| From: | David Thompson <david.s.thompson@****.EDU> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | be reasonable |
| Date: | Tue, 12 May 1998 17:27:07 -0400 |
>
>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.
You feel that the intent was completely muchkinious and should be crushed.
Perhaps it was, but perhaps it was just an interesting idea that was meshed
well with the characters background and goals. We simply don't have the
information to make that judgement, and should therefore give people the
benefit of the doubt.
>
>Again, perhaps I shouldn't have stated my opinions publicly but I stand by
>the truth and validity of what I said.
Your points about how the concept couldn't work and mostly good ones (when
corrected for the fact that you missed the astral perception power of the
ninja), and I don't totally disagree, I just think the concept has some
feasibility also.
>
>
>>Also, the freshness of the
>>separation from the body puts into question the conclusions of others on
>>the list (IMO).
>
>No, it doesn't.
No, it ABSOLUTELY DOES, in my opinion, as I stated. You happen not to
share the opinion, fine, but you can't deny me my view, nor can you point
to a single canon rule that says that a part of an astrally active persons
body immediately loses it's astral presence upon being severed from the
body. The point is this is beyond the rules, and the best we can do is
interpret the situation given the rules and our interpretations of them.
This is all a grey area, and the absolutism with which you decree your
opinion on the subject as truth is ridiculous.
>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.
>
Well, that's good, I guess.
>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.
Why cut yourself off, Demosthenes 3 obviously has new and different ideas.
If you hate them, keep that opinion to yourself, but how do you know
whether or not the next one will catch your fancy. Forget the rules and
labels like munchkin for a while, and remember this is a game and involves
imagination more than anything else. Or don't, it's up to you.
--DT
