Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Alfredo B Alves <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Do you all jump to conclusions, or is it just for me? (long)
Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 02:45:39 -0500
On Sun, 10 May 1998 23:07:05 -0700 Demosthenes Three
<demosthenes_3@*****.COM> writes:
>Wow. Not the reaction I expected at all.
>I mean I've seen some of your websites, and watched a few of you on
>IRC - guess I expected a little more open mindedness.

Are you *seriously* saying that a peice of cyberware that hurls chunks of
the user's own flesh at an opponent is a valid SR concept? (btw pleas
read this all the way to the end :)

>A few of you have a couple misconceptions about me.
>Let me address those for you, OK? :)
>
>1) I am sick - Well, yes, I suppose I am. I hereby freely admit it.
>
>2) My "Chunk Launcher" Ninja is NOT a shapeshifter - I KNOW shifters
>can't have cyberware, that would be silly. My character has
>regeneration by using the Immortaily Flower from the California Free
>State book, OK? Lot less powerful, lot harder to get, more expensive,
>and more dangerous. It goes along with the sick thing in step 1, OK?
>Besides, shifters are truly munchkinous. :) Yes, I realize that using
>this weapon very odten would quickly incapacitate me, damage
>resistance or no. Did I ever say that this thing fired bursts? Hell
>no. It's a SINGLE SHOT weapon, sort of an astral hold-out pistol, OK?

Shapeshifters are not munchy; players are munhy; players who try to get
maximum result for minimum drawbacks are munchy. If ya want an astral
ranged attack buy distance strike (Awakenings) it's pretty much the only
way. Trying to get an astral ranged attack through cyber is ... you
guessed it ... munchy (most likely anyway)

>3) Flesh removed from the body is dead - Where'd that idea come from?
>Certainly not from Biology. Skin grafts, organ transplants, etc. (All
>canon Shadowrun concepts) are certainly alive, and any first year med
>student can tell you that tissue removed from the body can remain
>viable and alive for quite some time after being torn from a body.

viable and alive is one thing, containing an astral active aura is
another

>4) Removed flesh has no aura - where'd that come from? Certainly not
>any Fasa product I've ever seen. Sounds like you're quoting a house
>rule at me. Where an aura comes from has never been plainly stated in
>and Shadowrun product, or erratta I've ever seen. (Which is ALL of it.
>:)) You wanna make the aura a part of the "conciousness" fine, I say
>it's a biological abstraction. You say Shamanic, I say Hermetic. :)

You need to do more reading ... read Corporate Securrity Handbook? page
40 (I'm not sure if this is the right page personally, my copy's with a
friend so had to ask on irc)

"Things that do not have an active astral pressence cannot fight or be
hurt in any way in astral space" --pg 147 BBB (that's pretty much as
cannon as it gets)

>5) I "violated a sacred trust between player and GM by going around
>Loche 7's back and posting this to the list" - Hmmm, kinda hard to go
>behind his back when he's on this list isn't it? As for this "sacred
>trust" thing - I think you and your GM have been seeing too much of
>each other.:) Repeat after me "It's only a game, it's only a game" :)
>Just re-reading my post, I can't seem to find where I said that I was
>going to use list approval to influence my GM. Hmmm that must mean I
>wan't doing that, doesn't it. Just wanted a little input, that's all.

I admit it was rough on you but that was intentional, I wanted to make
sure you knew how serious that was ... and don't give me that it's only a
game crap, I am not talking about the game I'm talking about a
relationship between two people (yes I know the sounds way too deep) I've
seen too many people run around and ask 1 person's opinion then turn
around to someone else and say "see he/she agrees with me, why don't
you?" Once your GM says no to an idea discussing how you could change it
to work is okay ... continued argument is touchy at least ... you're
chalenging his authority (if you present an new view that convinces him,
then that's different) and he needs that authority. Just be careful
`kay? I'm sure we all want you two to *stay* friends ...

>6)Physical objects don't damage astral objects - Again, this sounds
>like a house rule to me. However, I recognize that Fasa has never been
>clear with this, which is why I posted the whole silly thing to the
>list in the first place, to get more ideas. We DO exchange ideas on
>this list right? Or do we just jump all over anyone who posts them and
>make veiled references to Munchkins, and wild guesses about player's
>ages (27 by the way, surprised? :))

See quote above. FASA *has* been clear on this. and I thought we made
it clear that we thought this idea was munchkinous ... 27? yes, I am
surprised... I would've guessed an educated 12 ... j/k but there was a
youthful somewhat immature tone to your post ... :)

>7)"Range combat cannot do damage to an astral being [though there
>might be a few exceptions to this rule they don't matter here].
>Hmm, so Distance Strike, Banishing, and Combat Spells, (All ranged
>combat) aren't effective against spirits? (Astral beings, in case you
>missed it.) Gee, guess I'll have to pull those pages out of my
>rulebooks. :)

By ranged combat I believe whoever stated that was refering to mundane
ranged combat...

>8) What's a THWAP? It looks like a flame to me. Gee, coming from
>Barbie, it looks like fan mail. :) I've seen you on IRC Barbie,
>Getting labeled a munchkin from you is a fine compliment, since you
>seem to be in the perfect position to judge, being one yourself. Tell
>Mr. White I said "Hi!" :) Oh wait, I forgot, ALfredo B. Alves said
>you're a "special case" do I need a permit to be one too, or is that
>something specifically reserved for your group? :)

WHAT???? forget all pleasentries ... Barbie's no munch, she RPs a munch
doesn't RP and I never sed Barbie was a special case ... oh wait are you
referring to my response to Lady Jestyr's post? I meant that she's a
shaper with cyber but has special rules to keep the cyber ...

