Well, BabaLouie, if you're not already aware that I don't 'pamper' Ornlu - someone can probably soon make you aware ;-). I can't say that I agree with you on his actions in this instance. He has presented his case in a civil manner, and the fact that you, personally, don't feel he should present his case in an open forum is academic. I think he is perfectly entitled to publicly sever his association with the edited article and to state why (if he breaks an agreement in the process of doing so, that's his problem). That doesn't change the fact that I see this outcome as amusing and appropriate. In previous discussions I warned that the magazine isn't a proper professional publication in the sense of those that pay their way by paying for content are. If those who are content to be 'published' for reasons of vanity (to see their words in print, etc) end up with egg on their face, it's hard to not laugh (pride comes before a fall, etc). Add to that my contempt for a process (the magazine) that undermines the free, open interchange of program-user information, then it's clear that I'm going to be amused at seeing this whole sorry saga dragged out in public. To those non-professional-writers considering contributing articles to the magazine - especially now that it is going to be online only - I say this. If you've got something to say about a program or a process, how about saying it where everyone can access it - you know, like here in the Bryce forum for Bryce related stuff. If it's a biggie that warrants specific access, or (like me) you're not fully comfortable with Renderosity ethics, how about posting it on a webpage where anyone can access it? Why restrict it to a fee-paying audience when you aren't even getting a fee yourself, and when what you say is mangled by people who don't know what they're doing? You almost certainly got started in this with the help of people openly sharing their knowledge - so why not return the compliment?