Go on then, tell us what's on your mind...
We might even respond if the feather stops staring at us.
Updated with shocking irregularity!
It's the first Scribes of the
relaunched site, and it's
devoted to that very subject...
JULY 5, 2001
Hello - wow - awesome. I see that your site has undergone an update of near epic proportions, and let me register my awe and wonder now and assure you it was worth it. Yes, it was a worthwhile experience aha!
However, I'm one of the (presumably not that uncommon - I hope) number of people who use Netscape to browse websites. Surfing through the site, I've noticed a few problems that my browser had in viewing things correctly. Just to give you a small list of possible tweaks, if you have the time or inclination to make your site more universal:
1. Text in the middle frame often runs off the bottom of the screen, and Netscape users can't scroll it down. I'd imagine that the scrollbar.gif to the right does something in MSIE or other standard browsers, but it's not doing anything for me, sadly.
2. There is no Submit button for the Pants Survey page - I have to acknowledge that, knowing Leigh's unique sense of humor, this may be fully intentional. On second thoughts, this may also be a result of Netscape non-scroll-downability.
Mind, to ensure you don't think of those as moans and/or groans, let me point out a few things that are really good:
1. pantsfly20.gif. There is simply nothing that can be said. Except that if that doesn't stop rpas then nothing will.
2. 7 games!!! 7 GAMES!!! Sorry, I know this has nowt to do with the site and all but I'm a bit excited.
3. Also my sincerest congratulations on having the bravery to publicly reveal your new self. I'm sure we will do our best to make Sue feel every bit as loved and cherished as we did back when you were called Leigh. (Suppressed titter.)
And on a sadder note, So Long and Thanks For All the Fish. I'm sure you're as sad as I am about his early departure from this azure orb. 49 is no age at all.
A fan (of sorts),
1. Yep, older versions of Netscape do indeed seem to have this problem. As a result, we've been going around adding Text Window buttons to the longer pages where scrolling is necessary (see the FAQ for full details) - this is the biggest change we've had to make so far. Explorer is still your best bet, but we're doing all we can to give old Netscape users a fair chance.
2. Non-scroll-downability was the issue, sir, and I take offence at the implication that my sense of humour is in any way perverse or sadistic. (Snigger.)
3. Ah well, at least you're not jumping to the conclusion that I've buggered off completely, though obviously the popular notion of me being a transsexual isn't ideal either.
Frankly, the new look frightens me. I run at 1280x1024 resolution, and I had to change to a small one just to see the page :\ I've noticed you haven't deleted all the old Scribes pages yet (please, for the love of god, don't). I'm in the middle of organising them to the best of my abilty, and, though the new look it great, it arses up everything I was doing.
Another thing thing that I'm sure will be a hot topic in the Scribes forum - Star Fox. I don't really mind the change, but the general consesus is that the original idea was better. I just hope the designers have fun making it, and that it turns out great.
I haven't read half of the most recent Scribes. Punish me. But I know what I'll see when I read it. More idiots who can't beat a certain part of a game, people who want more Mr. Pants, people who want less arse. It's not the centre of intense game debate/discussion it once wasn't. Yes, I would like some cheese.
-Amanda Marie Schroeder, a.k.a ¡Kablooie!, evil twin of Kazooie (Bwaa ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaa!)
Most of the old site is now gone as it was taking up a lot of space on the server, but the previous incarnations of Scribes and Tusk will stay there until they've all been copied over to the new format (so they'll always be available in some form). Just use the old addresses (recent/scribes and bites/agonyaunt).
You're right, Scribes was never a "centre of intense game debate/discussion". It's much the same now as it's always been - I never thought rose-tinted glasses could make much difference to something so uncompromisingly rubbish.
Sue says: "The new site is actually wider than the old site, the only difference being that the new site doesn't centre, which gives the misleading impression of being smaller when the browser window is set at maximum."
To the very patient Scribes reader.
Well, for the past week, I've been a sack of rotting phlegm with inflamed tonsils. Last night, it all began to change. I started feeling better, and started checking my favourite sites. Starmen.net was on top of the pile, of course. They said about E3. I thought "Goody, Ness on Gamecube. Goody, Super Smash Bros. Melee." And went to bed. I get up this morning and check again on KRR and Starmen.net, and they're both screaming with info on the upcoming GC titles. So I check them, and see Starfox Adventures: Dinosaur Planet.
