Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 3496409" data-attributes="member: 18280">Sure.&nbsp; Just read the paragraph you quoted.&nbsp; I also mentioned my own, direct experience.&nbsp; But, seriously, I thought that most people on EN World would have been well aware of corporate content providing by now, and didn't think it would require any &quot;proof&quot;.EDIT:&nbsp; May I also point out that, if I thought there was something &quot;wrong&quot; or &quot;evil&quot; or &quot;Illuminati-esque&quot; about providing content, I would hardly have mentioned my own direct experience.&nbsp;&nbsp; <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing&nbsp; &nbsp; :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" />&nbsp; This was never meant as a &quot;slam&quot; against WotC.&nbsp; It was meant only to recall perspective:&nbsp; When you see an interview in print, you don't know how it is slanted, or who is responsible for the questions.&nbsp; React accordingly.You're right; I wasn't aware that this had been struck down in the U.S.&nbsp; It is still illegal in Canada, the UK, and Europe, however.&nbsp; Of course, the drug companies are working on striking down those laws as well.&nbsp;&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D"&nbsp; data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /> <a href="http://whp-apsf.ca/pdf/charter_challenge_en.pdf" target="_blank">http://whp-apsf.ca/pdf/charter_challenge_en.pdf</a><a href="http://www.which.co.uk/reports_and_campaigns/health_and_wellbeing/campaigns/medicines/drug_advertising/Drug_advertising_560_53893.jsp" target="_blank">http://www.which.co.uk/reports_and_campaigns/health_and_wellbeing/campaigns/medicines/drug_advertising/Drug_advertising_560_53893.jsp</a>Obviously not.&nbsp; (And this is also obviously another cheap shot.)&nbsp; Asking is a reasonable and time-honored method of gaining information.Saying that WotC might have produced both sides of the interview is not the same as saying that they did so.&nbsp; It is nothing more than saying that you cannot preclude the possibility.However, while I was composing this message, I did receive a response from Milton Griepp, President of ICv2.&nbsp; I reproduce it below in its entirety (I did tighten up the blank lines).&nbsp; Believe it or not.....any you can certainly email <a href="mailto:mgriepp@icv2.com">mgriepp@icv2.com</a> to verify if you like.&nbsp;So, there we have it.&nbsp; We now know exactly who to blame.&nbsp;&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D"&nbsp; data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /> Asking....time-honored, and not a cheap shot no matter who says otherwise.&nbsp;&nbsp; <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing&nbsp; &nbsp; :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 3496409, member: 18280"] Sure. Just read the paragraph you quoted. [B][I]I also mentioned my own, direct experience.[/I][/B] But, seriously, I thought that most people on EN World would have been well aware of corporate content providing by now, and didn't think it would require any "proof". EDIT: May I also point out that, if I thought there was something "wrong" or "evil" or "Illuminati-esque" about providing content, I would hardly have mentioned my [b][i]own direct experience[/i][/b]. :lol: This was never meant as a "slam" against WotC. It was meant only to recall perspective: When you see an interview in print, you don't know how it is slanted, or who is responsible for the questions. React accordingly. You're right; I wasn't aware that this had been struck down in the U.S. It is still illegal in Canada, the UK, and Europe, however. Of course, the drug companies are working on striking down those laws as well. :D [url]http://whp-apsf.ca/pdf/charter_challenge_en.pdf[/url] [url]http://www.which.co.uk/reports_and_campaigns/health_and_wellbeing/campaigns/medicines/drug_advertising/Drug_advertising_560_53893.jsp[/url] Obviously not. (And this is also obviously another cheap shot.) Asking is a reasonable and time-honored method of gaining information. Saying that WotC [i]might have[/i] produced both sides of the interview is not the same as saying that they did so. It is nothing more than saying that you cannot [i]preclude the possibility[/i]. However, while I was composing this message, I [B][I]did[/I][/B] receive a response from Milton Griepp, President of ICv2. I reproduce it below in its entirety (I did tighten up the blank lines). Believe it or not.....any you can certainly email [email]mgriepp@icv2.com[/email] to verify if you like. So, there we have it. We now know exactly who to blame. :D Asking....time-honored, and not a cheap shot no matter who says otherwise. :lol: [/QUOTE]

Verification