From:	Nightfox <DJWA@******.UCC.NAU.EDU>
Subject:	wyrm and solarial
Date:	Thu, 14 Oct 1993 17:05:43 -0700

In a message dated 98-03-08 00:04:16 EST, justinf@****.CALTECH.EDU writes:

> Oh, you want to do a prequel. So what would appear on ShadowTk would be all
> the stuff some months/years before the part in your first message about
> breaking into the Aztechnology complex, right? Okay, no objections here
> (not that I actually objected in the first place.)
>
More or less, yes.

The only thing that is sad is that "TK" uses a dating format that matches the
calendar year itself in a physical sense. And the PBEM itself is "about equal
in parallel time" to the lists timeline. Hence, most of it is going to be
"extrapolations" and "insite" runs...

You'll see what I mean soon enough...
-K
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 23:54:38 -0600
Reply-To: ShadowTk Plot and Administrative Discussion
<PLOTD@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: ShadowTk Plot and Administrative Discussion
<PLOTD@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: "Michael R. Goldberg" <mrgoldbe@**.NETCOM.COM>
Subject: Cool.

It will be cool to have you back, Brian.

And I don't want to hear about the old-timer cracks. (I agree. It was
a different list then. For better or for worse. If you ask me, it is
worth trying to figure out which is better. Both are good, although
they both had their mo