So then what do I do? I come here to talk about it and almost fall off my chair seeing the sudden changes! Then the giant Fox McCloud picture loads and I fall off my chair again! I check out the section, and you've got snippets of sounds, which make me fall of my chair again, this time huring myself on the floor! WAAAH! Why didn't people mention it sooner?!? It looks so spiffy, but you could have told me beforehand!
The good news is the upcoming titles have filled me with giddy excitement, and your new layout rocks. Oh yeah! And I'm getting over my tonsilitis! Good thing, too. My first GCSE exam is on the 21st. You never cease to amaze me, guys. Keep it up. Are there any other titles you haven't mentioned that you've got planned? Like a surreal shoot-em-up where you throw bricks out of car windows at passing pedestrians?
We didn't mention the redesign beforehand because we were never quite sure when it'd be ready to go - the idea of a real-time countdown on the old site was swiftly abandoned as crazy talk. Glad you like it, though, and we're glad to see that its top secret antiviral properties are working as planned. Let us know if you passed your exams - then we'll know if the mind-expanding subliminal experimentation has been a success too.
Well, okay, I have wanted a new site design from you guys for ages, but I really think that there is too much info in the Rare logo and it should be split up into more general sections. Also, increase the size of EVERYTHING otherwise I will be setting my resolution to 800x600 every time I visit your site. I also think you have gone a little overboard with the links. Does each one need a border and picture? Not all of us have ADSL you know! Apart from that though, it's great! Can I have a cookie now?
Tycho Quad, Unknown Location.
Splitting the site into "more general sections" was one of the main aims of the redesign, and the new navigation reflects that. How could we make it any more general than it is now? No confusing section names, no arbitrary grouping, just direct links to relevantly-named areas. Yes, we were left with a lot of links to squeeze into the Rare logo, but that came with the territory.
I assume you mean the links to the new games - well yes, they do need pictures and borders, really. They don't take that long to load, and surely it's better than a list of plain text links.
And you don't have to reset your resolution if you normally run at higher than 800x600, I can vouch for the fact that it's still easily readable at 1024x768 (though it does look neater if you resize the browser window to the site).
Sue says: "As far as l am aware, graphic content remains the same size in relation to the screen resolution. Each of the graphics in the new site are the same physical size or larger than they were in the old site. The only element of the new site that is smaller is the area in which the text appears, where the type size is fixed so that approximately 10 words appear per line (the most comfortable maximum per line for 11 point type). However, if you wish to resize the text please use the Text Window. If you are used to working with a high-res monitor, surely you are used to viewing 11 point type within other documents/programs such as email, Photoshop, Excel etc., does this also appear to small to you?"
What are you doing!?! Don't go changing things on us. Sure, this blue is less assaulting on the eyes, and I can now reach Scribes in one click, but what have you done to the Scribes themselves? They're tiny! C'mon, Crank them up a bit. This is ridiculus (as well as my spelling).
If we cranked up the default text size, you'd get even less of it on-screen. That's what the Text Windows are there for - so you can mess about with it to your heart's content.
Dear Scribey One,
Crivvens, a new designer! Go and buy some Chewits - and make it the fabulous fizzy kind I don't know if you can get anymore!
What happened to old Pants Loveday - did you kick his arse out the door for reducing the level of Scribes to the big heap of mushrooms that it is today? If not, why not?
Anyway, who came up with that weird noise that jumps up and attacks me when I come to your site - what's it supposed to be? Get the old fanfare whatsit up there instead.
PS - I can't think of anything to say here.
I'm still here, you cheeky monkey. Honestly, the first sign of professionalism and everyone automatically assumes I must have left. It's so depressing. Sue's responsible for the visual overhaul, I'm still churning out what can loosely be describes as 'content' - you're stuck with it, I'm afraid.
The "weird noises" were a bit of an experiment. They're definitely causing mixed reactions (and one or two physical injuries, by the sound of it).
I love the site but...
I'm using Internet Explorer 5 800x600 and I have some complaints. A lot of it is out of sight and unreachable and the scroll bars are a NIGHTMARE to control, they don't always act up as they should.
As an enthusiast web designer I suggest removing the frames, except maybe the top one and the one on the left and if I were you (which I know I'm not) I would put the navigation frame (the one on the right) inside the page and let it scroll with the rest of the page and for Christ's sake keep the normal, standard scroll bars EVERYWHERE!!! Pleaaaase.
