Well, thanks for so casually slagging off everyone who writes for the magazine in one brief post.
Can I just point out that everyone who writes and translates for the magazine (for there are numerous people) are ordinary Amiga fans who do so in their spare time for the sheer love of it and nothing else. I know this because I have regularly contributed for many years now. Of course, we all make mistakes now and again which is regrettable but it does happen occasionally. The editor himself doesn't directly write very much at all (not even the editorial at the front of the mag, which is a job given to a different writer every issue). Nobody profits from it, we just produce a magazine for people to buy and read should they choose to (nobody is being forced to, if you wish to ignore it just stroll on by, nothing to see here). It isn't full of 'BS' - indeed, many older, out-of-print issues can be read in full on the mag's website if you ever wish to verify this.
I feel sympathy for Richard as there were a couple of errors in the article he mentions which could have been rectified pretty easily. They were no doubt honest errors but it's a bit sloppy nevertheless, but regardless I'm sure the writer in question will take that on board in future articles of a similar nature. I'm sure he realises this and it's disappointing that a genuine point he has validly raised has been hijacked by people playing the man and not the ball.
Finally, of course it would be very difficult to take legal action against someone for merely writing about a game that has information freely available in the public domain in a print magazine. That would rather defeat the point. I once wrote a review, many years ago, for a since-deceased Amiga publication of a game published by the very company you are talking about here, in which I gave it, shall we say, a less-than-glowing write up, and I promptly ended up writing for his magazine not long after. So perhaps save the stirring and hijacking for another day and another discussion.