>Now then, I seem to be fresh out of sarcasm.
>I do want to thank those who gave me logical, RULES-based reasons why
>this was a bad idea. (Ereskanti comes to mind quickly)
>
>Gee maybe I should post my Suitcase nuke/Anti nuke barrier enchanted
>weapon next huh? (That was a joke - thought I should point it out for
>the humor impaired among us.)
>
>Desmothenes 3
>aka Dr. D__M, but close friends get to call me TC. :)
>
>Oh yeah, what's a "FAB Bat?"

once again read Corporate Security Handbook and you'll get the reference
... you arogant ... hmmm I better cut this short before I really get
aggravated... I congratulate you ... pissing me off is no small feat :|

D.Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum)

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 2
From: Katt Freyson <katt@******.NET>
Subject: Re: Do you all jump to conclusions, or is it just for me? (long)
Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 13:58:01 -0400
|> From: Alfredo B Alves
|> Sent: May 11, 1998 3:46 AM
|> Subject: Re: Do you all jump to conclusions, or is it just for me?

|> Are you *seriously* saying that a peice of cyberware that hurls chunks of
|> the user's own flesh at an opponent is a valid SR concept? (btw pleas
|> read this all the way to the end :)

While you and most of the sane world may agree that this is stupid and
won't work, this does _not_ mean it is an invalid concept. Within the
framework of the SR universe it was well thought out. Most of us, it would
seem, don't agree that it would work, but that is something else.


|> Shapeshifters are not munchy; players are munhy; players who try to get
|> maximum result for minimum drawbacks are munchy.

That's _your_ opinion, not a fact. I'd say that this was reasonable and
sane, however, reasonable and sane is not fun.

|> I admit it was rough on you but that was intentional, I wanted to make
|> sure you knew how serious that was

Er, take it easy there big fella. It would seem that _you_ are the one
with the problem here, heck even Loche 7 had no problem. Desmothes did
nothing wrong here, you are the one who is brining evil into this. You
claimed to know his intent, my question is how? Are you sure you are not
projecting? The French have a good saying for this, "Mal est lui, qui mal y
trouve." Roughly translated, "Evil is he who finds evil here."

Also, your vile responses to him indicates that you may have a problem
that needs to be looked at. Desmothes wanted to talk about his idea, never
did he say, or imply that his G.M. was an idiot and that he wanted our aid
in convincing him. So please, stop with this BS.

|> By ranged combat I believe whoever stated that was refering to mundane
|> ranged combat...

Correct, but I guess I could have been clearer.

Katt Freyson
ICQ UIN 3337155
Montreal, Canada
http://www.dsuper.net/~katt
Message no. 3
From: Alfredo B Alves <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Do you all jump to conclusions, or is it just for me? (long)
Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 13:43:08 -0500
On Mon, 11 May 1998 13:58:01 -0400 Katt Freyson <katt@******.NET> writes:
>|> From: Alfredo B Alves
>|> Sent: May 11, 1998 3:46 AM
>|> Subject: Re: Do you all jump to conclusions, or is it just for me?
>
>|> Are you *seriously* saying that a peice of cyberware that hurls
chunks of
>|> the user's own flesh at an opponent is a valid SR concept? (btw
pleas
>|> read this all the way to the end :)

Hmmm... I should have removed this last line before I posted (doncha hate
it when your intent changes in the middle of your post? Was this a
paradigm shifting without a clutch? /me makes a mental not to look up
paradigm)

> While you and most of the sane world may agree that this is stupid
and
>won't work, this does _not_ mean it is an invalid concept. Within the
>framework of the SR universe it was well thought out. Most of us, it
would
>seem, don't agree that it would work, but that is something else.

Hmmm...When I sent this I was agrivated (and get more so the more I read)
and couldn't think of the correct wording ... By valid I mean 1) in
keeping with the spirit of SR and 2) at all feasable. Perhaps it would
have been better if I worded this differently ... perhaps an inapropriate
post? sound better?

>|> Shapeshifters are not munchy; players are munhy; players who try to
get
>|> maximum result for minimum drawbacks are munchy.
>
> That's _your_ opinion, not a fact. I'd say that this was reasonable
and
>sane, however, reasonable and sane is not fun.

incorrect ... munchkins are _players_ that don't roleplay powerful
characters (I'm not sure if the character being powerful is prerequisite)
sometimes people will refer to munchkin characters that they have in
which case, they are talking about characters the players are
uncharactistically munchkinous with ... anyway, Roleplaying is an
integral part of the definition of a munchkin therefore a shapeshifter is
not inherently munchkinous ... players who roleplay Shapers poorly can
munchkinous ... Of course *every*thing I say unless I quote is IMO or
IIRC / AFAIK :)

>|> I admit it was rough on you but that was intentional, I wanted to
make
>|> sure you knew how serious that was
>
> Er, take it easy there big fella. It would seem that _you_ are the
one
>with the problem here, heck even Loche 7 had no problem. Desmothes did
>nothing wrong here, you are the one who is brining evil into this. You
>claimed to know his intent, my question is how? Are you sure you are not
>projecting? The French have a good saying for this, "Mal est lui, qui
mal y
>trouve." Roughly translated, "Evil is he who finds evil here."

Are you finding evil me? ;)
I disagree, Demos appeared to me as trying to get backing to pressure his
GM ... I *know* he didn't say anything / imply I was posting in case that
was his intent ... I actually I gave a suggestion on how to change the
idea to a semi- workable state (which I wouldn't allow myself but ...)
which few people if anybody did.

> Also, your vile responses to him indicates that you may have a
problem
>that needs to be looked at. Desmothes wanted to talk about his idea,
never
>did he say, or imply that his G.M. was an idiot and that he wanted our
aid
>in convincing him. So please, stop with this BS.

If you mean mental problems, yes, but none that affected my post :)
But yes, I had a problem with his post besides the intent I percieved, he
quoted me out of context and twisted it to hurt a friend of mine.