It is beautiful and better set divided than the old one (which had really nothing wrong with it), but its too dependent on visual settings and browser.
Eh? Removing the frames and putting the navigation bar inside the scrolling part of each page would defeat the point of fixed on-screen navigation, not to mention double the download time.
There's nothing abnormal about the scroll bars, it's just that some browsers don't like dealing with the layers that they're fixed to. Aside from that, we've been using Explorer 5 all along and haven't had a single problem, so I don't know what to tell you...
Sue says: "Currently there aren't any 'top frames' so l'm not sure what you mean by this. If you are going to have frames, you are going to need at least two of them in a frameset - that's what framesets are, if you only had one it would be a plain HTML page! And basically the right-hand frame just holds the navigation bar. If you remove all the frames, this increases the time required to load a page as the navigation would reload on each occasion - as an enthusiast web designer you must agree that this isn't a good idea.
"The standard scroll bars (i.e. at the far right and bottom of the screen) do not appear as there is nothing to scroll! All of the content can be seen on the screen unless your resolution is set at less than 800x600 - which you have already stated it is not."
Dear Scribes, (well, not that dear, but for the sake of tradition...)
The new site sucks. S-U-C-K sucks. What happened? I enjoyed going through the four different sections (each complete with four sub-sections) much more then all of the parts of the site always at the right of my screen. Maybe I'm just stupid, who knows, but I have another gripe: Where did those little text popups that appear when you hold your pointer over images go? Those were funny! Wait, a thought has just occurred to me: With the new site, could there be another incarnation of the Super-Secret Bovine Bonus?! 'Scuse me while I go search.
Unfortunately, you were in the minority: the two main factors pinpointed for drastic change during the redesign were the section headers and navigation.
ALT tags for the graphics are being sneaked back in at a steady pace as I go through the site updating things here and there... Super Secret Bovine Bonus? Yes, of course there's a new one! Go and look for it now! (Muffled cursing and frenzied mouse-clicking.)
Sue says: "Each graphic that appeared in the original site had to be re-created. As such, the alt. text also has to be re-entered. This is a non-automated task which takes a very long time. There are currently over 3,000 graphics that alt. text could be added to. Many have been added but we still have a way to go.
"If you liked the old subsections, take a look at the new subsections - click on the navigation bar text in green, each header has a little more explanation text about the new sections plus a few animated GIFs to boot."
Wow! the new site is officially the sexiest bit of hypertext this side of the Wired! I like! the only problem I have, is with the pic on the left side, on some of the pages (the Perfect Dark [N64] info page for example) it makes the area for text, shall I say, slim? (By the way, is that pic of Joanna new? It looks far more detailed than what I had seen from the PD promo art.)
Anyway, love the site! Can't wait to get my hands on Starfox and Kameo, hope you have something planned for our favorite bird and bear duo on the Cube, and uuuhhh.... if I'm ever in Twycross (Hah! Never even been out of the States! Whatever) let's do lunch!
Well, we thought that if we've got all these top-notch renders lying around, it'd be a shame not to use some of them at as high a quality as we could get away with. And there's not really that much text to be squeezed into the introductory game pages (plus the good old Text Windows are there now for those who couldn't previously read it). The Joanna pic isn't new - it just hasn't been scaled down quite as drastically as before. In their original sizes, a lot of these renders weigh in at 20-40MB...
Sue says: "To be honest, l love the look and impact of large renders - as such l may have gone a little OTT with the graphic content for each of the game intro sections. I've tried to get Leigh to cut back on the text on the intro pages but he's having none of it - what can l say? Hopefully the images make up for the lack of text width on these pages - go on, tell me they do, please!"
Firstly I would like to say that you new site looks great and is a lot better organised for people who have never been to your old website. The only problems I had were answered in your FAQ.
Anyway, on with the games. All of your new games look fantastic and seem to be stuffed full of the type of innovative ideas you are so famous for, I just need some money now.
Ta very much.
Hang on... you haven't said anything negative. Did I accidentally chop off half of your letter? No? Um... are you sure you don't want to go away and think about this, maybe get back to us later?
Sue says: "If l didn't know better l'd think l wrote that mail myself. Thank you ZMG."
When I first saw the new-look site (on the first day of change I believe) I saw the title 'Video game developers Rare Ltd.' and thought 'Oh no' (or words to that effect!!). I thought that you had gone from having a cool laid-back website to all this formal malarky. Thankfully, looking closer I was wrong. The new look is great, it is easy to navigate and well thought out. Underneath the fancy clothing it is still the same great site, still wearing Mr. Pants' style pants!
