain and walk away with most of the money.

Part of a bankruptcy reorganization involves liquidation and distribution of assets. Without knowing more about who owes who, it's hard to say who will walk away with any money. Besides, freelances do have bargaining chips no matter if Catalyst survives: their withholding of copyright prevents books from being printed, which kills cash flow. If not Catalyst, than a successor company.

Edit: I try to be polite.

[Dwight]

Frank isn't constrained by law or the operation of contracts.

Only so much as his current financial status and nation of residence complicates attempting to pursue a case, and makes enforcing any judgement CGL might win (and it certainly isn't a slam dunk) extremely difficult.

[Crank]

The letter does not address the reasons behind the resignations of both parties.

No company I have ever worked for is willing to expound on why a party has left the company. Now THAT would be a law suit waiting to happen.

[JM Hardy]

Yes, the letter stated that "pertinent parties" will be overseeing the new structure. Which could be: Loren and Randall only, everyone with an ownership issue in Catalyst, employees that Loren and Randall hire, employees that the entire ownership hires, or employees that a third party contracted to adjudicate the issue hires.

Regardless, I'm surprised you base your support for "there needs to be no rebuttal" argument is to quote the letter that Frank got banned for posting and which was contained in the thread that was deleted. You can see where we would like some sort of official communication; you've now just stated that the only straight answers we're going to be receiving are leaked documents issued by Frank, who risks a perma-ban (not that he cares much, I imagine) for bothering to do so.

So you wanted me to address the rumors that sprang from the letter--remembering that people were using that letter as a basis to further those rumors--and not use the letter? That seems odd to me.

My point was that Frank's reading of the letter is not the be-all end-all reading. I'm sorry you don't like words "pertinent parties." Let me know your standing to receive confidential business information for Catalyst, and I'll change that, but until then, it is not my place to violate other people's privacy. Similarly, I did not resign, so I cannot and should not speak for those who did. I am also not in charge of personnel decisions at Catalyst, but if I were, I wouldn't share any thoughts about why individuals left. That is a matter between employers and employees, and not for me to comment on in any way.

I understand that people are frustrated that not everything can be laid out, but the fact the some people want to know some things does not require Catalyst to tell them everything. Consider your job. Think about if you left it some day. How much do you want your employer to publicly discuss about their thoughts on why you left?

Jason H.

[urgru]

It can be assumed, fairly I believe, from the lack of payment to the freelancers that there's no money to fund litigation. Also, Jason has obliquely confirmed liquidity issues in his posts. In this situation, both the lack of a self incrimination privilege in the civil context and the threat of a private RICO suit are largely irrelevant. I can't think of many instances in which a civil RICO claim vs. someone with shallow pockets would be seen as a productive use or attorney time and/or client dollars. Straight state civil fraud claims would probably suffice.

As for liquidation in bankruptcy, Catalyst's most valuable assets are its licenses and published works. It's impossible to be sure what assets Catalyst actually owns; however, the license, even if transferable at Catalyst's discretion (HAHAHAHAHAHA!), expires so soon that it's worthless. It's exceedingly likely that Topps either 1) already owns all of the Catalyst IP or 2) has it secured in the event of a bankruptcy. Any other structure would be malpractice on the part of Topps' counsel. Given that, I don't know where you think distributable funds will come from. Clawback vs. the Colemans is obviously numero uno, but the next biggest cash source would probably be liquidation of office equipment and software licenses.

[knasser]

Only so much as his current financial status and nation of residence complicates attempting to pursue a case and makes enforcing any judgement CGL might win (and it certainly isn't a slam dunk) extremely difficult.

You're implying that Frank can't be sued because he doesn't have any money and because he's living in Europe. With regards, you obviously know more about his personal finances than I do. As regards the second that's actually incorrect, he could be sued in his absence. But you'd still have to have something to sue him for. What exactly do you think he could be sued for / what actions has he taken that you believe are illegal?