>|> By ranged combat I believe whoever stated that was refering to
mundane
>|> ranged combat...
>
> Correct, but I guess I could have been clearer.
>
>Katt Freyson
<SNIP>

I had intended to say something more pleasant at the end of my response
since he said he hadn't intended to twist his GM's arm about it but his
arogance and that last bit where he used something I said to hurt a
friend tore it ... it takes alot to earn my dislike but attacking my
friends is the quickest way to do it ... (If I were a shaman, I'd follow
the Wolf Totem)

D.Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantum)
*adjusts mononcle and stroke persian cat* "Well Miss Freyson, I have our
little discussion with you but our time is at an end ..." ;)

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 4
From: Lady Jestyr <jestyr@*******.DIALIX.COM.AU>
Subject: Re: Do you all jump to conclusions, or is it just for me? (long)
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 08:15:35 +1000
> Hmmm...When I sent this I was agrivated (and get more so the more I read)
> and couldn't think of the correct wording ... By valid I mean 1) in
> keeping with the spirit of SR and 2) at all feasable. Perhaps it would
> have been better if I worded this differently ... perhaps an inapropriate
> post? sound better?

I think I`ll leap in here... I think the problem quite a lot of people
have with the Chunk-Launcher is that it seems a trifle... well, *silly*
for an SR game. Somehow it seems more appropriate to Paranoia. And I
think that`s colouring the attitudes of some responses.

That said, I think your Chunk-Launcher will definitely work... it will,
indeed, rip lumps of flesh off your body and hurl them in a
predetermined direction.

It just probably won`t do any damage to astral presences within the line
of fire, that`s all.

> uncharactistically munchkinous with ... anyway, Roleplaying is an
> integral part of the definition of a munchkin therefore a shapeshifter is
> not inherently munchkinous ... players who roleplay Shapers poorly can

Whoa - hold on here. `Munchkin` means a lot of different stuff to a lot
of different people. To some it refers to the hack-and-slash combat god
who has no interest in (or ability to) RP, to others it refers to the
`my character can do everything better/faster/stronger than you, *and* I
did it with less build points` mentality. I tend to subscribe to the
latter point of view of munchkins myself, but that`s irrelevant. Just
remember - one man`s munchkin is another group`s dream character...

As an example, *I personally* think Barbie`s character was a trifle
munchkinish (though I hear she`s... changed... a bit lately ;) - but
then, my fave rigger/sorceror adept character has been called munchy too
(merely because she did more than one thing, IRRC...) and it didn`t kill
me.

Remember, other people`s attitudes to your game are just that - other
people`s attitudes. If it bothers you, don`t listen to `em.

Lady Jestyr

- I'm in touch with my Inner Klingon... -
| Elle Holmes | jestyr@**********.com | http://jestyr.home.ml.org |
| Shadowrun Webring Ringmaster | GeoCities Leader | RPGA Reviewer |
Message no. 5
From: Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Do you all jump to conclusions, or is it just for me? (long)
Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 20:23:56 -0400
At 01:58 PM 5/11/98 -0400, you wrote:

> While you and most of the sane world may agree that this is stupid and
>won't work, this does _not_ mean it is an invalid concept. Within the
>framework of the SR universe it was well thought out. Most of us, it would
>seem, don't agree that it would work, but that is something else.

No Katt, this flesh hurling concept *wasn't* well thought out in the
framework of the SR universe or the rules. It quite simply cannot work,
and displays to me either an ignorance of the rules (which is totally
acceptable to be truthful) or a willful discarding of certain rules with
the application of others, which isn't acceptable to me.

It was at best an ignorant idea (which, again, isn't bad in and of itself)
and at worst a full-blown munchy concept worthy of being torn-apart.

Of course, let's just say for a split second this idea could work. How in
the frag could this cyber-regenerating ninja target the astral form? He'd
have to have astral perception! Otherwise, forget it, this ninja is
hurling chunks blindly, hitting walls instead of the astral beings.

<disengage dripping vitriol>

Man, what a way to spend a morning...reading e-mail, mostly regarding the
"e-card" or this flesh cannon thing. Time for lunch...

Erik J.


"Forgive me FASA for I have sinned. It has been 6 days since I last played
Shadowrun and 15 days since I last bought a SRTCG booster pack."
Message no. 6
From: David Thompson <david.s.thompson@****.EDU>
Subject: Re: Do you all jump to conclusions, or is it just for me? (long)
Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 21:03:38 -0400
At 08:23 PM 5/11/98 -0400, you wrote:
>At 01:58 PM 5/11/98 -0400, you wrote:
>
>> While you and most of the sane world may agree that this is stupid and
>>won't work, this does _not_ mean it is an invalid concept. Within the
>>framework of the SR universe it was well thought out. Most of us, it would
>>seem, don't agree that it would work, but that is something else.
>
>No Katt, this flesh hurling concept *wasn't* well thought out in the
>framework of the SR universe or the rules. It quite simply cannot work,
>and displays to me either an ignorance of the rules (which is totally
>acceptable to be truthful) or a willful discarding of certain rules with
>the application of others, which isn't acceptable to me.
>
>It was at best an ignorant idea (which, again, isn't bad in and of itself)
>and at worst a full-blown munchy concept worthy of being torn-apart.
>
>Of course, let's just say for a split second this idea could work. How in
>the frag could this cyber-regenerating ninja target the astral form? He'd
>have to have astral perception! Otherwise, forget it, this ninja is
>hurling chunks blindly, hitting walls instead of the astral beings.

Well, right off you've demonstrated that you haven't paid attention to a
damn thing. You accuse others of being rules lawyers who don't even know
the rules, and you deprecate them. Now all of a sudden you can't even read
an email properly. Pot, kettle.

The ninja was a physad, and had astral perception. And was therefore
astrally active, and was therefore able to target astral-only entities, and
interact with them. It is then _possible_ that the freshly scooped
initially astrally active flesh would remain so and damage an astral
entity. It is an interesting and sick idea. Furthermore, it definitely
contains the prime component required, WILLPOWER. Anyone who would submit
themselves to this just in order to have the chance to attack at astral
target at range has got to be stinking mad, and with a willpower of 6+, all
of which would be behind the attack.

