From: | Robert Watkins <robert.watkins@******.COM> |
---|---|
Subject: | Re: Cyberware and Regeneration |
Date: | Wed, 13 May 1998 14:11:04 +1000 |
others, I think) don't format the reply properly (see below).
The reason is this line in the header:
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
If you've been getting complaints about it (this isn't one, BTW. :) ), then
you can solve the problem by working out how to turn that line off.
--
.sig deleted to conserve electrons. robert.watkins@******.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Fade <runefo@***.UIO.NO>
To: SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Date: Wednesday, 13 May 1998 13:34
Subject: Re: Cyberware and Regeneration
Robert Watkins wrote:
> >Actually, it could be done. You'd just have to keep slicing and dicing
> >until the patient's regeneration failed.
>
> Or use a weapon that the 'patient' is allergic to... such wounds don't
> regenerate.
I saw this interpretation a few other places as well. It's not
entirely correct - it is regenerated slower, not not at all. (1 box
per minute), at least according to SR Companion.
(Is that book cause of a few arguments or what? :)
I snipped the rest because it basically assumed it didn't regenerate.
Now, if you ask me to quote it, I can't, but it was written a couple
of hundred posts ago in the chunk thread, IIRC. I also seem to recall
it might not be that way in the BBB, which would add to the
confusion.. and leave more room for things to go either way.
--
Fade
And the Prince of Lies said:
"To reign is worth ambition, though in Hell:
Better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven."
-John Milton, Paradise Lost