>I think you missed the point.
I felt your comment did.
>I, at least, and maybe Loren too, would like
>people to give a little more informations than just "Go read page 23 line
>32 of <insert your own fanzine out of print for 12 years> you moron", with
>the underlying assumption that if I don't have access to that fanzine, then
>I am worth squatt because I am not part of the "inner circle".
Well, I'm always glad to invite these people for archery target praxis. But AFAIK it is extremely legal to quote the passage in question for demonstration. While I know how tedious it is to type in entire text passages, if someone wants to make a point on the scripture, I'd say that's the appropriate punishment.
>How about: "page 23 of <insert your own fanzine out of print for 12 years>
>suggested that <explaination or quotation>, and for that reason I believe
>that the answer of your question is <whatever>...
I try to do this, and I always offer to give any information or answer to questions after giving my initial comment.
>And if you really want to please me, but I am afraid it's to much to ask,
>you could add: "In game terme, I would translate that as <insert
>interesting/usefull rule relevant to the subject>"...
Difficult when pointing out historical quibbles, really.
>The result is the same, but I, at least, would probably use a lot less the
>little slider on the side of my message window. Nobody denies the interest
>and/or usefullness of old material. The point is, if you cannot get it, a
>reference only is worth squatt...
Yes. So, instead of lamenting "I ain't got it" tell the people in question to give out the relevant parts, within legally acceptable proportions.
And don't tell people who do so to shut up...
Powered by hypermail