All of your E3 games seem class, some different and surprising, yet still looking to be up to Rare's high standards (thankyou for bringing Sabreman back into his own game again!).
A big pat on the back from me, and keep up the good work,
P.S. I love the sound samples on the intro page and for your latest games, simple yet effective.
Well, I'm glad someone realises that just because the site finally looks like an official site doesn't mean it's going to drop the arse fetish and start spouting PR blurb at every opportunity.
PS The popular vote is against you, my friend. We were going to compromise by just removing the main page sample, as that's the only one you can't avoid (without turning your speakers off - duh), but during the process of shifting the GameCube and GBA titles from the E3 folder to the New Games section, we decided we may as well just ditch all the soundbites to stop you lot whinging. Maybe we'll bring them back as Downloads if enough people want them. Or maybe we won't, out of petty spite. Hah.
I have a little complaint for you:
WHAT HAVE YOU DONE TO OUR BELOVED SITE!!!!
Frankly, you've totally messed up the site. For a few reasons:
1. The new site takes too long to show up on the screen, and I keep getting errors.
2. It's too frustrating to find things now; whereas it used to be easy to find whatever I was looking for, now it's too confusing.
3. Worst of all, you've eliminated the forums. I do NOT care what your explanation for not having them. I want my forums back. Don't give me excuses. I am less reasonable then a deranged Skedar, and I WANT MY FORUMS!!!!!
I have to say I cannot stand this new look. Every time I go on the site, I am simply filled with more loathing towards this new design, after seeing more and more changes to my beloved site. Change is bad. Why did you need to change this site? Look at the new version of Nintendo's site! It's even worse then it used to be! What compelled you to do the same thing they did? For the love of God, could at least take some sort of poll of the viewers to see what they preferred (old or new); and if the result is the old one, revert to the old look?
The Technophobes are rising, everyone! Flee! Flee!
1. Okay, the speed's taken a minor hit due to the considerably upgraded layout. It was never going to be quite as quick as the simplistic old site, but be fair, it's still not nearly as slow as some of the graphic-heavy, Flash-laden monstrosities out there.
2. Navigation has been simplifed. That is a fact. Even those intimate with the layout of the old site should have no problem finding what they want from the list of section headings in the navigation bar.
3. There are hundreds of sites out there operating moderated forums similar to ours - ones they've got time to update regularly, at that - and thousands more operating unmoderated ones, which we just couldn't afford to include on an official site. You can still access our old Forums at http://www.rareware.com/bites/forum, so your postings still exist - you just can't post any new ones (well, you can, but I'll ignore 'em).
Sue says: "The site may load a little more slowly in places as it has far more graphic content than before. However, each graphic has been optimised so that it loads as speedily as possible - even the background is only 1k! Flash has not been added (as with the Nintendo site) which has kept things as fast as possible. Again, the issue with the navigation bar - be patient, it's not that slow (approximately 13 seconds at 56K) and once it's in place it's there for the duration of your visit."
Umm, new layout.
Looks much better, I like the colours etc, and love the little soundbites for each game page, menu's better, blablabla.
BUT... hate the little frames for the writing. Means you're constantly scrolling down all the time. Can't you just put the game titles in italics? If you look at the second message in the latest Scribes, practically every other word is green. My eyes!! Why do you make them burn?!
A menu on the main page would be nice.
Dreamweaver doesn't like italics, and tends to give you a completely unnecessary horizontal scrollbar at the bottom of the page if you add too many. Why? Who knows. It's mad. Anyway, that's one of many reasons for putting the game titles/Scribes responses in a different colour instead. You have to admit they stand out now...
We tried having a menu (i.e. navigation bar) on the splash page, but it looked really clumsy and unbalanced. Trust me. One extra click's a small price to pay.
Sue says: "It seems that a lot of people hate the green. The idea here was to use a colour that worked with the colour palette of the site. Yellow would have been my first choice as it has the greatest contrast to our corporate blue, however l used this as a hyperlink colour so that visitors could quickly and easily recognise clickable text. White was already in use as body copy, and lilac blended into the background too much (hence its use as a 'previously used' link colour). Green seemed like a good compromise (l didn't think pink would go down well). Black and other dark colours don't show up, lighter colours tend to look too similar to white, and light blue had already been set aside as the body copy colour used to answer mail contained in Scribes etc. The green only appears as the header text colour which is constant (once read you need never read it again) and for picking out (highlighting) game titles - you must admit, it sure does that. The idea behind highlighting the game titles was to enable visitors to quickly find info on games that interest them."