I think it is an interesting idea, and would perhaps work as a one-shot per
week item, even with regeneration and pain resistance, with severe and
immediate penalties on the character to balance. It doesn't deserve the
attacks it has recieved. I think this list needs to grow up. I've said it
before, but I'm going to say it again, dammit. Accusations of muchkinism
and the constant attacks on ideas are out of place. If you think this idea
won't work, say it won't work because... the flesh would instantly become a
passive astral entity, not active, and therefore not interact. If there is
a rule, point to it, but people need to get some manners. The self
important and patronizing tones need to go, they anger even those who are
not the intended targets. Perhaps people are playing with rules for the
sake of an interesting idea, and you have NO BUSINESS JUDGING THEM because
of it.

--DT
Message no. 7
From: Katt Freyson <katt@******.NET>
Subject: Re: Do you all jump to conclusions, or is it just for me? (long)
Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 23:42:45 -0400
|> From: Erik Jameson
|> Sent: May 11, 1998 8:24 PM
|> Subject: Re: Do you all jump to conclusions, or is it just for me?


|> Of course, let's just say for a split second this idea could
|> work. How in
|> the frag could this cyber-regenerating ninja target the astral
|> form? He'd
|> have to have astral perception! Otherwise, forget it, this ninja is
|> hurling chunks blindly, hitting walls instead of the astral beings.

In the above quoted paragraph you have demonstrated that you did _not_
study his original proposal accurately, ergo I do not accept any judgement
you choose to make. He clearly stated at the begining that his Ninja _had_
astral sensing.

However, just for the record, I do agree with your conclusion, just not
your judgement path. <g>

-M
ICQ UIN 3337155
Montreal, Canada
http://www.dsuper.net/~katt
Message no. 8
From: MC23 <mc23@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Do you all jump to conclusions, or is it just for me? (long)
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 02:32:26 -0400
Once upon a time, David Thompson wrote;

<snipping the things I don't care to comment on>
>Furthermore, it definitely contains the prime component required, WILLPOWER.
>Anyone who would submit themselves to this just in order to have the chance to
>attack at astral target at range has got to be stinking mad, and with a
>willpower of 6+, all of which would be behind the attack.

I wouldn't assume the character had a 6 Willpower, that's just your
preconception.
It would be like any character using a mundane weapon, and that can
never effect purely astral beings. And an assensing character couldn't
effect those same beings with flesh bullets any more than he could by
throwing his weapon focus at it.


>Perhaps people are playing with rules for the sake of an interesting idea, and
>you have NO BUSINESS JUDGING THEM because of it.

It was presented to the list to be judged.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Ancient cultures believed that names held great power, personal names
more so and they were guarded very closely. To protect themselves, they
answered to another name, because if another discovered their real name,
it could be used against them.
History repeats itself.
Welcome to the Digital Age.
I am MC23
Message no. 9
From: Lady Jestyr <jestyr@*******.DIALIX.COM.AU>
Subject: Re: Do you all jump to conclusions, or is it just for me? (long)
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 23:41:00 +1000
> >Perhaps people are playing with rules for the sake of an interesting idea, and
> >you have NO BUSINESS JUDGING THEM because of it.
>
> It was presented to the list to be judged.

The *idea* was presented to the list to be judged. I don`t recall him
ever asking us to judge *him*, too.

Lady Jestyr

- I'm in touch with my Inner Klingon... -
| Elle Holmes | jestyr@**********.com | http://jestyr.home.ml.org |
| Shadowrun Webring Ringmaster | GeoCities Leader | RPGA Reviewer |
Message no. 10
From: "Jeremy \"Bolthy\" Zimmerman" <jeremy@***********.COM>
Subject: Re: Do you all jump to conclusions, or is it just for me? (long)
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 08:35:19 -0700
----------
> From: MC23 <mc23@**********.COM>
> To: SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET
> Subject: Re: Do you all jump to conclusions, or is it just for me? (long)
> Date: Monday, May 11, 1998 11:32 PM
>
> Once upon a time, David Thompson wrote;
>
> <snipping the things I don't care to comment on>
> >Furthermore, it definitely contains the prime component required,
WILLPOWER.
> >Anyone who would submit themselves to this just in order to have the
chance to
> >attack at astral target at range has got to be stinking mad, and with a
> >willpower of 6+, all of which would be behind the attack.
>
> I wouldn't assume the character had a 6 Willpower, that's just your
> preconception.

The thought occurs to me that just to be able to use a weapon like this,
you'd need to make a Willpower test. A high willpower would make a person
more willing to use it, but otherwise I agree, it's not a sound assumption
that the character has a nutty-high willpower.
Message no. 11
From: David Thompson <david.s.thompson@****.EDU>
Subject: Re: Do you all jump to conclusions, or is it just for me? (long)
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 12:03:10 -0400
At 02:32 AM 5/12/98 -0400, MC23 wrote:

> It would be like any character using a mundane weapon, and that can
>never effect purely astral beings. And an assensing character couldn't
>effect those same beings with flesh bullets any more than he could by
>throwing his weapon focus at it.

Not necessarily, because the whole craziness of ripping part of one's own
body out to attack an astral entity _might_ be enough to do damage, given
the willpower involved. I'm thinking of examples of mundanes attacking
manifest spirits when it is willpower that matters. This is a somewhat
similar situation, and a GM could allow it. Obviously most on this list
would not allow it, and that is fine too. I'm not arguing that it is
necessarily a valid idea, just that there is some merit.
>
>
>>Perhaps people are playing with rules for the sake of an interesting
idea, and
>>you have NO BUSINESS JUDGING THEM because of it.
>
> It was presented to the list to be judged.

Sorry, perhaps I was unclear. Judge the ideas, _not_ the people. If the
idea lacks merit or violates a rule, it is quite simple to say so. If the
idea is potentially unbalancing, again that is an issue and bears
discussing. To immediately accuse the presentor of the idea of being a
munchkin, or (as others did) going even further and insulting their
intentions and knowledge of the game has no place. An attack on the person
behind the idea is a classic logical fallacy, and it is also quite
insulting. I (and I think others) also find it quite infuriating as it has
no place in civilized discussion.

Look at the responses this post got:
you are a munchkin
you are a rules lawyer who doesn't even know the rules, -- munchkin
you should be thrown out of the game for posting an idea "behind your gm's
back"
if you were my player and did this (went to the list with the idea) I would
let
you play the PC just so I could kill it
you are sick, etc. etc.