He's not violated any NDAs. The only thing you could conceivably sue him over that I can see would be something of the libel family. And for that, what he said would have to be something other than the truth. If you know he's lied or mistaken about something, you could share it with us.

3/4s of all the posts against Frank are statements saying 'he can't prove this so he should shut up.' For one, a lot of the time what he's saying is he can't name his sources and that's something different. Secondly, Frank is someone who it is quite plausible could know what he's saying he knows and he also has a long history of being scrupulously honest and also right. At each step of the way, events as they emerge have backed him up. Personally I'm interested in anything he has to say.

The sudden flood of people appearing here just to shout at Frank is pretty impressive.

K.

[Bob Lord of Evil]

The minimal time it takes to release an official rebuttal to the facts (not allegations) Frank has asserted is not worth your time only if you don't care about quenching the ongoing flames of speculation going across the internet.

Considering how simple it is to say "No, it's all B.S. and Frank has it wrong" makes Frank's statements that much more credible.

Quoting Elbert Hubbard, "Never explain. Your friends do not need it and your enemies will not believe it anyway."

[Dwight]

You're implying that Frank can't be sued because he doesn't have any money and because he's living in Europe.

No, I suggested his being in Europe makes it more difficult for CGL to file the suit and enforce a win, if they were successful. It does also effectively put him out of reach of the clout of contempt of court from a US judge until he returns.

Now if he happens to have assets in US jurisdiction CGL could chase those. But they'd have to put in a bunch of work (without being able to drag Frank before a judge to compel him to cooperate in locating them) just to check if there were any.

He's not violated any NDAs.

Did you follow the link? Interference with a contract, even if you are not a direct party to the contract, can be grounds for civil suit for damages.

The sudden flood of people appearing here just to shout at Frank is pretty impressive.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/frown.gif)

[Rotbart van Dain...]

The sudden flood of people appearing here just to shout at Frank is pretty impressive.

Hush, don't startle the meatpuppets.

[Saint Sithney]

I have at all times attempted to impart information that is true about this ongoing crisis. This is in part because I don't like being proved wrong, and also because as previously noted Truth is good and Lies are bad. This means among other things that there are many accusations and suppositions that end up on my desk that don't get repeated - because I can't substantiate them.

First off, thank you for posting R. Bill's letter. As someone who appreciates the work CGL has done and wouldn't mind terribly if they got their act together, having the facts is somewhat reassuring, even when most of the news is bad. In fact, the letter did far more to reassure me than the hazy official statement. Second, does the above mean that the under-reporting of convention sales can be substantiated? Because, as mentioned previously, and, apparently quickly forgotten, hiding income is a crime.

[The Monk]

Is it possible that if things work out the way AH and Trollman wants, that CGL falls apart and that Coleman gets sued, ShadowRun, the license, the freelancers, and pretty much all of the ShadowRun material may get entangled in litigation and lawsuits for the foreseeable future?

Seems to me that who owns what, whether assets or written material is tangled like a cobweb. How long would it take for lawyers, judges, and the courts to untangle it all to everyone's satisfaction? Its possible that it never will.

Whoever are counseling the owners to work out a solution outside of the courts, one of them has got to be a lawyer.

[knasser]

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/frown.gif)

That last point was a more general one, not specifically you.

K.

[Stahlseele]

Frank is, i think, right now in the kzechech republic. Also on federal loan because he is a student i think.
And yes brash as he can be, as ugly as it sounds, usually he does not say anything he can't prove to be correct more or less.
Where do you think does the ammount of respect he still gets despite his way of talking/posting with/to others?
Because that man usually knows what he is talking about. I guess he just gets easyly irritated over people not getting something that seems so blatant obvious to him.

@Dwight: you have more than 200 postings and registered january 2009, you don't count ^^


Now for another Question:
What do you guess would happen of shadowrun did, in fact, go to another corporation and that corporation asked frank to come back and write for shadowrun?