>Did you notice that the page in question was apparently most recently changed last Wednesday 19 March? Presumably this means the content has been reverted. This, combined with comments in this thread, suggests that somebody *wants* the more damaging version to be left there.
>
>It seems a real shame that a cloud of negative energy has to hang over what some of us thought was a great initiative, the formation of a new Fox mag. What is the motivation of people butting heads over such a non-event as articles from the 1990s?! How does it help the community to slap at JVP over something that doesn't matter?!

John - I've been trying to stay out of this, but I think at this point, I have to respond. (I've started to write a message like this several times in the last week.)

I've seen the correspondence between Rainer and JVP. The things that are in quotes in that box come from John's initial message to Rainer. Later in the discussion, he made it clear that his objection to being included was specifically because Whil was a distributor. He didn't suggest making his content free until several messages in, and later on, suggested he'd be willing to have his stuff included upon payment of 1500 Euros (for stuff he was paid for 10 years ago).

Tamar