What the hell is a flame if not insulting the poster like this?

Some discussed the aura of the chunk but most missed the fact that the
ninja was astrally active in the first place. Also, the freshness of the
separation from the body puts into question the conclusions of others on
the list (IMO). Others discussed the idea, and insulted and attacked the
poster at the same time. Why? Who gains from that. If you are having a
bad day at work, take it out on a wall or deal with it with someone who
knows you and presumably cares, don't attack people on the list you don't
even know.

--DT
Message no. 12
From: David Thompson <david.s.thompson@****.EDU>
Subject: Re: Do you all jump to conclusions, or is it just for me? (long)
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 12:21:43 -0400
At 08:35 AM 5/12/98 -0700, Jeremy \"Bolthy\" Zimmerman wrote:

>>
>> I wouldn't assume the character had a 6 Willpower, that's just your
>> preconception.
>
>The thought occurs to me that just to be able to use a weapon like this,
>you'd need to make a Willpower test. A high willpower would make a person
>more willing to use it, but otherwise I agree, it's not a sound assumption
>that the character has a nutty-high willpower.

Fine, I would require a willpower test though, and you can damn well bet
that anyone who did this wouldn't do it casually, but only when it really
mattered. Hence whatever willpower the chukker has would be behind the
attack.

As for the absolute level of willpower, I was thinking that any character
who would choose this must be nutty, or an incredibly dedictated
ninja/assassin who will do anything to make sure the job is done. These
are both attributes I associate with a high willpower character, but it was
wrong to assume that the willpower would necessarily be high.

--DT
Message no. 13
From: Katt Freyson <katt@******.NET>
Subject: Re: Do you all jump to conclusions, or is it just for me? (long)
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 12:51:54 -0400
|> From: MC23 Sent: May 12, 1998 2:32 AM
|> Subject: Re: Do you all jump to conclusions, or is it just for me?

|> >Perhaps people are playing with rules for the sake of an
|> interesting idea, and you have NO BUSINESS JUDGING THEM because of it.
|>
|> It was presented to the list to be judged.

Well, the problem is that some people didn't limit themselves to
judging the idea, they went on to judge the person who proposed it, and his
motives. Some even went so far as to tell us what his intent was. This was
unacceptable in a free discussion list. While his idea might have been gross
and ultimately stupid, those who jumped on him for proposing it were worse.

-M
ICQ UIN 3337155
Montreal, Canada
http://www.dsuper.net/~katt
Message no. 14
From: "Jeremy \"Bolthy\" Zimmerman" <jeremy@***********.COM>
Subject: Re: Do you all jump to conclusions, or is it just for me? (long)
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 09:45:27 -0700
----------
> From: David Thompson <david.s.thompson@****.EDU>
> To: SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET
> Subject: Re: Do you all jump to conclusions, or is it just for me? (long)
> Date: Tuesday, May 12, 1998 9:21 AM
>
> At 08:35 AM 5/12/98 -0700, Jeremy \"Bolthy\" Zimmerman wrote:
>
> >>
> >> I wouldn't assume the character had a 6 Willpower, that's just
your
> >> preconception.
> >
> >The thought occurs to me that just to be able to use a weapon like this,
> >you'd need to make a Willpower test. A high willpower would make a
person
> >more willing to use it, but otherwise I agree, it's not a sound
assumption
> >that the character has a nutty-high willpower.
>
> Fine, I would require a willpower test though, and you can damn well bet
> that anyone who did this wouldn't do it casually, but only when it really
> mattered. Hence whatever willpower the chukker has would be behind the
> attack.
>
> As for the absolute level of willpower, I was thinking that any character
> who would choose this must be nutty, or an incredibly dedictated
> ninja/assassin who will do anything to make sure the job is done. These
> are both attributes I associate with a high willpower character, but it
was
> wrong to assume that the willpower would necessarily be high.

Exactly. It would be good to have a high willpower, and you'd probably be
dumb to give your character a willpower of one, but it's not really written
in stone or anything. =)
Message no. 15
From: MC23 <mc23@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Do you all jump to conclusions, or is it just for me? (long)
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 13:02:52 -0400
Once upon a time, Lady Jestyr wrote;

>The *idea* was presented to the list to be judged. I don`t recall him
>ever asking us to judge *him*, too.

When ideas touch off touchy subjects then people get over enthused
in their replies. Besides all we have to judge list members by are their
posts. Acting on those judgments should use more self control though.
Unfortunately no one has attempted to calm this one down.

Flamewar T - ? and counting.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Ancient cultures believed that names held great power, personal names
more so and they were guarded very closely. To protect themselves, they
answered to another name, because if another discovered their real name,
it could be used against them.
History repeats itself.
Welcome to the Digital Age.
I am MC23
Message no. 16
From: MC23 <mc23@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Do you all jump to conclusions, or is it just for me? (long)
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 13:21:14 -0400
Once upon a time, David Thompson wrote;

>At 02:32 AM 5/12/98 -0400, MC23 wrote:
>
>> It would be like any character using a mundane weapon, and that can
>>never effect purely astral beings. And an assensing character couldn't
>>effect those same beings with flesh bullets any more than he could by
>>throwing his weapon focus at it.
>
> Not necessarily, because the whole craziness of ripping part of
>one's own
>body out to attack an astral entity _might_ be enough to do damage, given
>the willpower involved. I'm thinking of examples of mundanes attacking
>manifest spirits when it is willpower that matters. This is a somewhat
>similar situation, and a GM could allow it. Obviously most on this list
>would not allow it, and that is fine too. I'm not arguing that it is
>necessarily a valid idea, just that there is some merit.

Manifest spirits are dual natured. Since they now exist on the material
plane you cannot use that as reference for purely astral forms. That is
why your approach fails.


<snip>
>What the hell is a flame if not insulting the poster like this?

That was a spark that could still be extinguished. Once you have
given up hope of that it is a flame. Demosthenes Three's reply returned
the insults and that could be considered the start of a flame war. Maybe
that is a very biased opinion but If it didn't start a flame war, it not
really a flame to me, it can still be taken back at that point.

