> Why, when you express an opinion that slightly criticises the
> official rules or long established Gloranthan beliefs do so
> many people feel the need to rush to their defence and silence
> the criticism?
Give examples, troll-boy. Name names, cite posts, join in, explain why you wimped out: in short, put up or shut up.
> Why do so many people answering queries on rules or style assume
> that the questioner is a novice GM?
Dunno. The ignorance of the questioners betrays them, perhaps?
> Why does the digest have to remain on such an antiquated system,
> is old and cranky somehow more elitist?
Oh, absotively. Nobody's ever come up with any valid reasons for retaining the statutory "Digest pause for thought", after all. Must be that those silly old fools who've been participating in fruitful Gloranthan debates for over a decade are *deliberately* holding back all the real talents... no?
> Why does everyone persist on quoting heavily, thereby making threads
> unreadable when you look back?
OK, maybe you have *half* a point there (though I think this is "some vocal participants" (and usually "Joerg or Julian", at that), rather than "everyone". The Tekumel lists I subscribe to are *far* worse, though: top-posting obscurantism run wild.
(That said, there's *nothing* more unreadable than a "Terra Incognita" post, quotes or no quotes).
> Why does HQ-rpg have to have such a narrow and limited outlook
> these days, with all this "don't scare away the newbies" crap?
Er... because we don't want to scare away the newbies, perhaps? :-)
> Please feel free to blast these opinions to pieces
Where do you get off, telling me what to do?
Arsehole! :-)
Cheers, Nick
Powered by hypermail