From:	 Glenn Kletzky
Sent:	 Wednesday, October 24, 2001 10:56 AM
To:	 [email protected]
Cc:	 [email protected]
Subject: RE: Kletzky here

Dear Bob,

After reading your interview questions, the following
question stood out... you wrote.....

*************** 
7.  I read the "greater good" and the
"UT agreement with G2Interactive" to state that whether
the author of a mod/art likes it or not, his or her
works will be incorporated into the SuperPAK, on top of
signing over, in absentia so-to-speak, the rights to
G2Interactive in their for-profit endeavors. As the
"founding father" of the realism patches how do you feel
about these points? 
****************

Not so much the question, but rather the manner in which
it was asked shows, clearly to me that you are biased
toward a complete misinterpretation of the documents and
that your hope here as a "journalist" is questionable.
It seems to be nothing more than an attempt to fan the
old flames of misunderstanding and misinterpretation and
to question the ethics of this project and the people in
it.  re-igniting old flame wars and putting forth gross
misconceptions about this project will not be assisted
by me.  I understand you may publish my response to you
in this email.  It is of no concern to me.  Do as you
see fit.

F4 SuperPAK will use anything in the public domain it
wishes to use for its freely available release of
SuperPAK.  Anyone who ever released anything for F4
built on someone else's work and made it freely
available.  F4SuperPAK is acting no differently.  in NO
WAY has anyone in SuperPAK signed over the rights of
other authors "in absentia" (as you put it) to G2.  You
really need to re read the documents.  This is a case of
poor reading comprehension mixed with a biased question
formatted in such a way as to fan old flames.

Please direct all further questions to the management of
G2


On this point, I have decided to decline this interview
or any further interviews with you or Combatsim.  I
highly recommend that you carefully re read the
documents until you come to comprehend the distinctions
in them. At best, this represents a gross reading
comprehension issue.  At worst, this is a poorly masked
attempt to fan the flames and to "get the scoop" by
implying a non truth to your readers and place the
project's ethics into a poor light.

--Glenn

P.S.  Doug.  Feel free to withdraw my userID and
password.