> Some discussed the aura of the chunk but most missed the fact that the
>ninja was astrally active in the first place. Also, the freshness of the
>separation from the body puts into question the conclusions of others on
>the list (IMO). Others discussed the idea, and insulted and attacked the
>poster at the same time. Why? Who gains from that. If you are having a
>bad day at work, take it out on a wall or deal with it with someone who
>knows you and presumably cares, don't attack people on the list you don't
>even know.

Don't tell me, I didn't make those omissions in my replies. Scold
the ones who did and were nasty about it.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Ancient cultures believed that names held great power, personal names
more so and they were guarded very closely. To protect themselves, they
answered to another name, because if another discovered their real name,
it could be used against them.
History repeats itself.
Welcome to the Digital Age.
I am MC23
Message no. 17
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: Do you all jump to conclusions, or is it just for me? (long)
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 11:29:52 -0600
Katt Freyson wrote:
/
/ |> From: MC23 Sent: May 12, 1998 2:32 AM
/ |> Subject: Re: Do you all jump to conclusions, or is it just for me?
/
/ |> >Perhaps people are playing with rules for the sake of an
/ |> interesting idea, and you have NO BUSINESS JUDGING THEM because of it.
/ |>
/ |> It was presented to the list to be judged.
/
/ Well, the problem is that some people didn't limit themselves to
/ judging the idea, they went on to judge the person who proposed it, and his
/ motives. Some even went so far as to tell us what his intent was. This was
/ unacceptable in a free discussion list. While his idea might have been gross
/ and ultimately stupid, those who jumped on him for proposing it were worse.

"Hey, do you smell smoke?"

<GridSec>

I'll admit that I haven't been following this thread to closely, but
this post caught my attention.

Ladies and Gentlemen, this is starting to look like the beginnings of
a brush fire that could lead to an all out flame war. If I'm
mistaken, I apologize for the intrusion.

If I'm not mistaken please, try to remain calm and rational. If you
gotta flame on, do so off the list.

This has been a friendly notice from your local neighborhood GridSec
Enforcer.

Thank you for your time.

</GridSec>

-D
--
"This above all: to thine own self be true..."
- Shakespeare
--
email: dbuehrer@******.carl.org
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
Message no. 18
From: David Thompson <david.s.thompson@****.EDU>
Subject: Re: Do you all jump to conclusions, or is it just for me? (long)
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 15:08:25 -0400
At 01:21 PM 5/12/98 -0400, MC23 wrote:
>
>Manifest spirits are dual natured. Since they now exist on the material
>plane you cannot use that as reference for purely astral forms. That is
>why your approach fails.
>
Except that the adept is "manifest" in the astral plane via astral
perception. It isn't a 100% compelling argument, or even close, but there
are some similarities.

>
> That was a spark that could still be extinguished. Once you have
>given up hope of that it is a flame. Demosthenes Three's reply returned
>the insults and that could be considered the start of a flame war. Maybe
>that is a very biased opinion but If it didn't start a flame war, it not
>really a flame to me, it can still be taken back at that point.

I agree that Demosthenes 3's reply was also caustic, but you seem to say
that he then started any war. It seems to me he was just replying in kind,
which while not totally defensible, is more reasonable than actually
starting the round of insults.

It doesn't really matter, the point is I wish everyone would be just a
little more hesitant to attack the people as well as the ideas.

>
>> Some discussed the aura of the chunk but most missed the fact that the
>>ninja was astrally active in the first place. Also, the freshness of the
>>separation from the body puts into question the conclusions of others on
>>the list (IMO). Others discussed the idea, and insulted and attacked the
>>poster at the same time. Why? Who gains from that. If you are having a
>>bad day at work, take it out on a wall or deal with it with someone who
>>knows you and presumably cares, don't attack people on the list you don't
>>even know.
>
> Don't tell me, I didn't make those omissions in my replies. Scold
>the ones who did and were nasty about it.
>
This wasn't aimed specifically at you, MC23, it was sent to the whole
list, for all to read. My use of the word "you" is meant to address the
readers, and among them those it applies to. I've made no specific
accusations, but I believe those on the list recognize their own words and
know who and what I'm talking about.

--DT
Message no. 19
From: Alfredo B Alves <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Do you all jump to conclusions, or is it just for me? (long)
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 15:09:50 -0500
On Tue, 12 May 1998 12:51:54 -0400 Katt Freyson <katt@******.NET> writes:
>|> From: MC23 Sent: May 12, 1998 2:32 AM
>|> Subject: Re: Do you all jump to conclusions, or is it just for me?

>|> >Perhaps people are playing with rules for the sake of an interesting
idea, >|> >and you have NO BUSINESS JUDGING THEM because of it.
>|>
>|> It was presented to the list to be judged.
>
> Well, the problem is that some people didn't limit themselves to
>judging the idea, they went on to judge the person who proposed it, and
his
>motives. Some even went so far as to tell us what his intent was. This
was
>unacceptable in a free discussion list. While his idea might have been
gross
>and ultimately stupid, those who jumped on him for proposing it were
worse.
>
>-M

I take it you are referring to me? I didn't make any such "judgement"
upon him until he posted his response. I originally based my response on
a *possible* intent. You judged me. He judged the entire list. I stand
by my original comments. They based on Demosthene 3's *and* Loche 7's
postings.

On his second post he insulted everyone who responded and his rebuttal
was arrogant and uninformed. He attacked the characters of those who
responded instead of making a solid argument for his post. He made
claims about the rules and did not back them with page references. He
pissed me off. As I read his post it appeared that he had posted with
the intention of gaining approval from the list. (He never made any
mention of those who posted serious/ semi-serious suggestions as to how
to make this work or how to get the desired effect, which I did.) If
this all constitutes Judging him, then yes I judged him.

I have / had no intention of disuading him or anyone else from posting.
I hope he will post and hasn't left this list, but hopefully his next
post will be better informed.