Well, old boy, it seems you've gone and changed everything, just like Nintendo's site. And just for you, here's a review of it, something you should always get from me. (I haven't been to Mr. Pants yet, but I'm sure he asks annoying questions like, "Clive, man, what do you think of our new, like site, man, totally clive.") But anyway, here are the ups and downs. (It would be nice if you posted this and belittle me in the time it would have taken you to give me a straight answer, but that's just me.) Ahem.
1. Mainly, I have to say that it is so kick arse that you have all your GameCube and Advance games on your site, and the screenshots are amazing too. I just have two questions: Who came up with combining Dino Planet with a Star Fox game? Eh? And here's the next one. Why are the people there making BK: Grunty's Revenge on Advance instead of GameCube?
2. Why don't the older games have any pages anymore?! I loved going into BK's pages and DKC's pages and reading the primitive writing. But now I can't do that because Sue changed it! Arrgh! So, please return them quick fast and in a hurry, if you could be so nice, thank you.
3. Navigation is a little off, but not too bad. Just make it so I can SCROLL DOWN, it would be nice to see if there's anything under Sabre Wulf for Advance. But navigation is OK. Oh, and why did you make everything so small?! I mean, Scribes used to take up a whole page and now it only fills the center (centre) part! C'mon, guys!
4. Speaking of which, what ever happened to all the witty things that you put, like "enjoy it, damn you" and all that other funny stuff! And when I hold the mouse on a picture it doesn't have a little funny caption to go with it! C'mon, where are they?!
Well, that's about it. I'm a bit disappointed about the unfunnyness of the site sometimes, but everything else it good or excellent. Thanks, Rare, and good job.
The Rare Game Expert
1. The SFA thing (and I don't mean Street Fighter Alpha or the Super Furry Animals) is detailed in the FAQ, and the B-K franchise hasn't necessarily jumped ship to GBA permanently. People just wanted a portable Banjo game, so we're giving them one. Parp.
2. A common misconception: all the games that had full sections previously still have them, it's just that most of them are accessed from the Archives now rather than the New Games page (because most of them aren't strictly that new any more).
3. Text Windows. Again. Most of these mails were sent before we implemented the Text Windows - you may have noticed.
4. ALT tags are making a comeback, and the vast majority of the site text is unchanged from before. Are you mad, sir?
Sue says: "Excuse me - the games pages do still exist! I've spent endless hours, days, weeks, months, putting the things together. Do you know there are over 26 of these 'mini sites' which each contain a whole new bunch of HTML pages! Please, please please go and look at them - now! (Access via the Archives section for older titles - just click on the yellow square with the 'A'.) There are sections that still need work, but we're getting there."
Yarg. Urg. Murr. *cuts to action* What have you done to the lovely hi-res pics that used to be in the gallery? How am I supposed to make money from selling them as posters on the black market if you go and bugger around with them first? Worse, the pictures aren't only shamefully small, they're all jaggy as well, with next to no detail left in them. Grr. Do something about it.
Another common misconception: all of the Gallery pics are still available at bigger sizes than you see on-screen, usually the size and quality that they were before. Clicking on a thumbnail brings up a mid-sized preview pic (displaying the full-sized originals within that window would have thrown the site dimensions out of whack). Linking these preview pics to separate windows containing the originals is on our 'to do' list, but for now you can right-click 'em and select Save Image As to download 'em at full size.
I'm on your new Rare web site and I've maxed out the page to its farthest. The navigational bar on the right is just out of sight, I can only see a centimeter of the left side which was just enough to click on some links. I think you guys put too much thought into the larger pictures on the left side and not enough thought into the size of the webpage or the nav bar on the right side.
I think most people would claim that we'd put too much thought into the size of the page, judging by the complaints about the fixed 800x600 dimensions. If we'd fixed it to 640x480, our server would have crashed under the weight of protest. If that's your problem, you should be able to scroll right to see the nav bar - if not, let us know in more detail.
I think you folks at Rare need to kick a few more cats around before you get your "new" web site working the way somebody thinks it may be already.
