Can we please drop the GTA discussion? None (well, not many of us) are
sufficiently well versed in Californian commercial law (I sure as hell no=
t)
to be able to make an informed comment as to the legality or otherwise of=
any suggested donations or share issues etc.
Why not just accept that as an investment its a none starter, but it may
just enable a game world we (presumably) all value to continue in a
published form and not just in the memories of old gits like me.
If you are happy with it and can afford to see X pounds (UK Stirling)
disappear down the tubes then fine, pretend it was a good night out. If
not then be happy with being a customer when the new game hits the shelve=
s.
But can we please stop sniping at each other about how someone is trying=
to rip us off / is being a selfish penny pinching bastard.
Onto another matter, Nick was rather vitreolic in his reply about Praxian=
tribes but given the manner in which the original posting was phrased the=
n
I'd have kicked off as well.
As to the meat of the discussion, the Praxians do not (IMO) consider Pavi=
s
to be OF Prax. Its IN Prax alright but the nomads have from time to time=
tried to remove it from Prax, stone by stone. The occupants, of whatever=
race, are a buch of filthy interlopers who would not survive three days i=
n
the wastes but should be give the chance at the first oppurtunity (withou=
t
water, of course).
Tusk riders are a more recent trespasser and should not even be give time=
to die slowly in view of what they do to animal spirits and balling tails=
- -
On a slightly different view, the Marble Phalanx does belong in Prax, it
belongs wherever the emperor says it does and besides, Prax is in the
Empire (or will be when those idle civil servants fill all those forms in=
seven times each)
Sorry to be so long, can we get back to how to chop up an impala?
Duncan
Powered by hypermail