D.Ghost
(Aka Pixel, Tantrum)
(btw, Katt sorry bout the gender confusion, I thought the Katt stood fer
Katherine [maybe it still does...])
The corrected Gag:
*adjusts monocle and pets persian cat* "Well, Mr Freyson, I have enjoyed
our little discussion but I fear our time is at an end."
(I hope this time I got the gender right ;)

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 20
From: Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Do you all jump to conclusions, or is it just for me? (long)
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 17:00:18 -0400
At 12:03 PM 5/12/98 -0400, you wrote:

> Not necessarily, because the whole craziness of ripping part of
one's own
>body out to attack an astral entity _might_ be enough to do damage, given
>the willpower involved. I'm thinking of examples of mundanes attacking
>manifest spirits when it is willpower that matters. This is a somewhat
>similar situation, and a GM could allow it. Obviously most on this list
>would not allow it, and that is fine too. I'm not arguing that it is
>necessarily a valid idea, just that there is some merit.

The flesh-hurling is a ranged attack. Mundanes attacking a spirit in melee
is 100% different; the spirit is actually manifest on the mundane plane and
so has a physical presence which can be hurt.


>Look at the responses this post got:

Obviously much of that snipped list was a veiled reference to me.

It's clear what the intention of the original post was. Many of us that GM
SR found that intent disgusting; some of us may have actually had to deal
with a similar situation in the past. I know I have and it pissed me off
to no end. I have little patience for this sort of behavior. Perhaps I
should have refrained from stating it on the list, but I refuse to
apologize for the truth.

The intent behind the concept is as valid a discussion topic as the concept
itself. In order to fully understand an action, we have to understand the
motives that drove the action. Who drove the action.

Again, perhaps I shouldn't have stated my opinions publicly but I stand by
the truth and validity of what I said.


>Also, the freshness of the
>separation from the body puts into question the conclusions of others on
>the list (IMO).

No, it doesn't.

But I'm not going to argue the point any further. Despite your assertions,
I'm not having a bad day at work. I'm not even necessarily pissed off
about anything in particular.

But I'm not going to put up with this nonsense anymore. And so I am
removing myself from this conversation and unilaterally deleting these
topics before I read them. I'll also be kill-filling Demosthenes 3 to save
myself any further aggravation. I'll keep myself content with having
rational discussions with knowledgeable non-munchkinous individuals such as
MC23, Gurth, David Buehrer and the newly rechristened Tim Kerber.

Goodnight and good luck with this; I'm removing myself before things get
any nastier.

Erik J.

Fight the Future on June 19!


"Ladies & Gentleman, the newest member of the band, the one and only Spice
Boy, GRUMPY SPICE!!!" <and the crowd goes wild!!!>
Message no. 21
From: MC23 <mc23@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Do you all jump to conclusions, or is it just for me? (long)
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 17:52:35 -0400
Once upon a time, David Buehrer wrote;

>If I'm not mistaken please, try to remain calm and rational. If you
>gotta flame on, do so off the list.

Damn No smoking policies.

B>]#

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Ancient cultures believed that names held great power, personal names
more so and they were guarded very closely. To protect themselves, they
answered to another name, because if another discovered their real name,
it could be used against them.
History repeats itself.
Welcome to the Digital Age.
I am MC23
Message no. 22
From: David Thompson <david.s.thompson@****.EDU>
Subject: Re: Do you all jump to conclusions, or is it just for me? (long)
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 17:50:43 -0400
>"Hey, do you smell smoke?"
>
><GridSec>
>
>I'll admit that I haven't been following this thread to closely, but
>this post caught my attention.
>
>Ladies and Gentlemen, this is starting to look like the beginnings of
>a brush fire that could lead to an all out flame war. If I'm
>mistaken, I apologize for the intrusion.
>
>If I'm not mistaken please, try to remain calm and rational. If you
>gotta flame on, do so off the list.
>
>This has been a friendly notice from your local neighborhood GridSec
>Enforcer.
>
>Thank you for your time.
>
></GridSec>
>
Funny that you jump in not when the personal attacks were made, but when
some of us questioned those attacks. I would think it would be more
effective if GridSec instead tried to disuade people from insulting others,
which was the intent behind my earlier post, Subject: Motion.

--DT
Message no. 23
From: MC23 <mc23@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Do you all jump to conclusions, or is it just for me? (long)
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:34:19 -0400
Once upon a time, David Thompson wrote;

>David Buehrer wrote;
>>I'll admit that I haven't been following this thread to closely, but
>>this post caught my attention.

>Funny that you jump in not when the personal attacks were made, but when
>some of us questioned those attacks. I would think it would be more
>effective if GridSec instead tried to disuade people from insulting others,
>which was the intent behind my earlier post, Subject: Motion.

I've condensed it so you can catch it this time.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

"Say what you mean, and say it mean!"
-Scraping Foetus off the Wheel, Ramrod

I am MC23
Message no. 24
From: Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Do you all jump to conclusions, or is it just for me? (long)
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 01:00:05 +0100
And verily, did Alfredo B Alves hastily scribble thusly...
|On his second post he insulted everyone who responded and his rebuttal
|was arrogant and uninformed. He attacked the characters of those who
|responded instead of making a solid argument for his post.

True. Even the people who stomped on his idea by giving reasoned arguments.

He made
|claims about the rules and did not back them with page references.

Mind you, I never back my arguments with page references. (I never have the
books close at hand when I'm on a terminal on campus).


--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|u5a77@*****.cs.keele.ac.uk| Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
| | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
|Andrew Halliwell | operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
|Principal Subjects in:- |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
|Comp Sci & Electronics | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/EL>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ o+ K- w-- M+/++ PS+++ PE- Y t+ |
|5++ X+/++ R+ tv+ b+ D G e>PhD h/h+ !r! !y-|I can't say F**K either now! :( |
Message no. 25
From: Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Do you all jump to conclusions, or is it just for me? (long)
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 01:41:06 +0100
And verily, did Katt Freyson hastily scribble thusly...
|
||> From: MC23 Sent: May 12, 1998 2:32 AM
||> Subject: Re: Do you all jump to conclusions, or is it just for me?
|
||> >Perhaps people are playing with rules for the sake of an
||> interesting idea, and you have NO BUSINESS JUDGING THEM because of it.
||>
||> It was presented to the list to be judged.
|
| Well, the problem is that some people didn't limit themselves to
|judging the idea, they went on to judge the person who proposed it, and his
|motives.

