> The really odd thing is that, Nick aside, John Hughes' original post on the
> 4 levels didn't generate such hostility.
No, it's not really odd at all, since you're putting an interpretation on John's system that not merely did it not have, but I think it's pretty clear was _nothing to do_ with what John was saying at all. Analysis is not prescription. Quite apart from that, you did so in a highly antagonistic manner, and have responded to all succeeding comment in a manner guaranteed to simply escalate same.
> I'm suggesting ways to improve the game. The hostile reaction I'm getting
> is irrational, as some of the other posts against me clearly show.
It may be irrational in some psychological sense, but it is neither unprovoked, nor without logical foundation: you just choose to ignore both.
> Alex observes:
> >Martin Crim continues to have problems with his parts of speech:
> >> Of course you move between levels. Level 3 is the goal, however; doesn't
> >> mean you can't hit 1 and 2 also.
> >
> >Not _the_ goal, but _a_ goal, and (apparently) _your_ goal.
>
> OK, a goal.
Grand. As a objective, that sounds quite laudable, if you would only get rid of the element that's wantonly destructive and revisionist ("Let's expurgate all the 'silly' place names"), and the "tone" of your remarks (which I'll refrain from paraphrasing, but clearly either your text lent itself to a highly flame-baiting reading, or, as you seem to believe numerous people not in prior communication with each other, with varied temperaments, cultural understandings of textual communication, and viewpoints on Glorantha all _independently_ and "irrationally" decided to attack you for no reason whatsoever).
> You meant to say that Martin has trouble with his particles.
I did? That term is no more accurate or useful than the one I used.
> > [much indecipherable verbiage deleted]
Martin, are you going to continue to protest your perplexity as to why people are responding to you with 'hostility', or will you have some regard to your own proverbial beam? As a self-elected member of the Gaming Elite(TM), I'd have thought that my rude speech would be a passing simple matter for you to parse.
> I don't criticize anyone's games.
You've explictily criticised background material, and people who express a preference for the use of same; you've made unfavourable comparisons between some 'styles' of game and others. If there's a meaningful distinction to be made here, it seems too slender for even a fully-paid-up pedant such as myself.
As I intimated several iterations ago, this thread seems to be starting from a low base of content and relevance, and working its way down. I shall endeavour to do no more than seethe inwardly for the rest of its course. (A weak undertaking, made too late, I can appreciate.)
Slán,
Alex.
End of The Glorantha Digest V7 #232
Powered by hypermail