HW: Mission Control Website

[Richard Lockwood]

Hmm.  I think I'd better respond to these points, whether valid or not...


> Hi Richard - as you turned the BOClist into the Richard Lockwood channel
> over the last few days, I thought I'd
> respond with a few observations:

Sorry - how has this become the Richard Lockwood channel?  I didn't realise
that there was a limit to the number of posts anyone was allowed to make, or
to the number of subjects anyone ws allowed to have an opinion on...

>
> You Wrote:
> "So you got the domain name off Andy then did you Rik?
> Hope you're f**king proud of yourselves after all the work he did from day
> one, when no-one else would".
>
> A: wow -  you only just caught up with this old chestnut? Tell me NEWS not
> HISTORY ! :-}
> (Just to update those new to the list, the old site run by Andy Gilham at
> www.hawkwind.com was NEVER owned
> by, or run with the authority of Hawkwind. In fact, the band have never
even
> *met* Andy Gillham, so the "Official"
> status bestowed on the site came from god knows where. Whatever stuff went
> up on the site may have been good,
> bad or indifferent and that was the whole point, as Andy did not liaise
> directly with the band, anything that went up
> there was NOT sanctioned by them, and therefore they had no control over
> words, images and views that claimed to
> be the "official" voice of the band. This could obviously lead to the
> possibility of court action being taken against them
> if the site contained anything not in their interests or broke copyright
> etc. Action was taken when things started to
> appear that could possibly lead to the band being sued. Oh ya - curb the
> language eh?
>
> As to "got the domain name off Andy... Rik"  - well as Andy didn't own the
> site, (it was a Mr Smith), and as I don't
> own it now (It's Mr Brock) - both of your allegations fail. Perhaps a tad
of
> research (and less beer) before you spout
> off again eh?

We'll leave this one shall we?  I've heard differing accounts from various
parties, as well as various scurrilous accusations, and I don't want to say
any more on this point.  As you said - it's been discussed at length before
now, and you're right, it doesn't need dragging up again.

>
> -----------------------------
> You Wrote:
> "You were quite happy to slate Andy Gilham for promoting Nik's gigs, but
> you'll quite happily promote Alan's Bedouin gigs on the site now".
>
> A: Well Alan is still IN the band - Nik ISN'T - e-mail me privately if you
> still can't grasp this basic concept.

Ooh - sarcasm...

I would have thought that the place for Bedouin info would have been
www.bedouinfo.com or somewhere, with a link from Mission Control, rather
than the front page of the Hawkwind site.

> (Also your mail from Andy Gilham about 'Liberty' was totally irrelevant.
> Members of Liberty X were never in or
> connected with 'Liberty' - different issues involved totally).

Err, no.  It isn't irrelevant.  The point being made was that the simple
addition of an "X" to a name *is* enough to differentiate two bands.  That
was it.

> And remind me exactly where I slated Andy for promoting Nik's gigs - a bit
> of over keenly reading between the lines
> on your part I think? I assume you have some direct evidence of this
claim?
> I'd *love* to see it.

Sorry - possible misunderstanding here (or me not making it clear).  My use
of the word "you" was intended to imply plural - as in "people concerned
with the Mission Control website" - not you personally.

> -------------------------------
> MISSION CONTROL:
> Twice in as many weeks you have publicly ranted in haste then repented.
> This would be fine if  we had not already been in private contact about
such
> issues as the website, where you agreed
> to wait to see if your suggestions had been incorporated into the new
> update. Yet you still felt the need to again have
> a rant about stuff which you already knew is being addressed, albeit as
you
> put it "after a few beers and got really
> irate". Why the need for such a public slagging when we'd chatted quite
> amicably in private?

Had we?  What name were you using when we chatted amicably?  I don't
remember making any suggestions about the website, and I don't recall being
aware of any issues being addressed.

>
> I look forward to when (if ever) your site
WWW.BEERPOWEREDNOISEFRENZY.CO.UK
> comes online. Perhaps we can all then see how a 'real professional' does
it.
> :-}

There *is* a Beer Powered Noise Frenzy website -
www.beerpowerednoisefrenzy.co.uk doesn't point to it because:
a) It was more an experiment for me in a couple of web techniques rather
than a fully thought out site - I didn't want to put it live when it wasn't
finished - as I'm sure you can appreciate.  (One of those problems was that
I never got round to finishing the Netscape script).  If you want to have a
look at it, use IE and point it to http://rich.rootsquare.com
b) We're not sure what's happening to the band at the moment
c) I'm NOT a graphic designer - the site needs some decent design on it
before it goes live properly.

There are plenty sites I've coded, each with their own good points - some
with bad.  If you've got a fast connection have a look at www.becks.co.uk,
www.sonybiz.net/ or www.pro.sony-europe.com for some examples...

>
> YOU WROTE:
> "Oh, and I notice that since you're quite happy to slate Nik's usage of
the
> letter "x", you're main page flies in the face
> of all convention, and rather than calling it "index.html", you're quite
> happy to call it hw_x.html.
> A: Ever since launch, a year ago, the site has discreetly JavaScript
> filtered IE users to the page 'hw_x.htm' and
> Netscape/Opera users to the page 'hw_x.htm' to make use of each browser's
> particular JavaScript capabilities.
> So, in fact, a) index.htm *is*, and always has been the 'conventional'
> default page and b) it redirects to hw_x.htm
> only in IE browsers c) the filename hw_x.html you stated does not exist
(no
> 'l')  oh ya while we're at it - index also
> has an 'x' in it - oh dear, better not use that either !!!! :-}

Hmm.  This was meant to be taken as a light hearted comment.

> ------------------------------
> MISSION CONTROL UPDATES IN PROGRESS:
> For those that missed it before, MC is being updated to give it a cleaner,
> fresher look, and will address most of the
> issues that people have raised as constructive critisism. (HOWEVER, -
> (Richard please note) - just how "the current
> site sucks", "f***ked off with trying to get rid of those f**king
irritating
> fades" can be construed as 'constructive'
> beggars belief).

I'll be interested to see the new version.  Hopefully without fades...

Cheers,

Rich.