> 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?
Because if you publically criticise Issaries in the slightest, they will immediately go bankrupt and Glorantha will die on the spot. Honest. There are no logical fallacies in this statement at all.
> Why do so many people answering queries on rules or
> style assume that
> the questioner is a novice GM?
On the assumption that if they weren't a novice, they wouldn't need to ask the question? Because it's safer to assume lack of knowledge rather than risk confusing them further?
> Why does the digest have to remain on such an
> antiquated system, is
> old and cranky somehow more elitist?
I have expressed views on this in the past.
> Why does everyone persist on quoting heavily,
> thereby making threads
> unreadable when you look back?
Well, quoting enough context to make sense does help. But one should then snip, mark what you're quoting as *being* a quote, and paraphrase where possible. And remember that Digest mode exists, and therefore NOT top-post: or if you must, at least trim the miles of garbage below the bottom of the screen.
Why people fail to do this is, I'm afraid, beyond me.
> 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?
Because we do need somewhere that doesn't scare the newbies. And the Glorantha Digest is 50% incomprehensible to me these days, and I'm no newbie.
Assuming that "newbie" means "idiot", though, seems to me to be unfair.
Powered by hypermail