Trust me. Single level navigation works somewhat on a small scale but without a method of getting back to specific levels of the site it really leaves the visitor stranded at various levels with no hope in hell of getting back without repeatedly click the back button. Not a good idea. Imagine if you had to drive in reverse back from the store everytime you decided to take the car... I trust you see my point.
Let My Pages FLOW!
Come now, where is it written that bit of text and graphics has to fit on the screen, especially a screen based on 800 x 600. Let those pages flow... down. Letting them flow gives your designers a number of exciting and interesting design and layout possibilities. And will also give your visitors some room to roam. You know make it an experience that goes beyond the scroll bar!
Free Your Digital Artist from Bondage.
Given the enormous inventory of rich and spectacular digital material Rare surely has at it's disposal, one gets the sense that Rare is reluctant to display their innovative material through their web site or even integrate it more fluidly into some type of brand orientated navigation scheme. I know, I know I used the "B" word but hell if that's what Rare is then that's what Rare should be and proudly and creatively display. expecially on your web site!
Has Anyone Found The Light Switch Yet?
Dark backgrounds are IMHO a cop out for a designer, no offence now laddies. Again with the huge colour palettes available to Rare designers I can't imagine a Rare web site that isn't overflowing with colours and ozzing with rich textures. Lime GREEN text... ouch!
Just my first impressions, which I have come to trust and are usually the most accurate.
Your browser's Back button wasn't designed to work with any site featuring frames, not just ours. We've tried to get around this wherever possible, and the full navigational map is always there on your screen anyway. "No hope in hell of getting back" is a slight exaggeration.
If we allowed the site to resize horizontally, it'd completely bugger up the layout. If we allowed it to scroll vertically, the text would overrun the rollover links usually to be found at the foot of the page. However sick you might be of hearing the words 'Text Window', they're the perfect solution to a number of issues, including this one.
Dark backgrounds are "a cop out"? So every single site on the Web should have a light-coloured background? Yeah, that'd make surfing great fun - like reading the world's longest newspaper. I've always preferred light text on dark backgrounds, myself, and seeing as the background of the Rare logo is dark blue, it's only logical to make the site background the same colour (especially when it's imprinted with the big 'R'). As for making use of our resources, we're showing off our renders far more wantonly than we were before - and if using our corporate logo as a navigational tool isn't "brand-orientated", what is?
Sue says: "The most common screen resolution currently stands at 600x800. As such we designed the site to fit within the maximum screen width available, i.e. 730 pixels (which is in fact wider than the original Rare site design).
"The dark blue background is a considered design colour. It produces the least eyestrain for web users viewing large quantities of body text (Uncle Tusk, Scribes, The Outpost etc.) Furthermore the dark background blue reinforces our corporate identity (it is actually the blue used in our logo - the yellow used in this site is our other company colour. Imagine having a totally yellow site, now that would do your eyes in). Additionally, continuing the dark blue background colour from the original site through to the new site provides visual unity and a sense of the familiar for returning vistors.
"Of course, we are always pleased to receive the URLs of sites that you find well-designed, or to the sites that you have designed yourself."
Just a suggestion... Put the Updates link back on the front page. It'll make things really convenient.
P.S. What the heck does "cack" mean?
Consider it done. I've had to include it within the main text, but unless you're some kind of scary button obsessive like our Production Manager, that shouldn't bother you.
PS It's a milder (and frequently more entertaining) form of 'crap'.
Dear All knowing and powerful Rare Gods,
Ok now love the update of the site but one thing troubles me its the new Mr Pants survey section. He looks different I think that he isn't really the real Mr Pants it is really Mr Trout. Before you fly off the handle with but his dead his dead complaints let me finish. Mr Trout faked his death in an attempt to fool us all he then allied with this Sue character so when she re did the site Mr Pants was tied up dumped off some where in a river or something who knows Mr Trout desguised as Mr Pants has taken his place. Mr Trouts plan to get head of the survey section has reached its forfulment. Im sure if check you will find the truth (hell i could be well off on this one).
p.s. please exuss all shocking spelling and grammer im to lazy to fix it (even though i came up with this strange Trout thingy and typed the please exuss thingy)
It doesn't matter how serious the subject at hand, if I'm going to pass this off as an edition of Scribes then there has to be at least one stupid Mr. Pants letter (I don't care if nobody finds them funny any more). On these grounds, consider your spelling 'exussed'.