>Who the hell made this up? If it ain't in an official (by official I mean
>Chaosium-approved) published source, it ain't so for the rest of us (unless
>some of you other guys buy into this load of crap).
Judging from Mike Raaterova's reply,
>When i 'commented' on John Brown's defensive post, i wrote:
>>I actually feel insulted by your dogmatic attitude to non-canonical ideas.
>Please 'arrogant' and 'patronising' after dogmatic. I was very tired and
>couldn't find the right words.
it seems as though I flamed him and maybe a few others.
I am sorry.
It just really bugs me when people replace objective sources like Cults of Prax with other less reliable subjective sources. Maybe this shows some limited thinking on my part or maybe it shows other's limited access to objective source material. I don't know. But I assure everyone that I am not here to insult anyone. Challenge their points of view? Definitely. But resorting to character assassination and the like to make myself feel better? Hopefully not.
Mr. Raaterova, please accept my humblest apologies for calling your ideas crap. I still don't agree with them and I invite you to keep defending them on the Digest if you still believe in them and if you're not tired of hearing from jerks like me ;-)
Thanks.
BTW...I never saw this comment
>I actually feel insulted by your dogmatic attitude to non-canonical ideas.
until you posted it in V3 #091 in the Digest. Could you send me the original so that I can update my archive?
John Brown
Arkat_at_aol.com
Powered by hypermail