I understand that it takes a while to publish and the article was likely in the works for some time. I do apologize for any misunderstanding over this or any suggestion that the article is in bad taste intentionally. I do think it is in bad taste Unintentionally, however.
There is good information to be found in the article that will doubtless help many people,it just struck me poorly and I see no reason to censor that opinion. There is no conspiracy theory, I just wanted to voice the opinion that I thought it was poor timing.
Rather that be ridiculed for this opinion, I honestly expected, if any statement at all from the publisher, one something along the lines of "We are sorry for seeming insensitive in the timing of the article, however due to the publishing schedule it was unfortunately unavoidable. Mr. Manquen's untimely passing has left us all saddened and we feel for the loss to his family and anyone that knew him. That said, the article in question was researched independently, any similarity between his work and that posted in the article is purely coincidental." Obviously I'm not a publisher or editor and the sentiment could be expressed better than I'm able to do.
Even without his passing I feel my comment on this thread and article would have been "Yea, thats what Dale published six years ago. Here's the link." which seems to be the typical response on this forum from all the prominent members whenever anyone posts "new" information that is a re-hash of someone else's work. As is so often said here "use the search function" you'll find countless threads with the information and personal responses from Mr. Manquen detailing steps to improve the track signal and how it works.
I am sorry if my statement came off as some sort of condemnation of the publishers , that was not my intent. Instead I suppose it was more that I am still saddened by Dale's passing, even as someone that barely knew the man and that the article just hit a nerve in that sadness. Honestly Rich's response is about as far from what I expected as possible.
In summary, I don't think anyone did anything wrong in the publication of the article it's self, just expressing that it is nothing new. I was struck by the timing, but understand that it is unavoidable due to the publishing processes in place at OGR. I know that many of the folks at OGR are equally saddened by the loss of a great asset and friend to those in the hobby and don't for an instant think there was any intentional slight here. I am however somewhat shocked by the response to my sentiment, as it is not what I would have expected. I would have expecting something more along the lines of "sorry for the unavoidable poor timing", not " You've GOT to be kidding me!" in big bold letters.
JGL
Johngaltline@comcast.net