Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JFigliuolo
I am not so sure I agree w/your argument. I mean no one forced Steve (as far as I know) to write anything. If there is a beef, it (in my opinion) should be with him. Since as you say, it wasn't a big pay-day for Steve. It's not like he was blinded by the money or anything. Up to today I had nothing but praise for Steve. I agree w/all the good things that have been said about him. I can't help but think what his response would be if someone was so specific w/one of his spots. Probably not as bad as ours as he has collected so many.
Maybe that gets to the root of the problem, or his decision. Perhaps he felt he was outing a few well known spots, no big deal. In his arsenal, they were trivial. To others, just getting started, they were our "Big Guns"
|
No one forced Steve to write it and he's not a starving writer, but he probably thought he was doing a good thing, or at least not realizing how bad it would be. I have not read it yet but I am preparing myself to be pissed at it (I'm sure the article will be great but that's the point - too good). And yes, I think Steve weas wrong in writing it if it is as detailed as some are suggesting. So, Steve should get some beef but I think people need to realize he may have effed up but he likely was not being malicious about it. What I am really saying is that we, as the angling community, need to be more responsible with access, and the commercial ordganizations that profit from the angling community - ESPECIALLY THE MEDIA - must be more responsible with the impact that results when they make a profit. So how much is access worth? What $200 an article?