That didn't come until later, after his GM had posted saying he'd already
said an emphatic 'NO' to the idea.
And I believe he was the first person to start doing the judging by calling
everyone on the list a closed minded person who always jumps to conclusions.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|u5a77@*****.cs.keele.ac.uk| Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
| | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
|Andrew Halliwell | operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
|Principal Subjects in:- |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
|Comp Sci & Electronics | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/EL>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ o+ K- w-- M+/++ PS+++ PE- Y t+ |
|5++ X+/++ R+ tv+ b+ D G e>PhD h/h+ !r! !y-|I can't say F**K either now! :( |
Message no. 26
From: Alfredo B Alves <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Do you all jump to conclusions, or is it just for me? (long)
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 21:41:49 -0500
On Wed, 13 May 1998 01:00:05 +0100 Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
writes:
<SNIP>
> He made
>|claims about the rules and did not back them with page references.
>
>Mind you, I never back my arguments with page references. (I never have
the
>books close at hand when I'm on a terminal on campus).
>
>
>--
<SNIP Sig>
>|Andrew Halliwell | operating system originally coded for a 4
bit |
<SNIP Sig>

Page References are nice, but not required, of course. However, he was
saying how he was right and what he was saying canon without so much as a
"it's in this book" ... (I seem to recall him saying something like,
"it's not in any book I've read and I've read them all") Of course, you
can't give page references for something that's not in the book (although
this was). Ah well, I well follow K's example and offically withdraw
myself from this thread (But I won't put Demos 3 in my killfile, as I
basically said earlier [in different words], He just got off on the wrong
foot [in a BIG way] )

And BTW, shame on you. You should always have every SR book handy at all
times! <j/k> ;);)

D.Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum)

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 27
From: Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Do you all jump to conclusions, or is it just for me? (long)
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 11:44:19 +0100
And verily, did Alfredo B Alves hastily scribble thusly...
|And BTW, shame on you. You should always have every SR book handy at all
|times! <j/k> ;);)

I suppose that's one way of bodybuilding...
:)

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|u5a77@*****.cs.keele.ac.uk| Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
| | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
|Andrew Halliwell | operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
|Principal Subjects in:- |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
|Comp Sci & Electronics | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/EL>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ o+ K- w-- M+/++ PS+++ PE- Y t+ |
|5++ X+/++ R+ tv+ b+ D G e>PhD h/h+ !r! !y-|I can't say F**K either now! :( |
Message no. 28
From: Katt Freyson <katt@******.NET>
Subject: Re: Do you all jump to conclusions, or is it just for me? (long)
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 08:00:06 -0400
|> From: Spike
|> Sent: May 12, 1998 8:41 PM
|> Subject: Re: Do you all jump to conclusions, or is it just for me?
|>
|> That didn't come until later, after his GM had posted saying he'd already
|> said an emphatic 'NO' to the idea.
|> And I believe he was the first person to start doing the judging
|> by calling
|> everyone on the list a closed minded person who always jumps to
|> conclusions.

I won't name names, like last time, but I bet he'll take credit for it,
like last time, anyways. But Spike, you are incorrect. After Desmothenes
made his first post, there was a claim that he had gone behind his G.M.'s
back. This claim was irrational, since the G.M. in question is on this list.

Des's reponses to our responses was unacceptable, but that does not
excuse some of the garbage that came flying out at him for his original
post.

-M
ICQ UIN 3337155
Montreal, Canada
http://www.dsuper.net/~katt
Message no. 29
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: Do you all jump to conclusions, or is it just for me? (long)
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 08:41:29 -0600
David Thompson wrote:
/
/ >"Hey, do you smell smoke?"
/ >
/ ><GridSec>
/ >
/ >I'll admit that I haven't been following this thread to closely, but
/ >this post caught my attention.
/ >
/ >Ladies and Gentlemen, this is starting to look like the beginnings of
/ >a brush fire that could lead to an all out flame war. If I'm
/ >mistaken, I apologize for the intrusion.
/ >
/ >If I'm not mistaken please, try to remain calm and rational. If you
/ >gotta flame on, do so off the list.
/ >
/ >This has been a friendly notice from your local neighborhood GridSec
/ >Enforcer.
/ >
/ >Thank you for your time.
/ >
/ ></GridSec>
/
/ Funny that you jump in not when the personal attacks were made, but when
/ some of us questioned those attacks. I would think it would be more
/ effective if GridSec instead tried to disuade people from insulting others,
/ which was the intent behind my earlier post, Subject: Motion.

Like I said, I wasn't following the thread closely. I saw "Chunk
Launcher" and read just enough to figure out that it wasn't my cup of
tea. As the thread progressed I skimmed the posts, and I didn't
catch the beginning of the brush fire that started. Had I noticed I
would have said something about it.

And, I posted my GridSec notice before your Motion thread made it to
my mailbox.

I jumped in cuz I'm a nice guy and I care about the members of the
list. I could have stood back and left it alone. If it smoldered for
a little while and died (which it did) then fine. If a flame war
erupted then everyone concerned would now be unsubscribed from the
list, maybe permanently, and that would be a bad thing IMO. I don't
want to see anyone unsubscribed over a misunderstanding. Therefor,
when I see smoke I'm going to caution the list members involved.

And I don't always see the smoke (case in point). And I won't always
see the smoke. It seems like every member of GridSec missed the
start of this one. To err is human. And that's not an excuse, just
a statement of fact.

I'd ask you to please be more understanding when a member of GridSec
posts and to look for the spirit in which it was intended.

-David
--
"This above all: to thine own self be true..."
- Shakespeare
--
email: dbuehrer@******.carl.org
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Do you all jump to conclusions, or is it just for me? (long), you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!